Re: U.S. FUEL "ECONOMY" Is Way, Way In The Future! If Not Farther...

Well I hope you are right because then there would be some hope for future generations. Right now the most optimistic estimate for how much oil is in ANWR is about equivalent to what the nation uses in 4 years. ore realistic estimates are more like 2 years. And that oil belongs to the people of the United States not the oil companies. You are asking the people to sell that oil cheaply to the oil companies and they sell it back to us at whatever price they can get. That doesn't solve anything it just delays it a little while. Actually there is no guarantee the oil companies will even sell it to Americans - they could sell it to Japan or China just as easily. But the bottom line is if we sell it now then in the future it isn't going to be there - Then what happens? Oh right, I forgot, that is not our problem.

Yes but if you had the benefit of a working brain you would still want n answer to the question who is benefiting from hoarding that oil. That oil isn't going any place it is just becoming more valuable the longer it sits in the ground.

That statement convinces me you are extremely gullible, but it doesn't matter you can believe what you wish to. Even if your belief were true it is still undeniable that if the US had put a high tax on every barrel of oil 50 years ago the amount of oil that would be still sitting in the ground as a result would be vast. I mean, it would be a lot more oil left in the ground than the oil you think we have now. Not only would there be more oil available still in the ground there would also be less need (demand) for oil. That would be because alternate sources of energy would have long ago developed and more efficient ways of using oil energy would have also been developed. But most important of all: we wouldn't stuck with an economy that isn't capable of functioning without cheap oil.

Yes absolutely. That is the whole idea. It creates an economy that is not distorted by a bubble of cheap oil. In case you haven't been paying attention lately, bubble economies always pop and the consequences of bubbles popping are always disastrous. You have to be a complete moron to invite the greatest of all bubble economies to pop on you. And the fact that you argue that disaster will happen, but not in our life time is just an indication of your selfishness nothing more.

You might be right. Increasing the cost of oil may be fatal to the economy, but if the economy can't adapt to high priced oil then the economy is ultimately doomed anyway. Either we learn to survive with high priced oil or we die. The only real choice we have is do we face that reality now or do we put a gun to the head of future generations and make them figure out how to live with high priced oil. And at the same time that we avoid any responsibility for creating a viable economy that we can pass to future generations we also saddle them with a huge amount of debt. Do you think those future generations are going to be better able to survive then we are now? Is it their fault that we now have a faltering economy? You seem to think it is if you are asking them to pay the bills.

Where do you think the money is coming from that the government spends. Right now we are asking future generations to tax themselves to pay for a large portion of what the government is spending for us now. This is because we refuse to pay our own taxes. Your wonderful solution to all our problems is don't tax us make somebody in the future pay the tax. But I realize you are not alone. Not paying our taxes is also the government's solution and most of the people are going along.

Sure, oil is not going to run out any time soon. But it will get more expensive. And as we have seen in the last couple of years we cannot rely on oil prices remaining stable and low.

Cheap oil is a bubble that will pop. Expensive oil will last forever.

I never said we are running out of oil. I said we need to do what needs to be done to change the economy so that it can survive high oil prices. The nation has a vested interest in doing that because as you yourself have indicated the nation is completely vulnerable in this area. The failure to immunize ourselves from this could be a "death blow" as you so eloquently put it. I also said we need to start raising our own taxes instead of asking future generations to raise taxes to pay for our spending.

Only a complete idiot would not be able to see that our current economy only functions well when oil prices are low and stable. Currently the economy is clearly incapable of withstanding the shocks of oil price fluctuations that are bound to come. Now you can rant a rave and foam at the mouth about who is responsible for oil price instability and whether or not it will happen sooner or later, but that won't make it go away.

-jim

The below reasons, all suppied by Jim, show why we should create stinulus jobs by developing ANWR at taxpayer expense, BUT LEAVE THE OIL IN PLACE. This would save the oil for future generations, leave the taxpayers with a new "Fort Knox" of national treasure, give us the immediate benefit of a potential supply buffer to discourage internationl oil price/supply blackmail of our economy, and provide a strategic oil reserve.

