Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the price of oil remains over $100 for another year, what kind of effect will that have on inflation and the overall economy?
Will this be the new norm for oil prices going forward?
non-essential consumption will trend downward and people will really be forced to conserve/sacrifice one way or another.
I suppose we'll see the usual bad behavior...people stealing gas from others (i.e. going around at night to siphon out gas from parked vehicles), etc.
Investing in a locking gas cap wouldn't be a bad idea. What is more bothersome is the cost of everything else going up as a result...the cost to fill up my vehicle is the least of my concerns.
SALT LAKE CITY — Beneath the lush, green hills of eastern Utah's Uinta Basin, where elk, bear and bison outnumber people, the soil is saturated with a sticky tar that may soon provide a new domestic source of petroleum for the United States. It would be a first-of-its kind project in the country that some fear could be a slippery slope toward widespread wilderness destruction.
With crude prices surging beyond $100 a barrel, and politicians preaching the need to reduce America's reliance on foreign supplies, companies are now looking for more local sources. One Canadian firm says it's found it in the tar sands of Utah's Book Cliffs.
Alberta-based Earth Energy Resources Inc. aims to start with a roughly 62-acre mine here to produce bitumen, a tar-like form of petroleum, from oil-soaked sands. For decades, other Utah operators have used oil sands as a poor-man's asphalt, and Canada has been wringing oil from the ground for years, but nobody has yet tried to produce petroleum from U.S. soil on such a scale.
And it could be just the beginning. The company has over 7,800 acres of Utah state land under lease, with plans to acquire more, and estimates its current holdings contain more than 250 million barrels of recoverable oil.
"This is not just a 62-acre project that will last seven years. We are looking at a 30,000-acre project that will destroy the environment in this area over many years," said John Weisheit, a Colorado River guide and founder of the Moab, Utah-based environmental group Living Rivers.
There are many factors to the oil price hikes: middle east crisis, dollar down, oil demand from developing countries, OPEC controlling...etc.
The one that american government has direct control is the devaluation of U.S. currency.
so...blame it on our government !!
I don't drive, I don't buy, I don't spend any money unless it is absolutely necessary.
And total environmental degradation to keep the addiction going right down to its ugly, predictable end.
Debate stirred over 1st major US tar sands mine
Debate stirred over 1st major US tar sands mine | AP Business Headlines | Dallas Busines... (http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/04/10/2989045/debate-stirs-over-1st-major-us.html - broken link)
There are a lot of people trying to scare everyone on the tar sands issue. There are companies who can do this without too much impact to the environment- and we need to weight the pros and cons, because we simply NEED affordable oil for the near future. Sure it sounds good for us to say that we just need to switch to alternative fuels and that's that- but those are going to take a long time to develop and mass produce- we can't afford $10 gas while that is all being developed- it would crash our entire economy. So I say let's see what we can get out of the tar sands- let's do it, hold them to as strict of environmental controls as possible in the process.
There are a lot of people trying to scare everyone on the tar sands issue. There are companies who can do this without too much impact to the environment-
What a crock. I work in the industry. I turned Krupp down for these type projects because there is no safe, clean way to do them.
Quote:
and we need to weight the pros and cons, because we simply NEED affordable oil for the near future.
Sure, like Crack addicts and Meth addicts simply NEED their fix. Real deal is we could go TOTALLY renewable electric for most Ground Transportation already, and could have been heading that way 10 to 20 years ago, but today is as good day to start as any other.
In the process we get genuinely clean energy, and it consumes about 1/4 of what is used now.
Ever notice that US corporate "pros and cons" usually look like profit and loss sheets? Privatize the profits, and dump the clean up and expenses on the rest of US. The only acknowledged con is the con-job involved, and most of US are sort of sick of it. Game Over.
Quote:
Sure it sounds good for us to say that we just need to switch to alternative fuels and that's that- but those are going to take a long time to develop and mass produce-
All the technology already exists. The swap out time is the same as automobiles are already replaced. One car at-a-time, and the whole fleet is switched out over 7 to 20 years. It is what we do already.
About 5% swap out per year, and the reduced fuel use keeps things cheap all the way down the production decline curve.
Just stop building new gasoline/diesel only vehicles. Not rocket science. Mercedes is already planning going off all Oil-only production by 2015.
Quote:
we can't afford $10 gas while that is all being developed- it would crash our entire economy.
At present the only folks marked for death by it would be:
1. Big Oil and
2. Airlines. But even airlines could switch to Butanol.
Quote:
So I say let's see what we can get out of the tar sands- let's do it, hold them to as strict of environmental controls as possible in the process.
Sure, sure. And while we are at it, let's hold TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power) to "as strict of environmental controls as possible" while they are raining down radioactive Iodine across themselves, Hawaii, and the Pacific NW.
And British Petroleum in the Gulf of Mexico, as well.
Hear, hear to "as strict of environmental controls as possible."
I really do believe people are getting stupooditor by the day.
What a crock. I work in the industry. I turned Krupp down for these type projects because there is no safe, clean way to do them.
Sure, like Crack addicts and Meth addicts simply NEED their fix. Real deal is we could go TOTALLY renewable electric for most Ground Transportation already, and could have been heading that way 10 to 20 years ago, but today is as good day to start as any other.
