One barrel of crude oil is 42 gallons.

The price for that one barrel recently topped $126.

That's just over $3/gallon. Not for gasoline...just for the oil it's made from.

Gasoline itself is just now hitting the $4/gallon mark, as a national average.


A lot of folks seem unwilling to think about this basic math: even if you could wave a magic wand and teleport crude oil directly into your fuel tank, transforming it into usable gasoline in the process, it would still cost you three dollars per gallon.

Nor do they seem to get the obvious point that the only people who want to buy unrefined crude are the oil companies themselves. No one else has a significant use for the stuff. And the simple fact is that oil companies have to buy crude because they don't produce enough of it themselves to meet demand.

In the world of the conspiracy theorist, Big Oil owns every oil well in the world and therefore sets the prices for oil. In the reality the rest of us have to deal with, over two-thirds of the planet's oil supply is owned and controlled by national governments. Big Oil has to cut deals with those governments in order to get access, and on a number of occasions when a government thought it wasn't getting a good deal, it settled accounts at the end of the barrel of a tank gun. That was true in Mexico, Iran and Iraq --- if Big Oil was as powerful as conspiracy theorists believe it to be, they'd still own some 20% of the world's oil reserves between these three nations alone. Instead, they've had to pay for that oil, and passed the costs on to us as just another business expense.

Are Big Oil companies raking in the profits, making record earnings? They sure are...as much as 10% of current gas prices are corporate profits. But well over half of current prices are profits that go directly to the coffers of OPEC nations.

It doesn't cost significantly more to produce and distribute crude oil than it did ten years ago. Several other unusual things have factored into the current high prices, such as Hurricane Katrina's effect on US refining capacity, the invasion of Iraq, and the ongoing showdown with Iran, but what has really put a strain on the global oil market has been the growing industrialization of China and India's combined two-billion-person population. China, in particular, is now the world's leader in industrial pollution and second only to the US in terms of energy consumption.

OPEC nations are nonetheless allowing production facilities to remain idle rather than reactivating them, keeping global supplies artificially lower with the effect that the increased demand has driven prices higher. Saudi Arabia, for example, has the capacity to produce another two million barrels per day (about two-thirds of Iraq's total current production), but chooses not to despite being a close ally of the US and a supposedly even closer ally of the Bush Administration.

Eliminating Big Oil's profit might save you as much as forty cents a gallon. Eliminating OPEC's profits would save you more than two dollars a gallon.

Do the math.

Or you could RIDE YOUR BIKE!

or get an electric conversion kit for your car...

WHAT!? they exist!

Really!

that aside, the big hinge on this is the refineries. the refineries in use are old, many are running at a fraction of their capacity, and several are not even in use. There is in fact enough crude to go around but there is a bottleneck in the processing and treatment of the crude into usable fuel. Add in the recent losses of several refineries to natural disasters and other causes aaaaaand gas prices go through the roof. The companies simply view this as an opportunity to make a crapton of fastcash and won't change something that earns them money.

Fact still remains that the worlds oil supply is finite. Admittedly it is not quite as bad as some would have you believe (i.e. its not going to run out within the lifespan of any person currently alive, but most likely within our children's or grandchildren's lifespan) but the amount of readily accessible, easy to process crude oil is on the decline. As a result we are being forced to turn to new systems for drilling and processing oil such as bitumen extraction which is currently in use at the Athabasca Oil Sands in Alberta, a largely untapped resource which has remained so for a good reason but in recent years has seen vastly increased activity and interest. This system is more costly (explaining the increase in gas prices) and has a greater impact on the environment. All the while research into new energy systems is being stunted because the funding simply isn't there.

Calbeck, you're right. The oil companies don't control all of the worlds oil supplies and they don't set the price of a barrel of crude oil. But they still do have massive amounts of control and political clout both in developed and developing countries and they are, essentially, forcing the world to be dependent on crude oil for energy and other production means through lobbying, etc...

