Topics Topics Help/Instructions Help Edit Profile Profile Member List Register  
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Visit The Brewery's sponsor!
Brews & Views Bulletin Board Service * World Expressions * Conserving Gas will cost you. < Previous Next >

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
 

Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid

Post Number: 587
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 04:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The politicians are now talking about raising the Federal Gas Tax. The reason? Folks are conserving so much gas that the taxes they collect for the Highway Trust Fund has gone down way too much and is headed to a negative balance. To keep this from happening, they are talking about raising gas taxes.

Boy are these people idiots and we are morons for re-electing them.
 

Connie
Senior Member
Username: Connie

Post Number: 1241
Registered: 10-2000
Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 06:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

and here in Georgia they are raising water/sewer rates because we are conserving water to well and the water department isn't making enough money to blow it out their a$$ like ther're used to.
 

Keith M Williams
Member
Username: Grok

Post Number: 225
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 07:53 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Letís see if they are "smart enough" to make it a percentage of the whole sale price? Then, when the price falls, they loose money again.

Now, if they'd open up for more drilling on Fed lands, they would receive 1/2 of the price per barrel pumped.



Still looking for those magic "Egg Corns." Keep sending in those carbon credit dollars.
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 6850
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 08:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

What about the 42 million acres that oil companies hold leases on but aren't drilling? Shouldn't that be used before we open up new areas?
 

Chumley
Senior Member
Username: Chumley

Post Number: 5511
Registered: 02-2003
Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 09:08 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Oil companies spent 5 times more on buying up their own stock rather than on exploration. The whole "we have an energy crisis because we can't drill anywhere" is a crock o' crap. All drilling rigs available are in production, and we can't build new ones fast enough.

Now, what this country needs are new refineries.
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 1605
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 10:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Denny you sound just like the government when they told the Apache and Navajo to farm their land.
 

Keith M Williams
Member
Username: Grok

Post Number: 226
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 03:46 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I own all the mineral rights to my land. I guess I should drop an oil well and get rich. I mean, I must have oil, because I own the rights.

I must have gold and silver too. Man, I'm moving to Beverly.

(Message edited by grok on July 24, 2008)
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 6851
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 08:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Please explain, Bob...it was an honest question that I'd really like to know the answer to.
 

Keith M Williams
Member
Username: Grok

Post Number: 227
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Friday, July 25, 2008 - 08:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Denny, we both explained it.

Just because they have a lease, does not mean there is oil to be had. They received the lease, they explored and found nothing or oil that can not be recovered.
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 6854
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 04:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Thanks, Keith. I'm going to look into this some more.
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 1606
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 10:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Denny,

If the oil companies could make a profit from those fields, don't you think they'd be on 'em like a rat on a Cheeto?
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 5719
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Sunday, July 27, 2008 - 05:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

a major variable in the decision as to where to drill is the expected price of oil. The pre- Iraq $28 barrel is one thing, the current $100+ is another.
 

Keith M Williams
Member
Username: Grok

Post Number: 228
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Monday, July 28, 2008 - 09:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dan is correct. (Did I just say that?)

That's why the oil companies are looking at oil shale, oil sand, and coal to gas. The current price makes those projects profitable.
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 6857
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 03:50 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I've been researching the unused oil leases, but all I can find on either side is completely partisan. I have yet to read an objective assessment of the situation. No wonder this country's so screwed up....people are more concerned about their side "winning" than they are about the truth.
 

David Lewinnek
Intermediate Member
Username: Davelew

Post Number: 468
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 12:37 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"If the oil companies could make a profit from those fields, don't you think they'd be on 'em like a rat on a Cheeto?"

Bob, it depends. If by not developing those fields they get access to even more fields, isn't the rational decision to game the government and make even higher profits in the future?

If there were a carrying tax on oil fields, then there would be incentive for oil companies with low technology to sell non-performing fields to companies with higer technology and the ability to exploit those fields. With no carrying costs for oil rights, there is no incentive to allocate oil fields to the most efficient oil company.
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 1609
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 01:21 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

David, that is a terrible idea. A carrying tax on oil fields would just drive the cost of oil up even more. The carrying costs would be passed on to the consumer. When will you liberals get it through your heads that when you tax the "evil" "rich" corporations, they don't actually PAY those taxes?

...their CUSTOMERS do, and in this case it would be everyone who buys gas in America.

We need to loosen the stranglehold the environmentalist whackos have placed on our energy independence. They are the ones limiting our options and preventing progress in this area. The NIMBY mentality must also be dealt with head-on. Uncle Teddy is some day going to look out his window and see a wind farm in his precious Nantucket Sound. (assuming he lives that long)
 

David Lewinnek
Intermediate Member
Username: Davelew

Post Number: 469
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 12:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bob, when will you neocons learn that lower taxes aren't the cure to all the world's ills?

Right now we tax every barrel of oil that is produced. If we lowered taxes on oil that is produced, and added carrying costs on unused oil fields, we could stay revenue-neutral AND encourage the market to do the efficient thing. The idea of a carrying cost tax would only pass taxes onto the consumers if oil companies didn't develop the fields quickly. The faster the oil companies brought the oil to market, the lower their carrying costs would be. I'm suggesting that we remove the perverse incentive that oil companies have to sit on their oil fields.

A well-regulated market is the most efficient resource allocation system ever devised. A poorly regulated market results in Enron and sub-prime mortgage bailouts. I'm just suggesting that we add intelligent regulations to the oil business, move taxes and user fees around to where they do the most good, and encourage the most efficient behavior.
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 6858
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 04:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

What about the simple solution we used in the 70s...reduce the speed limit? Not only did it save huge amounts of oil, it also lowered highway death numbers. And it's pretty painless.
 

Keith M Williams
Member
Username: Grok

Post Number: 230
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 08:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

It only saves gas for large V8 land yachts of the 70's with 3 speed automatic transmissions. Different cars get peak MPG at different speeds based on the cars power train and aerodynamics. My Passat TDI peaks at 60 mph. This has been verified by a scan gauge plugged into the cars diagnostic port. Some cars peak at 70. We need to find a new "sweet spot" to set the speed limit. I'm willing to bet it's 65.

Oh, and in some metro areas, 55 will get you killed. The slow lane is 70 even though the posted speed limit is 55.

(Message edited by grok on July 30, 2008)
 

Vance Barnes
Senior Member
Username: Vancebarnes

Post Number: 3318
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Monday, August 04, 2008 - 05:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Oh, and in some metro areas, 55 will get you killed. The slow lane is 70 even though the posted speed limit is 55."

We have a new NASCAR track in ATL. It's called I285.

There is a tract adjacent to ANWAR that is open to drilling and has been for years. They have not even explored there yet. They prefer to send all our $ to the middle east and to Chavez because they can make more $ that way with less risk.

So they haven't been on the cheeto they already have even though it's right next door to ANWAR and estimated to have almost as much oil.

Some of the gulf tracts have until recently not been in the profitable range due to depths. As Dan pointed out that's a different story now with the price of crude over $100 a barrel.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: