what if the price of oil declines significantly?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Danny Smith on July 29, 2008 at 7:41pm

Oh we have an oil supply problem anytime you import 700 billion dollars of oil thats a problem but if we drill now supply goes up and prices go down in the mean time our renewables like algae have a chance to mature and come ito play

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dave M on July 25, 2008 at 8:35pm

It is the short sightedness of this type of idiotic thought process that created the oil economy in the first place. I have been waiting all of my life for this to happen. We have been told that we would see oil shortages in the 70's. No one did squat. Now we feel like we are in a crisis. Meanwhile, we had people driving around in their SUV's thinking it was their god given right to exose the world around their exhaust fumes. A person who thinks the price of oil will go down is completely ignorant of the fact that oil runs the world we live in. The only thing that will continue to decline is our buying power. Welcome to third world America.

Now get out there and fight for change an stop fooling yourself.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Danny Smith on July 25, 2008 at 10:12pm

Not sure what idiotic thought processes you are talking about. But as far as driving an suv or a VW Bug those are personal choices that don't need to be taken away from people. we need MORE choices not fewer, We nned to be able to choose electric vehicles we need to be able to choose different kinds of fuels like ethanol or natural gas or biodiesel or compressed air if thats what you want. Thats true freedom.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rexrino on July 27, 2008 at 10:36pm

Danny, no one is taking anybodies SUV away from them. There are acres and acres of them piling up and you can buy them pretty cheap. Go buy you a few and be a happy person. True freedom still abounds in America. All you need is to be able to afford it.

I'm sure, when the price of gas reaches 6 to 10 dollars per gallon, you will find happy drivers, putter along on the highways in their SUV's. The problem is, it will be very few people who can afford that luxury. I won't be among them because I'm in the poor 65% of the country who are not in the upper middle class or higher.


:)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Robert D. Jones on July 28, 2008 at 2:24pm

Folks,

It would seem that in the last day or so the comment/response activity on this forum has shifted from "what should we do to aleviate the dependence of this country on foreign sources (hostile to us) for 70% of a critical national resource -- to a "discussion" on the price of gasoline.

Let me suggest that, while the price per gallon is basically irrelevant to the discussion. Gasoline price is only of interest in terms of whether alternative candidates being examined as power sources (specifically related to transportation, in this case) are financially viable. My point remains that, regardless of the price of gasoline, America needs to rapidly shift from fossil fuels obtained from outside sources to renewable energy sources with fuel obtained from inside our borders. It is a matter of national security, not of cost to the consumers. This isn't the 70's where there was a shortage of gasoline -- there is plenty of gasoline -- the problem is that most of the raw material for the gasoline comes from foreign sources and they can cut us off at will.

I submit that we need to talk about more than long-term solutions. In the interim, we need to expore alternatives that may well include fossil fuels -- just not crude oil based. For example, Pickens favors Compressed Natural Gas as an alternate fuel for our automobiles, trucks, busses, etc. I know that those vehicles can run on CNG. I think that you can set the vehicle up to run on either CNG or gasoline at the turn of a selector switch -- I know that can be done using Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG). Since LPG is almost as expensive as gasoline, the incentive to make that shift is not too appealing to the average citizen -- he or she is not really too worried bout the dependency on a potential enemy for a critical resource-- just the cost of driving. However, CNG runs something like $1.50 per gallon (or so I'm told) and that makes it a reasonable alternative, assuming you can solve the infrastructure problem. A home fueling station would go a long way in that direction -- a reasonably priced home fueling station would be even better-- (reasonable price in this case refers to the affordability of the unit, not whether the maker is gouging the customer set).

So, the point is not whether you drive an SUV or an old bug -- that's your choice. The question I am posing deals with what fuel you are using and is the source of that fuel within the power of the US to control in both the near and long term.

Hopefully, we can pool knowledge to reach a set of alternatives that can be explored by small groups or even individuals who are willing to treat the activity as a scientific venture, keeping adequate records to provide repeatable results. That would allow us to compare alternatives to choose the best ones for additional development. For example, I consider CNG an potential interim solution. (The most likely (to me) long-term vehicle fuel is probably going to be hydrogen based, but that is much further away that the CNG, ethanol, or bio-diesel answer and much more expensive to explore). I am seriously looking into converting one of my vehicles to CNG and then developing the data set that would give myself and others some confidence in recommending (or not-recommending) CNG.

