posted
On October 20th, 2000 the Government has issued the combined forces of the US Navy, Marines, Army, and Air Force to invade all OPEC member countries and leaders. The goal of this strike is to increase the oil production back to what it was three years and have gas prices drop faster than they raised. As well as drop prices in all US Allied countries in Europe and the rest of the world.
Ok, so none of that is true. But I wish it were. No doubt the OPEC topic has been discussed. But could someone please remind why they decided to decrease oil production? Or why it's been tolerated so far?
------------------ Calvin: "Nothing spoils fun like finding out it builds character." This post sponsored in part by the Federation Starship Datalink
posted
Here's the deal. They were asked to lower production because the price of oil was unstable, AND at a price of $10 per gallon. Lowering production was to stabilize it. However, due to higher than normal consumption, as well as the US becoming dependent on foriegn import of oil, prices rose. The answer? Reduce consumption, or increase domestic production.
posted
After all, it is their oil isn't it? Unless you want to get into that socialist idea of the world's resourses belonging to everyone on the planet and not just those who got there firt.
Ahem....moving on....
Anyway Jeff you said, "Reduce consumption..." I couldn't agree more, but how do you intend to get around:
A) The �ber large oil companies who are making huge profits off of the internal combustion engine
B) Those same �ber large oil companies lobbying Congress against any sort of regulation that would threaten the status of the internal combustion engine as number 1
C) Yuppie American materialism that includes: 1) 2 huge Ford Expeditions or 1 Expidition and on Hummer per household. The sole purpose of which is to look cool while driving and getting 5 miles per gallon of �ber large oil company gas. 2) 3 cell phones, 2 pagers, a personal air conditioner, and a TV in each room of the house. These drive up use of electricity to a huge degree. Electricty in California is by in large nautral gas produced or...you guessed it Oil produced.
Flameboard...here we come!
------------------ This is a place of business, not a peewee flopphouse! ~C. Montgomery Burns
As this is a loaded political topic, apparently, I send it to that special section of paradise we've carved out for loaded political topics: The Earth's Core!
posted
Actually, the Clinton admin asked OPEC to lower production so we'd buy more oil from Russia. Thus Russia would make more money with which to pay back the poorly-advised loans said administration made to them. Basically, we're paying for Clinton's mistakes. Literally.
As for reducing consumption, demand does what it does, and you can't do much about it for a flat-out necessity. Increase supply, or come up with a viable alternative to gasoline.
------------------ "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
posted
Jay, I don't plan on doing anything to reduce consumption... Nor do I have anything to do so... Still, it is a viable answer, unlikely as it is to happen.
posted
So, forget consumption reduction or alternatives to oil...just make those OPEC people lower their dern prices!! Or get the Ruskies to pump more out!! Or make someone else pump more! Just so I don't have to pay more!
I think I saw the mountains in LA a couple of days ago. Anyone here living in Houston can understand the immediate necessity of American and world wide reduction of dependence on oil and the creation and futher development of alternative fuels.
But no, we can keep knuckling under to the �ber large oil companies who help keep my skys brown instead of blue.
That's mighty shortsighted of y'all.
------------------ Get going! And answer those phones, install the computer system, and rotate my office so the window faces the hills. ~C. Montgomery Burns
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited October 17, 2000).]
posted
Gawd Jay, you think Oil Companies WANT to pollute? You know how expensive it is to pay fines and do cleanup? Pollution is NOT in the Oil companies best interest.
quote: Gawd Jay, you think Oil Companies WANT to pollute? You know how expensive it is to pay fines and do cleanup? Pollution is NOT in the Oil companies best interest.
Actually, Oil companies, along with Coal companies don't give a rats ass about pollution. Paying fines, in the rare instances that they are forced to, is cheaper then putting control devices in place. I work in the regulatory part of the state, and the mines get by like crazy. Oil does as well, unless it's something on the scale of the Exxon spill.
posted
You know, I'm thinking that if the oil prices raised their prices ...
People might find ways to get the power we need WITHOUT using gasoline. Then we could tell the oil companies to go to hell.
And we'd have a blue sky.
If the prices went down, everybody would have all they need and more. With prices up, how many people with four-by-fours go on a leisurely Sunday drive? Come on. Lowering costs would - yes, it would - get more people on the road more often.
------------------ Jeff's Webcam *** From the dawn of toys we came, living secretly among your cherished treasures, moving through the toy chests, until the time of the Gathering, when those who remain will battle for the prize. In the end, there can be only one ... LEGOLANDER! *** Gore/Lieberman 2000
posted
No, they wouldn't. This summer prooved that. Highest gas prices in QUITE a while, and yet there was more summer driving than there'd been for some time, too. The price increase didn't reduce consumption.
As I said, sure, come up with a better alternative, and I'll be the first to buy one, but until you have one, there is NO reason for trying to increase prices.
------------------ "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
posted
Of course, if it were $1,000,000 a gallon, there'd be less driving. And richer gas pumpers.
------------------ "...Well, we're about to witness All-in Wrestling, brought to you tonight, ladies and gentlemen, by the makers of Scum�, the world's first combined hair oil, foot ointment, and salad dressing; and by the makers of Titan�, the novelty nuclear missile. You never know when it'll go off!" - Monty Python, Live at the Hollywood Bowl. *ahem*
posted
No, there'd just be riots. Like in Brittan. Of course, exactly who the riots would be against is the question. That would be determined by who was making the "obscene profits", to coin a phrase, since it doesn't cost all that much to actually produce the stuff (unless you tack on pointless regs, of course). In the case of England, it's the government. They're the ones taxing the heck out of the product. And they didn't even do a thing to produce the stuff, so it's even less fair that they make money off of it.
------------------ "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
posted
Here's another stupid question; wasn't there a huge amount of oil discovered in Alaska? If so, why aren't we (as in America) using it? At least a limited amount to increase the overall production and lower the gas prices.
It's actually gotten pretty bad, cause as for that "consume less" idea the state of Florida has done that. They've limited the use of highway patrol,(state troopers or something), in order to conserve gas. I don't know if anyone sees the problem in that.
------------------ Calvin: "Nothing spoils fun like finding out it builds character." This post sponsored in part by the Federation Starship Datalink
Printer-friendly view of this topic
