Printable View
As President Obama rolled out new plans to cut costly oil dependence this week, Americans rage against high tolls being tacked onto motorways. Meanwhile, some Metro Detroiters squabble over communities billing for the actual costs related to emergency responses and "crash fees".
What is there to complain about, the road is profitable and pays for itself.
I gladly pay toll when I visit my daughter in Colorado; the toll road is in better shape, faster and gets you to the airport in half the time I25 to I70 does. Michigan could use a few toll roads to save wear and tear on cars.
As President Obama rolled out new plans to allegedly cut costly oil dependence this week, he continued to perpetuate the "big lie" thatQuote:
Originally Posted by DetroitDad
The CNN article you linked to further distorts what the President actually said, conveniently muddying the waters by characterizing him as having said "America only possesses 2% of the world's known oil reserves".Quote:
"America holds about 2 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves" [source: White House transcript of the President's remarks].
Catch the difference? Most people don't even know or care about the definition of "proven oil reserves". But if you are using the President's remarks in this post to further your own agenda, you better be ready and able to defend him.
The fact is that there are two different definitions of "proven oil reserves" and that "known oil reserves" is meaningless by comparison.
In most oil-producing countries around the world, "proven oil reserves" equals the amount of commercially recoverable oil estimated to be in the ground as calculated by the oil industry and totaled up by the government. However, in the USA, "proven oil reserves" is not an industry calculation, it's a legal term that has been defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission:Proved reserves. The quantities of hydrocarbons estimated with reasonable certainty to be commercially recoverable from known accumulations under current economic conditions, operating methods, and government regulations. Current economic conditions include prices and costs prevailing at the time of the estimate. Estimates of proved reserves do not include reserves appreciation.Unlike all other countries, the USA starts with the oil industry's estimate of our commercially recoverable petroleum [[~164 billion barrels) and reduces it not only for "current economic conditions" but also for those reserves that are located in areas that are currently off-limits to production because of government regulations, resulting in the United States' narrowly-defined proven reserves of ~19 billion barrels of petroleum. When following the same methodology used elsewhere for measuring "proved reserves", the United States currently possesses ~15% of the world's proven reserves. [source].
Note that because of our limiting definition of "proved reserves", every time the price of oil rises, our "proved reserves" rise, too; likewise when the price falls. Furthermore, as the price rises, the oil producers have a financial incentive to search for and find additional reserves. Finally, because of politically-driven government regulations coming out of Washington DC, much of our proven reserves are off-limits to drilling and therefore not counted.
So not only is our President perpetuating the lie about our share of the currently proven world-wide oil reserves, in his speech he attempted to use it in an apples-to-oranges comparison:
If he wants to talk about our share of annual world-wide consumption, honesty requires that he compare it to our share of annual world-wide production, which is ~10% [source].Quote:
"We consume about 25 percent of the world’s oil. We only have 2 percent of the reserves."
Therefore, if the President really wanted to level with the American people, he would have said "Each year we consume about 25 percent of the world’s oil while only producing 10% of it. We currently only have about 15 percent of the world-wide reserves."
But that doesn't sound dire enough to justify massive Federal Government interventions in the energy sector, does it?
Interesting, Mikeg. Especially when you consider that:
1) The oil companies employ scads of geologists to locate commercially recoverable oil
2) Two-thirds of all oil exploration and drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico are currently inactive.
3) Any oil recovered in the United States is still sold on the global market.
If you want to be like the gopher from "Caddyshack" and tear our country to shit just so you can drive 30 miles to the Walmart, then HOW ABOUT WE START IN YOUR BACKYARD?
At current gas prices, gas is a modest part of the personal cost of car ownership, even ignoring the cost of vast amounts of land that are devoted to the storage and use of cars in the US, the public costs of developing automotive infrastructure, and the environmental costs. As a society, we have decided to spend a whole lot of money on making automobile use easy and convenient, but there isn't any way to make it cheap. We're a rich country, maybe we can afford it, but the expenditure is substantial.
Leases can be inactive for a number of reasons, the predominate one being that not every lease turns out to hold oil or gas. But you know that, just like Obama knows about our narrowly-defined and easily-manipulated "proven reserves" statistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
You're pretending that somehow, there's magically enough oil to keep happily motoring along indefinitely--if only we were just *smart* enough to drill everywhere at all costs. How silly can we be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeg
There simply isn't enough oil to last until perpetuity, and by focusing only on drilling, you're avoiding a true resolution to oil dependency.
I suggest you start burying some dinosaurs, or wake the fuck up already.
How about a factoid to relive the hyperbole overload?Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
- 94 percent of Federal onshore areas and 97 percent of Federal offshore areas have not been leased to oil companies [source].
I'm pretending nothing - I've cited some facts to counter the lies that are being tossed out to make the situation sound worse than it actually is. So let me suggest that you quit mis-characterizing my comments and either start providing some facts or shut the fuck up already.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
Like you implied above, that doesn't mean there's a single drop of oil in any of those areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeg
How many BP explosions do we need to have just because you don't feel like walking or taking a bus?
Sorry, mikeg. Your position on this is realistically untenable. There's no amount of domestic drilling that can be done that will get the price of gasoline down to $1.25/gallon for you. That amount of oil just doesn't exist, and demand from China and India--which each have four times the population of the United States--isn't about to decrease anytime soon.
