Who is to blame for high gas prices?

"Let's not reduce consumption - let's increase production while the rest of the world increases its consumption at the same time we increase consumption.What do you mean I've got to pay more now that everyone wants more oil!?"

I remember the film Fight Club -- "I am Jack's utter lack of surprise."

Oil is not getting markedly cheaper -- it'll only get more scarce and more in demand until a truly viable alternative energy source supplants it.

Question for the other poster -- what do you think will happen to our coal fired electric power costs if we start co-opting coal to make into synthetic oil?

For $55 barrel reference see hyperlink below:

http://governor.mt.gov/hottopics/faqsynthetic.asp

Why haven't synfuels been pursued in America before?
They have. In fact, the U.S. government was exploring synfuel as early as 1925. In the 1940s, a Synthetic Liquid Fuels Act passed by Congress appropriated over $80 million for research and production. By the 1950s, America was producing thousands of gallons of synthetic gasoline a day at a test plant in Missouri. But the discovery of cheap oil, combined with a lobbying effort by the oil industry, caused the government to abandon its synfuel research. During the oil crisis in the late 1970s, the federal government briefly pursued synfuel production, but abandoned the idea when the price of oil receded.

Also follow this hyperlink:

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/04/ban-on-alternat.html

Alternative Fuels Ban Irks Air Force, Lawmakers
By Dan Dupont April 16, 2008

Language in the 2007 energy bill has come under fire because it threatens to derail Air Force plans to use liquid fuel made from coal to power its aircraft. And some momentum appears to be building for its repeal, as Defense Environment Alert reports.

The legislation -- section 526 -- prohibits government agencies from buying alternative fuels that have significantly higher carbon footprints than traditional jet fuels -- and making coal-to-liquid fuel coughs up a lot of emissions. But the ban has a wide cast of characters upset, including the Air Force, many members of Congress and the Canadian government, which fears that fuels made from its oil sands will not be allowed.

"America can be energy independent for an estimated $55 a barrel, including the infrastructure and labor force necessary to operate plants"

HMMM - If this is so, why are none of the for profit companies in the entire world not using this technology and earning themselves $70 on every barrel of synthetic oil?

This sounds like the $125 MPG carburetor technogy that all of the automobile companies in all of the world are supressing.

To all you losers...this is capitalism and the free market at work! Do you really think the oil companies are benevolent organizations and would reduce prices just because YOU, in your infinite stupidity, made the dumb decision to buy a behemoth SUV? It's time for you to live with the consequences of your extravagant lifestyle. You have done too much spending of money you don't have, to buy things you don't need, to impress people you don't like...or don't like YOU! We have no sympathy for you. If you can't afford to pay the price of owning a car, then stay in your house and watch "American Idol" on your not-yet-paid-for big screen TV. Sorry stupid white male.

FOREIGN TAX CREDITS

In 1977 Representative Benjamin Rosenthal of New York produced secret Internal Revenue Service documents going back to 1950. They showed that the tax laws of Saudi Arabia were drafted with the help of Aramco to call the added price of oil not a "royalty" or "cost of doing business," as was proper, but an income tax." The Saudis did this knowing that income tax paid to a foreign country is deductible from the income taxes an oil company pays the United States on all income received in the United States by the parent firm. From Pgs 61-64 The Media Monopoly by Ben H. Bagdikian 5th edition
"Since that time the major multinational U.S. oil companies have paid hardly a penny of U.S. income tax on their foreign income." page130 Banks Borrowers and the Establishment

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT

The United States agreed to transfer jobs and technology to developing countries under the Algiers Declaration in March of 1975:

A major portion of the planned or new petrochemical complexes, oil refineries and fertilizer plants be built in the territories of OPEC Member Countries with the co-operation of industrialized nations for export purposes to the developed countries with guaranteed access for such products to the markets of these countries. [sections 10-11]

HOW TO DECLARE AMERICA'S INDEPENDENCE

SYNTHETIC FUEL FROM COAL

Oil was $127 a barrel recently.

Germany fought WWII with synthetic gas from coal. America, with 1/3rd of Earth’s coal, can be energy independent for an estimated $55 a barrel, including the infrastructure and labor force necessary to operate plants. It is proven technology. Visit http://governor.mt.gov/hottopics/faqsynthetic.asp

Synfuels are cleaner burning than gasoline and they do not increase the cost of food by diverting corn to ethanol.

Furthermore, reducing our trade imbalance keeps jobs in America. Every billion of trade deficit costs 13,000 jobs. $400 billion for oil last year: do the math.

And we stop sending billions to countries that sponsor terrorism.

"Interface, you say Shell Oil is willing to invest 5 billion for hydrogen research and that research will take time."

Actually, that was OwenThursday.

I was addressing the need to to get infrastructure in place if hydrogen is indeed the wave of the future.

Back in the 50’s and 60’s the big three auto makers were building bigger cars and trucks with bigger engines. Miles per gallon wasn’t a concern to them because gas was cheap and they figured that’s what the public wants. Our dependence on oil/gas was huge then but we had oil wells in our country pumping too and we were getting it cheap from the Middle East, so no big deal.

You’re old enough to remember the oil embargo in 1973 or 74. Long gas lines around the country and filling stations running out of gas daily. OPEC decided to get stronger with their price demands. After all, "There’s only so much and we’re just giving it away." So the price started going up. OPEC also nationalized some of our oil companies drilling operations. Standard Oil and other oil companies had to bargain with OPEC to be allowed to continue their operations. Not only did gasoline start going up but so did heating oil and natural gas.

When that first embargo hit there were lots of inventors and companies that got to working on alternative sources. Solar power, hydrogen power and building combustible engines that would get better gas mileage. These people had some good ideas. Ideas that still needed work or research but they needed money, more money than they had.