In the process we get genuinely clean energy, and it consumes about 1/4 of what is used now.
Ever notice that US corporate "pros and cons" usually look like profit and loss sheets? Privatize the profits, and dump the clean up and expenses on the rest of US. The only acknowledged con is the con-job involved, and most of US are sort of sick of it. Game Over.
All the technology already exists. The swap out time is the same as automobiles are already replaced. One car at-a-time, and the whole fleet is switched out over 7 to 20 years. It is what we do already.
About 5% swap out per year, and the reduced fuel use keeps things cheap all the way down the production decline curve.
Just stop building new gasoline/diesel only vehicles. Not rocket science. Mercedes is already planning going off all Oil-only production by 2015.
At present the only folks marked for death by it would be:
1. Big Oil and
2. Airlines. But even airlines could switch to Butanol.
Sure, sure. And while we are at it, let's hold TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power) to "as strict of environmental controls as possible" while they are raining down radioactive Iodine across themselves, Hawaii, and the Pacific NW.
And British Petroleum in the Gulf of Mexico, as well.
Hear, hear to "as strict of environmental controls as possible."
I really do believe people are getting stupooditor by the day.
Most of the electricity, for electric cars, is generated by burning coal.
The electric car is not nearly as 'green' as we are being told.
What a crock. I work in the industry. I turned Krupp down for these type projects because there is no safe, clean way to do them.
Sure, like Crack addicts and Meth addicts simply NEED their fix. Real deal is we could go TOTALLY renewable electric for most Ground Transportation already, and could have been heading that way 10 to 20 years ago, but today is as good day to start as any other.
In the process we get genuinely clean energy, and it consumes about 1/4 of what is used now.
Ever notice that US corporate "pros and cons" usually look like profit and loss sheets? Privatize the profits, and dump the clean up and expenses on the rest of US. The only acknowledged con is the con-job involved, and most of US are sort of sick of it. Game Over.
All the technology already exists. The swap out time is the same as automobiles are already replaced. One car at-a-time, and the whole fleet is switched out over 7 to 20 years. It is what we do already.
About 5% swap out per year, and the reduced fuel use keeps things cheap all the way down the production decline curve.
Just stop building new gasoline/diesel only vehicles. Not rocket science. Mercedes is already planning going off all Oil-only production by 2015.
At present the only folks marked for death by it would be:
1. Big Oil and
2. Airlines. But even airlines could switch to Butanol.
Sure, sure. And while we are at it, let's hold TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power) to "as strict of environmental controls as possible" while they are raining down radioactive Iodine across themselves, Hawaii, and the Pacific NW.
And British Petroleum in the Gulf of Mexico, as well.
Hear, hear to "as strict of environmental controls as possible."
I really do believe people are getting stupooditor by the day.
Look, I hate oil companies, and I hate how they have held us back from alternative fuels as much as anyone (and I certainly am not a right wing, "drill baby drill" moron, either). I guess I just look at it in the sense that oil prices are skyrocketing and demand is starting to meet worldwide output- and we need a solution like this as sort of a bridge to hold oil prices in check (even if they were to stay at their current high levels or a bit higher) until we can get these alternatives out there to everyone. You mention that the technology already exists and we could start changing cars out now at the normal 5% per year rate. What is that alternative that everyone could go to? I'm not being argumentative, I really want to know- is it electric, ethanol, or something else? Because I keep hearing experts saying we don't really have an alternative that would work for the general public yet, and they fear we are decades out from having anything that would work and could be used in mass like oil is today.
I wish we could get off of oil tomorrow and would jump at an affordable alternative if it would work for everyone-- but until that time I am being realistic in that we need to explore what oil reserves we do have here in this country.
Coal is down below 45% and dropping hard against Natural Gas and Wind.
Here are the 2009 numbers:
Coal 44.5%
Nuclear 20.2%
Natural gas 23.3%
Hydro 6.8%
Oil (Petroleum) and other 1.6%
Renewables 3.6%
You are correct that not long ago Coal was well over half, but as Gas and Renewables have been dropping in costs, the market is under-cutting Coal. At this point, Coal may be past its Peak.
Meanwhile, the Japan massive mess -- which is FAR from over -- is pretty well writing the gravestone on ALL nukes, future and present.
Hydro is maxed for locations (unless you count the limited wave locations), and Oil is few and far between, just burning waste or generators in remote locations.
Only leaves Gas and Renewables as the last ones standing. Gas has been eating up the market and Renewable -- Wind, Solar PV and Solar Thermal is coming on line as fast as the depressed market can absorb them. There are enough surplus renewable projects in waiting to absorb all that Electric Transportation can throw at it.
With Natural Gas as the preferred back-up for Renewables . . . Coal is slotted for history.
Quote:
The electric car is not nearly as 'green' as we are being told.
I am not so much into that kind of green. More the practical money green.
And compared to Oil -- for general use in the US, electric transportation would be a LOT more green [$] for most of U$.
If we were using electric ground transportation -- including Electric Trains, Trucks and Automobiles over Diesel and Gasoline --
All the money stays local, as the fuel and generation is all local. Electric motors use about 1/4 to 1/3 of the energy compared to Internal Combustion Engines, and there is very little pollution.
Oil is soooo dead.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
