|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
Back To The '70s?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, April 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Oil Shock: When it comes to energy policy, Democrats always talk a good game. But look at their actual record while in control of Congress in the last year and a half. It's been nothing short of disastrous.
Wasn't it two years ago that then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi vowed, if her party took over Congress, to cut energy prices — especially gasoline?
"Democrats have a common-sense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price-gouging; rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies; and increasing production of alternative fuels," Pelosi wrote back in April 2006, as part of her efforts to convince Americans to elect Democrats.
How's that working for you? As the chart below shows, the cost of energy — measured by the price of West Texas Intermediate crude — is up more than 70%.
Under Pelosi's "common-sense plan," Congress has achieved nothing. Actually, less than nothing, considering that what little has been done has hurt, rather than helped the U.S. to become more self-sufficient. This year alone, we'll spend $431 billion to buy 3.7 billion barrels of imported oil to run our economy. And in so doing, we are enriching some of the world's most unsavory regimes.
Ironically, we have plenty of oil — at least 10 billion barrels in Alaska's National Wildlife Reserve, 30 billion or so offshore and a whopping 1.2 trillion in Rocky Mountain oil-shale. But Democrats' extreme green ideology keeps us from drilling for it.
Clean coal technologies likewise have been put out of bounds. So is the most logical answer to our energy problem — nuclear power plants that can be run safely with spent rods reprocessed. France already does this to meet 80% of its energy needs.
Democrats have focused instead on an insane global warming plan that would cost $1.2 trillion. Subsidies and other breaks for biofuels have helped send food prices soaring.
It would be nice to say they've learned their lesson, but they haven't. Instead, they've gone on a shrill campaign to vilify American oil companies, holding kangaroo hearings in Congress to embarrass CEOs who work hard to bring us more energy.
Just Wednesday, Pelosi sent a letter to President Bush, urging him to look into OPEC price-fixing, to punish "price-gougers" and to end tax breaks for oil companies and use the money to invest in questionable alternative energy schemes.
Excuse us, but that's pretty much the plan congressional Democrats have pursued for a year and a half with zero success. As in the 1970s, this is a human-made crisis — one that has solutions. But it's the Democrats, along with a few equally misguided Republicans, who steadfastly refuse to implement them.
For this reason if for no other, none of them deserves re-election.
|
|
|
Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:25 am |
|
|
squash
F L I N T O I D
|
Oil Drilling in the ANWR
Can Arctic Oil Satisfy U.S. Demand?
2008-03-18
By Keith Kohl
At least we can say it was expected.
There's been a huge rush of speculators into the oil market, most of them looking for a hedge against the falling dollar. Yesterday, oil spiked to record $111.80 per barrel.
Soon after the record was hit, however, recession fears took over as oil prices dropped over $5 a barrel. So let me ask you, how can we expect speculators not to take some profits?
Now that $100 oil is a reality, we're told it's just some fluke.
"Don't worry, things will get back to normal." That's the attitude we're supposed to have, right? That's what we're told.
Well, I wouldn't bet on that just yet.
We can nearly assume oil prices won't retreat below $100 a barrel for a sustained period of time, even by drilling for oil in the ANWR, which I'll get to a little later. In fact, I really wouldn't be surprised if we never again pay under that benchmark for WTI (the light, sweet crude known as Western Texas Intermediate).
Let's take a look at how the U.S. is easing our concerns over where oil prices are headed and their proposed solution, drilling for oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Are Even Tighter Oil Markets Ahead?
The Energy Information Agency (EIA) released its Short-Term Energy Outlook last week. According to the report, we're going to see our petroleum consumption fall by 90,000 barrels per day in 2008. Furthermore, a production increase outside of OPEC is expected to ease oil prices over the next two years.
On a global scale, the EIA changed their minds again. This time around they're predicting that world consumption will grow by 1.3 million bbl/d in both 2008 and 2009 (lowered from previous estimates). Not surprisingly, they've reported that the largest consumption growth is expected to come from China, India and the Middle East.
Well, at least we agree on something.
Even though the EIA is attempting to alleviate our concerns over $100/bbl oil, they're not doing a very good job. Oil prices have been able to break record after record in spite of oil inventories consistently rising! Remember, inventories have only dropped once in over eight weeks.
I'm not too sure the U.S. government is too confident in the report.
Drilling for Oil in the ANWR
Although attempts to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) have failed in the past, another piece of legislation has reached the U.S. Senate to tap its resources. This time, drilling would be permitted if oil prices reach $125 a barrel.
It might not be hard to gather support considering oil almost hit $112 a barrel today, not to mention that we're in for more record gasoline prices once the summer driving season rolls around. Trust me, the problem won't be hitting $125 a barrel. I've already said that oil will hit $120 a barrel by July (if things keep going this way, we'll see them much sooner). There are, however, other things to consider.
