Could this be true?

Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
G

Gavin Allan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
7,613
Reaction score
6
Location
Jefferson City, MO
Here is some very interesting reading about the petroleum issues facing our

nation:





http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/money/2006/02/peak-oil-and-sorry-state-of-union.html



and



http://www.isecureonline.com/Reports/OST/EOSTG113/



 
Yes...and the sky is falling too. I remember back when I was in school in the 60s. The elementary schools had "ecology" as part of our science classes. They told us we had only enough oil for the next 25 years and only enough coal for the next 50 years. Well, here it is 40 years later and we're still pumping the oil and it seems our coal has doubled, since we now have 100 year's supply.



We will have an energy crisis, but not solely because of oil running out. It is occurring because the combined 3 Billion people of India and China are now earning enough money to demand vehicles, televisions and other energy-using items. The poverty of the majority of the Earth's people has allowed us in the US to squander resources cheaply and at ever-increasing rates. Now that prosperity is spreading, we will have to reduce our consumption or pay the higher price.
 
we will have to reduce our consumption or pay the higher price.
Click to expand...



Why do we have to reduce our consumption???:huh:



How about just increasing production and refining capacity? If the powers that be would get over their terminal case of cranial rectumitis and allow drilling in ANWR (In an area that was set aside for drilling decades ago, I might add) and drilling off the Left, East, and Gulf coasts, and encourage more domestic refinery construction, we'd have more oil and gas than we'd know what to do with.



And it would put us in a much better position in the world economically, strategically, and militaryily.



We've also got a bunch of capped wells in Texas and other parts of the country. Sometimes I think that someone devised this strategy so that Middle East oil would be depleted first, then everyone would look to us for oil, and the U.S. would have the advantage. Who knows?
 
Well, drilling for more is a temp fix. I agree, we should exploit it, but one thing we need to keep in mind is there is a finite amount of oil on the planet. Sooner or later, even with mining shale oil, it will run out. It is a battery of solar energy collected millions of years ago, and it is just a battery.



I am all for drilling for more, I am also all for conserving, and making choices that push our supply of oil out another 50-100 years. There are other environmental concerns as well. There is something to be said about pumping millions and millions of pounds of pollution into the air every year.



As far as your theory on depleting the middle east first Traintrac, you are dead on. There are capped wells all over Utah, and the Feds will not allow mining of shale oil in Utah and Colorado period. There is likely more crude oil in shale between Utah and Colorado than anywhere else on the planet....even the middle east. But they won't let a soul touch it. We are purposely drying up other resources and keeping known North American reserves for ourselves. Sounds like good future security, but if you really get into energy supply analysis, it is not a sound policy at all. It is prematurely driving prices up, It is sending a ton of money out of our economy into other countries, and if some future energy resource comes online, it may never get used as it could be deemed useless. That last thought is nothing to really laugh at, Alt energy sources are gaining steem and many are already in a position to be mass marketed, and if the Germans are as close to sustainable Fusion as they claim to be, all current energy sources could be deemed obsolete when that comes online.



Anyway, I digress. I actually work in an industry where I am always doing research on this topic, so I guess I have a great deal to say about it. (More than I should) :)



cheers,

Andy
 
Kind of a pessimist view. You have to weigh it with more optimistic views. Canada's tar pits, cheaper synthetic oil, ethanol and other energy sources are also touted as our salvation in the years to come. In the meantime I don't think we will ever see oil below $50 a barrel again and I do expect to see pump prices between $3 and $4 a gallon by this summer. There's no doubt we have to start conserving though. I wouldn't mind seeing a special tax put on gas guzzling hogs like Hummers and Suburbans and more tax incentives for vehicles with higher mpg's.
 
There is 2500 billion barrels of oil in the tar sands of alberta, I think that will last a few years.



http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/102spring2002_Web_projects/M.Sexton/







 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wouldn't mind seeing a special tax put on gas guzzling hogs like Hummers and Suburbans and more tax incentives for vehicles with higher mpg's
Click to expand...



When the price of gas goes up to $5.00 a gallon, it will do the same thing.



I think the free market ought to set the price. However, I am also in favor of subsidizing or giving incentives to alternative energy sources.
 
There is no such thing as a "free market".



Drug companies? No way. The price of drugs in the USA is higher, much higher, then they are in other countries.



Gasoline? Nope. Gas is priced differently in all other parts in the world. Those in Europe pay a different price then those in China do. Same fuel, same source. Different price.



Free Market? Nope. Our prices are dicated by the oil industry and we have no choice, but to pay it.





Tom
 
Supply and demand? Not hardly.



Demand drops, the supplier cuts production making sure the supply does not outweigh the demand.



Supply and demand works to a point. Don't think companies like ExxonMobil does not know how to "play the game".