There are alternatives to crude oil out there on the market, and with the price of a barrel of oil skyrocketing to 4$ a gallon it makes me wonder why we aren't just pursuing different options. Of course when these different options are being put forward by individuals without the money to gain as much influence as the Oil Companies currently have my question almost answers itself. Fact is that Big Oil may not control the oil from the source (which is debatable considering they purchase swaths of land with oil prospects in order to drill, they are not renting the land from the country it belongs in, they buy the land and then drill) but they certainly are influencing the population to prefer crude oil over a new method.

Then again, with society being as reluctant to change as we are, I am forced to wonder whether we would choose to remain as sedentary as we are (on the issue of energy production) rather than sacrifice our comfortable lifestyle for something new and revolutionary.

Ok I understand.

There is such a thing as the law of supply and demand. And that basic economics law affects the prices of commodities.

As for oil, we have a finite supply but an increased demand from China and India.

Therefore pushing up the prices.

However, shouldnt governments start investing in alternative technologies rather than being totally dependent on oil and those OPEC countries? Shouldnt governments invest in alternative technologies and/or increase oil supply instead of limiting the supply?

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf124/sf124p10.htm
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/97015/eugene.htm



And by the way, God bless and protect these people:
http://www.theorionproject.org/en/about.html [theorionproject.org]

If every vehicle and every power plant stopped using oil tomorrow we'd still need a huge supply of oil. Petroleum products and by-products are used in almost everything we own and use.

If oil beds sometimes appear to re-fill themselves there could be a near infinite supply of petroleum, but Humankind is using too much for the current infrastructure to process. Build more refineries. And lower demand by taking the USA off of fuel oil for generating electricity.

And cure the common cold too. :)

Calbeck
Saudi Arabia, for example, has the capacity to produce another two million barrels per day (about two-thirds of Iraq's total current production), but chooses not to despite being a close ally of the US and a supposedly even closer ally of the Bush Administration.

Great topic Calbeck, interesting points made.

To those few who still don't know...
The Bush family = Big Oil. It's how they made/make their money and has been for generations.
Many, if not most, of the world's largest coorporations are descended from the manipulations of a very few oil-rich, old-school Barons of wealth like Rockefeller, et al. These people, and their descendants, have been manipulating governments and societies for far too long to lose it because the oil is running out.

Instead they use this fact to make even more obscene amounts of money and further strengthen their positions of power by using their most valued weapon... the marketplace of supply and demand.

cartoonprofessor
Great topic Calbeck, interesting points made.

To those few who still don't know...
The Bush family = Big Oil. It's how they made/make their money and has been for generations.
Many, if not most, of the world's largest corporations are descended from the manipulations of a very few oil-rich, old-school Barons of wealth like Rockefeller, et al. These people, and their descendants, have been manipulating governments and societies for far too long to lose it because the oil is running out.

Instead they use this fact to make even more obscene amounts of money and further strengthen their positions of power by using their most valued weapon... the marketplace of supply and demand.

Not really on topic but I couldn't let it slide. Actually the Bush family actually made most of their money on railroads, steel, banking, and logging. Oil was historically and continues to be a minor to part of their holdings. A famous example of this being Prescott Bush (grandfather to our current president). He was a US senator, sold steel to both sides in world war 2, and single-handedly wrested away the the flora and fauna rights of 13 native American tribes in order to logg their forests. Old money arguments are valid but only when correctly attributed to the proper families, and with valid facts.


Still a lot of untapped oil reserves all over the place. The ones in the middle-east are still strong enough that the oil damn-near surges out of the ground on its own. And yes we'll always need oil, even if its not for fuel.

The point about finite supply is a good one. A lot of countries have no other signifgant source of income. Without oil, they are nothing. It makes perfect sense for them to slow down production, ration it out, and make as MUCH money as they possibly can from it while they can. I heartily support the OPEC countries in that.

Lack of investment in refinery infrastructure is a massive factor. That creates a huge bottleneck.. makes undersuply irrelevant.

I've also heard that "Its the OPEC countries" arguement.

But I dont understand why the Western world (USA, Canada, Europe, etc...) do not invest in alternative energy sources?

