ksig489;739056 wrote:Between Alaska, off-shore oil, and the oil recently discovered under the Dakotas the US has enough oil to fuel itself without any foreign dependency for over 80 years at a minimum. You cant tell me that we cant figure something out during that time. The Dakotas oil alone is enough for 30+ years.

That's not true. Much of the oil that we've found stateside is economical to recover only because of the high oil prices. With the way worldwide demand is growing, drilling a few offshore oil wells isn't going to resolve the issue with gas prices.

Like I said, high gas prices aren't fun, but what does anyone propose as a solution? I don't see any wide-scale pain-free solutions. The solutions have to be personal, as HitsRUs pointed out earlier. You can make adjustments to reduce your own costs, but that's about it.

I interpret "paycheck to paycheck" meaning if the individual doesn't get the next paycheck he won't be able to eat and cover his/her expenses for that period....or there's no fall back cushion or assets to rely upon in such an instance.

It has nothing to do with whether someone would "enjoy" it or not.

charliehustle14;738626 wrote:You talking about P2P people spending their money on alcohol and cigs reminds me of something from last night. I was at the grocery and no lie, some guy was trying to sell his food stamps for cash so he could use them for alcohol. Mind you he had a kid with him. When he asked me, I just looked down and shook my head. This is the first time I had ever seen it for my own eyes, but have heard others talk about it. Some people are just plain sorry and unbelievable.

Really? You saw someone trying to sell their Ohio Direction Card? Pretty tough to do unless it is stolen. If so you should have reported it right away.

http://www.hcjfs.hamilton-co.org/Buttons/Clients_Customers/TB_Control/ORU.htm

Bigdogg;739153 wrote:Really? You saw someone trying to sell their Ohio Direction Card? Pretty tough to do unless it is stolen. If so you should have reported it right away.

http://www.hcjfs.hamilton-co.org/Buttons/Clients_Customers/TB_Control/ORU.htm

People sell their food stamp cards all the time. I know a few people who actively buy them at least twice per month. It's not tough to do at all. Let's say someone has $200 worth of food stamps. They will sell them to someone for $150, give them the card and the code and bingo.

fan_from_texas;739148 wrote:That's not true. Much of the oil that we've found stateside is economical to recover only because of the high oil prices. With the way worldwide demand is growing, drilling a few offshore oil wells isn't going to resolve the issue with gas prices.

Like I said, high gas prices aren't fun, but what does anyone propose as a solution? I don't see any wide-scale pain-free solutions. The solutions have to be personal, as HitsRUs pointed out earlier. You can make adjustments to reduce your own costs, but that's about it.

Too bad Kaisch turned down the money for the high speed rail. Looking pretty short sighted now.

Bigdogg;739158 wrote:Too bad Kaisch turned down the money for the high speed rail. Looking pretty short sighted now.

I still think it was the right thing to do. I think it would lose money even with gas at $5.00 per gallon. People use the vast majority of their fuel commuting to work and school on a daily basis not traveling between major cities occasionally.

Bigdogg;739158 wrote:Too bad Kaisch turned down the money for the high speed rail. Looking pretty short sighted now.

How does that help me get from Blacklick to Polaris daily? And then to Easton another few days per week?

Oh wait, it doesn't.

fan_from_texas;739148 wrote:That's not true. Much of the oil that we've found stateside is economical to recover only because of the high oil prices. With the way worldwide demand is growing, drilling a few offshore oil wells isn't going to resolve the issue with gas prices.

Like I said, high gas prices aren't fun, but what does anyone propose as a solution? I don't see any wide-scale pain-free solutions. The solutions have to be personal, as HitsRUs pointed out earlier. You can make adjustments to reduce your own costs, but that's about it.

The oil field in the Dakotas has been estimated to hold as much as 7-8 times the amount of Saudi Arabias biggest oil field. It is also a very light oil that does not require a ton of refining. While it is difficult to drill for due to what surrounds it, you can tell me it isnt economical not to drill for it to become independent of foreign oil.

ksig489;739181 wrote:The oil field in the Dakotas has been estimated to hold as much as 7-8 times the amount of Saudi Arabias biggest oil field. It is also a very light oil that does not require a ton of refining. While it is difficult to drill for due to what surrounds it, you can tell me it isnt economical not to drill for it to become independent of foreign oil.

When did domestic oil companies start selling exclusively to the home front?

