Well not exactly, but it ws the same web site. And all I did was cut and paste the url link from the page I cut the data from. Only the link pasted didn't take you back to the same page I was on. Strange.
Just becaause the U.S. uses much more oil than any other country is meaningless, except from a political perspective. No other country with a population even close to ours has the same output of goods and services (GDP). So population matters, size of economy matters, pollution to GDP ratio matters (I bet ours is lower than many), and standard of living matters (average and minimum). Add up all the E.U. oountries and comparethem to the U.S. That would be more fair.
plus oil does not tell the entire energy story. There's all sorts of other energy production.
Gas prices are at record level and what to the rural red states get in return for placing Bush, Cheney, and the Re-pubic-ans ino office?
Well, the Bush/Cheney camp who have very close and lucrative ties to oil companies are making their record profits as well. So what's left for the rural red states?
Rural drivers feeling rise in gas prices more than their urban counterparts
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2007/06/24/news/local/135241.txt
Small rural airports struggle with dwindling air service
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/06/06/rural.airports.ap/
Gas Prices Force KDOT (Kansas) to Cut Back Road Care
http://www.kwch.com/Global/story.asp?S=8421464&nav=menu486_2_2
Gas Price's Unlikely Victims - High Cost Crimps Travel Tied to Volunteer Programs, Support Services for Shut-Inshttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB121263496261947543.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
A rural pain: Gas prices impact West Virginians' long commutes
http://wvgazette.com/News/Business/200805310317
Skyrocketing fuel costs drain rural Alaska bank accounts
http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/060808/hom_20080608016.shtml
Anti-Rural Republican Policies
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/3559
Bush Cheney have no more to do with high oil prices than Folgers does when coffee goes up. The US produces less than 10% of the world's oil and we consume a fourth of it. Since when do the customers dictate prices? Simple answer, they don't.
Just for your information, Haliburton is not an oil company they don't even sell oil, they are an oilfield services company, and a quite good one at that.
Unfortunately the majority of folks don't understand micro and macroeconomic theory, let alone the simple philosophy of supply and demand and market pricing. Most folks don't understand that even if the govt approves the temporary suspension of the fed gas tax, there is a good chance that most or all of the tax will not flow down to the individual consumer. As long as demand stays constant, the price will reflect that, and the beneficiaries will be the downstream operators w/in the oil industry, i.e. refiners. And yes, most folks don't have a clue on how any commodity is priced.
Yeah I own Haliburton, and Fluor, and Monsanto, and others.
And speculators fit in where in this equation?
Speculators (traders) do play a role, but for every long trader, you have a short trader. Look, there are many factors driving up the price of oil, including
Supply & Demand, weak dollar (oil is priced in dollars), govt subsidies (Taiwan, China, Indonesia, etc), but that is changing, geo-political events, and lack of exploration (thank you Congress) in the U.S.
Look, you have speculation in all aspects of the market. Didn't traders (Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc) say that Google was going to $1000 a share?
The electorate will finally realize who it is that is keeping us from drilling our own and thus increasing supply.
Hint: ITDS=It'sTheDemocrats,Stupid.
I'm sick of paying $65 to fill it up.
Fuck the fucken reindeer. Drill in ANWR, and off-shore and also build Nuke plants on every river. Become energy independent. Send the nuclear waste to our Saudi friends and tell them to eat it.
"Fuck the fucken reindeer. Drill in ANWR, and off-shore and also build Nuke plants on every river. Become energy independent. Send the nuclear waste to our Saudi friends and tell them to eat it."
There is both pragmatic as well as humorous logic in the above sentiments.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Bedlam_erupts_in_Congress_over_oil_1007.html
A controversial bill that offered abandoned U.S. military bases to private industry for the construction of oil refineries and granted federal insurance to refiners ensnared in litigation passed by a razor-thin margin in the House Friday afternoon 212-210 as Democrats chanted "shame, shame, shame."
The vote, which was supposed to take five minutes, lasted 45. About a dozen Republicans reversed their votes as the Republican leadership circled the chamber pressuring members of their party to ensure the bill's passage.
...
1) This bill had nothing to do with drilling. You do understand that, right?