Frankly, the price of gasoline in the U.S. is already too cheap--look at the condition of our roads and bridges and tell me that the existing gas tax is sufficient. There are far poorer nations that pay far higher prices for gasoline. Quitcher bitchin.
Toll roads are fine, when they work. They're a real pain in the ass in large metropolitan areas like Chicago. Most of the roads are in bad shape and during rush hour traffic you're stopping, sitting and starting up constantly. Sitting in traffic and idling, stopping and starting rarely saves wear and tear on cars. It's also a large generation point for pollution too.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcole
Where I live now, the taxes are higher, but part of the reason for that is because basically you mail in your toll fees once a year. It just makes life a lot simpler than stopping every few miles and throwing money out the window.
One of the main reasons we've turned over so many toll roads to Macquarie and other foreign companies is the down payment we receive when we make the deal. Cities and states with large deficits have been able to raise large chunks of cash to toss into their coffers and make the books look better temporarily. Long term, I don't know if it's good or bad.
For instance, countries in the European Union were paying the equivalent of somewhere between $4-5 [[depending on the country) for gas when we were paying $2-2.50. The difference, or about 75% of it anyways, is taxes... Europe is much closer to the source of most of their oil than we are. They don't have a whole ocean to contend with. From a pure cost standpoint, the crude oil should be cheaper, but taxes nearly doubled the price.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
I drive the I-44 toll roads in Oklahoma on my trips back to Detroit. They are in no better shape than I-44 in Missouri, which is free. Last trip through, the road from the MO state line to Tulsa was under construction here and there. When I got on to the Tulsa to OKC segment, I asked the toll taker if there was any construction ahead. He boringly said, "I wouldn't know".
Boy, did that piss me off. And, yes, there was.
I saw this thread and it reminded me of an article I read the other day.
http://www.therightscoop.com/europea...-cars-by-2050/
Gas prices should be a flat $5.00 a gallon across the United States and the money should be used to invest in the next generation of transportation. We need to start thinking about the post-gasoline world now, instead of when we reach critical mass.
And why shouldn't the "next generation of transportation" pay for itself? I am all for conservation. Lets get the damn 18-wheelers off the roads and on to trains [[a system that is there already and works). If we have $5 a gallon gas, lets use the money to perfect coal gassification since the US has several thousand years worth of coal in the ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by devman1983
That is true. I just saw some statistics about hauling freight on trains versus semi's and I was amazed at the projected fuel savings. The roads might last a little longer too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
Trains make sense for very long hauls for many goods. For other goods distribution factors in more than the cost of fuel. Things such as time and the ability to get the product to the destination are also important.Quote:
Originally Posted by old guy
For some trips the railways may be too congested for shipping by rail to make economic sense. Yes it does happen, particularly in hubs such as Chicago or Kansas City. Unfortunately the growth of giant stores mean that they need lots of stock. This makes shipping by truck even more cost-effective. 40 years ago grocery stores were much smaller and they had thier distribution places locally. Many of these distribution centers were located right off the railroad tracks. A and P and Farmer Jack for example controlled much of the railroad S of I-96 between Southfield and Burt. Another big warehouse was just off of I-94 by 16th.
With the growth of the mega stores like Meijer or Wal Mart mega distribution centers evolved you can see Wal Mart's just N of Coldwater off of I-69 and Meijer has a local one where I-75 and I-275 intersect in Monroe County.
If we're going to complain about the cost of oil and gas, let's start with Alaska and Sarah Palin and the windfall tax she approved while Governor.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...askatax07.html
Potential reserves and recoverable fossil fuels are 2 separate entities altogether.
All NA cheap oil has been found and has been burned.
The war machine's recent endeavors are a telling tale of peak oil.
Expect a "conflict" with Chavez in the near future.
Detroitdad... I take offense to your comments about "crash fees"... maybe you're having comprehension problems or whatever... I wasn't "squabbling about the fees"... I was complaining about the fact that Eastpointe was out and out LYING on their billing to me, and the fact that spending 15 minutes for a $327 charge was outrageous.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitDad
You've been complaining about transit for the longest time.... we get it!! Do you want to pay $4.50 for each time you take the people mover... the actual cost? Or whatever the ACTUAL cost is for a bus ride... or for that matter when Mass Transit comes down Woodward... do you actually expect to pay the actual fee per rider? I'm sure the answer is no...
Whether it is the auto/road/freeway system, mass transit or whatever... none of them pay their own way...
And another thing.... lately you've been "dumbing down" the forum with threads such as "Why are there only 3 casinos?" and other questions that sound like something a 5th grader would ask, rather than informed adults.
I've been one of the few people on this forum that hasn't attacked you... but I am certainly starting to understand those that do...
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article...&from=rss_home
We have no oil!!!
Yippee! A whole six-months worth!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by RaumVogel
Please, continue with your 30-mile commutes.
No it doesn't which is why you see so many bad bridges and not so many smooth roads and traffic congestion on a two-lane road which should be a four-lane road[[ not enough money to make it four lanes)Quote:
Originally Posted by Russix
As for the fee for emergency response dispatch to accidents, The person should have the ability to decline help. If he chooses to accept, then should be billed. why charge.