USA Elections Whole New Ballgame

[belgareth]

That is called business as

usual and is part of why I am so negative about both parties and their candidates. Did you know that candidates are

not legally bound by their campiagn promises? Shouldn't they be? We deserve better than what we have been getting

for the last 50 years.

[stuttgart-man]

even the best politics can

not prevent that oil availabilities are running low in long term! Perhaps the high oil-price is an opportunity to

change our energy-polic basicly! So we could displace oil by solar and hydrogen! Furthermore the high oil-prices

could stimulate for example the automobile-industry to develope cars which needs only few amounts of fuel! And

lastly the environment would be disburdened!
This all would lead to that we are less dependent on

oil-exporting-countries too!

[belgareth]

There are a large number of

issues here. The US has an abundance of both oil and natural gas. There is not a real shortage of either, only of

foresight. Had presidents started moving things in the right direction thirty years ago we would not be in this

situation today. The recent jump in petroleum prices is not really a supply and demand issue so much as a

speculation and greed issue.

Nuclear power is another good option had we decided to move in that direction but

once again things were put off. Hydrogen cars and fuel cells are both excellent choices even though both produce

water vapor which is considered a greenhouse gas and is supposed to contribute to alleged global warming. Solar is

ok as a low level energy source and is becoming more efficient but still has a long way to go and has certain

limitations in respect to limited energy gathering capabilities and weather considerations.

We have dug our hole

and now we need to get out of it somehow.

[stuttgart-man]

Yes, in the press it is

often reportet, that speculants are responsible for the high energy prices, but I am a little bit sceptically!



If a share become popular on the stock exchange then more and more will buy this share wheras never will sell it!

this leads to higher prices because the market will find a balance between demand and bidding!

But if a

speculant will earn money with raw materials like oil, he will buy a future! In opposite to shares a future is not a

physical ownership about the good! A future is a contract about a good which have to buy/ to sold in future to a

agreed price and a agreed date!

For example the oil-price-future for december is quotes at $120 a barrel and a

speculant buy this future because he expect rising prices!
Now he is justified and commited to buy this oil in

december for $120!

Supposed the oil-prices rises to $140 in december! Now the speculant can (must) buy the oil

for $120! But this would mean the he gets the oil (physically) in form of barrels delivered to his home! As no

speculant want to get such a huge amount of oil he would sell the future on the last trading day! As now the future

quotes at $140 he earns the different of $20!But this offer will lead to lower prices! Shares can be hold for a long

time wheras an oil-future has only a short age and must be sold (if you are a speculant) at the last trading

day!
And as speculants do not create real demand I believe that he should not have a big influence to the price!



But I think that counties like China, India and other emerging markets do create a huge demand! Five years ago in

china most people drive by bike and nowadays more and more people posses a car which needs fuel! And industrial

needs in this counties rises too!

Even if the availabilities of oil in the world is big, the oil (and other raw

materials) needs machines with gets the material/oil from the ground into the earth surface! Perhaps there is not

balance between this machines and needs!

[belgareth]

I understand how speculation

works and it has been the driving force behind high prices. There was no shortage. Even Saudi Oil ministers were

saying the prices were to high and were not justified by demand and available supplies. Increases in supply did

nothing to lower prices. It was a false bubble created by speculation and some speculators are going to take a

financial hit with the drop below $117 a barrel.

Of course machines are needed to produce petroleum. None of the

oil producing countrie were running at capacity, they could have produced more oil had they choosen to do so. It

would not have made any difference as reserves were high. My point is that we should have opened available fields in

the US a long time ago. We would not be in this situation had we done so. We could be utterly independent of OPEC.

Had we begun developing alternative energy at the same time we would be consuming far less oil than we are today. It

is no more than politics and special interest groups getting in the way of dealing with energy issues and the

general citizenry losing out because of it.

[Mtnjim]

My point is

that we should have opened available fields in the US a long time ago. We would not be in this situation had we done

so...

Why bother opening more areas when areas containing about 82% of natural gas and 79% of the oil

available are already open to drilling. Not to mention the 68 million acres of existing permits that go unused?

[belgareth]

I did not say to open more

areas, I said open more available fields, though I suspect your numbers are not correct. However, I refer you to the

following article poted earlier in this thread.