2) The Republican leadership fought to PASS the bill. Bush was HAPPY it passed.
3) The bill PASSED! Nothing was blocked.
BTW, This source really sucks. It doesn't even have a date or Bill number, allowing further research as to WHY a some republicans were DELAYING it (not BLOCKING it). And the original Reuter's link is broken.
THIS IS ALL YOU GOT? A non story that isn't even about your topic? Try looking up stories about Dems ACTUALLY BLOCKING new drilling. They are easy to find.
It passed, no thanks to the republicans. The rest of your points are empty like your head.
The republicans are the ones against any renewable energy sources (solar, wind) for many decades, or improving fuel efficiency standards, or promoting energy conservation lifestyles.
Sure, they want to use some emergency oil reserves in Alaska to bring down gas prices down like a doller a gallon. After 6 months, when the reserves are depleted, we still get back to our $4/gallon gas and no more emergency reserves for a real emergency.
Don't worry, you red rural rednecks living out in the middle of nowhere are nothing. As you truly suffer economically, your only chance for survival is to serve Bush/Cheney's unpopular war in Iraq and fill the bodybag count.
I TOLD you your link and source SUCKED. Your bitch about the Republicans is TOTALLY misplaced. It was the Dems that were trying to block the bill. GET YOUR FACTS STRIGHT! Here's a link to more reality about the bill.
You topic was Republicans don't want to DRILL FOR OIL. Apparently you don't want to drill either.
BTW, Drilling for oil is not the same thing as building refineries.
Your arrogance and misconceptions about people not like you is comical and sad. You have a mind set that is SOOO clouded, you couldn't even recognize that YOUR PRECIOUS DEMS were on the side OPPOSITE that which you ASSUMED.
If you think that present high oil prices are going to ruin the rural economy but not touch yours, you are naive. If you believe that government mandates for non-economical standards WON'T damage the economy then you are just plain lost.
If you want to help solve problems then set aside your hatred, bias and bigotry. Otherwise just STFU.
BTW, are you giving up toilet paper and wiping your ass with a washable rag?
-- Modified on 6/7/2008 10:12:57 PM
RWU, if you're going to start confusing people with facts, please make sure you point out which facts are true and which are lies. (D's don't understand the difference between telling a lie and being wrong, as in "Iraq HAS WMD." The word HAS makes it wrong, not a lie. The word HAD or could HAVE would have made it accurate.) And because the word lie sounds so judgemental when applied to something a Democrat says, let's call them Democrat facts when they are lies.
Democrats voted for more oil drilling is a Democrat fact.
So the re-pubic-ans passed an oil drilling bill in 2005 to produce more domestic oil. The reality is that over two-thirds of America's oil is imported overseas and quickly increasing.
So some domestic oil fields, often small in capacity and expensive to reach, are drilled. Then how much do we increase our total oil supply? 5 percent at most, but I think even that is too high.
And how long are those oil reserves going to last? One year if lucky.
There is a far more efficient solution than can reduce the energy demand and reliance on high oil prices, but the re-pubic-ans and the rural rednecks living and driving way yonder out there in their gas-guzzling pickups and SUVs are the ones most adamantly opposed to this simple solution.
It is to conserve energy and improve fuel efficiency standards.
And about this supply and demand issue, how can overall demand increase like 5 or 10 percent in the last few years, but oil prices surpass 100 percent? This is not a simple supply and demand issue - there are oil company and refinery executives and politicans responsible for these outrageous oil prices, but you don't want to expose your beloved re-pubic-ans who have no support or love for you rednecks.
Good Grief man.
You still do not know the difference between 1) an oil well and 2) an oil refinery.
1) Recovers raw crude oil from the earth
2) Coverts raw crude oil into thousands of by-products, including gasoline
Your original post was chiding Republicans for blocking a bill intended to increase the country’s oil refinery capacity. It reality it was almost ALL of the Dems that voted NO. Enough Republicans initially voted no such that there was a little arm-twisting going on for 45 minutes. This arm-twisting and the delay of the vote was what Pelosi and the Dems were upset about. But your linked source twisted the facts around so badly that even a smart, open minded guy like you was fooled.
Are we done with that now?
