Cheap Oil Is An Economic Time Bomb For America!

[Nutz]

I guess you don't watch Fox News. They make the same claim that it is a bad thing. Hypocrite.

I guess you don't either. Because they don't "make the claim that it's a bad thing." They have people from BOTH SIDES and they talk to them. Some of them say its good, some say it's bad. But you show me where FOX NEWS THE STATION has pushed that low oil prices are bad. You can't. Why?

Because you're lying.

Google is your friend.

 

[bripat9643]

We should be moving away from oil. I like paying less for gas.

Screw that. Oil is the best, most concentrated form of energy we have. Why should we move away from a superior form of energy to inferior forms of energy?

Lots of reasons. It's not renewable. Bad for environment. Sends lots of money to the Middle East....

Yeah, and it's sticky and black!

Butane stoves are a lot better for the environment than burning wood. Windmills are sure good for birds, aren't they?

Since the price went down and American production is way up, much less of our cash is going to the Middle East.

None of your reasons come close to making up for the deficiencies of "renewables."

 

[airplanemechanic]

Google is your friend.

So no evidence to back it up?

Thats what I thought.

 

[Brain357]

We should be moving away from oil. I like paying less for gas.

Screw that. Oil is the best, most concentrated form of energy we have. Why should we move away from a superior form of energy to inferior forms of energy?

Lots of reasons. It's not renewable. Bad for environment. Sends lots of money to the Middle East....

Yeah, and it's sticky and black!

Butane stoves are a lot better for the environment than burning wood. Windmills are sure good for birds, aren't they?

Since the price went down and American production is way up, much less of our cash is going to the Middle East.

None of your reasons come close to making up for the deficiencies of "renewables."

If we stick with oil the middle east will get out money eventually, don't be silly. Or do you think it will be cheap forever? How about all the environmental damage everytime there is a spill? Look what happened in the gulf. We need to keep moving toward solar and wind.

 

[bripat9643]

We should be moving away from oil. I like paying less for gas.

Screw that. Oil is the best, most concentrated form of energy we have. Why should we move away from a superior form of energy to inferior forms of energy?

Lots of reasons. It's not renewable. Bad for environment. Sends lots of money to the Middle East....

Yeah, and it's sticky and black!

Butane stoves are a lot better for the environment than burning wood. Windmills are sure good for birds, aren't they?

Since the price went down and American production is way up, much less of our cash is going to the Middle East.

None of your reasons come close to making up for the deficiencies of "renewables."

If we stick with oil the middle east will get out money eventually, don't be silly. Or do you think it will be cheap forever? How about all the environmental damage everytime there is a spill? Look what happened in the gulf. We need to keep moving toward solar and wind.

The environment recovers, and even if we have to buy it all from the Middle East, we'll still be better off than we will with so-called "green energy." It would be impossible to make enough bio-diesel to run the world economy. There is simply no way you can have a power grid running on 100% solar and wind. You always have to have 100% backup from coal or natural gas fueled power plants.

The best thing to do is use our fossil fuels for the next 50 years or so by which time we should have cost effective fusion power.

 

[HenryBHough]

You won't have fusion power in 50 years. Not even in 100 years. The environmental lawsuits against it will still be in the appeals process.

 

[bripat9643]

You won't have fusion power in 50 years. Not even in 100 years. The environmental lawsuits against it will still be in the appeals process.

Fusion is totally harmless to the environment. We will easily have it in 50 years. If they spent as much on fusion as they spend on so-called "green energy" we would have fusion in 10 years.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

... But, but, but the price of gas was $1.79 a gallon when "but, but, but, BOOOOSH" left office!!!

 

[M14 Shooter]

You won't have fusion power in 50 years. Not even in 100 years. The environmental lawsuits against it will still be in the appeals process.

Fusion is totally harmless to the environment. We will easily have it in 50 years. If they spent as much on fusion as they spend on so-called "green energy" we would have fusion in 10 years.

Harmless to the environment? Sure.
Harmless to the envionnazi campaign against cheap and plentiful energy as a means to restrict capitalistic economies...?

 

[Brain357]

We should be moving away from oil. I like paying less for gas.

Screw that. Oil is the best, most concentrated form of energy we have. Why should we move away from a superior form of energy to inferior forms of energy?

Lots of reasons. It's not renewable. Bad for environment. Sends lots of money to the Middle East....

Yeah, and it's sticky and black!

Butane stoves are a lot better for the environment than burning wood. Windmills are sure good for birds, aren't they?

Since the price went down and American production is way up, much less of our cash is going to the Middle East.

None of your reasons come close to making up for the deficiencies of "renewables."

If we stick with oil the middle east will get out money eventually, don't be silly. Or do you think it will be cheap forever? How about all the environmental damage everytime there is a spill? Look what happened in the gulf. We need to keep moving toward solar and wind.

