And while I have no figures to support this, my feeling is that $4 / gal (and related costs) could be as low as we can expect in the future.

But I still think we should start drilling off-shore. That oil (and ever-more domestic supplies) should be for US domestic consumption, and it should be part of a wider energy policy. If we don't become self-sustaining (or as nearly so as possible), then the coming global melt-down as people start fighting over diminishing supply is going to suck us right in.

And while I have no figures to support this, my feeling is that $4 / gal (and related costs) could be as low as we can expect in the future.

But I still think we should start drilling off-shore. That oil (and ever-more domestic supplies) should be for US domestic consumption, and it should be part of a wider energy policy. If we don't become self-sustaining (or as nearly so as possible), then the coming global melt-down as people start fighting over diminishing supply is going to suck us right in.

While McCain and the oilmen dangle the mirage of cheap oil in front of consumers' eyes, climate change keeps on rolling along. By going after the mirage, we are wasting both time and resources, thus hampering efforts to develop coping mechanisms for the inevitable relatively high oil prices. The increase in demand by developing countries, plus the decreasing ablility of oil supplies to keep up, will guarrrantee relativley high prices, unless you're proposing to go the way of iran, which is going broke because of state sublidies to consumers and, thus, embrace socialism.

The customary taxation epilog never fails. The illusion that people don't need to pay for what they get is a mass psychosis, by now, as evidenced by not only failing to pay for our wars, but also by an unwillingness to pay for cheap gas.
Cheap gas also costs, not only in terms of prospects for the future, but in tax-payer subsidies. A lot of those taxpayers don't own cars and couldn't afford long road trips if they did, so this is wealth distribution of the first order.
it's ridiculous to expect to benefit when it suits but then cry 'wolf' when you have have to contribute to the benefits garnered. The anti-tax people want a free ride and nothing less.
When did a free ride become a right?.

While McCain and the oilmen dangle the mirage of cheap oil in front of consumers' eyes, climate change keeps on rolling along. By going after the mirage, we are wasting both time and resources, thus hampering efforts to develop coping mechanisms for the inevitable relatively high oil prices. The increase in demand by developing countries, plus the decreasing ablility of oil supplies to keep up, will guarrrantee relativley high prices, unless you're proposing to go the way of iran, which is going broke because of state sublidies to consumers and, thus, embrace socialism.

The customary taxation epilog never fails. The illusion that people don't need to pay for what they get is a mass psychosis, by now, as evidenced by not only failing to pay for our wars, but also by an unwillingness to pay for cheap gas.
Cheap gas also costs, not only in terms of prospects for the future, but in tax-payer subsidies. A lot of those taxpayers don't own cars and couldn't afford long road trips if they did, so this is wealth distribution of the first order.
it's ridiculous to expect to benefit when it suits but then cry 'wolf' when you have have to contribute to the benefits garnered. The anti-tax people want a free ride and nothing less.
When did a free ride become a right?.

Twice, there has been a substantial rise in motor vehicle fuel prices, and after waiting, the auto makers have offered smaller vehicles to consumers — which left the auto makers burned after fuel prices went back down and consumers moved back to larger or more powerful vehicles.

It is a very risky thing for the automakers to retool and risk being “burned” again, which is one likely reason why they are late to build and offer smaller vehicles, even if “this time it's different.” (What makes more sense is the offering for sale here in the USA of smaller vehicles that already are offered in Europe; no retooling would be needed.)

* * *

“As far as ethanol goes, most experts suggest its effect on food prices is overstated.”

Then there is the outright silliness of “linking” ethanol here in the USA to “the food crisis” [sic] in the Third World, accompanied by pathological guilt or outrage. [sigh]

Ethanol has other problems, such as inferior energy density as well as the issues with how it is managed and subsidized (in what looks like a corrupt manner).

Too bad we don't have isobutanol from switchgrass already, but oh, well.

* * *

“I ask again, if oilmen are so eager to drill, why aren't they drilling in the areas already available to them?”

The more important issue is that many good areas aren't available to them.

* * *

“Have a good day and enjoy that 8 dollar a gallon gas coming to a gas station soon……NEAR YOU.”