Interface, you say Shell Oil is willing to invest 5 billion for hydrogen research and that research will take time. While that sounds good, and it is, in 1965 there was a high school senior back east that made a hydrogen auto, that worked, for a science fair project. That was over 40 years ago. Also, after completing his education, that boy genius, Roger Billings, started a company in the mid 70’s to develop the hydrogen engine in Independence, Mo. It costs money for research and Billings couldn’t get enough investors and no money from the government to help even though he built a car and a bus that worked so he shut the company down in the 80’s.

Big oil companies are in the business to make a profit. I don’t doubt they may have had something to do with keeping money from the small businesses because you don’t become the biggest industry in the world by letting others get in your way.

Ross, you’re correct that’s it’s the fault of congress, all the way back to the 70’s. They’ve sold us out for money to stay in office and to hell with the people.

When I hear “Well the democrats will get it changed.” Or “The republicans are being shut out by the other side.” I want to barf.

When I read that a republican candidate borrowed 4 million dollars from himself and a democrat borrowed 11 million dollars from herself to keep campaigning for a job that pays 400 thousand a year. I get a little suspect. And the same goes for congressmen and women.

As George Carlin said, “Folks it’s a big club and we ain’t in it.”

Nice post, devin. I recently started taking the bus and biking to work, which doubled my commute time, but now I read for most of that, and I'm finding it much more relaxing than driving, in addition to the benefit of not having to pay for gas.

Look in the mirror, indeed.

I also think it's funny that Ross thinks we should have started drilling ANWR 10 years ago. If we'd done that, we'd be through around half the reserve now, and nearly all of that oil would have sold for $50 or less (much less at the beginning). Now that oil is worth close to three times as much. Sitting on that asset was a pretty good move economically. For an asset to more than triple in value in well under a decade is a pretty good deal, I'm glad we didn't squander it at such a low price. Ross, if you had a million dollar home today, would you be regretting not selling it a decade ago for a quarter million? I would hope you're smarter than that.

Maybe now it's time to drill. We can use the trillion dollars or so we can now get from ANWR to make the major necessary infrastructure improvements that this nation needs. We couldn't have done that when oil was $25/barrel.

If we really want to pin the blame on somebody, it's gotta be the person in the mirror. All this talk of 10 and 20-year timetables for government or industry or whatever is silly. In about five years, I cut my own consumption of gasoline by about 80%. I now pay less for gas each year than I did when it was $1/gallon. If even half the country was willing to take personal responsibility, demand would plummet--and prices, too. Neither government nor industry is capable of making that kind of change.

By the way, I don't live like a caveman. The main thing is live close to where you work. After that it's easy. I walk and bike a fair amount, which is more enjoyable and better for my health. My wife and I save many thousands of dollars every year by not needing cars, so we have more to spend on things we enjoy, not just getting from A to B.

California is putting up money for the hydrogen locations, since most of the hydrogen cars will be in California. The California Air Resources Board has somewhere around $8 million just for that. The idiot Democrats in their legislature have with held some other money for it.

100 years ago they had to come up with the infrastructure on gasoline & diesel fuel. This is no different, just a different product.

"Other car companies are doing the same and even Shell Oil will invest about $5 bilion into hydrogen. But it will take time and we need to think ahead for a change, way ahead."

Much like planning for a transit system that has as its core a rail line along which the future urban development will be shaped, planning for hydrogen power will require an infrastructure adjustment -- if the technology is truly right around the corner, then the executive and legislative branches should consider investing in ensuring viable hydrogen fueling stations will be available -- perhaps a much more sensible use of our tax dollars than subsidizing the oil and ethanol industries.

First, there is a new oil refinery scheduled to start work next year near Yuma, AZ. It has received the air quality permits it needs and has had them for some time. The biggest source of the delay is the NIMBY crowd, which will be on both sides of the political aisle. After all, a conservative doesn't want to live next door to a refinery any more than a liberal. They use any possible excuse they can think of to stop anything from being built. They will use try and use environmental, archeological, noise, light pollution, traffic, and any other reason to stop development.

There's another refinery looking for locations now and is probably going to be near Sioux Falls, SD. A refinery in California is also looking to double in size.

Second, if we had increased the CAFE standards 10 years ago, when the writer says we should have drilled in ANWR, we wouldn't need to drill in ANWR now. You can't blame the lack of new CAFE standards on environmentalists, but rather the car manufacturers and their politicians. I'll tell you what-- I'll go along w/ drilling in Alaska if you go along w/ increasing CAFE standards to 40 mpg or better; both will take about 10 years to come to fruition. Oil from ANWR isn't going to make that much of a difference; I believe it's figured at 1 million barrels/day production; we import about 18 million/day. I believe we will need both in the future.

The shale, the tar sands, and places like that have sat unproductive because the price didn't justify the expense. Stripper oil wells in Johnson County weren't all in production because the price didn't warrant the expense. Now it does. Oil in North Dakota is nothing new, though this discovery might be.

Set the environmental argument aside for a minute. We need to get off of using oil so exclusively for another reason-- national security. Even the oil industry agrees we do not have enough domestic potential to become totally independent of the rest of the world. That's why I still think that hydrogen will most likely be the fuel for transportation in the future. Not soon, but maybe 20 years from now. Heck, Honda advertises their hydrogen powered car on TV now; about 100 are being leased in California, to get some "real world" experience for Honda. Other car companies are doing the same and even Shell Oil will invest about $5 bilion into hydrogen. But it will take time and we need to think ahead for a change, way ahead.

"The only alternative way for us to bring the price down is to increase supply."

Basic economics - the other "only" alternative that Balano neglects to mention is to reduce demand.

Let's hear about that "huge discovery in North Dakota."

Perhaps we should nationalize it and cut out the for-profit companies, huh, Ross?