The environment recovers, and even if we have to buy it all from the Middle East, we'll still be better off than we will with so-called "green energy." It would be impossible to make enough bio-diesel to run the world economy. There is simply no way you can have a power grid running on 100% solar and wind. You always have to have 100% backup from coal or natural gas fueled power plants.

The best thing to do is use our fossil fuels for the next 50 years or so by which time we should have cost effective fusion power.

Sure it does. Sounds like the best plan for the Middle East, not us. Germany will be mostly solar by then and we will be way behind.

 

[bripat9643]

Screw that. Oil is the best, most concentrated form of energy we have. Why should we move away from a superior form of energy to inferior forms of energy?

Lots of reasons. It's not renewable. Bad for environment. Sends lots of money to the Middle East....

Yeah, and it's sticky and black!

Butane stoves are a lot better for the environment than burning wood. Windmills are sure good for birds, aren't they?

Since the price went down and American production is way up, much less of our cash is going to the Middle East.

None of your reasons come close to making up for the deficiencies of "renewables."

If we stick with oil the middle east will get out money eventually, don't be silly. Or do you think it will be cheap forever? How about all the environmental damage everytime there is a spill? Look what happened in the gulf. We need to keep moving toward solar and wind.

The environment recovers, and even if we have to buy it all from the Middle East, we'll still be better off than we will with so-called "green energy." It would be impossible to make enough bio-diesel to run the world economy. There is simply no way you can have a power grid running on 100% solar and wind. You always have to have 100% backup from coal or natural gas fueled power plants.

The best thing to do is use our fossil fuels for the next 50 years or so by which time we should have cost effective fusion power.

Sure it does. Sounds like the best plan for the Middle East, not us. Germany will be mostly solar by then and we will be way behind.

German consumers are already paying about 3 times the price they used to pay for electric power. The further we are behind them the better. Spending three times the amount on "green energy" that we spend on fossil fuels doesn't sound like any rational person's idea of smart.

 

[skookerasbil]

price controls are ghey.

I was around when they tried it in the 70's.........total disaster. Always are.........far left loves that ghey shit though!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Screw that. Oil is the best, most concentrated form of energy we have. Why should we move away from a superior form of energy to inferior forms of energy?

Lots of reasons. It's not renewable. Bad for environment. Sends lots of money to the Middle East....

Yeah, and it's sticky and black!

Butane stoves are a lot better for the environment than burning wood. Windmills are sure good for birds, aren't they?

Since the price went down and American production is way up, much less of our cash is going to the Middle East.

None of your reasons come close to making up for the deficiencies of "renewables."

If we stick with oil the middle east will get out money eventually, don't be silly. Or do you think it will be cheap forever? How about all the environmental damage everytime there is a spill? Look what happened in the gulf. We need to keep moving toward solar and wind.

The environment recovers, and even if we have to buy it all from the Middle East, we'll still be better off than we will with so-called "green energy." It would be impossible to make enough bio-diesel to run the world economy. There is simply no way you can have a power grid running on 100% solar and wind. You always have to have 100% backup from coal or natural gas fueled power plants.

The best thing to do is use our fossil fuels for the next 50 years or so by which time we should have cost effective fusion power.

Sure it does. Sounds like the best plan for the Middle East, not us. Germany will be mostly solar by then and we will be way behind.

Germany will be mostly solar by then and we will be way behind.

Way behind on wasteful boondogles?
Excellent news!

Now if the Greenies wanted to throw their support behind nuclear energy, I'd be more likely to believe
their fear of CO2 was sincere, instead of just a plan to get more government control over our economy.

 

[skookerasbil]

Screw that. Oil is the best, most concentrated form of energy we have. Why should we move away from a superior form of energy to inferior forms of energy?

Lots of reasons. It's not renewable. Bad for environment. Sends lots of money to the Middle East....

Yeah, and it's sticky and black!

Butane stoves are a lot better for the environment than burning wood. Windmills are sure good for birds, aren't they?

Since the price went down and American production is way up, much less of our cash is going to the Middle East.

None of your reasons come close to making up for the deficiencies of "renewables."

If we stick with oil the middle east will get out money eventually, don't be silly. Or do you think it will be cheap forever? How about all the environmental damage everytime there is a spill? Look what happened in the gulf. We need to keep moving toward solar and wind.

The environment recovers, and even if we have to buy it all from the Middle East, we'll still be better off than we will with so-called "green energy." It would be impossible to make enough bio-diesel to run the world economy. There is simply no way you can have a power grid running on 100% solar and wind. You always have to have 100% backup from coal or natural gas fueled power plants.

The best thing to do is use our fossil fuels for the next 50 years or so by which time we should have cost effective fusion power.