All they do is BS their way in the papers talking about how you should ride your bike, use fuel-efficient cars, change driving habits, bio-fuel is good, etc. But they miss out on creating ALTERNATIVE technologies.

plas
Fact still remains that the worlds oil supply is finite. Admittedly it is not quite as bad as some would have you believe (i.e. its not going to run out within the lifespan of any person currently alive, but most likely within our children's or grandchildren's lifespan) but the amount of readily accessible, easy to process crude oil is on the decline.

I want to underscore this for everyone. Here's what the oil bell curve looks like...

The peak of the curve is different based on who's making the prediction, but the basic bell curve shape is correct. Oil was discovered to be a source of energy in the late 1800s/early 1900s and it took a while before it was utilized. By the mid 1900s, worldwide use of oil was going way up and has continued that way ever since. But we've been drilling all the liquid oil that was easy to get to. We are now reaching the peak of the bell curve. Estimates range between 2010 and 2035, but most estimates fall somewhere around 2020 as the time when we'll hit the peak.

After that point, the oil that we can get to is going to be much harder, much more energy-intensive to extract, with much more environmental impact, but worldwide demand for oil is going to continue going up and up and up, which is really going to drive the price up.

That means we have about a decade left, if that, to figure out how to get the energy we need to maintain our way of life. Geologists have been eyeing 2020 as the time of the oil peak for the last several decades and we still have not done what we need to get prepare ourselves.

plas
As a result we are being forced to turn to new systems for drilling and processing oil such as bitumen extraction which is currently in use at the Athabasca Oil Sands in Alberta, a largely untapped resource which has remained so for a good reason but in recent years has seen vastly increased activity and interest. This system is more costly (explaining the increase in gas prices) and has a greater impact on the environment. All the while research into new energy systems is being stunted because the funding simply isn't there.

There is still a lot of oil in the ground in the form of tar sands and oil shale, and from what I've read, there is more of that oil in existence than the total amount of liquid oil humanity has pumped from the ground combined. But it's expensive, it's dirty, difficult if not impossible to access, hard to process, etc. People talk about oil shale as though it will be the answer to our energy problems. But the energy it would take to get it out would pretty much equal the energy you'd get from it, making the entire venture pointless. There's a joke in geologic circles, "Oil shale is the energy of the future. And always will be."

Conservatives talk about accessing ANWR to make our country more energy-independent. But this is a facade. The total amount of oil we'd get drilling in ANWR would give us less than 1 extra year of oil (about 9 months was the last estimate I've seen). Energy independence is not a problem we can dig or pump ourselves out of. We have got to turn to other forms of energy, and figure out how to mass produce energy efficiently and reliably. And we are running out of time.

plas
Calbeck, you're right. The oil companies don't control all of the worlds oil supplies and they don't set the price of a barrel of crude oil. But they still do have massive amounts of control and political clout both in developed and developing countries and they are, essentially, forcing the world to be dependent on crude oil for energy and other production means through lobbying, etc...

Well said.

kyupol
I've also heard that "Its the OPEC countries" arguement.

But I dont understand why the Western world (USA, Canada, Europe, etc...) do not invest in alternative energy sources?

All they do is BS their way in the papers talking about how you should ride your bike, use fuel-efficient cars, change driving habits, bio-fuel is good, etc. But they miss out on creating ALTERNATIVE technologies.

I'm personally getting sick of the OPEC argument. That was true in the 1970s (I remember that oil crisis vividly. Prices if adjusted for inflation have only barely been equaled)

Now the USA gets most of its oil from Canada. Yet, I don't see President Bush going to Canada to beg for more oil. Why? The US oil companies control the flow there not the government and it doesn't make for big headlines. Though I would love to see "Bush begs Oil Companies to increase Production"

$3.58.9 a gallon. $35.55 to fill the tank of my little car! :(

Petrol is expensive all around the world, not just in the US... whether you call it Petroleum, Benzine, Gasoline or whatever. In fact in the U.S. it's actually a lot cheaper than most places! Even Diesel, which should be cheaper (easier to refine), is often the same price of more...