Here's my problem with drilling in the Arctic: Are the potential oil reserves in ANWR worth the decade-long development efforts?
Let's assume for a minute that the legislation passes and the environmental protesters (I can only imagine the protests over this legislation) are appeased. I know it's hard to do, but for now we'll just pretend.
We won't see a drop of production for nearly a decade, if not longer. There would have to be a massive amount of investment dollars to tap the Arctic. According to the USGS, a 1.9 million acre area of ANWR may hold up to 16 billion barrels of oil.
The amount of oil may be staggering, but it will take years to set up the infrastructure to produce and transport Arctic oil to the U.S. Also, do you really think an extra million barrels per day in 2025 will be enough?
I didn't think so.
The good part is that the U.S. doesn't need to begin the long venture of Arctic drilling. We're looking to meet that demand somewhere else.
Is ANWR Oil a Bust?
I'll let you make up your own minds about the ethics of drilling for oil in the National Wildlife Refuge. Personally, I think drilling in ANWR is just another sign of how desperate the U.S. is to relieve its addiction to Middle Eastern oil.
Besides, there are several other areas I would rather focus my investments on.
Over the last few weeks we've seen how Canadian oil investments are starting to heat up. On Thursday I'm going to show you how the U.S. is preparing for a flood of Canadian oil.
Until next time,
Keith Kohl
www.energyandcapital.com
**A change in lifestyle is due. We have consumed far too much for several generations now; it is time to cut back. I love America, but we eat too much, drive too much and accrue too much debt. It's got to be Mayberry all over again. Buy local!
By the time we get ANWR oil we'll likely have the technology to ease the oil burden. Save some for the future. |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 24, 2008 11:05 am |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
|
|
Thu Apr 24, 2008 2:12 pm |
|
|
UncleEffort
F L I N T O I D
|
Clearly more oil is not the answer because it will never be available in sufficient quantities in the rising demand environment. The oil in ANWR is a drop in the bucket.
The answer is of course alternative energy sources and lifestyle changes....namely
public transportation
. It's high time that the country invest in extensive public transportation systems. High-speed trains between cities, buses, subways and yes nuclear power in the short term. Furthermore we need to do a better job on a Federal level to reinvigerate our inner-cities and stop the flow of people to the outer-suburbs.
Is it going expensive, hell yes. But so is $5.00 a gallon gas. |
_________________
It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man. |
|
|
Thu Apr 24, 2008 3:43 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
nuclear power in the short term.
Why the short term we gonna run out of uranium?
quote:
Furthermore we need to do a better job on a Federal level to reinvigerate our inner-cities and stop the flow of people to the outer-suburbs.
Good luck with that one since its been a work in progress for about 40 years with no improvement in fact just the opposite. When they can folks will be a shittin and a gittin as far away from the bangers as they can not back with them. |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 24, 2008 3:44 pm |
|
|
squash
F L I N T O I D
|
It is very possible that higher gas prices could represent a resurgence in city living.
We all know that the banger comment is code for white suburbans not wanting to live with urban blacks. I believe differently. If families begin moving back to the cities in droves crime in cities will certainly drop, neighborhoods will recover, schools will improve and birds will sing. |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 24, 2008 4:00 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
We all know that the banger comment is code for white suburbans not wanting to live with urban blacks.
We all know thats what libs think we believe but truth of the matter is myself and most of the folks I know dont want to live around a bunch of gangbangin punks we dont care what color they are. Been thru the eastside lately????
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 24, 2008 4:06 pm |
|
|
squash
F L I N T O I D
|
Every day.
(I still love that pic)
What percentage of Flint's population would you say are gangbanging punks? |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 24, 2008 4:16 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
Enough to keep me and my friends from returning anytime soon.  And enough to get Flint N0.3 in violent cities. As far as gas prices having some effect on Flint or any major cities punk gangbangin problem thats laughable. The only thing that will end the violence in major cities is for the citizens to get rid of all the PC lib mayors and their appointed PC police chiefs and sheriffs and demand to get someone running the show that will use any and all nonPC methods to eliminate the problems. Jeez ya mean racial profiling, well ya if they happen to fit the description of the perp they are looking for. Of course thats about as likely to happen as cows jumping over the moon. Hells bells the only newspaper in Flint wont even give a full description of armed robbery suspects when they pull off an attempted murder. You dream on but I believe ill stay where I am thanks $5.00 gas and all  |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 24, 2008 4:27 pm |
|
|
Ryan Eashoo
F L I N T O I D
|
GO HILLARY! GO!
|
_________________
Flint Michigan Resident, Tax Payer, Flint Nutt - Local REALTOR - Activist. www.FlintTown.com |
|
|
Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:55 pm |
|
|
squash
F L I N T O I D
|
Well with that attitude.... (my best teacher line  )
What a shocker. Political correctness and libs are to blame for urban decay. Other lib atrocities: David Hasslehoff's singing career, Double Stuff Oreos and the designated hitter.