Sure it does. Sounds like the best plan for the Middle East, not us. Germany will be mostly solar by then and we will be way behind.

100% incorrect.

At least until 2050, fossil fuels are going to dominate the energy landscape. But dont take my word for it......check out the 2014 Obama EIA Report/Graphs!!!

Decades from now, renewables are still going to be a joke.

 

[haissem123]

It is really surprising that the American people are not hearing from national politicians or economic leaders that the dramatic drop in oil prices the world is seeing holds potential grave danger for America's economy and calls for government action protection. The major concerns aren't being properly appreciated. First, there is no floor on the price of oil; today, WTI is trading at around $46/ barrel. In the next three months the country could see WTI trading in the $30 to $40 range. The super serious problem about this drop is that it will at some point result in the dramatic reduction in domestic production because the price will not provide sufficient profit considering the cost of drilling for oil. This is super serious because it will expose the country to skyrocketing spikes in oil prices if something happens to the world-wide supply of oil which could easily happen with a serious negative geo-political development with a major oil producing country or if OPEC and Russia can begin agreeing to control production!

The public debate is really not taking place on the issue of is this out of control decrease in oil prices really good for the medium and long-term well-being of America and if not can the American people do anything about it. Prudent thinking indicates the American people should be alarmed as all get out with this development. People should be asking themselves what happens after two more quarters of this $30 to $50 barrel of oil, does danger lurk here? After two more quarters of this retail businesses, airlines and health care companies earning are going to be up significantly because the American consumer will have a lot of additional money to spend because of lower petroleum and natural gas prices. In this six months OPEC countries and Russia will have learned their lesson crystal clearly that they are cutting their own throats not controlling production because now oil is half the price it could be with production controls. In two quarters from now, Saudi Arabia will find it as easy as pie to do what they wanted to do around three months ago which is to get a universal agreement amongst these parties to cut production and return the price of oil to the $100 range.

Now what do you think is going to happen in six to nine months when Saudi Arabia engineers a return to $100 barrel of oil? A recession for the United States because all these retail and other corporations that have been recording high jumps in quarterly earnings from increased U.S. consumer spending their executives can't just say sorry investors sales dropped due to the return of $100 a barrel oil no they are going to layoff employees big time scrambling to try to generate the investor expected revenue numbers. The resulting layoffs and other economic fallout from a return in oil prices will cut economic demand thus cutting GDP resulting in a recession. It is unbelievable that the country's political and economic leaders aren't warning of this likely recessionary outcome from this precipitous drop in oil prices and offering leadership on how this can be avoided.

There is another disastrous development from this sinking of oil prices. The size of the U.S. domestic oil producing industry is going to be substantially reduced as oil producing companies have to sell themselves because with such low oil prices they cannot generate the revenue to survive. Further bond investors and lenders for these producers are going to be economically hurt so severely during this period they won't get over this for at least the short to medium term already many of these producers bonds are trading at large discounts over concerns the producers won't have the revenue to repay the bonds. Therefore, from this oil price roller coaster ride Congress and the President is letting take place in America the country is going to be left with a smaller and weaker oil producing industry that is less able to get credit to drill for more oil and natural gas and meet America's needs.

Common sense indicates clearly what the answer to this problem is which is that Congress and the President need to pass a law putting a floor on oil prices. The legislation could start with a floor of $45.00/barrel and give the Secretary of the Energy Department, with the Senate Energy committee having veto power, the power to raise the floor up to $75.00/barrel - the standard for the Secretary should be that the floor price should be such that in all major oil fields in America, whether shale, off-shore or other, the floor price would still make such drilling profitable so such production does not stop. The legislation could have a time limit of five or seven years so if there is bad repurcussions from this legislations the harm would be limited and this period of time would give the oil industry and the country time enough to prepare for a market with no controls and stop the economic earthquakes that are currently going on!

The American people are really not being lead to appreciate how vulnerable they are to oil prices shooting back-up. It would only take Opec and Russia agreeing for just four years to take one to five million barrels a day off the market an easy deal for them to reach to reverse things. They could start with a cut of one million barrels a day and meet on monthly basis to increase it to raise the price of oil to their desired level. Remember Opec and Russia don't have to reduce supply to exactly world-wide demand to get their desired price; oil prices are driven hugely by the efforts of speculators so Opec and Russia only have to convince the speculators they have the power to control prices and they will be back in the drivers seat on price and Opec and Russia with a deal like outlined above and implementing it will achieve this needed objective. The bottom line is that a return to a hundred dollar a barrel of oil is easily possible and anyone that says otherwise is a huge fool!

