It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What if high oil prices are not meant to fleece, but to wean?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Think about it.

5 years ago, how many of you would have invested in a hybrid car? Almost none, they were and are more expensive than their soley combustive counter parts.

Currently, car makers cannot make enough hybrids, they are being sold faster than auto makers can produce them. Interesting.

So, as oil prices continue to climb, more and more people will invest in these vehicles. Some where along the way infastructure has to be put in place to accommodate this alternative to oil.

What if this is our first small, and very painful step away from oil? What if the money that was /is earned during the "gouging" is invested into sustaining an all electric fleet?

It is very viable.

What if instead of "filling up" every five days, you traded in your drained battery plus a fee for a fully charged one? Energy providers can still make a profit, we get cleaner air and will finally be able to beat the rest of the world in the next stage; upgrading from the petrodollar to the nucleardollar (nudollar as I like to call it). I am speaking in terms of power generation, not weapons.

To go off tangent a bit, I think this is the main concern of the U.S., not nuclear weapons; rather the infringement of current oil barrons into an energy market that the U.S. wants to dominate.

It is very feasable to have a worldwide power grid; with certain countries supplying the power while the rest pay "fees".

Thoughts?




posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I honestly don't think its a step to wean so much as a stroke of genius by oil execs to line their pockets even faster than usual. Why jack up the price and make us all suffer to wean us away when they could just start limiting the ammount of fuel purchasesd per person? If we have the option to keep on buying as much as possible that is exactly what we will do, irregardless of the prices.

As for the idea of a global power grid I would say that is a dangerous concept because one crucial break could cut off an entire segment of a country or perhaps the whole country in and of itself. While the idea of playing nice to the world and everyone getting along makes for good speaches, its not going to happen and honestly I don't think it should. Its not our responsibility(the us) to carry other countries, and I wouldnt expect that of them either, we should each take care of our own problems.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by alternateheaven


As for the idea of a global power grid I would say that is a dangerous concept because one crucial break could cut off an entire segment of a country or perhaps the whole country in and of itself.


This happens every day with the internet (read my title). But there are fail-safes, the internet is "smart" so to speak, it has the ability to reroute traffic. Can't recall the last time an entire country lost access, despite recent weather events.

Honestly, this provides an even greater profit margin compared to oil.

EDIT: Spelling.



[edit on 7-11-2005 by crisko]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Well Crisko i believe this comes down to wether they have the right to decide wether we can pollute or not. If they really wanted to help us why not tell us they are going to raise oil prices to save us from ourselves? Do you think people will stand for being treated like that? As i stated in many previous posts the oil exec's are just being opertunistic realising that high oil prices suits the American government and that they will not be prevented from raising prices if they can somehow convince the public that it's justified. Their not blameless as such but attacking them is pointless while they still have so much influence in government. The way we change this is by demanding representation and responsbility in our government or by taking up guns and trying to get past all the security corporate folk have these days.

That's how it see it....

Stellar



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   
This is a very interesting concept; just for putting it in a different perspective:


You have voted crisko for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


I don't know if I really think that's the way it would be, but it's a much less cynical outlook, and that's definitely a nice change of pace.


Originally posted by StellarX
If they really wanted to help us why not tell us they are going to raise oil prices to save us from ourselves? Do you think people will stand for being treated like that?


How many smokers, alcoholics, or illicit drug addicts do you know and have tried to convince to quit? More often than not, you can't just make someone stop something by just telling them how bad it is for them. I know--if I had a dollar for everytime someone tried to get me to quit smoking for my health, I could've bought RJR and still have enough left over for a good round in the hospital once things do go screwy on me.

But one thing that does make me slow down on my smoking is when the prices are through the roof. If I have to choose between paying rent or getting some smokes, I'm going to make sure I've got a roof over my head. If I have enough money to where I don't have to decide between the two, then I'll still think twice if the prices are just to make some rich guy richer--but if it's intentionally to get me to quit, I'll keep smoking just out of spite. I don't want someone to force me to quit.

Same with gas. I've even started working from home in the past few months and arranged for transportation for my fiance when she's had to work, just because I can't afford to fill up my gas tank more than twice a week. Many people I know have gone to similar lengths, be it public transportation, walking where they need to go, just not going anywhere unless they have to, whatever, just to avoid the prices at the pump.

I'm too cynical to think this is the case, but man would I love to hear of a "nice" conspiracy for once...



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Well looking at the record profits that the oil barons got lately I will said that I don't see any reason for them to wean the American people of the gas.

Why would they? is not their money they only get profits.


No . . . is not weaning here is just another of their way to play with the American people's pocket and see how much they can push until the braking point.

It's still plenty cars in the road so people are still getting gas and paying the prices and bying more cars.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Do any of you people believe in Alternative fuels?