Only the diseased fools who say we need this because it will reduce “global warming” [gag] will be happy about it. Or those who want to heap huge new taxes on the cost in addition to it. Or those who want to socially engineer society by levying sumptuary (“sin”) taxes on engine displacement or horsepower or impose a “fee-bate” scheme where extra costs are added to larger vehicles and transferred as subsidies to lower the costs of smaller vehicles, so the circus animals tend over time to jump through the preferred, “proper” hoops.

Twice, there has been a substantial rise in motor vehicle fuel prices, and after waiting, the auto makers have offered smaller vehicles to consumers — which left the auto makers burned after fuel prices went back down and consumers moved back to larger or more powerful vehicles.

It is a very risky thing for the automakers to retool and risk being “burned” again, which is one likely reason why they are late to build and offer smaller vehicles, even if “this time it's different.” (What makes more sense is the offering for sale here in the USA of smaller vehicles that already are offered in Europe; no retooling would be needed.)

* * *

“As far as ethanol goes, most experts suggest its effect on food prices is overstated.”

Then there is the outright silliness of “linking” ethanol here in the USA to “the food crisis” [sic] in the Third World, accompanied by pathological guilt or outrage. [sigh]

Ethanol has other problems, such as inferior energy density as well as the issues with how it is managed and subsidized (in what looks like a corrupt manner).

Too bad we don't have isobutanol from switchgrass already, but oh, well.

* * *

“I ask again, if oilmen are so eager to drill, why aren't they drilling in the areas already available to them?”

The more important issue is that many good areas aren't available to them.

* * *

“Have a good day and enjoy that 8 dollar a gallon gas coming to a gas station soon……NEAR YOU.”

Only the diseased fools who say we need this because it will reduce “global warming” [gag] will be happy about it. Or those who want to heap huge new taxes on the cost in addition to it. Or those who want to socially engineer society by levying sumptuary (“sin”) taxes on engine displacement or horsepower or impose a “fee-bate” scheme where extra costs are added to larger vehicles and transferred as subsidies to lower the costs of smaller vehicles, so the circus animals tend over time to jump through the preferred, “proper” hoops.

It is used and misused constantly, not rarely, and it is misused because in no way is it and in no way can and will it ever be a solution in and of itself. Nor is it right or appropriate to forcibly reduce people's standard of living (with exceptions for those deciding on and enforcing the reducing, in practice), or otherwise engage in elitist folly such as we're hearing about forcing down speed limits on highways.

It is used and misused constantly, not rarely, and it is misused because in no way is it and in no way can and will it ever be a solution in and of itself. Nor is it right or appropriate to forcibly reduce people's standard of living (with exceptions for those deciding on and enforcing the reducing, in practice), or otherwise engage in elitist folly such as we're hearing about forcing down speed limits on highways.

Yep just as I suspected. Barak Obama dot com has sent you over here havent they. I get some guy that I have never seen posting at a site show up everytime I start talking about this with almost identical talking points and how Barak Obama is going to save the world.

I get that all the time. Oil people reject my thoughts. Democrats reject my thoughts. GOP'ers reject my thoughts. All for 3 and vastly different reasons. Dems to stop drilling and save the owl. GOP to protect national security. Oil company people to keep the heat off them and to continue to ensure the financial longevity of their business.

However if your really interested in the truth and not just talking points to keep your own beliefs in your made up fairytale world sound then Im sure there is enough information out there to give you a good start.

Look it up yourself. What I posted is in my head not on wikiapedia dot com. What I posted is 40 years of accumulated knowledge of the business. Not what I read at wikiapedia.com.

If in this day and age to make something the truth you must post a reference to a link on the internet then all I have to do is start a blog write what I know and it becomes the truth.

Is that what the internet is about.

Fine lets start with gull island. If you want to learn.. Start their. Perhaps Carbon Injection techniques as opposed to water injection. Mabey you could sit in on symposiums on oil shale and its possible ramifications and how your going to heat it up and get it out of the ground. Where the water is going to come from.

Maybe you could try sitting in on Conoco/Phillips town hall meetings as they discuss the state of the oil industry. Or Exxon/Mobile or BP Amoco. Sinclair oil is a strong provider of information on the state of refineries 3 of which they operate and the oil business.

Perhaps you could join a small cap investment team whose function is to bring oil to market using leases that are not exorbitantly expensive and try to drill and produce in areas where the big two such as Exxon or Shell are willing to sell you co2 for carbon injection and someone else is willing to sell you crushed limestone so you can drill without using exorbitant amounts of water.