The drug companies know they can charge more in the USA for the same drug that is sold elsewhere for much less. Why do they do it? Because they can. Those practices increase our insurance premimums and lead to the cause of unnecessary illnesses.



For example, a drug that sells in Chine for 10 cents a pill can sell for $2.00/pill in the USA. Much of that cost is paid for by insurance companies. Those higher costs are reflected in our insurance premimum's. Lets say some poor sap has an illness that can be cured by 100 pills at $2.00/pill. That person can not afford insurance because of the high insurance premimum, therefore, he must use a different pill that may work, but doesn't work as well as the $2.00/ea medicine does. So, while that guy is taking the cheaper pill, his condition progresses to the point it can no longer be treated by a doctor. Since he has no insurance, he goes to the hospital to get further treatment. He gets treated and goes home. He couldn't afford the medicine, so there is no way he could afford the hospital bill. So, he either files bankruptcy or the hospital absorbes the cost. The hospital has to recover the losses, so they raise thier operating costs. The insurance company must again raise the premimum to increase input to pay the rising costs.



Legal price fixing is what many companies are doing. Even if it is not legal, the lawsuit would be less then the revenue is, so they di it anyways.



Why does the recording industry charge more for a CD then a cassette when a CD is cheaper to produce? Because they can.



I have no problem with a company, any company, making money. What I do have a problem with double standards for the same goods. If it can sell in Europe for 5.00/gallon, it should cost the same here. If in China it sells for 50 cents a gallon, either they also pay $5.00/gallon like I do, or I pay 50 cents a gallon like they do. If they compete for the same product, then they must compete for the same price.





Tom
 
You're right, Tom, in that there are other factors besides just supply and demand, but in a free market, supply and demand does work.



The drug companies know they can charge more in the USA for the same drug that is sold elsewhere for much less. Why do they do it? Because they can. Those practices increase our insurance premimums and lead to the cause of unnecessary illnesses.
Click to expand...



There are many other things that contribute to the cost of drugs in the U.S: Compliance with endless, numerous FDA and other federal regulations, extremely high liability and litigation costs due to ridiculous lawsuits, corporate taxes, high research and developement costs, corporate income taxes, and many other expenses that have to be passed on to the consumer to remain in business.



I have no problem with a company, any company, making money. What I do have a problem with double standards for the same goods. If it can sell in Europe for 5.00/gallon, it should cost the same here. If in China it sells for 50 cents a gallon, either they also pay $5.00/gallon like I do, or I pay 50 cents a gallon like they do. If they compete for the same product, then they must compete for the same price.
Click to expand...



It's not the same product. Endless, numerous EPA, state and local laws dictate the many types of "boutique" blends of fuel that have to be sold in differerent parts of the U.S. Where I'm from in Central Illinois, a completely different blend of gas is sold than gas sold in the Chicago area due to different fuel regulations in Chicagoland. Why do you think that you can't just go overseas and buy any car and have it shipped back here? It has to be converted to run on U.S. fuel ,so that it will comply with U.S. emissions standards. And China probably doesn't have any fuel standards or enviormental regs. From what I hear, their rapid industrialization is polluting the heck out of their enviorment. But being a Communist country, they don't care. They're just doing whatever it takes to become a global economic and military superpower.



Alsol, most European nations have more taxes and higher tax rates on fuel than here in the U.S., which affects the price of their fuel.



And if supply and demand didn't work, why do high demand car manufacturers like Toyota and Honda hardly ever offer incentives like rebates or low interest financing on their products? Heck, you hardly even have any haggling power at a Toyota or Honda dealer, because most of their cars don't sit on the lot very long at all. The Big Three on the other hand are always offering incentives to sell their products because they're not in as high of demand.



Supply and demand does work, if you understand everything that is factored into prices and look at the big picture.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are many other things that contribute to the cost of drugs in the U.S: Compliance with endless, numerous FDA and other federal regulations, extremely high liability and litigation costs due to ridiculous lawsuits, corporate taxes, high research and developement costs, corporate income taxes, and many other expenses that have to be passed on to the consumer to remain in business.
Click to expand...



I do agree with you. Then again, the Viagra sold in China, S. Africa, Peru, Mexico, etc. were all invented by the same company as the ones sold in the USA was. It was tested in the exact same labs. So, we have to eat the costs and the other countries get the research for free? Nope. We, in the USA have higher wages then those in Mexico do, therefore we can afford to pay more.



How can we compete in a global economy when we have to pay for our health coverage, pay more for medication, have to comply with federal, state, & local regulations, higher fuel costs, lack of a good public transportation system, higher wages (to afford the higher cost of living) etc?



Until the playing field is level, it is not going to happen. We are going to loose jobs to India, China, Romania, etc. They will produce the product cheaper without having to comply with government regulations. The only job we will have is driving truck to haul the goods to our other three, minimum wage jobs.





Tom
 

Latest posts

Top