If so then perhaps you wouldnt continue to spew the brainless "oil execs are lining their pockets because they can" garbage

If alternative fuels do exist, then it would not be in the oil companies best interest to raise prices. Raising prices reduces demand and encourages investments into alternatives. Higher gas prices send more people to hybrid cars as the topic starter stated.

If there are no alternatives, then you can expect the prices to rise as demand outpaces supply. Abiotic oil could be real. There could be billions and billions of barrels left in the ground but that means jack **** if you cant pump out enough to meet daily demand.

I invite those of us here that are peak oil aware to head over to peakoil.com where there is actual intelligent discussion and not the continous "bush and the oil companies are robbing us to make themselves richer"



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1

How many smokers, alcoholics, or illicit drug addicts do you know and have tried to convince to quit? More often than not, you can't just make someone stop something by just telling them how bad it is for them. I know--if I had a dollar for everytime someone tried to get me to quit smoking for my health, I could've bought RJR and still have enough left over for a good round in the hospital once things do go screwy on me.


Valid as your pointis do they ever suggest that the extra tax will be spent helping people with these addictions? If they really cared for your health these products could simply be take off the street and the fact that they are not either means they do not care about your health or that they control the trade and love making extra money off addicts of all kinds who feel quilty enough to keep paying ever higher prices....


If I have enough money to where I don't have to decide between the two, then I'll still think twice if the prices are just to make some rich guy richer--but if it's intentionally to get me to quit, I'll keep smoking just out of spite. I don't want someone to force me to quit.


Why should the government be able to levy an extra tax on what you choose to do with your life? Why do you not take responsibility for your actions and demand the lowest prices for your drug/addiction of choice? If your feeling quilty enough to pay extra it's costing extra for everyone and they may have decided they really want to do it whatever the result? Is this not a classic case of people expecting the state to regulate their irresponsible behaviour ( if they do not want to smoke but can not stop themselves) when they do not have enough self respect, or interest, to make decisions and stick to them?


Same with gas. I've even started working from home in the past few months and arranged for transportation for my fiance when she's had to work, just because I can't afford to fill up my gas tank more than twice a week. Many people I know have gone to similar lengths, be it public transportation, walking where they need to go, just not going anywhere unless they have to, whatever, just to avoid the prices at the pump.

I'm too cynical to think this is the case, but man would I love to hear of a "nice" conspiracy for once...


Well how long will people put up with this when they realise there is no supply problem or in fact any resource of production problem that can warrent these prices? The shortages is engineered and the longer people put up with them they worse they will get imo.

Stellar



[edit on 8-11-2005 by StellarX]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thatoneguy
Do any of you people believe in Alternative fuels?

If so then perhaps you wouldnt continue to spew the brainless "oil execs are lining their pockets because they can" garbage


Well all of us certainly believes in alternative fuels and many believe in even more exotic methods of extracting energy.


If alternative fuels do exist, then it would not be in the oil companies best interest to raise prices. Raising prices reduces demand and encourages investments into alternatives. Higher gas prices send more people to hybrid cars as the topic starter stated.


Unless those oil companies have enough influence to prevent research into alternative energy sources or if the governments in question directly benefits by high oil prices. Higher gas prices makes it economically POSSIBLE for some rather rich people to switch but they only make limited ammounts currently so it really offers no solution. While the American administration do in fact benefit directly from high oil prices and oil companies can control and shut down alternative reseach, with help of government, nothing will change as 100 years of little change proves without any reservations.


If there are no alternatives, then you can expect the prices to rise as demand outpaces supply. Abiotic oil could be real. There could be billions and billions of barrels left in the ground but that means jack **** if you cant pump out enough to meet daily demand.


They can pump out enough and they do in fact pump out enough as you should know from reading a few of the threads here.... Supply and demand has very little to do with the current oil price as there is no shortage of oil on the world market.


I invite those of us here that are peak oil aware to head over to peakoil.com where there is actual intelligent discussion and not the continous "bush and the oil companies are robbing us to make themselves richer"


How lucky for you that you ran into me. Where do you want me to start proving to you that peak oil is a complete sham without any foundation in science or facts as we know them.

A list would be great but i can make my own if you like.


Stellar



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   


They can pump out enough and they do in fact pump out enough as you should know from reading a few of the threads here.... Supply and demand has very little to do with the current oil price as there is no shortage of oil on the world market.


I know this article is about two years old but there is infact a supply and demand problem.



In 2003, world oil supplies more closely kept pace with demand in contrast to 2002, when demand significantly outpaced supply (Table 8).

www.eia.doe.gov...

And Table 8 shows
www.eia.doe.gov...

that demand for oil exceeded supply through most of 2003. Was there shortages? No. Atleast not in the US. Remember its global demand and a global market. If demand is greater than supply then it's enough for the price to move upwards.

Now the supply/demand is up in the 80s... I think it's 82 mpd and we have some slack in supply, but not much, and we still got Winter coming up. We'll have to wait and see what happens.

