$5 a gallon gas? Say it ain't so!

Hate to burst your bubble. Demand will not go down the way you would like. People still have to go to work. What seems to be the norm in the US now, get prices high, keep wages low so people will demand more from the govt.

JP, you are right on target!!

If you can provide a QUOTE from one of your two links that prove your assertion, that China is drilling within 100 miles of the U.S., then I will admit you were right, and apologize.

But if you can't prove your own case with your own links, then you should admit error and apologize for spreading a lie. If you don't, I can only hope that there are no young people who look to you for moral guidance.

Your move.

I disagree. If gas is "too high" then demand will go down. That's how economics works. (If demand doesn't go down, then that means gas was priced too low in the first place and it should've been $5 a gallon all along.)

As I stated, gas has historically show to be inelastic in the short-run. You're right that people have to get to work. But they will cut down on less-important travel, curtail vacations that are far away, consolidate trips, etc... basically the same things we all did after Katrina (or here in Nashville when we had that stupid gas shortage a couple years ago). So there will be a period where demand should go down a slight bit, but nowhere near in proportion to the increase in price.

But long-term, gas is fairly elastic. Demand will definitely go down after some time has passed. A permanent increase in gas prices will cause people will take the price of gas into account when they decide where to live, where to work, what cars to buy, and so on.

In other words, we will slowly but eventually restructure our lives to accomodate the reality of high gas prices.

- Jeff

Forkie:

Here is a quote from one of my links:

China is investing in all sorts of oil ventures that include drilling offshore from numerous countries; it is even negotiating with Cuba for drilling rights near the Florida coast. Mexico continues to drill offshore with our support. And the United States is lending Brazil $2 billion to explore off its coast, where experts believe 30 billion barrels of oil awaits discovery and production.

or this one:

Cuba

Cuba’s current production of about 60,000 barrels per day is from onshore wells. But Cuba is planning to drill seven test wells in the Gulf of Mexico during 2011 and 2012. A consortium of companies from Spain, Norway, and India is planning to drill at least one well early next year using a Chinese-built rig owned by a unit of the Italian oil company Eni, and Malaysia’s Petronas is planning to use the same rig off Cuba. Cuba has leased 21 of the 59 blocks it owns in the Gulf of Mexico to seven companies. Besides the five foreign companies mentioned above, Venezuela’s state oil company (PDVSA) is also planning to drill an exploratory well next year, and companies from Vietnam and Brazil have also leased blocks. Companies from Russia, China, and Angola are negotiating exploration rights. Cubapetroeo, Cuba’s oil company, estimates that Cuba has up to 20 billion barrels of oil in its offshore areas, although the U.S. Geological Survey estimates the amount to be only 4.6 billion barrels. Of special interest to the United States is that some of this drilling will be within 40 miles of the coast of Key West, Florida.[viii]



You said the expansion of drilling by foreign countries 100 miles from the US was an "urban legend". I checked SNOPES and found no reference of that. Do YOU care to provide a reference of this "urban legend" or appologize? Instead of an appology, a "vegas ghetto walk" is always an entertaining option.

Your link says:

ANWR oil production is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light (LSL) crude oil2 prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 in the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 in the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 in the high oil resource case.

I think a $.41 to $1.44 difference in the price of a barrel of oil is significant. That is a .46% to 1.6% difference in the price of oil with oil priced at $90. However, as we all know proces skyrocket when supply does not meet demand and this difference could be much larger if there are oil shortages (i.e. Oil embargo in Iraq). So why not drill in Anwr? Why should we stop drilling in the gulf when our neighbors continue to do so --- and they are expanding their efforts? Why should the government "stop" free enterprise from satisfying a demand so vital to jobs in the American economy?

The only reason I can fathom is the government is using Cass Sunstein methods to "nudge" the American people to do the "right" thing at the cost of jobs and prosperity. How scary is that? All you out there who are unemployed should remember this!

I do not.

I think it's insignificant.

Using the figures you cite, I don't think reducing a $3.50 gallon of gasoline to $3.48 or even $3.44 constitutes a significant savings.

We disagree on the meaning of the word "significant".

Drilling in ANWR is a distraction from the real energy problems we face. We need to cut our dependence on fossil fuels, not indulge it.

At this point, it's pretty plain that jphelan cannot support this claim.

Forkie my exact quote is:

" 1/1/11 12:36 PM So, why did we stop drilling in the Gulf when China is expanding its drilling < 100 miles away?"


You called this an "urban legend" ---- still without proof.

In return, my quote from cited sources says China is in talks with Cuba to drill 40 miles from Key West.

Sounds to me like while the USA has a moratorium in the gulf Chiana is expanding it's efforts.

I don't expect an apology - your silence for 24 hours would be enough for me.

Chilcoot - neither you or Forkie can support your "urban legend" claim.....

Tick tick tick