Probably not since it’s oh so impossible for you to admit when you’re wrong.
-- Modified on 6/8/2008 12:06:51 PM
OK, so that Raw Story was a bad source. The internet is full of lies and misinformation (http://mediamatters.org).
So the repubs want to drill and/or refine more domestic oil. Only a small percentage of domestic oil (less than one third) satisfys Americas oil consumption. We've pretty much maxed out and tapped out every domestic oil source possible and domestic oil production is not going to increase to any significant degree, if it even increases, to meet current and future oil demands.
What if we started to conserve energy and improve fuel efficency standards? These solutions are not temporary fixes lasting a day or a few months until the oil wells run dry. They are fixes that will last a lifetime, but the reality is that the repubs are most adamantly opposed to these lifetime solutions.
My original point is that the rural red states are in a Catch-22 deadend phase by supporting the repubs. They are the ones being hurt most by the high gas prices, and the repubs who are only producing temporary solutions that will eventually run dry are no help.
And speaking of the supply-demand curve, if demand is outpacing suppply by something like 5 percent, why are oil and gas prices exceeding 100 percent in the last few years. This is not a simple supply-demand curve issue, there are political forces of oil and refinery companies and politicans responsible for this. But with bush, cheney, and the repubs receiving excessive financial support from them, don't expect muich to be done there.
And don’t rely on Media Matters to set you straight.
Saying the source and the story bad is only half of the truth. The other part of the problem is what you wanted the story to be telling you.
Your biases have clouded your judgment so very badly. Do you really think that the very “blue” states like New York, California and Illinois have no rural areas? OK, so let’s assume that you once again revise your remarks and that you were really speaking of the really blue areas called “big cities”. Where do you think all their “stuff” comes from? Oops, rural areas or from other big cities as it traverses rural areas. Where does all your food come from? Oh yea, all those red neck re-pubic-can farmers. Try saying that to their face the next time you’re going hungry.
BTW, what entity is the third largest consumer of oil, behind the U.S. and China? That’s right, it’s California.
Also, you can’t possibly believe that you can conserve your way to continued prosperity. I (and Republicans) agree that some energy is wasted and improved efficiencies are always welcomed, but if the changes are driven by government numb nuts and not by economic forces, then the results will most certainly be very detrimental to the economy, if not disastrous. We don’t hate improvements in efficiency. We just don’t think they shouldn’t be legislated. Of course some efficiency mandates were logical in order to clean up the emissions. Now repeat after me. It’s Re-pub-li-cans.
Conservation can only be a very small piece of the puzzle. The only true way that conservation becomes a meaningful tool is for the population to also be controlled.
2001 daily consumption of barrels of oil per 1000 people and World rank
#11 68.9 United States
#17 57.9 Belgium
#21 54.8 Canada
#30 41.6 Japan
#41 37.9 Norway
#47 34.2 Germany
#69 17.8 Russia
#140 3.6 China
#151 2.1 India
2004 daily consumption of barrels of oil per 1000 people and World rank
#13 71.7 Canada
#15 70.6 United States
#21 61.5 Belgium
#25 53.2 Norway
#32 43.7 Japan
#48 32.1 Germany
#73 17.5 Russia
#128 5 China
#149 2.3 India
You tell me what a terrible job we’re doing. Note, these numbers do not tell the story about the economies. China’s was booming. Germany’s. . . not so great, although they’re conserving nicely. China is now the second largest consumer of oil.
-- Modified on 6/8/2008 9:07:24 PM
For countless years, you right-wingers spewed your hatred for liberals, the Clintons, and blue states, blaming them for all of the worlds ills.
Now we have gas prices devestaing the republican red states, you get all defensive. Yeah, there are rural areas in blue states, but the reality is the vast majority of rural areas, especially those being hit with gas prices, and in republican areas.
So you want government off your backs, and now that tornadoes have devastated these red rural areas, you expect the evil govie to bail them out.
You believe govie should stay out of private companies, but now that oil prices have skyrocketed, govie should meddle into oil company affiairs and punish anyone making excessive profits. Where would we be without evil govie? Gas going to $5/gallon, then $6, and upward with no regulation?