If I happen to come across any more recent data I will post it here.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Valid as your pointis do they ever suggest that the extra tax will be spent helping people with these addictions? If they really cared for your health these products could simply be take off the street and the fact that they are not either means they do not care about your health or that they control the trade and love making extra money off addicts of all kinds who feel quilty enough to keep paying ever higher prices....


Very true about taking them off the street. However, at least with alcohol and tobacco, they were an ingrained part of society long before the health risks were determined. As such, they'd have to be gradually removed--something I believe is in the process at the moment--or else there'd be a pretty massive backlash. Even just public smoking bans cause a decent outcry from smokers and nonsmokers to get many city councils to rethink the idea.

I won't argue that smoking and alcohol line plenty of government pockets, but I'm pretty sure there's lots of people in charge who'd rather see any harmful drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) off the street. They won't push it too hard because they want to keep their jobs another four years.



Why should the government be able to levy an extra tax on what you choose to do with your life? Why do you not take responsibility for your actions and demand the lowest prices for your drug/addiction of choice? If your feeling quilty enough to pay extra it's costing extra for everyone and they may have decided they really want to do it whatever the result? Is this not a classic case of people expecting the state to regulate their irresponsible behaviour ( if they do not want to smoke but can not stop themselves) when they do not have enough self respect, or interest, to make decisions and stick to them?


I agree about taking responsibility. I smoke pretty heavy, and if I end up with cancer or emphysema, it's my fault, and not RJR's. And if I can't afford treatment and my own, personal insurance (ie not federally backed like Medicare) doesn't cover it, then I better start looking for a good box. With the exception of those dwindling few who grew up when smoking was promoted even by doctors, I don't think anyone has any reason to blame anyone other than themselves.



Well how long will people put up with this when they realise there is no supply problem or in fact any resource of production problem that can warrent these prices? The shortages is engineered and the longer people put up with them they worse they will get imo.


The problem lies in convincing everyone there is no shortage. The senate hearings looking into oil company profits are a start, but I doubt anything will ever be made public (from any federal hearing at least) that would discriminate the oil companies in this regard. About the only way the public would be convinced is by having it broadcast over the mass media, and even then you'd still have all the oil companies saying it's a lie, with multi-million dollar budgets to back them up. It'd be interesting.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I firmly believe people should have the right to do whatever they like as long as they are prepared to face the consequences and whatever else might result if you piss off certain people. What i do not believe in is government sponsored schooling wich does it's damnest to avoid teaching anything that remotely borders on self restraint ( wich is the foundation of self respect) and modern western society wich has the parents at work and the kids watching TV learning what the corporations of the world wants them to need.

So basically what i'm saying, in the most verbose way possible, is that no government should be expected or allowed to tax you for your 'own good'. What they could do instead is invest in educational institutions that teaches kids the life skills to make decisions and accept responsibility for them. Any other choice is manipulation, imo, and letting our governments get away with manouvering us in such basic ways sets a foundation that opens the door to a dark future.

Anyways!

Stellar



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Normally, we would expect a company to act in competition to set prices according to what the market will bear based on competition and variable pricing and value based models. The use of that model assumes that there would be no subsequent catastrophic war and chaos if there was a sudden depletion in a needed infrastructure component.

Perhaps, those more savvy than we have figured this out. If the oil reserves are peaking, and I think they are, then we must wean ourselves off of the resource slowly and the energy companies would need (or want) a massive amount of gross profits to fund research and development into new energy source deployment.

Though we may not be looking at the depletion in any near future, we all suspect strongly that there is "easy to get" oil and "hard to get" oil. Naturally, we go for the easy stuff first and the costs of extraction go up as we have to to move to the harder oil. Though some may claim a supply lasting decades, the economics would change dramatically over the years for all three reasons:

1. Costs of extraction going up - not seen yet.
2. Must fund R&D to get out of this mess.
3. Must wean people to lower use of oil to buy more time for R&D.

All of the above three would apply here.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by managerie
Perhaps, those more savvy than we have figured this out. If the oil reserves are peaking, and I think they are, then we must wean ourselves off of the resource slowly and the energy companies would need (or want) a massive amount of gross profits to fund research and development into new energy source deployment.


Oil reserves are not peaking now and they probably will not peak in our lifetimes if ever. Energy companies are making massive profits allready and they actually limit their investment in exploration in research to specific sums, whatever their profits. From this it is clear that they have no interest in sponsoring new technologies wich they are not allready geared to exploit.


3. Must wean people to lower use of oil to buy more time for R&D.


We should not allow them to tax us anymore as they are making huge sums wich could easily be employed for massive research projects of their picking. There are plenty of foundations and research projects where you can donate as much as you want. You can even decided on a sum per gallon if you wish.


Lets not fund the massive crime syndicate that is big oil anymore than we have to?

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join