We can never be truly independent of foreign oil because of the nature of the way it is traded. If the Chi-coms are willing to pay more for it than domestic companies, then it goes to them. It is not like we have a national oil company that prioritizes the good of Americans above that of finding the highest bidder. It is just not the way the system works.

IggyPride00;739194 wrote:When did domestic oil companies start selling exclusively to the home front?

We can never be truly independent of foreign oil because of the nature of the way it is traded. If the Chi-coms are willing to pay more for it than domestic companies, then it goes to them. It is not like we have a national oil company that prioritizes the good of Americans above that of finding the highest bidder. It is just not the way the system works.

Well, infrastructure plays a large part. Much of the Alaskan oil is sold because there is no easy way to get it to the refineries here.

ksig489;739181 wrote:While it is difficult to drill for due to what surrounds it, you can tell me it isnt economical not to drill for it to become independent of foreign oil.

I don't think "economical" means what you think it means. High oil prices-->high gas prices-->cost-effective to drill in Bakken. Companies aren't going to extract shale oil at a loss; they'll do it when oil prices are high enough to justify it. Currently, we're there, which is why exploration is underway. If prices dropped to $30/bbl like they were in the early 2000s, it isn't cost-effective to drill.

vball10set;738293 wrote:^^^this....nice "change" :rolleyes:

This....change indeed. Changing our country one socialist act at a time.

From FoxBusiness.com today...

Goldman Sachs (GS) rocked oil markets for a second day on Tuesday by calling for a near $20 fall in the price of Brent crude oil in the coming months, saying speculators have pushed prices ahead of fundamentals.

It was the second warning of a steep market reversal from the long-term commodity bull in as many days, after it recommended clients close a trade on Monday heavily weighted towards U.S. crude futures.

Oil prices have shed almost $6 a barrel since Monday's open. Traders and analysts said the bank can have an out-sized influence on commodities, given the insight and reach of its global trading arm J. Aron and history of being one of the first banks to predict $100 oil last decade.

Goldman Sachs chief energy analyst David Greely said the recent run-up in prices, which has seen Brent rally by as much as 33 percent since the start of the year, was looking overdone.

"While prices are back at levels of spring 2008, supply-demand fundamentals are significantly less tight," Greely said in an April 12 note e-mailed to clients."


THIS IS THE PROBLEM. It is not just typical supply/demand, its market manipulation of oil prices.

dont_belong;739260 wrote:From FoxBusiness.com today...

Goldman Sachs (GS) rocked oil markets for a second day on Tuesday by calling for a near $20 fall in the price of Brent crude oil in the coming months, saying speculators have pushed prices ahead of fundamentals.

It was the second warning of a steep market reversal from the long-term commodity bull in as many days, after it recommended clients close a trade on Monday heavily weighted towards U.S. crude futures.

Oil prices have shed almost $6 a barrel since Monday's open. Traders and analysts said the bank can have an out-sized influence on commodities, given the insight and reach of its global trading arm J. Aron and history of being one of the first banks to predict $100 oil last decade.

Goldman Sachs chief energy analyst David Greely said the recent run-up in prices, which has seen Brent rally by as much as 33 percent since the start of the year, was looking overdone.

"While prices are back at levels of spring 2008, supply-demand fundamentals are significantly less tight," Greely said in an April 12 note e-mailed to clients."


THIS IS THE PROBLEM. It is not just typical supply/demand, its market manipulation of oil prices.

How is it market manipulation when that is how the market is set up? That's is the stance I have never understood.

I'd say Google being at $570 up from $87 when it IPO'd is more so than oil prices. Did you know that they are traded the same way (in short, commodities are more complicated) and buy and sell calls are evaluated in much the same way?

I guess what I meant to say is that the prices are manipulated by more than just supply/demand, maybe market manipulation is the right wording, but something more than demand is driving these prices and we are the ones bending over and taking it....again.

LJ;739262 wrote:How is it market manipulation when that is how the market is set up? That's is the stance I have never understood.

I'd say Google being at $570 up from $87 when it IPO'd is more so than oil prices. Did you know that they are traded the same way (in short, commodities are more complicated) and buy and sell calls are evaluated in much the same way?

The problem is that no one ever has to take delivery. That is what need changed.

dont_belong;739263 wrote:I guess what I meant to say is that the prices are manipulated by more than just supply/demand, maybe market manipulation is the right wording, but something more than demand is driving these prices and we are the ones bending over and taking it....again.