Perhaps when you;ve set in on and done all these things for 40 years you can come back and tell me Its bunk. As for me I've said the last thing Im going to say on this. You as voters can either educate yourselves on this topic or you can continue listening to what talking points you believe and go on your merry way.

Have a good day and enjoy that 8 dollar a gallon gas coming to a gas station soon……NEAR YOU.

Yep just as I suspected. Barak Obama dot com has sent you over here havent they. I get some guy that I have never seen posting at a site show up everytime I start talking about this with almost identical talking points and how Barak Obama is going to save the world.

I get that all the time. Oil people reject my thoughts. Democrats reject my thoughts. GOP'ers reject my thoughts. All for 3 and vastly different reasons. Dems to stop drilling and save the owl. GOP to protect national security. Oil company people to keep the heat off them and to continue to ensure the financial longevity of their business.

However if your really interested in the truth and not just talking points to keep your own beliefs in your made up fairytale world sound then Im sure there is enough information out there to give you a good start.

Look it up yourself. What I posted is in my head not on wikiapedia dot com. What I posted is 40 years of accumulated knowledge of the business. Not what I read at wikiapedia.com.

If in this day and age to make something the truth you must post a reference to a link on the internet then all I have to do is start a blog write what I know and it becomes the truth.

Is that what the internet is about.

Fine lets start with gull island. If you want to learn.. Start their. Perhaps Carbon Injection techniques as opposed to water injection. Mabey you could sit in on symposiums on oil shale and its possible ramifications and how your going to heat it up and get it out of the ground. Where the water is going to come from.

Maybe you could try sitting in on Conoco/Phillips town hall meetings as they discuss the state of the oil industry. Or Exxon/Mobile or BP Amoco. Sinclair oil is a strong provider of information on the state of refineries 3 of which they operate and the oil business.

Perhaps you could join a small cap investment team whose function is to bring oil to market using leases that are not exorbitantly expensive and try to drill and produce in areas where the big two such as Exxon or Shell are willing to sell you co2 for carbon injection and someone else is willing to sell you crushed limestone so you can drill without using exorbitant amounts of water.

Perhaps when you;ve set in on and done all these things for 40 years you can come back and tell me Its bunk. As for me I've said the last thing Im going to say on this. You as voters can either educate yourselves on this topic or you can continue listening to what talking points you believe and go on your merry way.

Have a good day and enjoy that 8 dollar a gallon gas coming to a gas station soon……NEAR YOU.

While additional drilling might play a part, it won't play a significant part in reducing gas or oil prices in the US, whether the effect comes in 5, 10, or 30 years.
Prices are set by the global markets, and US contribution to global oil supplies would not be significant enough to affect global prices by more than a xx cents.
Keep in mind that worldwide demand would also be rising in th interim.

A pertinent question to ask is whether taxpayer investment, and that will be expected, is best devoted to drilling or to alternate energy sources, fuel eficiency and technologies that promote conservation.

There are parallels between the mindset of those like McCain wjo trun to drilling as the inevitable fallback position, and the mindset of those in the US auto industry. They also stuck to old paradigms and, as a result, have been beaten at their own game by other countries, notably Japan. .

Other countries, like in Scandinavia, are even pulling ahead of the US in innovation. If the US isn't careful, we'll lose out even on that front. Time is running out. We either face the music and prepare for the future or we stick to old ways and repeated failures.

While additional drilling might play a part, it won't play a significant part in reducing gas or oil prices in the US, whether the effect comes in 5, 10, or 30 years.
Prices are set by the global markets, and US contribution to global oil supplies would not be significant enough to affect global prices by more than a xx cents.
Keep in mind that worldwide demand would also be rising in th interim.

A pertinent question to ask is whether taxpayer investment, and that will be expected, is best devoted to drilling or to alternate energy sources, fuel eficiency and technologies that promote conservation.

There are parallels between the mindset of those like McCain wjo trun to drilling as the inevitable fallback position, and the mindset of those in the US auto industry. They also stuck to old paradigms and, as a result, have been beaten at their own game by other countries, notably Japan. .

Other countries, like in Scandinavia, are even pulling ahead of the US in innovation. If the US isn't careful, we'll lose out even on that front. Time is running out. We either face the music and prepare for the future or we stick to old ways and repeated failures.