Everything is regulated, we are a country and society of laws. It's the hypocrisy right-wingers impose that makes enemies.
Awww, so you are offended with the redneck trash comment? It's ok, I cna grow and prepare my own food. But how many years and slanders have we seen by your right-wing fascists like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity?
Advise me to lay off my hatred, it would be better if you stop instigating it first and stop supporting these right-wing nazis. Then there won't be any need for an avenger.
do you listen to yourself? Government has no ability to control gasoline prices without subsidizing prices like Venezuela does.
You moron, we are an importer of oil which is a world wide commodity. Niether our oil companies nor our government have the power to set prices.
Please at least go back to school and get a GED before you attempt to argue political and economic subjects that you obviously have no grasp of. My nineteen year old secretary has a better grasp of the economics of oil than you do.
Our local drop out Quad is better informed and even our local ideologue Moose makes more sense than you.
but, then you couldn't be a RepubliCon anymore. You'd lose your identity! You'd have a psychiatric breakdown! You'd need somebody to come pick up your mess!
and I gots better things to do, sonny
Hey, speaking of misinterpretation, I was looking at your link on oil per capita consumption and it clearly shows the U.S. has an unusually high (the highest if you take out the outliars) consumption rate. Nothing like the rosy picture you portrayed, typical method for republiscum to shoot down ideas on energy conservation.
#1 Singapore: 1.69 per 10,000 people
#2 United Arab Emirates: 1.194 per 10,000 people
#3 Kuwait: 1.139 per 10,000 people
#4 Qatar: 0.973 per 10,000 people
#5 United States: 0.694 per 10,000 people
#6 Canada: 0.672 per 10,000 people
#7 Saudi Arabia: 0.654 per 10,000 people
#8 Iceland: 0.64 per 10,000 people
#9 Netherlands: 0.611 per 10,000 people
#10 Korea, South: 0.469 per 10,000 people
#11 Norway: 0.455 per 10,000 people
#12 Ireland: 0.451 per 10,000 people
#13 Finland: 0.429 per 10,000 people
#14 Australia: 0.427 per 10,000 people
#15 Japan: 0.415 per 10,000 people
Countries 1 to 4 are very small countries, and countries 2 to 4 have large oil reserves to export. If you take out those outliars, the U.S. has the largest per capita oil consumption, and the U.S. has the largest total consumption in the world.
I simply picked a few meaningful countries. You, yourself just said we should ignore all the ones above the U.S. Gosh, that's exactly what I did.
I also showed the most recent and the oldest data available (from that site) which showed the trend over the last 4 years. Print that same list above #1 through #15 again, except use the year 2001.
Total cunsumption by country is meaningless except for political puroses. You need to factor in things like GDP to be more meaningful and compare the U.S. to the E.U., not individual "small" counties.
p.s. the data I used wasn't from the chart in the link. I don't know what happened, but it did come from this site. It was a different set of data, but when I cut and pasted the url, that's what came up. I didn't test it.
But alas, your interest is not learning something. Your first priority is to attempt to prove I was being dishonest. You just proved my point about your bias.
-- Modified on 6/8/2008 11:03:18 PM
I was only looking at the link you provided. I posted all the countries but did not mention the first 4 countries because of having a small sample population.
Your list cuts off the first 10 countries with the U.S. being #11. Don't know where you got that list.
Even your own lists and calculations show the U.S. has the highest energy consumption rate, then you imply we are OK (i.e. moderate) in energy consumption.
Well not exactly, but it ws the same web site. And all I did was cut and paste the url link from the page I cut the data from. Only the link pasted didn't take you back to the same page I was on. Strange.
Just becaause the U.S. uses much more oil than any other country is meaningless, except from a political perspective. No other country with a population even close to ours has the same output of goods and services (GDP). So population matters, size of economy matters, pollution to GDP ratio matters (I bet ours is lower than many), and standard of living matters (average and minimum). Add up all the E.U. oountries and comparethem to the U.S. That would be more fair.
plus oil does not tell the entire energy story. There's all sorts of other energy production.
Have you not realized by now that avenger is not a adult....
