....How about some of those crummy little and wierd 3-wheelers I saw in England some years ago...Just what we need.
Quentin
....If anyone thinks raising the CAFE standard for future autos will be an intelligent change....I'd wager a guess it's not.
More expensive vehicles....and expenses connected with that industry on down the line will add all kinds of costs.
Plus, the drivability will go out the window compared to now.
In my opinion, we have a decent CAFE standard right now, required to attain decent milage. Leave it alone....!
The mandatory mileage requirement is a joke. I recall I think.. 28 miles to the gallon was mandatory and everyone did build cars just enough to get the 28 mpg in some cases.
Not very many were making the effort to get up into the 40's and 50's The ones that did were so small and lightly built that I consider them death traps. There are a few around where I work and I hate having to move these little things; it's a hazard just getting into these beat up, broken down and wore out vehicles pouring oil all over the engine compartment.
Makes me consider Moller Skycars instead.
Brian (IA) http://blhanel.rrpicturearchives.net.
From the WSJ:
"World oil demand is rising twice as fast as a year ago, straining the petroleum industry's ability to keep up with global needs and likely resulting in higher and more-volatile prices for some time to come.
"I wouldn't be surprised to see prices at new highs" this year, said Roger Diwan, an analyst at PFC Energy, a Washington industry-consulting group. "It just needs a trigger to go to $79 a barrel." The trigger could be anything that threatens to reduce the flow of oil, he said, from a Gulf of Mexico hurricane to turmoil in the Middle East to an industrial accident at producing or refining facilities."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118244896550143693.html?mod=home_whats_news_us
Dave
To paraphrase an old joke (and somebody's tag line)
"The TAXES will continue until morale improves."
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
....We're paying lots of taxes right now for expenses many don't agree with....It will continue to happen too.
Modelcar wrote: ...."Big Oil" doesn't need any new excuses to spank the public.Just saw in print and electronic media our supplies are up much more than anticipated and today we got another gasoline price hike.
...."Big Oil" doesn't need any new excuses to spank the public.
Just saw in print and electronic media our supplies are up much more than anticipated and today we got another gasoline price hike.
When I refer to the consumer getting spanked, the spanking will be administered by the government, not by Big Oil. The government will levy new taxes on Big Oil for the stated purpose of using the money to find alternative fuel. This will make the public feel good because they think that the government is punishing Big Oil. Of course Big Oil will simply pass the tax on to the consumer. Wouldn't you do the same if you were Big Oil?
Do you want to pay more taxes so the government can solve this energy problem?
AntonioFP45 wrote: I'm glad that my vehicles are Toyotas with 4 bangers. I'm amazed at how my "middle income" co-workers with huge SUVs pay $100+ to fill up their tanks 2 to 3 times a month. Yipes! That's a nasty chunk of a paycheck.
I'm glad that my vehicles are Toyotas with 4 bangers.
I'm amazed at how my "middle income" co-workers with huge SUVs pay $100+ to fill up their tanks 2 to 3 times a month. Yipes! That's a nasty chunk of a paycheck.
Hahaha! I know knuckleheads who have those same huge SUVs and are paying to fill it 2 or 3 times a WEEK! These are the same guys who used to go out to nice lunchs, but are now brownbagging PBJs. Sapheads!
PS: Scion xB, 35mpg.
Have fun with your trains
I'll keep my headlights on, thank you very much. Being seen is much more important than any 6%. Nothing worse than morons driving at dusk, in the rain/fog, or in the shadows without headlights. I wish I caould go 55mph... but on the interstates around here, you'd be risking getting your back end shortened real quick!
zardoz wrote: An average vehicle gets about 20% better mileage at 55mph than it does at 75mph: http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/consumer_tips/speeding_and_mpg.htmlDriving with headlights on reduces mileage by 6%: http://mb-soft.com/public/headlite.html
An average vehicle gets about 20% better mileage at 55mph than it does at 75mph: http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/consumer_tips/speeding_and_mpg.html
Driving with headlights on reduces mileage by 6%: http://mb-soft.com/public/headlite.html
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
......Have one automobile and one pickup truck. Truck is 4.3L and the car is 3.0L....Personally, considering all the gasoline and it's pricing now, I believe a good happy medium engine size is right around 3.0L...Preference: 60 degree V-6 for power, smoothness and fuel economy. Little truck has torque to burn and it's driven locally only and is kinda my toy.
