May 15th: Pass on Gas

[Snax]

Well let me figure this out:

Since selling our hybrid Escape in November, I have commuted to work by bicycle or bus approximately 90 days (after subtracting out the days when my wife has come to pick me up). In that 90 days, we have as individuals not driven 450 miles. 450 miles divided by the 30 mpg we were getting in the hybrid translates to 15 gallons of gas saved.

Hmmm, that's one full tank in the Escape. I don't think the oil companies have noticed. :P

[Shining Arcanine]

Originally Posted by theclencher

Why does everything these days have a WAR in it?

ANWR reserves are but a drop in the bucket. If we got in there and grabbed it all, it would hardly have any noticeable effect.

It has barely been explored and exploration tends to increase the amount of oil that is known to be in an area. Presently, it is estimated that there are 17 billion barrels of oil stored there. At the present rate of crude oil imports, which is 10,126,000 barrels per day, it would take us approximately 1679 days, which is approximately 4.6 years, to consume all of the oil in ANWR if production there can replace all crude oil imports. Of course ANWR oil production will far more likely be a fraction of our current oil imports because if it was possible to extract oil from any oil field at such a rate, it would be being done and the US would be a net oil exporter (until all of the oil ran out); thus the oil in ANWR would last a number of years that is multiplied by the reciporical of the fraction of oil imports that it would replace. Assuming that fraction is 1/10, which should be a reasonable number, ANWR's oil would last 46 years.

ANWR's oil is not a drop in a bucket and it would have a significant effect, not a huge one, but a significant one because of the increase in the global supply of oil that it would bring (and OPEC would quickly cut production to bring the spot price of crude back up, but they would be making less money, meaning that less money will be going to fund terrorism). Furthermore, ANWR drilling is not the only method of lowering prices that I stated. I also stated that we can drill off the coast of Florida (Congress seems to want Fidel Castro to drill there as they have been blocking drilling there for years) and that more refineries could be built. It was on a news site that I visited (I followed a link from gasbuddy.com to find it) that if we cut our consumption by 4%, we would see a 50 cent drop in prices, as demand for refined petroleum products (e.g. gasoline) is outstripping the supply, so it stands to reason (I also read this on another news site a while back) that if we had more refineries, gasoline prices would go down. Drilling off the coast of Florida would further decrease US dependence on foreign oil, decreasing prices because of the increase in the global oil supply, leading OPEC to cut their production, which would further cut the terrorists' income. Allowing more refineries to be built will lower gasoline prices because even if the US acquired an infinite amount of oil, the fact that low refining capacity in the US is presently the largest driver of gasoline price growth would soon overcome the benefit of an infinite supply of oil.

In summary, President Bush could authorize drilling off the coast of Florida, drilling in ANWR and the construction of new refineries by an executive order, lifting the legal obstacles that Congress put into place specifically to prevent that, which would decrease US demand for foreign oil and lower gasoline prices. The decline in demand for foreign oil will lower prices on the world market, prompting OPEC to cut its production to compensate, lowering the amount of money that OPEC makes, beyond the decline in OPEC's revenue that would have resulted from lower prices, thus lowering the amount that it could use to fund terrorism. The increased refining capacity would ensure US domestic security by preventing supply disruptions of fuel to troops stationed abroad, increasing the effectiveness of the United States armed forces and lowering our prices by making the US demand/supply ratio smaller. Not to mention the trade deficit would shrink.

Edit: There is also the possibility of Congress passing an enormous tax on the sale of new fuel inefficient vehicles, which when combined with this, could potentially eliminate US dependence on foreign oil by lowering the demand for oil. This will work because the efficiency of US vehicles can be thought of as an equilibrium and high taxes on inefficient vehicles will place a stress on the equilibrium, moving it towards greater vehicle efficiency by Le Chatelier's principle (applied to this analogy) and greater vehicle efficiency would cut the demand for oil.

[zpiloto]

Or we could just hold the auto industry feet to the fire and raise the CAFE standard 4% a year for the next ten years and save more oil then there is in ANWR.