Reason 1:

Reason 2:

Reason 3:

Reason 4:

Reason 5:

Reason 6:

Reason 6:

Back to Reason 4:

So now that it has been demonstrated that we are NOT running out of oil, the subject is changed to the cost.

Yes, the stuff will be more expensive to extract than conventional sources. But it is definitely available in very large quantities that will last a very long time. It is a pretty safe bet that by the time we actually run out of oil we will no longer need it.

Agreed. In fact it could be argued that higher prices per barrel are a *good* thing because it will insure continued supply. Quite a different matter than imposing confiscatory taxation. But some people see ever higher taxes as the solution for nearly every problem, real or perceived.

I am right. There are huge, untapped oil reserves in nontraditional sources such as tar sands, not to mention the enourmous amount of coal we have in the U.S. which can be used to create petroleum products.

The "future generations" you speak of will be so far in the future by the time we are actually in danger of running out that they will probably no longer have a need for it. (Perhaps they will use nanotechnology to assemble the necessary molecules on occasion for nostalgia's sake.)

Predicting the end of the oil supply has been going on for decades. I have a copy of Popular Science published in 1957 where the cover article is "Are We Running Out of Oil?" (Prediction then was 20-30 years and it would be gone.)

That is certainly something you do not have, that dormant organ rotting between your ears seems to do you no good whatsoever. Amazing anyone can believe the kind of bilge you spew.

Yours convinces me you are congenital idiot. Or perhaps a Communist who simply does not understand how the market works.

The path to stable oil prices is to develop our own resources, not through confiscatory taxation.

Only a complete idiot would think that taxing oil to make it more expensive is going to somehow "help" the economy or make the price lower and more stable.

You are the one ranting and raving and foaming at the mouth, venting nonsense.

I didnt change the subject, Roger. I made the point, which is quite true, that trying to extract shale oil is going to cost a lot of money.

Production from the tar sands and oil sands in Canada is very dependent on price because these operations can be prohibitively expensive. The ecology demon has not even been invoked.

In some cases, or at some point in time, it may be more feasible to shift over to agricultural production of vegetable oils that to try to mine shale oil.

Some of the shale deposits DO contain a lot of oil, but the concentration of oil in the shale can be low and variable. It can be likened to the situation of there being a lot of dissolved gold in the oceans.

Knowing how to remove oil from shale is nothing new.

Problem is that removing oil from most of that shale will take more energy than you'll get from burning it. Now, that's fine if you want the oil for something like plastics fabrication or lubricating oils, but it's not such a good thing if your intention is to burn it.

Also, please do not forget lubricating oils. Not all crude oil is light sweet crude... there are a lot of crude oils out there that are specialized for particular lubricating oil applications and when those are gone they are gone.

--scott

Tar sands are long chain hydrocarbons... it is outrageously expensive in terms of energy input to crack that stuff down into gasoline and diesel. On the other hand, some of those long paraffins are great for plastics precursors.

The argument is made that people won't research other energy sources (and that includes things like shale oil extraction) as long as cheap petroleum is so cheap. I won't argue either way, but I'd like to clarify what the argument is.

--scott

Yes it is a good thing for the reason you state. It is also a good thing because high prices encourages the discovery and use of alternatives to oil. That was the topic of this thread. It is not just that a tax will help insure a continued supply, as you so well put it, it will also change the other side of the economic equation it will alter the demand for oil by creating a demand for alternatives. That means the market place figures out what alternatives to oil are best instead of the government trying to guess what might be best and sinking money into that. If you put a tax on oil there is no need for the government to be involved in spending money on research. Research for alternatives becomes a good investment opportunity for the private sector.