Who me? I owned 5 total last year. Two suffered motor casulties in excess of 200,000 miles and were sold off to the junkyard. One was sold off to a family that had no car for a dollar, they since rebuilt it and it continues to serve them well and the two I have left, one is a new model and the other has an excess of 230,000 on it and showing signs of fatal transmission problems that will probably result in it being sold to the junkyard. We plan on replacing that one with a Hybrid.
The best car I owned had a 1.5 4 cylinder, 5 speed and gave me 45 miles to the gallon in the summer and 38 in the winter. That car had a 12 gallon tank, good for 400 miles on 15 dollars gas (1.10 at the time) and could and did run with the BMW's on the beltway commute.
In fact, when you got to within 9 miles of actually running the gas tank dry it would hesitate at left hand turns as the fuel spilled to teh opposite side of the tank away from the feed line and pump.
The Hybrid that replaces the one going to the junkyard when it fails is going to be expected to get at least 45 miles to gallon if not over 50. All of my cars survive because they go to the shop every 3000 miles without exception. Many trucks I ran ranged from 100 miles to 1.7 million on the odometer on the orginal engine build and netted me anywhere from 4.5 to 8.7 mpg in certain areas on the interstate. I was usually in a new truck every year when we hit 110-250 thousand on teh old one and it starts to accumulate shop time for little stuff costing us on-time delivery.
When you are up in the Bitterroot or crossing the Cabbage in bad winter, that is not the time to be tolerant of equiptment problems or less than 100% design performance.
Those numbers are 50 years out of date.
Let's talk 85 mph driving, use of very big vehicles to intimidate others out of the left lane and continued use of 40-60 year old roads and bridges that are obselete despite volumes of traffic that the orginal builders never fantasy about in thier wildest dreams.
Let's also talk about these same workers buying gasoline or desiel at a breakneck rate as if it was .01 cents a gallon using whatever they can to get the tank filled NOW, worrying about paying later if ever.
I dont look at efficient speed, I look at hourly consumption of fuel against gallons remaining and the terrain that needs to be crossed. I could probably drift down a mountain grade on hardly any fuel. But easily burn 20 gallons each hour upgrade.
Interesting in that in all of the talk of conservation that we hear, nowhere is it suggested or even implied that a quick, easy, and SAFE way to drastically cut oil consumption is to slow down.
Formula for determining a car's most efficient speed: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm
....Yep, there are lots of opinions of what we should be doing or try to do to improve our energy situation.
That's why I think it's vital our government and priviate industry and any other appropiate leaders need to structure a vast quick time study and massive discussion, which way our country should concentrate our effort in how to solve or alleviate our energy situation
I mean a massive serious group and study...{not photo opps}, to really point us in a meaningful direction. Not smoke and mirrors either....Real meaningful action. Then if a consensus can be arrived at....get to work on solving the problem....!!
oltmannd wrote: Safety Valve wrote: oltmannd wrote: Safety Valve wrote: Bucyrus wrote:Anybody that is selling a supply of something is going to limit that supply if he can get a higher price and make more money overall, even though he is selling less quantity. If OPEC decided to double the price of oil, they might end up making less money overall than they are now because the higher price would reduce demand. From our perspective, it may seem like OPEC has a gun to our heads, but you have to look at it from their perspective. Nothing could be worse for them than to have all that oil and nobody wanting to buy it. There is no conspiracy, just the beauty of supply and demand.Which it is our duty as a Nation to unify and produce domestic vehicles running on fuels we control. Not Middle east, opec or anyone. If that means getting rid of gasoline and Desiel. So be it.Nothing will please me more than to see Iran, Saudi and all the rest sit in the sands on top of fuel that the USA wont need or use.If enough of USA, Europe gets off the oil imports OPEC will survey the oil wells and see them sitting still and not pumping very much if at all. THEN the supply will be overflowing and the costs will drop to 10 dollars a barrel. That is the very thing OPEC does not want.It's too bad because we have the Gulf, deep sea drilling, ANWAR etc.. but no one is sufficient backbone to stand up and actually make it happen.I'm a bit confused. Are you advocating energy independence on a permanent basis or temporary basis?We import (net) about half of the oil we consume. That's a big target. Even if we drilled holes all over America, we'd never come close to making up the 1/2 we're now importing. ANWAR is a drop in the bucket. And, the cost to find and develop new sources or petroleum in the US would be greater than that for the foreign, imported oil.Conservation will only get you so far. You can do all