Bush Eases Environmental Rules On Gasoline For those that might want to know what dumbass had to say today about his deep, deep concern for us and the planet...Bush's stratergery I'd laugh at this next quote, but it's so typical and repeated that it's lost it's punch:
Oh yeah, that makes perfect sense. Let's increase the supply of a limited resource just to ease the cost this year. How much are we going to increase the supply next year and the year after that? He'll still be president; let's see how he does it when prices are $3.50 next year and $4.00 the year after.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Apr 25 2006, 02:48 PM) [snapback]244962[/snapback]</div> It is not a limited supply - it is limited because of artificial barriers placed by ourselves - that is the problem. There is enough oil located on this planet for at least another 400+ years of consumption at current rates (tar sands, oil shale, ANWAR, off our coastlines)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Apr 25 2006, 02:48 PM) [snapback]244962[/snapback]</div> I think he clearly indicates this as a forthcoming incumbents problem. Obviously there are enough strategic oil reserves to keep the prices at check till he will leave the office, let's tap into it now and appease the 'bitches'. Last years memoranda revisited again, same lip service, same photo op, nothing else.
After reading this again to find some choice cuts the lead of the story finally sank in... Even the writer didn't think this would work! Holy crap! Here's another gem from "Dr." Frist: Wow...not a single mention of developing alternative sources of energy--no hybrids--no nothing. Just go get your Hummer tuned up--that'll fix everything. Loser. This one from El Busho gives me pause... Does that last part mean what I think it does? Does the USA, in order to keep the crude flowing, hold back on peace keeping activities? It could mean anything...holding back in favor of or otherwise. Are we turning our back on countries that need our help to feed our oil appetite? George W. Rainman strikes again: That's a GREAT idea...while we're at it, let's make all tractor trailers that have working turn signals exempt from hitting the weigh stations. How about anyone that has a beanie with a propeller be exempt from filing a tax return. All hybrids are not energy efficient--which has be covered here ad nauseum. It would be idiotic (sense a theme?) to give all that money away...if you're going to reward people for buying a fuel efficient hybrid, how about killing the AMT for those people so everyone can actually get the reward? Asshat.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 25 2006, 12:57 PM) [snapback]244972[/snapback]</div> 400 years? Care to cite a source? Even if that were true, what matters is rates. When the rate of consumption outpaces the rate of supply, then we hit what's called "peak oil." After peak oil, oil will cost more. LOTS more. It doesn't matter how much there is; as long as the rate of supply is tight, then there will be higher prices. Nate
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(naterprius @ Apr 25 2006, 06:10 PM) [snapback]245109[/snapback]</div> Valid point The easy oil to extract is all tapped, the rest is hell of more expensive to extract so the costs will only go up.
Oil will never run out. It will just get so expensive that nobody can afford to buy or use it. What happens to our economy when gas costs a thousand dollars a gallon, if we have not put renewable energy in place? Gutting the environmental regulations will lower immediate costs by a few pennies, but the real cost will be a return to the bad old days when companies dumped raw filth into the air and water.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dsunman @ Apr 25 2006, 06:19 PM) [snapback]245118[/snapback]</div> It'll go up until it gets too expensive to extract. Eventually, it'll take more energy to extract the oil than the energy that we'll get out of it. Once that happens, it won't make economic sense to extract it any longer. It would be similar to spending $100 to make $10.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Apr 25 2006, 08:56 PM) [snapback]245218[/snapback]</div> Although I've never had a pleasure to ever exchange thoughts wth you, it's nice to see you back. What a day, maggieddd and JackDoge are back.
Point 1 - Most of the easy oil is either gone or going away, and the rate of replenishment of those reserves is declining. Investment in exploration of raw product has been low since big oil's lean years in the mid-late 90s. That alone keeps oil prices high. Point 2 - The oil that IS left is of much lower quality, making it much more difficult (hence expensive) to crack into usable product, to say nothing of the environmental impact of, say, turning oil sands into usable product. (The process is very interesting but environmentally horrid; it takes millions and millions of gallons of freshwater and strip mining to turn oil sands into synthetic crude. See www.syncrude.ca. Tar shale is also an interesting process that requires both time and energy to heat rock and lift the crude out of the ground. Both are economically unfeasible when prices are below $60/bbl.). Point 3 - Even if you did get the oil, the US hasn't built a new refinery in over 20 years, yet demand has continued to increase at a rapid clip. GW's buddies in the desert can only do so much here; even if the world is awash in raw materials supply, converting it into usable product again is limited by the capacity of our existing refining infrastructure, not to mention (at least here in CA) our boutique blend that helps keep the air somewhat breatheable. Corollary to Point 3 - This is one reason why GW's idea of releasing oil from the SPR is like a screen door on a submarine - the most immediate problem isn't so much supply as it is our lack of ability to turn that supply into usable product, including our current ethanol shortage. (Invest in ADM!) Make a long story longer, it makes me feel like the smartest guy on the block when I cruise past the Chevron selling regular at $3.25/gal in my Black pkg. 8. But we all already knew all of that, right?