Bill Phillips spent nearly

50 years in the US oil and gas industry; most of his career was with the Phillips Petroleum Company. Bill is a

descendant of Frank Phillips. Frank Phillips, along with his brother Lee Eldas (L.E.) Phillips, Sr., founded the

original Phillips Petroleum Company in 1917 in Bartlesville, OK. Do you remember Phillips 66 gas stations? Phillips

Petroleum Company merged with Conoco, Inc. in 2002 to form the current ConocoPhillips oil

company.

So, when Bill

talks about oil and gas issues, I tend to listen - closely. I think that you will find Bill's thoughts and facts

very revealing, very compelling and very difficult to argue with.



As you prepare to cast your crucial ballots this Fall, please think long and hard

about the far-reaching, cumulative effects of the US political philosophies, policies and legislation that have

contributed to the current and future US oil supply situation.


May 28, 2008



"B[COLOR=blac

k]ig Oil"[/COLOR]
Did you know that the United

States does NOT have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the

14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies--all owned by foreign governments or

government-sponsored monopolies--that dominate the world's oil supply.



This graph below tells the story; you can barely see the American oil companies as minor

players on the right side of the chart in gray. The chart was presented to the House committee last week by

Chevron.

With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign

governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have

access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, ExxonMobil, a

"small" oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e,

mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies

charge ExxonMobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up as the value of the American

dollar goes down. They will eventually bleed this country into printing even more money and we will go into runway

inflation once again as we did under the Carter Democratic reign.

This

is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The

United States--unlike, say, France--actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil

companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to

American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be

infinitely preferable to shipping endless billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela to be used in

propping up their economies.

So, why doesn't it happen? Because the

Democrat Party--aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans--deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil

companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean,

off Cuba but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and

California. Enormous oil-shale deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American

consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast

petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly

its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop

them.

In short, all Americans are paying a terrible price for the

Democratic Party's perverse energy policies. I own some small interests in tiny, 4 barrel-per-day oil wells in

Wyoming. We have 14 agencies that have iron-hand jurisdiction over us. If we drop any oil on the ground when the

refinery truck comes to pick up oil from our holding tanks, we are fined. Yet down the road the state will spray

thousands of gallons of used oil on a dirt road to control dirt. When it rains that oil runs into rivers and creeks.

Yet a cup of oil on the ground at our wellhead is a $50,000 EPA fine plus additional fines from state regulating

agencies. They treat oil as if it were plutonium that has the potential to leak into the environment. We are fined

if our dirt burms are not high enough around a holding tank, yet the truck that picks up our oil runs down the road

at 60 mph with no burm around it. People wonder why there is no more exploration in this country. It's because of

the regulators; people who have lived their whole lives doing nothing but imposing fines on small operators like us

for doing mostly nothing.

So, America enjoy your $4.00 per gallon

gasoline. Your dollar is now worth 0.62 Euro-Cents. The lack of American production of GNP, the massive trade

deficit (as labor markets have moved overseas to fight insanely high union imposed labor costs in America) and the

run away printing of money (backed by nothing of value here in America) has caused the dollar to become more

worthless on the international market. And that's where our oil comes from. It's paid for with dollars that become

more worthless everyday. If we had just kept par with the Euro we'd be paying $62 dollars per barrel for oil (42

gallons) or about $1.50 instead of $2.50 a gallon for crude oil.

What

the US government also does not tell you is that it is the leaseholder and royalty recipient of most oil production

and receives 25% of the gross oil sales before we pay for electricity to lift the oil, propane to keep the oil-water

separators from freezing in the winters. We pay a pumper to visit each well everyday plus we have equipment failures

all the time. We pay for that out of our 75% of gross sales. The government does not share in any expenses to run

any production well. So, if the Big Oil Companies are making record profits, then so is the federal government from

it's 25% tax on every molecule of oil sold to a refinery in this country. Why isn't the government on the stand

for "Record" profits? What you don't see is this 25% of the sales price of crude oil being siphoned away by the

government. That money plus the road taxes, state taxes, etc. amounts to over $1 per gallon of gasoline you are

buying while the governments only admit to about 50 cents per gallon.