At least here it is. I know some local factors for that: Diesel usage isn't as popular in the cities, so it costs more to store since demand is lower. There are all sorts of silly tariffs on Diesel usage here because it supposedly pollutes more, disregarding the fact the Diesel engines run far more efficiently (when running for long periods) so use less fuel and so pollute less overall (the pollutants they do produce though are more harmful, slightly...). Also, the main users of Diesel get all sorts of discounts and rebates (mining companies, transport companies, and farmers), so a tiny minority of users are persecuted.

Now, take that local, Australian, rather specific example, and see if that could apply more generally to other types of fuel world wide:
I'm sure it does. I know that in the US and other places there are all sorts of special deals for so called "Bio-fuels" that only benefit certain groups- kick-backs and easy subsidies given to uneconomic sugar produces who should rightly be out of business, the same with various other sorts of farmers. Now imagine the vast web of special deals and agreements going through all the aspects of conventional oil production and refining world wide.

That means smaller disruptions and increases will disproportionally affect us. Ordinary consumers are always at the very bottom of the food chain I'm afraid. The very bottom.

So there you go. And Calbeck's "big oil" is a main factor, since they haven't bothered to invest very much in upgrading and replacing refining capacity.

ozoneocean
So there you go. And Calbeck's "big oil" is a main factor, since they haven't bothered to invest very much in upgrading and replacing refining capacity.

In parts of the US at least it's not for a lack of trying. Living in refinery alley for the Northeast US (New Jersey)I read about the attempts in the local news to update facilites. And watch them get shot down again and again.

Don't remind me about how expensive fuel is overseas. My wife insisted on renting a full-size car when we were in Britain. 99p a liter then.
Over $3.50 a gallon in Hawai'i last year.

And ethanol can lessen a car's gas milage so additional math may show that the amount of ethanol added to the gas doesn't matter because it's eaten up by increased consumption.

That's it, I'm gonna try to become part of the conspiracy.

Ethanol has got to be one of the worst ideas conceived as an alternative energy source. In production, the equivalent of a barrel of oil is used to make one barrel of ethanol. In other words, you're spending more energy in production that what you're going to get back out of it later. Why would you do that to create something less fuel efficient? Idiotic.

Last year, according to the Department of Energy, 5 billion gallons of ethanol were produced. It offset 1% of total oil usage, while using 20% of the total corn crop. If we used 100% of all US corn to produce ethanol, only 7% of total US oil usage would be offset. The same goes for switchgrass, wood biomass, and using things such as soybeans and sunflowers to create biodiesel.

We shouldn't use our food for fuel. OPEC wants to charge $125 a barrel of oil, let's charge them $125 a bushel of corn. Let's see them eat their oil.

Of course, it would be too intelligent for the US to use its own oil production to rid itself of its dependence. Environmentalists killed a large amount of drilling of off California, similarly kiling proposals to drill in ANWR. Oh goodness, the dolphins and the caribou. They're so much more important than we are to even consider the possibility. Large oil reserves were recently discovered in Montana and North Dakota. We'll see what comes out of that.

I just saw a piece on methane capture in dairies...Cow Power!!!

Farts.

It had to happen.

A related news article:


http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/bilderberg-group/ [cbc.ca]

"When meeting last year in Rottach-Egern, Germany, Bilderberg called for dramatic increases in the price of oil. Oil prices started climbing immediately from $40 a barrel to $70," Tucker wrote in the days before the 2006 meeting.

The group has assembled at least three times in Canada, most recently June 8 to 11 this year at the Brookstreet Hotel in the Ottawa suburb of Kanata. According to a Bilderberg news release, prominent Canadians invited to the 2006 conference included former New Brunswick premier Frank McKenna, Paul Desmarais, CEO of Power Corporation, Gordon Nixon, president and CEO of the Royal Bank of Canada, and Heather Reisman, chair and CEO of Indigo Books.

Oil companies plan on higher crude prices

LONDON (Reuters) - Oil firms are using higher price assumptions for planning their businesses, making a greater range of projects viable and a sign that the floor for prices in the long run is moving up.