sorts of things to encourage conservation like high taxes on energy, higer CAFE stds. for cars, etc. But these will really hammer the economy and only make a dent in consumption.You could tax/subsidize alternate sources of energy. You can do coal liqification, oil shale, ethanol, etc., but these sources are expensive to develop and get into production and require a long term commitment in order to be a profitable venture. That probably means some sort of gov't price support if you want to get them going right now.Now, suppose we do all that stuff and decide to live with $5 or $6/gallon cost equivalent for transportation fuels and 50% higher utility bills, plus much higher prices for food and goods (fertilizer and plasitcs) and the recession they will cause. I think you're right, that world oil prices would tumble. So, the rest of the world - China, India, etc. get $25/bbl oil while we're paying $100 for equivalent energy. How do you think that would sit politically and economically? I don't think you can gear up for energy independence as an "object lesson" for OPEC. It's a long term, high cost commitment.Why not do this instead: Hold domestic supplies in reserve and use as much foreign oil while it is relatively cheap. Tax consumption in order to get conservation efforts off the ground and use the tax revenue to support longer-term, large alternative energy projects where private investment is currently lacking because of risk. When oil becomes expensive enough, a lot of alternatives - consevation methods and energy sources - become viable. The trouble is that some of them are very capital intensive, are not "production hardened" and have long build-out lead times. They require sustained high oil prices to attact private investment and development. I think the proper roll of gov't is to smooth the way for these things to help reduce shocks to the economy and heartache for the citizens. Im not just talking freedom, Im talking a total National refusal to market and use Oil to move our people from point A to point B. We should have enough oil to make our own medicines, plastics etc until new forms can be researched in the labs just like they did with tires in world war two to stop depending on pure Rubber Trees that were under Japenese Control.Yes, my idea which I advocate is a total stoppage of Gasoline as a motor fuel. We will have to build cars for everyone that runs on hybrid desiel or some other form like rechargeable electric. We will have to get serious about TGV type technology between Cities. We will have to use light rail, trolleys and monorails in our cities. We will have to build these into suburbs to about 30-40 miles radius. We will want a person to walk or bike to the station and get to work easily wherever that is WITHOUT need of a car.If they need a car, they will have one with sufficent range to travel 150 miles or a bit more on one fill of electricity or something something...Airports will have to continue to use JetFuel until they find something else.We would need a total national commitment on all levels and a sum of money worthy of the old Railroad Tycoon that once dreamed of a rail connection sea to sea.Imagine a United States and Europe that does not need mideast oil for a moment.You can make gasoline and diesel and jet fuel out of coal or natural gas or oil shale. It just costs more, maybe a lot more. Recharging cars off the grid is extremely energy inefficient. What you suggest will put the US at a considerable disadvantage with the rest of the world economically.
Safety Valve wrote: oltmannd wrote: Safety Valve wrote: Bucyrus wrote:Anybody that is selling a supply of something is going to limit that supply if he can get a higher price and make more money overall, even though he is selling less quantity. If OPEC decided to double the price of oil, they might end up making less money overall than they are now because the higher price would reduce demand. From our perspective, it may seem like OPEC has a gun to our heads, but you have to look at it from their perspective. Nothing could be worse for them than to have all that oil and nobody wanting to buy it. There is no conspiracy, just the beauty of supply and demand.Which it is our duty as a Nation to unify and produce domestic vehicles running on fuels we control. Not Middle east, opec or anyone. If that means getting rid of gasoline and Desiel. So be it.Nothing will please me more than to see Iran, Saudi and all the rest sit in the sands on top of fuel that the USA wont need or use.If enough of USA, Europe gets off the oil imports OPEC will survey the oil wells and see them sitting still and not pumping very much if at all. THEN the supply will be overflowing and the costs will drop to 10 dollars a barrel. That is the very thing OPEC does not want.It's too bad because we have the Gulf, deep sea drilling, ANWAR etc.. but no one is sufficient backbone to stand up and actually make it happen.I'm a bit confused. Are you advocating energy independence on a permanent basis or temporary basis?We import (net) about half of the oil we consume. That's a big target. Even if we drilled holes all over America, we'd never come close to making up the 1/2 we're now importing. ANWAR is a drop in the bucket. And, the cost to find and develop