[SVOboy]

Originally Posted by zpiloto

Or we could just hold the auto industry feet to the fire and raise the CAFE standard 4% a year for the next ten years and save more oil then there is in ANWR.

Sounds like a better idea than further damaging our planet to me...

[Shining Arcanine]

Originally Posted by zpiloto

Or we could just hold the auto industry feet to the fire and raise the CAFE standard 4% a year for the next ten years and save more oil then there is in ANWR.

Why not blame the members of Congress that voted for tariffs on the import of more efficient vehicles and the people buying inefficient vehicles for no purpose? Both are more to blame than the automobile manufacturers, who are only responding to demand and are already burdened by the federal government's 35% corporate income tax and its unconstitutional laws concerning organized labor (those laws would be constitutional if they were replaced by identical state laws; in which case the automobile industry would be being burdened by the states' constitutional laws concerning organized labor).

Originally Posted by SVOboy

Sounds like a better idea than further damaging our planet to me...

The planet is by no means damaged by these activities. The three-way catalytic converter ensured that. With the exception of military vehicles (because of the necessity that military vehicles be able to use jet fuel, which contains lead, something that poisons catalytic converters; hence there is no point in installing them), construction equipment (because of Congress), domestic SUVs and trucks (because of Congress), racing (because of Congress, although the racing industry is voluntarily improving its effect on the environment) and older vehicles (because of the United States Constitution clause on ex post facto situations), today's automobiles are all environmentally friendly.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Most heavy duty diesel equipment is not very clean. Surprisingly (not really) we've finally started to see all sorts of diesel emissions systems now that the EPA has significantly cut down on allowable heavy duty diesel emissions. In terms of environmentally friendlyness, well, that's just a matter of opinion. Generally speaking, we can almost always do better. However, once of the disadvantages of reduced emissions is improved efficiency, as was seen in the first gen Prius, which was designed to meet CARB fleet emissions regulations, and was later altered and marketed as a fuel efficient vehicle.

We've had to work through a glut in refining capacity and a relatively fuel efficient vehicle fleet for two decades to bump up against the roof in terms of gasoline/oil supply and send prices up. This has taken nearly twenty years, and now that prices and profits are through the roof, I don't think the major stock holders of companies like GM and Ford are going to approve a radical change in fleet efficiency, when they've spent so much time increasing demand for gasoline and oil, which they happen to hold way more stock in. Something as small as a consistent percent or two drop in consumption with supply staying steady would send prices through the floor for both oil and gasoline.

[SVOboy]

Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine

The planet is by no means damaged by these activities. The three-way catalytic converter ensured that. With the exception of military vehicles (because of the necessity that military vehicles be able to use jet fuel, which contains lead, something that poisons catalytic converters; hence there is no point in installing them), construction equipment (because of Congress), domestic SUVs and trucks (because of Congress), racing (because of Congress, although the racing industry is voluntarily improving its effect on the environment) and older vehicles (because of the United States Constitution clause on ex post facto situations), today's automobiles are all environmentally friendly.

I agree, there is nothing wrong with the environment, cars don't pollute, and I'd love to live in the inspiringly clean aura of an oil refinery.

[Peakster]

Originally Posted by SVOboy

I agree, there is nothing wrong with the environment, cars don't pollute, and I'd love to live in the inspiringly clean aura of an oil refinery.

Lol, that's funny.

I was stuck in a traffic jam today in my city's only 'tunnel'. With everyone's engine idling, I was thinking how long we could go sitting there before people started getting ill...

[QDM]

If you want to know why gas prices are so high, do some reading at this site.

http://www.oilwatchdog.org/articles/...0&topicId=8057

Q

[red91sit]

Oil is about the only thing where we don't have supply meeting demand, and we do nothing about it. If we were paying $20 for a frozen pizza that only costs $8 to make, we'd quit eating pizza, but not so in the fuel world. Oh well, we're all doing our part, what more can we do?