To all you Democrats, when you go vote for your candidate, a blazing liberal like

Barrack Hussein Obama or Hillary Clinton, just keep in mind that their liberal spending habits will further decrease

the value of the American dollar on the world market and your gasoline costs will hike even higher. As they

introduce more give-away programs, raise taxes on everyone to pay people not to produce or work, your dollar will

continue to dwindle on the world market and you will be paying $10.00 per gallon at the next election. Cheap

hydrocarbon fuel is all over. Enjoy! Enjoy the fruits of your decision to elect these folks when you are there in

that voting booth and you stab your pin through a Democrat's name.



William "Bill" Phillips

[Mtnjim]

... I refer

you to the following article poted earlier in this thread.

[b]

Ya, I saw that original post. Don't

you think he might be a smidge biased?

[belgareth]

Certainly, aren't we all? Does

that make all his claims wrong? Should we accept the alternate claim that you quoted?

[Mtnjim]

...Should

we accept the alternate claim that you quoted?

I don't know, how about:



MSNBC

WASHINGTON - Nearly three-fourths of the 40

million acres of public land currently leased for oil and gas development in the continental United States outside

Alaska isn’t producing any oil or gas, federal records show, even as the Bush administration pushes to open

more environmentally sensitive public lands for oil and gas development.
An Associated Press computer analysis of

Bureau of Land Management records found that 80 percent of federal lands leased for oil and gas production in

Wyoming are producing no oil or gas. Neither are 83 percent of the leased acres in Montana, 77 percent in Utah, 71

percent in Colorado, 36 percent in New Mexico and 99 percent in Nevada

Or this:



Washington Times

But Democratic leaders said allowing drilling in ANWR and other environmentally sensitive areas is

unnecessary because oil companies already are sitting on leases to drill on 68 million acres of federal land in the

contiguous 48 states, and about another 20 million in areas of Alaska outside of ANWR

Then

there's:


The Wall Street Journal

Instead of opening more lands to drillers, Obama said he supported a

bill in Congress that would levy a fee on oil companies that have rights to exploit federal property but

don’t. Current law requires oil companies to develop a lease within 10 years or lose it. There are millions of

acres of unexploited, leased lands in the federal inventory; Obama said these lands carry the potential to double

U.S. oil output. “If that compels them to drill, we’ll get more oil,’’ Obama said. “If

it doesn’t, the fees will go toward more investment in renewable sources of energy.’’

Or how about

Congress

itself?

In the last four years, the Bureau of Land

Management has issued
28,776 permits to drill on public land; yet, in that same time,

18,954 wells were
actually drilled. That means that companies have stockpiled nearly

10,000

extra permits to drill that they are not using to increase domestic

production.

[belgareth]

How about

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessres...ty_080630.html



http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/...news2.13s.html



http://www.fpif.org/papers/03petropol/politics.html



[URL]http://seekingalpha.com/article/68182-warren-resources-untapped-reserves-in-a-soaring-industry?source=feed[/U

RL]

http://www.rense.com/general70/doro.htm



http://www.gmanews.tv/story/109176/U...t-oil-reserves



http://www.nypost.com/seven/10112006...n_t__owens.htm

Seems there is a lot more to the story than the political debate would have us

believe. It is a difficult task to extract oil from shale oil deposits but it is being worked on now under mandates

from the Bush administration. As always, it is easy to quote damning numbers. But what the numbers really mean is

often another subject altogether.

[Mtnjim]

I didn't get a chance to read

through all of your links, but they seem to be talking "oil shale" a whole other story.

Dont forget about the

huge find in North

Dakota.

[belgareth]

Actually there are remarks

about Oil Shale, oil reserves and natural gas reserves. They are all important in the grand scheme. Sounds to me

like there is a lot going on, where profitable. However, the millions of barrels mentioned in that article pale in

comparison to the potential trillions available elsewhere in this country. Were I making the decisions I'd focus on

the higher potential long term projects. I certainly would not be exploring borderline areas if I could focus on

high gain sites.

[idesign]

Kool K, could you have imagined

what you inspired with this thread? Its all been good. Alrighty then, back to the subject matter at hand.

The

Dem. convention has started and Obama has Joe Biden at his side. Not too surprising. Biden is staunch and

reliable, and has proven himself to be perfectly willing to suspend reason for politics. Perfect for Obama.