new sources or petroleum in the US would be greater than that for the foreign, imported oil.Conservation will only get you so far. You can do all sorts of things to encourage conservation like high taxes on energy, higer CAFE stds. for cars, etc. But these will really hammer the economy and only make a dent in consumption.You could tax/subsidize alternate sources of energy. You can do coal liqification, oil shale, ethanol, etc., but these sources are expensive to develop and get into production and require a long term commitment in order to be a profitable venture. That probably means some sort of gov't price support if you want to get them going right now.Now, suppose we do all that stuff and decide to live with $5 or $6/gallon cost equivalent for transportation fuels and 50% higher utility bills, plus much higher prices for food and goods (fertilizer and plasitcs) and the recession they will cause. I think you're right, that world oil prices would tumble. So, the rest of the world - China, India, etc. get $25/bbl oil while we're paying $100 for equivalent energy. How do you think that would sit politically and economically? I don't think you can gear up for energy independence as an "object lesson" for OPEC. It's a long term, high cost commitment.Why not do this instead: Hold domestic supplies in reserve and use as much foreign oil while it is relatively cheap. Tax consumption in order to get conservation efforts off the ground and use the tax revenue to support longer-term, large alternative energy projects where private investment is currently lacking because of risk. When oil becomes expensive enough, a lot of alternatives - consevation methods and energy sources - become viable. The trouble is that some of them are very capital intensive, are not "production hardened" and have long build-out lead times. They require sustained high oil prices to attact private investment and development. I think the proper roll of gov't is to smooth the way for these things to help reduce shocks to the economy and heartache for the citizens. Im not just talking freedom, Im talking a total National refusal to market and use Oil to move our people from point A to point B. We should have enough oil to make our own medicines, plastics etc until new forms can be researched in the labs just like they did with tires in world war two to stop depending on pure Rubber Trees that were under Japenese Control.Yes, my idea which I advocate is a total stoppage of Gasoline as a motor fuel. We will have to build cars for everyone that runs on hybrid desiel or some other form like rechargeable electric. We will have to get serious about TGV type technology between Cities. We will have to use light rail, trolleys and monorails in our cities. We will have to build these into suburbs to about 30-40 miles radius. We will want a person to walk or bike to the station and get to work easily wherever that is WITHOUT need of a car.If they need a car, they will have one with sufficent range to travel 150 miles or a bit more on one fill of electricity or something something...Airports will have to continue to use JetFuel until they find something else.We would need a total national commitment on all levels and a sum of money worthy of the old Railroad Tycoon that once dreamed of a rail connection sea to sea.Imagine a United States and Europe that does not need mideast oil for a moment.
oltmannd wrote: Safety Valve wrote: Bucyrus wrote:Anybody that is selling a supply of something is going to limit that supply if he can get a higher price and make more money overall, even though he is selling less quantity. If OPEC decided to double the price of oil, they might end up making less money overall than they are now because the higher price would reduce demand. From our perspective, it may seem like OPEC has a gun to our heads, but you have to look at it from their perspective. Nothing could be worse for them than to have all that oil and nobody wanting to buy it. There is no conspiracy, just the beauty of supply and demand.Which it is our duty as a Nation to unify and produce domestic vehicles running on fuels we control. Not Middle east, opec or anyone. If that means getting rid of gasoline and Desiel. So be it.Nothing will please me more than to see Iran, Saudi and all the rest sit in the sands on top of fuel that the USA wont need or use.If enough of USA, Europe gets off the oil imports OPEC will survey the oil wells and see them sitting still and not pumping very much if at all. THEN the supply will be overflowing and the costs will drop to 10 dollars a barrel. That is the very thing OPEC does not want.It's too bad because we have the Gulf, deep sea drilling, ANWAR etc.. but no one is sufficient backbone to stand up and actually make it happen.I'm a bit confused. Are you advocating energy independence on a permanent basis or temporary basis?We import (net) about half of the oil we consume. That's a big target. Even if we drilled holes all over America, we'd never come close to making up the 1/2 we're now importing. ANWAR is a drop in the bucket. And, the cost to find and develop new sources or petroleum in the US would be greater than that for the foreign, imported oil.Conservation will only get you so far. You can do all sorts of things