Solar, Wind, hydro-electric and nuclear power as alternates to coal and oil fueled generation plants is a separate, but related issue. I think that experimentation to determine what is the best long term solution in those areas, like the hydrogen engine) requires funding that is well outside the individual acting alone. You are talking major expense, even when the technology is available today. Setting up a wind-farm is not a trivial effort. Doing it quickly may well be beyond even the resources of a relatively small company, let alone any one individual.

Finally, let me remind you that there are EPA and other government agency requirements that must be met. Intuitively, I would think CNG would burn cleaner than gasoline and, therefore, a CNG fueled vehicle should have no trouble passing EPA testing. However, there may well be glitches in that process that make the CNG vehicle unable to pass the tests. If so, that criteria has to be rapidly changed to remove the potentially show-stopping roadblock.

I would appreciate it if we could all stick mostly to the point -- how to eliminate our need for foreign controlled resources -- and save the finger pointing (you drive a big-engined gas hog! That's my choice, not yours!) exchange for some other venue.

Regards,

Bob Jones
Houston, Texas

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Frank on July 29, 2008 at 10:36am

Robert, the price of gas is important because a significant number of people will never vote beyond their wallets. If telling people, "voting for this would help you in the long run," we wouldn't be in this situation now. This topic is nowhere near unrelated to the adoption of the Picken's plan. Rexrino had no problem telling me a post of mine belonged elsewhere (which I disagree with), yet he has no problem discussing this issue.

The price of gas is important because it encourages people to voice their support for alternatives. I work at a full service gas station. 1 year ago maybe 1 out of 1000 people would talk to me about energy alternatives. Today, I'd say it's about 1 out of 50. $4 per gallon gas is already paying us dividends in my opinion. Oil is not the future, and though the freedom to buy it should not be restricted, I have no problem with it becoming prohibitively expensive. As Frank Herbert said through one of his characters, humanity needs to be taught a lesson "they will remember in their bones."

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Robert D. Jones on July 29, 2008 at 12:22pm

Afternoon Frank,

The price of gasoline, to me, has relevance as stated (as one of the factors in determining the viability of alternatives -- meaning whether the "normal" citizen will go for one alternative over another).

Contrary to many people, I am dead against the Government, through direct action or through the imposition of additional taxes, artifically forcing the price of oil/gasoline above that determined by the market. To do so is just another form of hidden taxation and probably carries a considerable downside in that individual liberty (to buy or not to buy, based on real cost) is usurped by the Government. Unless you believe that Government knows what is best for all of us, you would not want the Government setting false prices (higher or lower) to manipulate society into acts that the Government determines are advantageous. If we go along with that and implement it in total, we have classic/pure Socialism. And, in many ways we would end up in a quandry as people argued the degree to which we should ascribe to that plan of action.

I prefer to deal with this as something other than an economic issue (although I realize economics certainly enters into the picture). But, IMHO, by dealing primarily with the price of gasoline we are excluding a number of people from the set of folks that really have a personal stake in the outcome. By focusing on national security, we include all of the stakeholders. I have considerable faith (still and in spite of some of the stuff I see) in the people. I believe that with real information enough people will recognize the need to act and continue to force the issue even if the price of oil plunges to "record lows".

To the extent that the pump price raised the awareness that an issue exists, I'm glad it went up. On the other hand, one of the original questions posed was, what is the floor price -- meaning what is the price at which the problem "goes away" in the minds of most folks? My focus is determine what we need to do now (while we have the people's ear, so to speak) to make some of the alternates viable, even if we pass the floor price going down.

The simple fact is that there is no real shortage of crude. There really is no serious shortage of gasoline -- haven't seen any lines at the pumps like in the 70's when gasoline couldn't be had at any price have we? So, I submit that we must deal with a situation where the resource is in reasonably good supply, just expensive and coming from a foreign source -- which makes it bad for our national security.

I am sure that the militan Muslims realize that one of the means to control a nation is to provide them resources (fighter planes, for example) and then restrict the flow of parts based on some geopolitical factor. By allowing the off-shore interests to control the fuel part of our transportation system, we are inviting them to control much more in the USA than the price of gas. The flow of capital that direction has allowed them to purchase considerable percentages of US production and banking resources. The outcome of that cycle also is a national security issue. And the problem grows exponentially and will continue to do so if we don't put a stop to it.

Bob Jones
Houston, Texas

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rexrino on July 29, 2008 at 12:34pm

I think your wrong on all counts. The price of gas, which you use as a factor has been kept artificially low for many years. Look at the price other countries are paying and use that as a factor.

The Muslim faith is the fastest and largest growing religion in the world next to Atheism. Good luck trying to stop that.