Gamers Anonymous
Of course, it would be too intelligent for the US to use its own oil production to rid itself of its dependence. Environmentalists killed a large amount of drilling of off California, similarly kiling proposals to drill in ANWR. Oh goodness, the dolphins and the caribou. They're so much more important than we are to even consider the possibility.

well , i think they are more important than your damn truck !!!
GET A BIKE !!! and stop raping the planet

Gamers Anonymous
Of course, it would be too intelligent for the US to use its own oil production to rid itself of its dependence. Environmentalists killed a large amount of drilling of off California, similarly kiling proposals to drill in ANWR. Oh goodness, the dolphins and the caribou. They're so much more important than we are to even consider the possibility. ...

Two questions:
1) what is the estimated total amount of oil that would be drilled in ANWR?
2) how many days/years will that amount of oil last us? (to figure this out, you'll need to know what is the daily/annual usage of oil is in the United States)

I know the answers that I can find to these questions, but I want to know what sources you would accept to answer these. It took me literally 10 seconds to Google both answers. So how long would the ANWR oil last?

arteestx

Gamers Anonymous
Of course, it would be too intelligent for the US to use its own oil production to rid itself of its dependence. Environmentalists killed a large amount of drilling of off California, similarly kiling proposals to drill in ANWR. Oh goodness, the dolphins and the caribou. They're so much more important than we are to even consider the possibility. ...

Two questions:
1) what is the estimated total amount of oil that would be drilled in ANWR?
2) how many days/years will that amount of oil last us? (to figure this out, you'll need to know what is the daily/annual usage of oil is in the United States)

I know the answers that I can find to these questions, but I want to know what sources you would accept to answer these. It took me literally 10 seconds to Google both answers. So how long would the ANWR oil last?

Full and accurate surveys have not been allowed. The estimates put the supply between ~10-40 years worth, accounting for high and low estimates, and assuming current trends in fuel consumption and supply from other sources remain constant. I would accept either an official USGS survey result, or a professional composite field assessment assembled from data gathered by three prospective drilling companies.

I would only support ANWR drilling under circumstances of extreme crisis, and only after other domestic and foreign resources have been depleted. There are MANY other oil reserves in the US that are untapped and unexplored besides ANWR.

Also, don't believe everything you see on the internet. Usually you have to dig to find accurate source data. Most of the immediately available items you'll find are interpretations, processed reports, opinions, and extrapolations.

Think oil prices hurt now?

Oil prices, now $130 a barrel, have risen six-fold since 2002. On Wednesday, heating oil reached a record high above $3.90 a gallon and the price is expected to stay high.

Those costs come at a time of rising food prices, forcing people to spend more on basics as wages fail to keep up.

Its interesting how oil price can go up in a matter of days, but it takes a matter of years before the minimum wage goes up.

"The American consumer will continue to pay for fuel, food and heat," said University of Maryland economist Peter Morici.

"But they will give everything else up," he said. "That's going to make it harder to sell the average consumer a television, a suit, or even a meal at a restaurant."

imshard
Full and accurate surveys have not been allowed. The estimates put the supply between ~10-40 years worth, accounting for high and low estimates, and assuming current trends in fuel consumption and supply from other sources remain constant. I would accept either an official USGS survey result, or a professional composite field assessment assembled from data gathered by three prospective drilling companies.

I'll be happy to post my numbers along with the sources, but I'd like to know whose estimates are you referring to that put the supply between `10-40 years worth? What's the source of that?

arteestx

imshard
Full and accurate surveys have not been allowed. The estimates put the supply between ~10-40 years worth, accounting for high and low estimates, and assuming current trends in fuel consumption and supply from other sources remain constant. I would accept either an official USGS survey result, or a professional composite field assessment assembled from data gathered by three prospective drilling companies.

I'll be happy to post my numbers along with the sources, but I'd like to know whose estimates are you referring to that put the supply between `10-40 years worth? What's the source of that?