to encourage conservation like high taxes on energy, higer CAFE stds. for cars, etc. But these will really hammer the economy and only make a dent in consumption.You could tax/subsidize alternate sources of energy. You can do coal liqification, oil shale, ethanol, etc., but these sources are expensive to develop and get into production and require a long term commitment in order to be a profitable venture. That probably means some sort of gov't price support if you want to get them going right now.Now, suppose we do all that stuff and decide to live with $5 or $6/gallon cost equivalent for transportation fuels and 50% higher utility bills, plus much higher prices for food and goods (fertilizer and plasitcs) and the recession they will cause. I think you're right, that world oil prices would tumble. So, the rest of the world - China, India, etc. get $25/bbl oil while we're paying $100 for equivalent energy. How do you think that would sit politically and economically? I don't think you can gear up for energy independence as an "object lesson" for OPEC. It's a long term, high cost commitment.Why not do this instead: Hold domestic supplies in reserve and use as much foreign oil while it is relatively cheap. Tax consumption in order to get conservation efforts off the ground and use the tax revenue to support longer-term, large alternative energy projects where private investment is currently lacking because of risk. When oil becomes expensive enough, a lot of alternatives - consevation methods and energy sources - become viable. The trouble is that some of them are very capital intensive, are not "production hardened" and have long build-out lead times. They require sustained high oil prices to attact private investment and development. I think the proper roll of gov't is to smooth the way for these things to help reduce shocks to the economy and heartache for the citizens.
Safety Valve wrote: Bucyrus wrote:Anybody that is selling a supply of something is going to limit that supply if he can get a higher price and make more money overall, even though he is selling less quantity. If OPEC decided to double the price of oil, they might end up making less money overall than they are now because the higher price would reduce demand. From our perspective, it may seem like OPEC has a gun to our heads, but you have to look at it from their perspective. Nothing could be worse for them than to have all that oil and nobody wanting to buy it. There is no conspiracy, just the beauty of supply and demand.Which it is our duty as a Nation to unify and produce domestic vehicles running on fuels we control. Not Middle east, opec or anyone. If that means getting rid of gasoline and Desiel. So be it.Nothing will please me more than to see Iran, Saudi and all the rest sit in the sands on top of fuel that the USA wont need or use.If enough of USA, Europe gets off the oil imports OPEC will survey the oil wells and see them sitting still and not pumping very much if at all. THEN the supply will be overflowing and the costs will drop to 10 dollars a barrel. That is the very thing OPEC does not want.It's too bad because we have the Gulf, deep sea drilling, ANWAR etc.. but no one is sufficient backbone to stand up and actually make it happen.
Bucyrus wrote:Anybody that is selling a supply of something is going to limit that supply if he can get a higher price and make more money overall, even though he is selling less quantity. If OPEC decided to double the price of oil, they might end up making less money overall than they are now because the higher price would reduce demand. From our perspective, it may seem like OPEC has a gun to our heads, but you have to look at it from their perspective. Nothing could be worse for them than to have all that oil and nobody wanting to buy it. There is no conspiracy, just the beauty of supply and demand.
Which it is our duty as a Nation to unify and produce domestic vehicles running on fuels we control. Not Middle east, opec or anyone. If that means getting rid of gasoline and Desiel. So be it.
Nothing will please me more than to see Iran, Saudi and all the rest sit in the sands on top of fuel that the USA wont need or use.
If enough of USA, Europe gets off the oil imports OPEC will survey the oil wells and see them sitting still and not pumping very much if at all. THEN the supply will be overflowing and the costs will drop to 10 dollars a barrel. That is the very thing OPEC does not want.
It's too bad because we have the Gulf, deep sea drilling, ANWAR etc.. but no one is sufficient backbone to stand up and actually make it happen.
I'm a bit confused. Are you advocating energy independence on a permanent basis or temporary basis?
We import (net) about half of the oil we consume. That's a big target.
Even if we drilled holes all over America, we'd never come close to making up the 1/2 we're now importing. ANWAR is a drop in the bucket. And, the cost to find and develop new sources or petroleum in the US would be greater than that for the foreign, imported oil.
Conservation will only get you so far. You can do all sorts of things to encourage conservation like high taxes on energy, higer CAFE stds. for cars, etc. But these will really hammer the economy and only make a dent in consumption.