As to who actually owns the businesses in the world, that information is readily avaliable on the internet. It is not the Muslims, in fact the country with the greatest portion of new tycoons, also happens to be the country with the largest alternative energy plan in the world and they are located south of us in Brazil.

I think it's time I left this discussion.

Good luck with your efforts. I have a plan to sell to America.... Sure could use your help when you get off this personal quest of yours.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Robert D. Jones on July 29, 2008 at 4:39pm

Rexrino,

The price of oil was kept artificially low in this country for many years -- until the late seventies/early eighties, best I recall. Oil produced in the US was held by Government fiat at something around $3.30 per barrel and had been held well below the world price for decades (at that time oil was selling on the world market at about $30/bbl). When the price was allowed to float to the world level, the Government levied a "Windfall Profit Tax" on the difference which amounted to approximately 33% of the difference between the before and after prices. The US consumer got the benefit of that price control -- to the detriment of the individual oil producer. The major companies simply moved operations overseas where the return was must greater. We are paying the price for that "unintended consequence" today in a number of ways -- all adverse to the basic interests of the US, in my view.

The reason gasoline is so much cheaper in this country is primarily because we have the refining capability. Therefore, the cost to produce and transport to the consumer is much less than the cost to produce and transport the same gallon of gas to Europe. But, in any case, the fact that Germans pay more (and Iranians and Chinese pay less because their governments subsidize the cost at the pump) is interesting, but not relevant to motivating US citizens to act to aleviate our dependence on foreign crude oil.

Let me correct the impression you seem to have regarding what I am trying to accomplish. Simply stated, I am trying to move the US away from dependence on foreign, potentially hostile sources for critical resources. I am not trying to "stop Islam", although I am trying to make sure we are not subject to the dictates of militant Islam (not the same as orthodox Islam) should they become an even bigger factor in the middle-east than they are at present. BTW, you might want to check the pecentage ownership of critical US industries in terms of the shares owned by residents of Saudi Arabia, Dhubia, etc. It becomes relevant should they be influenced to be hostile to our interests. As significant owners, they could throw a considerable roadblock in the path of progress.

Sorry you are thinking of leaving. But one of your assertions is certainly correct. This is a personal quest. I believe that unless this nation decides to reduce (hopefully eliminate) our dependence on foreign sources for critical resources, the US, as we know it, will cease to exist. So, whether you are in this fight to reduce gasoline prices, make the world cleaner, stop the flood of our capital going overseas, or to help reduce the security risk to the US, we all have the same basic goal.

I will be interested in seeing your plan. Good luck.

Bob Jones
Houston, Texas

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rexrino on July 29, 2008 at 7:15pm

"...Let me correct the impression you seem to have regarding what I am trying to accomplish..."
~ Lt. Col. Jones

Impression corrected Sir.
America First.
I believe the Picken's plan is a good one sir.



We will talk further.

Permalink Reply by Dale Nelson on July 29, 2008 at 8:07pm

How do you arrive at this 'real cost' of oil? Costs are a very slippery thing when you actually begin to do the calculations.

How much of the defense budget and Iraq war costs do you include in the price? Clearly, if we were not so dependent on other countries for energy, we could spend a lot less on defense. So this must be included for the cost to be plausible.

How much of the medical care needed for conditions partially caused by oil use do you include? Smog and particulates do harm the health of many people. Where do you put that in your calculations.

In Denver at one time the smog was so thick, tourists quit coming. If you can't see the mountains, why bother with Denver. How much of the cost from lost customers should be included in the price of oil?

In short, how do you handle the externalities of oil use? The costs that are not borne by the oil companies but pushed off on others.

Permalink Reply by Phil McQuillan on July 28, 2008 at 9:57pm

Hello readers,

The Pickens Plan website would be a lot more productive if more people used the discussion Push The Plan: Cut & Paste Ideas found at http://push.pickensplan.com/forum/topic/show?id=2187034%3ATopic%3A4... (or something similar put up by National headquarters) - here's where they will be able to find a selection of Sample letters to Congressmen, sample personal Invites, etc.

Active members are encouraged to post their Sample letters here so that others have easy and user friendly access to them. Could I get some of you to post your letters on the Push The Plan: Cut & Paste Ideas discussion area? A much larger selection of ideas to choose from will benefit all of us. Please CONTRIBUTE something and I will make sure it is included in the list where it will stay always in the top section. In other words, Reply to the Discussion titled Push The Plan: Cut & Paste Ideas and I'll paste your sample letter in near the top where it will remain. Your cooperation will be a great help in "pushing" the Plan. Thank you, Phil

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last