What will be interesting is seeing an elder Dem. Senator towing the vacuous Obama line. Biden does have a nice

history of unleashing his inner beast, which is really fun, but Obama will demand a too controlled and sanitary

pablum.

OTOH, Obama is showing some cracks in his hope-and-change rhetoric. He's learning on the fly that the

big boys play tough, and nobody could really take his early fluff seriously. He can't put two coherent sentences

together without a tele-prompter and his handlers are showing the strain. The media as well can only hang on so

long with any shred of integrity, which they've mostly lost already. I think there'll be a backlash from all this

silliness in McCain's favor, which leads to...

McCain, what is he doing? Its his race to lose, and he seems to

be doing a good job of losing it. He's had countless opportunities to articulate the differences setting him apart

in a rational and reasonable way. He seems to be stuck on a fence tottering between what he thinks and what he

thinks he should think. Its a shame that the once "maverick" is seemingly now slumming with the very enemy he

should be strafing. John, John, John, get back to your roots. You already know that you can't fraternize without

consequences beyond your control. The only compromise will be on your side.

It will be interesting to see

McCain's running mate. It'll need to be someone who can save his horribly run campaign.

However, this should

not be a closely run contest, and all I can think of is that Obama has always over-polled. Let's hope so.

[koolking1]

yep, I unleashed a tiger

on this topic, and - it's been fun.

I'm pretty sure Obama made a huge error in picking Biden to be his

running mate. Catholic voters, and they are big numbers, plus the Christian rightists, are going to find Biden hard

to swallow. Biden, "ardent Catholic" that believes in abortion doesn't sit well with Catholics, they may not like

McCain but now he has become further the lesser of two evils. Voting for the lesser of two evils has been the norm

for a lot of people for a good while now. It's too bad.

[idesign]

Agree with your assessment. I

think also that a "Senator/Senator" ticket leaves a lot to be desired. We have too many already. I think

that's part of McCain's problem too, but at least he has a history we can look at as a candidate. Obama/Biden

will only lead us into a never-ending committee debate on who's money to spend. Wait! They know the answer! Of

course their committee will defer to the UN on int'l debate, from which we can expect, uhhhh..... more debate.

Hey! I know! Let's not elect a Senator! Shucks, I know, its too late for that now.

The Dem convention is the

height of boring. The Clintons are forcing their presence and I don't really expect much from Obama's speech

tomorrow in the Parthenon. They're in terrible shape and losing numbers during a convention, which is really bad

news for them. Its to be expected. We'll see what the Reps can do. I expect Obama to fall like a house of cards.

After all, he built it and the Dems scurried to get under it. Shame on an uneducated populace.

[koolking1]

I was thinking about that a

little more, Obama's VP pick and for the life of me don't understand why he didn't go with Gov Bill Richardson of

New Mexico. He's Hispanic, has real governing experience, and has foreign affairs experience as well.

[koolking1]

rumor I'm hearing is that

McCain will pick Romney, probably not who he wants but he's a sharp businessman and that will be needed the way the

economy is going.

[stuttgart-man]

Hey people,

have found

an interesting and absolutely crazy page where you can "trade" the canditates for president (McCain and Obama)

concerning how many percent they get on the election and how big is the probability of each that he become the next

president!

Apparently this system works better for forecasting the election-results than a survey as "prediction

markets trust in the collective intelligence of the participants to receive reliable predictions of future events"

(http://www.wahlfieber.de/Infocenter/wahlboerse?lang=en)

If for example "McCain-shares" are quoted

with 45% and you think that he will get more as 45% on the election you can buy this share at 45! And so you can

sell it to higher prices if expectations are rising or (when waiting to the election results) McCain get more as

45%

For trading (or to see the forecasting) "How many votes in per cent the candidates will get on the

US-Presidential Elections 2008?":

http://www.wahlfieber.de/Trade/marke...rung=USA-08-Ex

and "Who will be the

next president?" http://www.wahlfieber.de/Trade/marke...ng=USA-08-1-Ex

[idesign]

This is an interesting site s-m,

thanks for the link! I signed up and bought McCain at 45. This will be interesting to watch. However, as in a

poll, the statistics are subject to the sample, or in this case, the buyers. Should be fun!