You could tax/subsidize alternate sources of energy. You can do coal liqification, oil shale, ethanol, etc., but these sources are expensive to develop and get into production and require a long term commitment in order to be a profitable venture. That probably means some sort of gov't price support if you want to get them going right now.
Now, suppose we do all that stuff and decide to live with $5 or $6/gallon cost equivalent for transportation fuels and 50% higher utility bills, plus much higher prices for food and goods (fertilizer and plasitcs) and the recession they will cause. I think you're right, that world oil prices would tumble. So, the rest of the world - China, India, etc. get $25/bbl oil while we're paying $100 for equivalent energy. How do you think that would sit politically and economically? I don't think you can gear up for energy independence as an "object lesson" for OPEC. It's a long term, high cost commitment.
Why not do this instead: Hold domestic supplies in reserve and use as much foreign oil while it is relatively cheap. Tax consumption in order to get conservation efforts off the ground and use the tax revenue to support longer-term, large alternative energy projects where private investment is currently lacking because of risk. When oil becomes expensive enough, a lot of alternatives - consevation methods and energy sources - become viable. The trouble is that some of them are very capital intensive, are not "production hardened" and have long build-out lead times. They require sustained high oil prices to attact private investment and development. I think the proper roll of gov't is to smooth the way for these things to help reduce shocks to the economy and heartache for the citizens.
Im not just talking freedom, Im talking a total National refusal to market and use Oil to move our people from point A to point B. We should have enough oil to make our own medicines, plastics etc until new forms can be researched in the labs just like they did with tires in world war two to stop depending on pure Rubber Trees that were under Japenese Control.
Yes, my idea which I advocate is a total stoppage of Gasoline as a motor fuel. We will have to build cars for everyone that runs on hybrid desiel or some other form like rechargeable electric. We will have to get serious about TGV type technology between Cities. We will have to use light rail, trolleys and monorails in our cities. We will have to build these into suburbs to about 30-40 miles radius. We will want a person to walk or bike to the station and get to work easily wherever that is WITHOUT need of a car.
If they need a car, they will have one with sufficent range to travel 150 miles or a bit more on one fill of electricity or something something...
Airports will have to continue to use JetFuel until they find something else.
We would need a total national commitment on all levels and a sum of money worthy of the old Railroad Tycoon that once dreamed of a rail connection sea to sea.
Imagine a United States and Europe that does not need mideast oil for a moment.
You can make gasoline and diesel and jet fuel out of coal or natural gas or oil shale. It just costs more, maybe a lot more. Recharging cars off the grid is extremely energy inefficient. What you suggest will put the US at a considerable disadvantage with the rest of the world economically.
We are already at a disadvantage economically. All of our good employment has been sent overseas, our working poor crushed in wages so low they cannot live properly and our prices continue to increase while our towns become a sea of service McJobs like Gas and Conveince.
China and other Nations continue to flex thier muscles and demand more and more of the energy availible from the world They have already passed the point where the USA was post ww2 and getting much more greedy for the energy with each passing year.
What happens if that Model engine produced overseas for 20 dollars/hour Union wages and becomes 800-1000 dollars US retail dollars? Instead of the old .10/hour factory worker content to live on a bed of straw with a bit of wood to heat his or her hovel.
We are already at a disadvantage. And it will con
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Just to be clear, if clarification is needed: I am not advocating more taxes for the purpose of encouraging conservation. If anything is capable of making a problem worse, it is any of the possible roles of government. I am also not advocating so-called energy independence. I believe that this concept appeals to those who do not understand supply and demand. The implication is that is somebody like OPEC holds all the oil, then we have to dance to their tune and pay what they demand. But OPEC needs us as much as we need them in this seller/buyer equation.
Certainly, if we could produce our own oil cheaper than getting it from OPEC, we should. Even if we produced oil at the same cost of OPEC oil, it would add to the overall supply, and drive OPEC's price down. The world oil price is based on supply and expectations of supply. If our congress, today, announced approval of drilling in ANWR for instance, the world price would drop today, before the first drill bites the ground.
.....What ever might be an answer, we haven't started to work with it yet. I'd like serious study on the subject, really serious....! We won't solve the problem waddling along as we are now, and paying high buck every day for our daily routine of operation.
It's time to get serious.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.