You wrote "And about this supply and demand issue, how can overall demand increase like 5 or 10 percent in the last few years, but oil prices surpass 100 percent? This is not a simple supply and demand issue - there are oil company and refinery executives and politicians responsible for these outrageous oil prices, but you don't want to expose your beloved re-pubic-ans who have no support or love for you rednecks."
ARE YOU AN IDIOT? For now I'll just hammer your ignorance on the refiners. Most refiners are independent, i.e. not Exxon, not Chevron. Their names are Tesoro, Valero, Frontier, etc. To these independents, oil is basically a cost input. They have to pay whatever crude is priced at. Look at their stock prices for the past 6 months. All are down about 50%. They make their margins on the crack spread, the difference between the raw product and finished product. Do your fucking homework about the industry. Look at TSO's stock price, income and balance statements. Yeah this looks like a company responsible for the outrageous oil prices. Maybe if you were an active investor, doing your due diligence, and making money you wouldn't spew moronic comments
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=tso
"And about this supply and demand issue, how can overall demand increase like 5 or 10 percent in the last few years, but oil prices surpass 100 percent?"
Our oil consumption is flat, it is the rest of the world's consumption that has soared, driving the price per barrel.
I won't even get into the reduced cost/reward ratio of new wells....that would fall on Shitfilled ears.
Whaty a douche bag
Oh, so the world oil consumption rate suddenly increased by over 100% in the last 4 years?
So you think Alaska's oil reserves alone will solve all of Americas energy price problems? Even your re-pubic-an restroom sex partner mentioned or implied Alaska can increase domestic oil prodiction by about 5%. But with less than a third of America's oil from domestic resources, that isn't going to have any significant impact.
OK, so Alaska has more than 6 months of new oil reserves. So how long will it last to bring down gas prices from $4.00 to $3.85 a gallon? 10 years? 20 years?
The last 20 years of low oil prices have disappeared in the blink of an eye.
Yeah, it was stupid on my part to bring up this topic, because the red rural states are being hurt the most by high gas prices, and discussing solutions will only help your side.
But don't worry, you re-pubic-ans are in a dead-end situation. Your dead on arrival with high gas prices that will never revert back to over 10 years ago, you have leaders that have no support for you, and your numbers and economic influence (particularly by high energy prices)are declining in America and the world.
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2008/04/global_white_po.php
We'll see who wins in the 2008 elections and beyond.
as opposed to being old and stupid. I guess that means there is still hope for you.
The last twenty years of low oil prices have not disappeared in the blink of an eye, it's been obvious for years that oil prices had to increase. I've been predicting it here for a couple of years now.
Just imagine how high oil prices would be if Saddam still had the power to disrupt supply. You lefties will never admit that going to Iraq was the right thing to do, even though the war has been badly mismanaged.
You think prices are high now, you just wait until your fearless leader cuts and runs in Iraq and leaves the region open to Ahmadinejad. You want to see $10 gas. Elect BHO and you'll get your wish.
Oh and for the record I am not white, and I don't really care that the percentage of white people world wide is declining. Apparently this is something of importance to you.
One other thing, demand does not have to double in order to double the price of a commodity, any commodity. Why don't you go back to school and get your GED before arguing economics with grown ups. I don't have the time or the inclination to teach you the basics.
What emergency reserves in Alaska? There is no such thing. If you are talking about new drilling in Alaska, and in ANWR in particular your numbers are way off base.
First off the impact of ANWR will not be anywhere near a dollar a gallon. Your ignorance of the oil business is staggering. There are 42 gallons in a barrel of crude, ANWR is capable of producing about 1 million BOPD when fully developed. The US alone uses over 20 million BOPD. Do the math yourself.
Secondly the reseves in ANWR like virtually all oil fields will not deplete in 6 months, they won't even be totally developed for years even if we start drilling today.
I guess you are proof that you don't have to be a rural redneck to be an economic idiot.
I'm sorry, but rarely do we get sopmeone here that is THIS ILLINFORMED yet acts so fuckin smart..
he would be the TallDim of the oil patch....
This idiot is quite possibly the stupidest poster that has ever opined here. I know he has some very impressive competition for the all time title, but I honestly can't think of anyone less informed about his own topic of choice.