The other thing is that below $50 a barrel of oil is not good for America not by a long shot. America has invested heavily in electric cars, smaller cars, natural gas trucks, fuel efficient planes, etc. to succeed in a world with high priced petroleum. Cheap oil throws these plans into disarray and will thus cause significant economic impact and at minimum medium term harm as this transformation falls into a state where the economic sense of such transformation is very much hurt as demand for this transformation falls off because of low oil prices. Leaders of America need to lead America off its dependency on oil and the mantra need to be no turning back, America long-term well-being depends on it!

nah, come on? you expect us to read this whole thing? send me the abridged version. I get the gist but think it might not be so bad when the oil wars start for us. then we could relight detroit with natural gas everthing and everybody will be scrambling to work together and fight the economic fossil fuel ww3 we are only making worse by putting it off. Then we could actually benefit as a whole and once again show our talents as the free and true leaders of the new world ... order? lol could and should happen. truly

 

[haissem123]

Lots of reasons. It's not renewable. Bad for environment. Sends lots of money to the Middle East....

Yeah, and it's sticky and black!

Butane stoves are a lot better for the environment than burning wood. Windmills are sure good for birds, aren't they?

Since the price went down and American production is way up, much less of our cash is going to the Middle East.

None of your reasons come close to making up for the deficiencies of "renewables."

If we stick with oil the middle east will get out money eventually, don't be silly. Or do you think it will be cheap forever? How about all the environmental damage everytime there is a spill? Look what happened in the gulf. We need to keep moving toward solar and wind.

The environment recovers, and even if we have to buy it all from the Middle East, we'll still be better off than we will with so-called "green energy." It would be impossible to make enough bio-diesel to run the world economy. There is simply no way you can have a power grid running on 100% solar and wind. You always have to have 100% backup from coal or natural gas fueled power plants.

The best thing to do is use our fossil fuels for the next 50 years or so by which time we should have cost effective fusion power.

Sure it does. Sounds like the best plan for the Middle East, not us. Germany will be mostly solar by then and we will be way behind.

Germany will be mostly solar by then and we will be way behind.

Way behind on waseful boondogles?
Excellent news!

Now if the Greenies wanted to throw their support behind nuclear energy, I'd be more likely to believe
their fear of CO2 was sincere, instead of just a plan to get more government control over our economy.

you aren't seriously suggesting more nuclear are you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, and it's sticky and black!

Butane stoves are a lot better for the environment than burning wood. Windmills are sure good for birds, aren't they?

Since the price went down and American production is way up, much less of our cash is going to the Middle East.

None of your reasons come close to making up for the deficiencies of "renewables."

If we stick with oil the middle east will get out money eventually, don't be silly. Or do you think it will be cheap forever? How about all the environmental damage everytime there is a spill? Look what happened in the gulf. We need to keep moving toward solar and wind.

The environment recovers, and even if we have to buy it all from the Middle East, we'll still be better off than we will with so-called "green energy." It would be impossible to make enough bio-diesel to run the world economy. There is simply no way you can have a power grid running on 100% solar and wind. You always have to have 100% backup from coal or natural gas fueled power plants.

The best thing to do is use our fossil fuels for the next 50 years or so by which time we should have cost effective fusion power.

Sure it does. Sounds like the best plan for the Middle East, not us. Germany will be mostly solar by then and we will be way behind.

Germany will be mostly solar by then and we will be way behind.

Way behind on wasteful boondogles?
Excellent news!

Now if the Greenies wanted to throw their support behind nuclear energy, I'd be more likely to believe
their fear of CO2 was sincere, instead of just a plan to get more government control over our economy.

you aren't seriously suggesting more nuclear are you?

You mean a reliable, large scale source of power that emits no CO2?
Why not?

 

[BullKurtz]

Q: Did Obama write that he would "stand with the Muslims" and that he nurses a "pervasive sense of grievance and animosity" toward whites?

A: No. A widely circulated e-mail fabricates some quotes from Obama’s books and twists others.

Obama 8217 s 8216 Dreams of My Father 8217

Read it for yourself and stop lying about it....he's a muslim.

 

[M14 Shooter]

you aren't seriously suggesting more nuclear are you?

Why wouldn't he?
Wait... does the word "nuclear" scare you?

 

[BullKurtz]

That's not counting the $1.2 trillion deficit for FY 2008, or the cost of the trillion dollars he bailed out Wall Street with, or the cost of the $5 trillion to bring the economy back from the shambles he left Obama with....But you knew that, didn't you.

Every nickel LOANED to the bankers was REPAID at 10%....you can't come in here and lie so why try? As to when the crash started, that was 2007 when Pelousy and Reid took over Congress....the mortgage meltdown was a product of Fanny/Freddy CRA loans being sheltered from inspection by Maxine Reed, Franks, and Dodd. Bush made several attempts when the red flags appeared but was called a "racist" for it.