We're rooting for you Flint. |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:10 pm |
|
|
Ryan Eashoo
F L I N T O I D
|
lol thats a good one twotap!
quote:
twotap schreef:
|
_________________
Flint Michigan Resident, Tax Payer, Flint Nutt - Local REALTOR - Activist. www.FlintTown.com |
|
|
Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:16 pm |
|
|
Adam
F L I N T O I D
|
I wonder if Dingell is still pushing for his gas tax.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298271,00.html
Congressman John Dingell Proposes 50-cent Gas Tax Hike to Fight Global Warming
Thursday, September 27, 2007
WASHINGTON — Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won't like — a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners.
"I'm trying to have everybody understand that this is going to cost and that it's going to have a measure of pain that you're not going to like," Rep. John Dingell, who is marking his 52nd year in Congress, said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press.
Dingell will offer a "discussion draft" outlining his tax proposals on Thursday, the same day that President Bush holds a two-day conference to discuss voluntary efforts to combat climate change.
But Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that will craft climate legislation, is making it clear that he believes tackling global warming will require a lot more if it is to be taken seriously.
"This is going to cause pain," he said, adding that he wants to make certain "the pain is shared in a way that is fair, proper, acceptable and accomplishes the basic purpose" of reducing greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.
Dingell said he's not sure what the final climate package will include when the House takes it up for a vote. The taxes measures he's proposing, in fact, will be taken up by another House committee. And the Senate is considering a market-based system that would set an economy-wide ceiling on the amount of carbon dioxide that would be allowed to be released.
Dingell says he hasn't rule out such a so-called "cap-and-trade" system, either, but that at least for now he wants to float what he believes is a better idea. He will propose for discussion:
—A 50-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline and jet fuel, phased in over five years, on top of existing taxes.
—A tax on carbon, at $50 a ton, released from burning coal, petroleum or natural gas.
—Phaseout of the interest tax deduction on home mortgages for homes over 3,000 square feet. Owners would keep most of the deduction for homes at the lower end of the scale, but it would be eliminated entirely for homes of 4,200 feet or more.
He estimates that would affect 10 percent of homeowners. He says "it's only fair" to tax those who buy large suburban houses and create urban sprawl. Historic and farm houses would be exempted.
Some of the revenue would be used to reduce payroll taxes, but most would go elsewhere including for highway construction, mass transit, paying for Social Security and health programs and to help the poor pay energy bills.
In the interview Wednesday, Dingell acknowledged he's tackling some of the most sacred of political cows. He's not sure if they will end up in the climate legislation, but he wants to open them for discussion.
"All my friends tell me you can't do this, it's going to be political poison," said Dingell, 81, who has served longer in the House than any of his colleagues and heads one of the chamber's most powerful committees.
Widely known for protecting the automakers who are so prominent in his state, the Michigan Democrat first raised the tax ideas this summer. Some people immediately suggested he was offering proposals he knows won't pass to sidestep other issues such as automobile fuel economy increases.
Dingell rejects such criticism and said he wants to trigger "an intelligent discussion of the whole question."
Many economists have long maintained that a carbon tax is a more-efficient, less-bureaucratic way to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide than a cap-and-trade system, which could be difficult to administer.
A carbon tax would impact everything from the cost of electricity to winter heating and add to the cost of gasoline and other motor fuels. But economists say a cap on carbon also would raise these costs as burning fossil fuels becomes more expensive.
Such tax proposals have gained little traction.
Rep. Pete Starke, D-Calif., has been trying unsuccessfully to get a carbon tax for 16 years. In the early 1990s the House passed a modest "BTU" tax on the heat content of fuels, only to have it die in the Senate. Dingell acknowledged that there are still people who blame the Democrats' loss of Congress in 1994 on the ill-fated tax.
The federal 18.4-cent gasoline tax also has been a subject of discussion, but not about increasing it. As gasoline prices soared above $3 a gallon last year a chorus of lawmakers called for suspending the tax. |
|
|
|
Wed May 14, 2008 2:16 pm |
|
|
Public D
F L I N T O I D
|
|
|
Fri May 16, 2008 9:32 am |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
Whoa wait a minute. Are you saying that you "more enlightened than us" types only approve of a little forced male on male sodomy if they look like these Ah fellas below who I suspect are probably from your neighborhood. 
|
|
|
|
Fri May 16, 2008 9:46 am |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