[koolking1]

"DENVER (Aug. 29) --

John McCain tapped little-known Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential running mate, two senior

campaign officials told The Associated Press on Friday. A formal announcement was expected within a few hours at a

campaign rally in swing-state Ohio.
Palin, 44, is a self-styled hockey mom and political reformer who has been

governor of her state less than two years. Palin's selection was a stunning surprise, as McCain passed over many

other better known prospects, some of whom had been the subject of intense speculation for weeks or

months."

above from AP

[belgareth]

Very Interesting choice there!

I'm stunned too. Wonder how that will impact former Clinton supporters as well as many others.

[koolking1]

I suspect McCain will pick

up a good number of HRC supporters now, with his health, this woman could become the 1st female President of the

USA. But.... she is under some kind of investigation in Alaska for firing a state employee, must not be considered

too serious or I doubt she would have been picked.

[Mtnjim]

Looks like McCain is going after

that all important Eskimo vote.

[koolking1]

now that I know a little

more about Palin I don't think McCain is going to get but a few HRC supporters. Palin is pro-gun, anti-abortion,

and anti-gay marriage - usually all things Hillary supporters are in opposition to.

here's a pic of

her:
http://www.wonkette.com/assets/resou...lla%201984.jpg

get out the

mones boys!!!

[stuttgart-man]

now that I know a little more about Palin I don't think McCain is going to get but a few

HRC supporters. Palin is pro-gun, anti-abortion, and anti-gay marriage - usually all things Hillary supporters are

in opposition to.

here's a pic of

her:
http://www.wonkette.com/

assets/resources/2006/12/Miss%20Wasilla%201984.jpg

get out the mones boys!!!

unbelievable that

she is already 44
Perhaps soon the most mightful woman will be the most beautiful woman too

[idesign]

I like Sarah Palin a LOT. I

think she'll bring much to McCain that no other VP pick could do, mostly because of her conservatism, but also that

she has exec eperience and is a Wash. outsider. That she's a woman changes the whole of the ticket, and not just

her looks. She's a very well-rounded person, and is very appealing in a personal way. She'll

be a huge campaigner and will draw a lot of people to McCain.

As for the HRC constituent, forget about 'em,

nobody but HRC will satisfy 'em, and McCain doesn't need 'em. What she will do is lock in for the Reps those who

were on a fence wondering if they should take a slug of whiskey, bite down hard and vote for Obama. I think there

are a lot of those out there. She'll get the Reagan Dems too.

If the race has been running 3-4 points apart

lately, I think she's good for that and more.

For the Dems to come out saying that she's "inexperienced" is

affrontery to beat all gall and insult, not to mention chutzpah.

I'd place bets too that she'll eat Joe

Biden's lunch on the campaign trail, she's much smarter. This will be fun to watch.

I'm very excited, and had

no idea that McCain would even consider her. She's a bright star in the party, like Bobby Jindahl (Gov,LA), and

she has a great future. This woman could run for Pres on her own in 4, 8 or 12 years and be a contendah. Don't

underestimate the pick, its brilliant.

Can you tell I like her? I could be completely wrong here (that happened

7 times before lunch today), but I think this is big.

[koolking1]

I think Obama made a huge

mistake in picking Biden.

McCain's pick is brilliant and may just give the Republicans a 20 year run in the

White House, 8 of Bush, 4 of McCain, and 8 of Palin.

That being said, I still won't vote for McCain.



Ron Paul '08

[belgareth]

I agree with all your points

and think she is just the wedge he needs, in this particular time, to nudge Obama out of the limelight. Her history

as a maverick, a down home soccer mom and fighting the oil companies is going to give her a lot of popular vote. The

press is already beating it to death. The dems complaining she hasn't enough experience nearly had me choking on my

coffee this morning.

No, I am not going to vote for McCain either although I'd rather see him than Obama in the

office. Ron Paul is still my first choice even though I realize he hasn't got a chance. My only other real option

is to write in Daffy Duck.

[idesign]

My only

other real option is to write in Daffy Duck.

Too funny. You could write in "Dumbo" which would include

the entire Congress. We'd end up with 500+ presidents and they'd be arguing so much in committee that no policy

would be implemented. Good strategy!!