The reason the oil companies and the people who work for oil companies tell you a tax won't matter and that it will just pass the cost to the customer is because it is not true. If it were really true they wouldn't say anything because they wouldn't care. If it were true they wouldn't be arguing against it so vehemently. If you look at the big picture over time. A tax on oil production will negatively impact on the oil companies and it will positively impact on the customer. But that isn't the reason for the tax. The purpose is not to favor one sector over another the reason for the tax is that it has become abundantly clear that fluctuating oil pries have become destructive to the long term survival of the nation. That is a problem that needs to be addressed. It something that shouldn't have been ignored for so long.

The crux of the matter that those opposed to taxing oil refuse to even think about is do we include future generations in our considerations or do we continue on the present course of thinking only what is good for ourselves, at this time, and let future generations worry about themselves. The opponents to a tax just want to ignore that it would be better for future generations if we paid our own taxes and it would be even better still for future generations if we did so in a way that helped insure that that future had a continued supply of oil. Instead the only solution they have to offer is to pass laws and government incentives to extract more oil out of the ground at a faster rate. One would think by now everyone would see why that is a failed policy. There is little doubt that extracting more oil faster will in the short run appear to look like it is making things better. It might even encourage the public to go back to buying big SUV's, but what will happen in the long run? As you have already pointed out there is no reason the government needs to create incentives and means for oil companies to extrract more oil. there is abundant oil they could be extracting if they wanted to. Nobody is stopping the oil companies from extracting shale oil.

"confiscatory taxation" I like that phrase how clever of you to think that up. I propose that the US impose a $200/barrel "confiscatory oil tax". That has a nice ring to it.

In case you are unaware - all taxes are confiscatory. So trying to paint one tax as bad as if they aren't all the same would be OK if you could supply some reason for that labeling. But you haven't supplied reasons for any of the policies you want. All you can do is label things. No reasoning, no thought. Just labels. It would be refreshing if you could supply a reason why you think it is OK to impose a confiscatory tax on future generations for our current spending. Is it so terrible that the generation doing the spending be the ones that have the money confiscated?

But if you are so hung up on labels and don't like the word "tax" then let's call this an insurance premium. Require that the oil companies buy a $200/brl insurance premium that is used to bail out the economy whenever the economy crashes. That way, the next time the price of oil shoots upward the government won't be already drowning in debt when it needs to bail out the economy. Heck you could even give the oil companies a "good drivers rewards"- where their premiums would go down after so many years without a crash (if that happens).

People need to wake up and realize we already have a confiscatory taxation policy and taxes aren't going to go away. The problem is that a good bit of what we are confiscating is not from our ourselves but from future generations. You may be able to make a reasonable argument that a tax on oil now would not benefit the current generation, but it is hard to argue that an oil tax today would not benefit future generations, because as you said higher prices will insure continued supply. Not for us, but for the future. That is the main point instead of robbing from the future as we have done for the last 25 years we need to turn that around and for a change do something that will be an investment in the future.

OTOH, Your proposal is to continue robbing from the future, but not as slowly as before we need now to shift gears and accelerate robbing from the future faster.

Taxation is your solution where do you think the money is coming from that is bailing out the economy that crashed as a result of last years high oil prices? It is all coming from a confiscatory tax on the future

- every penny. Why are the future taxpayers being forced to pay for this? Have you got it into your head that somehow the future taxpayers are the ones who are to blame?

You have never once said one word to address the fundamental economic problem that taxing oil will address. Every time the price of oil shoots upward the US economy tanks. That is something that you would think can no longer be just ignored. I mean just how long do you think we can keep ignoring that? A tax on oil may be a bitter pill to swallow but it will inoculate the nation against those price fluctuations which are inevitable. The choice seems obvious either sit by and watch the inevitable train wreck happen or do something to prevent it. Your response to that problem is apparently to just bury your head in the sand and pretend there is no problem.

The only action you have proposed is to ask that the government ignore the long term health of the nation. Why should the nation go along with that? Passing laws that help the oil companies pump more oil faster is short term near sighted solution. It may look beneficial for a little while, but once again puts the nation in a position to crash once the supply again becomes inadequate to meet the demand. It is an inevitable cycle that is guaranteed to happen.

-jim

Well balances the raving ring wing loonies on here.