I actually compiled that number from numerous sources ranging from pessimistic to optimistic. Though as far as my ANWR sources go this site [alaska.usgs.gov] and my state congressional library are pretty good. Living in an oil rich state myself, with a geologist for a best friend helps too.

imshard
I actually compiled that number from numerous sources ranging from pessimistic to optimistic. Though as far as my ANWR sources go this site . I think you will find this is a standard estimate no matter where you look.

So how long will this oil last us in the United States? If you divide the 7.7 billion barrels that is a good realistic estimate of what is in ANWR by 20 million barrels a day usage in the US, you get 385 days. To remind every one, there are 365 days in one year, so you essentially get a year's worth of usage, plus a few weeks.

If you take the upper estimate of economically recoverable oil, at 11.8 billion barrels and divide by US usage, you get 590 days. That's just over a year and a half, assuming the best possible estimate of economically viable oil is true.

Drilling for oil is not like putting a straw into a drink glass, in that you cannot extract every last drop of oil in a reserve. But just for discussion purposes, let's take the most extremely optimistic total estimate, 16 billion barrels, and pretend we could extract every last drop of this. How long would that last? 800 days, or 2.2 years.

So the most realistic estimate would yield about a year's worth of oil for the US, and the most wildly extreme unrealisticly optimistic estimate would yield little more than 2 years.

Oil drilling has made a lot of advancement over the last few decades, and the environmental impact these wells have now are much much better than they were even 30 or 40 years. But there is still some impact. And there is always the risk of oil spills or other problems that unintentionally impact the environment. And we're talking about doing this all in an amazing refuge with incredible biodiversity that can't be found anywhere else in the world. And all for one year of oil, so that instead of going low on oil in 20 years (or insert your favorite estimate), we'll go low on oil in 21 years. It makes no sense.

Energy independence is not a problem we can drill our way out of. If we want energy independence, we need an Apollo project that looks to solar, wind, geothermal, and other renewable sources of energy that, with a lot of work to turn these into reliable and massive sources of energy, can make us truly energy independent, change the political landscape of the Middle East, and doesn't pollute the environment.

arteestx
Energy independence is not a problem we can drill our way out of. If we want energy independence, we need an Apollo project that looks to solar, wind, geothermal, and other renewable sources of energy that, with a lot of work to turn these into reliable and massive sources of energy, can make us truly energy independent, change the political landscape of the Middle East, and doesn't pollute the environment.

We also need a way to de petroleumize our life. Oil is in evrything we touch. It's used to move items around the country and our machines waste way too much of it to complete their tasks.

Last time we dragged out feet, the japanese took over the automobile industry for decades. Let's not allow another country to scoop us on enegry efficiency and alternative power sources.

How impossible could it be to make a car that gets 200 miles to the gallon?

bobhhh
We also need a way to de petroleumize our life. Oil is in evrything we touch. It's used to move items around the country and our machines waste way too much of it to complete their tasks.
Last time we dragged out feet, the japanese took over the automobile industry for decades. Let's not allow another country to scoop us on enegry efficiency and alternative power sources.
How impossible could it be to make a car that gets 200 miles to the gallon?

Did you know it took two barrels of oil to make the computer you typed that on, and at least half a barrel create and submit it, and then untold amount to store and maintain it on a server then distribute every time somebody accesses this site?
We can measure our lives in oil. Don't think that way. Its not about stopping oil usage, its about making it obsolete.

War for Oil?

The sad truth...

"23/05/08 "ICH" -- - The US Senate has voted $165 billion to fund Bush’s wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq through next spring.

As the US is broke and deep in debt, every one of the $165 billion dollars will have to be borrowed. American consumers are also broke and deep in debt. Their zero saving rate means every one of the $165 billion dollars will have to be borrowed from foreigners.

The “world’s only superpower” is so broke it can’t even finance its own wars.

Each additional dollar that the irresponsible Bush Regime has to solicit from foreigners puts more downward pressure on the dollar’s value. During the eight wasted and extravagant years of the Bush Regime, the once mighty US dollar has lost about 60% of its value against the euro.

The dollar has lost even more of its value against gold and oil.