It's demand for ownership of that price and the belief that others will want it even if it were higher.

dont_belong;739263 wrote:I guess what I meant to say is that the prices are manipulated by more than just supply/demand, maybe market manipulation is the right wording, but something more than demand is driving these prices and we are the ones bending over and taking it....again.

The market isn't built on consumer demand. never has been.

dont_belong;739263 wrote:I guess what I meant to say is that the prices are manipulated by more than just supply/demand, maybe market manipulation is the right wording, but something more than demand is driving these prices and we are the ones bending over and taking it....again.

If you're certain that the price is too high and not supported by the fundamentals, why don't you short it and make a bundle?

O-Trap;739084 wrote:Something is better than nothing, though.

On the surface, that sounds good, but the reality is that I am able to pay my bills by sitting on my ass and collecting unemployment. If I took a job for minimum wage, I would have less money to pay my bills even before taxes and travel expenses. I don't like it. In fact, I hate it, but I am not going to jeopardize by family's well-being just to flip burgers out of principle.

Bigdogg;739158 wrote:Too bad Kaisch turned down the money for the high speed rail. Looking pretty short sighted now.

The 3C HSR design was horrible, even from an aspiring urban planning like myself.

Con_Alma;739159 wrote:I still think it was the right thing to do. I think it would lose money even with gas at $5.00 per gallon. People use the vast majority of their fuel commuting to work and school on a daily basis not traveling between major cities occasionally.

Yes, it was the right call on his part. The train was going to go 55mph, with an average speed of 39mph when stops are included. When a proposal of a 180mph (preferably 200+) comes along, then turning it down would be idiotic on his part.

Also, it doesn't need to make money. That is a misguided conservative talking point that is simply untrue. What it needs is a net economic benefit. That is to say that the money spent on running the system needs to be recouped by taxes (via Value Capture) on the increase property values around stations. Not saying it is allowed to be a money pit, but just because you lose a million annually running it doesn't mean you don't make two million in taxes off property, if you get what I'm sayin'. Net economic benefit is what we're after.

fan_from_texas;739148 wrote:Like I said, high gas prices aren't fun, but what does anyone propose as a solution? I don't see any wide-scale pain-free solutions.

LJ;739162 wrote:How does that help me get from Blacklick to Polaris daily? And then to Easton another few days per week?

Oh wait, it doesn't.

BINGO. HSR is NOT the answer for solving gas prices. We need cities that are built for streetcar corridors and cars.



^^^^^ This is what we did before GM systematically destroyed it.
vvvvvvvv This is what will be doing in 10-20 years, much like the rest of the world.



You could, I don't know ....reduce the $40 billion dollar budget on the War on Drugs to $10 billion, legalize marijuana for $7 billion annually in taxes, and take that cash and hand out block grants to states to expedite construction (or help reduce the deficit). That is a real stimulus package.

I was doodling with photoshop and made on in the Short North:

ksig489;739181 wrote:The oil field in the Dakotas has been estimated to hold as much as 7-8 times the amount of Saudi Arabias biggest oil field. It is also a very light oil that does not require a ton of refining. While it is difficult to drill for due to what surrounds it, you can tell me it isnt economical not to drill for it to become independent of foreign oil.

That doesn't mean it is 1) good oil (i.e. easily refined and quality oil) 2) cheap to produce (i.e. at what price it becomes economical to introduce into the market. Technology will bring the price down somewhat but it hasn't yet.)

I have never read the Dakotan oil was light oil, care to inform me with a link please. Honestly, I'm intrigued. And I am 100% in favor of lifting more restrictions on oil drilling. We should be in ANWAR and the Dakotas and offshore. I just don't think it will solve our myriad problems.

LJ;739271 wrote:The market isn't built on consumer demand. never has been.

So if these prices are not built on consumer demand, then we are getting screwed. Because ultimately the consumers of a commodity that drives our economy are the ones affected the most.

dont_belong;739296 wrote:So if these prices are not built on consumer demand, then we are getting screwed. Because ultimately the consumers of a commodity that drives our economy are the ones affected the most.

ok™

dont_belong;739296 wrote:So if these prices are not built on consumer demand, then we are getting screwed. Because ultimately the consumers of a commodity that drives our economy are the ones affected the most.

You do know you can participate in the market for oil. If its such easy money and you feel you know more about what the true market price of oil is compared to Harvard MBA's, then go for it!

sleeper;739311 wrote:You do know you can participate in the market for oil. If its such easy money and you feel you know more about what the true market price of oil is compared to Harvard MBA's, then go for it!

+1