Before Bush began his wars of aggression, oil was $25 a barrel. Today it is $130 a barrel. Some of this rise may result from run-away speculation in the futures market. However, the main cause is the eroding value of the dollar. Oil is real, and unlike paper dollars is limited in supply. With US massive trade and budget deficits, the outpouring of dollar obligations mounts, thus driving down the value of the dollar.

Each time the dollar price of oil rises, the US trade deficit rises, requiring more foreign financing of US energy use. Bush has managed to drive the US oil import bill up from $106 billion in 2006 to approximately $500 billion 18 months later--every dollar of which has to be financed by foreigners.

Without foreign money, the US “superpower” cannot finance its imports or its government’s operation.

When the oil price rises, Americans, who are increasingly poor, cannot pay their winter heating bills. Thus, the Senate’s military spending bill contains more heating subsidies for America’s growing legion of poor people.

The rising price of energy drives up the price of producing and transporting all goods, but American incomes are not rising except for the extremely rich.

The disappearing value of the US dollar, which pushes up oil prices and raises the trade deficit, then pushes up heating subsidies and raises the budget deficit.

If oil was the reason Bush invaded Iraq, the plan obviously backfired. Oil not merely doubled or tripled in price but quintupled.

America’s political leaders either have no awareness that Bush’s wars are destroying our country’s economic position and permanently lowering the living standards of Americans or they do not care. McCain says he can win the war in Iraq in five more years and in the meantime “challenge” Russia and China. Hillary says she will “obliterate” Iran. Obama can’t make up his mind if he is for war or against it.

The Bush Regime’s inability to pay the bills it is piling up for Americans means that future US governments will cut promised benefits and further impoverish the people. Over a year ago The Nation reported that the Bush Regime is shedding veteran costs by attributing consequences of serious war wounds to “personality disorders” in order to deny soldiers promised benefits.

Previous presidents reduced promised Social Security benefits by taxing the benefits (a tax on a tax) and by rigging the cost of living adjustment to understate inflation. Future presidents will have to seize private pensions in order to make minimal Social Security payments.

Currently the desperate Bush Regime is trying to cut Medicaid health care for the poor and disabled.

The Republican Party is willing to fund war, but sees everything else as an extravagance. The neoconized war party is destroying the economic prospects of American citizens. Is “war abroad and poverty at home” the Republican campaign slogan for the November election?

(Paul Craig Roberts wrote the Kemp-Roth bill and was assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was associate editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and contributing editor of National Review. He is author or co-author of eight books, including The Supply-Side Revolution (Harvard University Press). He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon chair in political economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and senior research fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He has contributed to numerous scholarly journals and testified before Congress on 30 occasions. He has been awarded the U.S. Treasury's Meritorious Service Award and the French Legion of Honor. He was a reviewer for the Journal of Political Economy under editor Robert Mundell.)"

imshard
Did you know it took two barrels of oil to make the computer you typed that on, and at least half a barrel create and submit it, and then untold amount to store and maintain it on a server then distribute every time somebody accesses this site?
We can measure our lives in oil. Don't think that way. Its not about stopping oil usage, its about making it obsolete.

it took half a barrel of oil to create and submit ???? where are you getting your figures ? if that where even remotely true , how the hell could any website be free ?

i agree about making it obsolete , it's all about wind and sunshine which are free for the taking just like oil . the problem is that wind and sunshine are Everywhere and its hard for rich old bastards to manipulate the price of such things ,
the Energy crisis , like the food crisis, is a result of artificial scarcity . There is plenty of energy to be had. our planet orbits a billion-gajillion mega-watt nuclear furnace but we insist on only using the energy that was left by the sunlight that was collected 100 million years ago. we are in essence living in piles of dinasaur shit

cartoonprofessor
If oil was the reason Bush invaded Iraq, the plan obviously backfired. Oil not merely doubled or tripled in price but quintupled.

it only backfired if the original intention was to stabalize or lower the price. if the intent was to create massive profits for oil companies and the saudis , than i think it was a massive succes.