What country do we have to go to war with to get reasonable gasoline prices??

It´s just me or the OP is highly disgusting?, talking casualy about starting wars for looting doesn´t fit me kindly.

I, for one, welcome our barbaric Aussie overlords.

It is? That’s news to most people.

“An average of one to two sabotage attacks a week against Iraq’s oil pipelines has crippled the country’s oil industry, hindering its ability to export crude. As a result, Iraq’s exports hardly exceed half of its prewar production capacity, and Iraqis, sitting on the world’s second-largest reserves, often find themselves standing in gas lines longer than those Americans faced in the worst days of the 1973 oil embargo. Exports are down from 2.5 million barrels a day before the war to 1.5 million barrels a day now.”

Sorry, I take public transit.

If he was just asking factually I would’nt have a problem with it. A simple oil chart would answer it. However he posted it here, like were supposed to argue about it or something.

I should hope we’re better then viking raiders.

Although some Americans feel they’re paying through the nose,*

*for the humorless I’m joking. If you just did’nt get the joke look up: pay through the nose, etomology

Don’t have to go to war , just smash OPEC

When those bastards are cutting production by 4 percent ,going into the summer season , downstream supply gets even more limited.

Ramp up production of Iraq’s oil , get more supply out , take out chavez and install someone more tractable in Venezuela.

Look at the amount of state taxes your paying on Gasoline ,and start a proposition to lower them.

Declan

Or, better yet, look at all of the direct and indirect subsidies to gasoline and fight to raise the taxes so that the price of gasoline better reflects its full costs! (See, for example, this Sierra Club page on various studies that have attempted to look at the full costs.)

And, start voting out of office those folks who don’t support forward-looking policies like increased CAFE standards.

Evidence that gas prices are not too high:

(1) In real terms, they are not any higher than they have been in times past. And, the prices compares favorably on a per-gallon basis compared to other substances like water, soft drinks, … which probably use less resources to produce and cause less environmental damage than oil does.

(2) Studies such as those on that Sierra Club webpage that attempt to estimate the true costs associated with gasoline use in automobiles on a per gallon basis.

(3) The fact that we use this resource so inefficiently. You see people driving places they could easily walk, clearly buying much bigger and more inefficient vehicles than can be justified by an objective look at their uses for the vehicle. Etc. Etc.

(4) The growing awareness of environmental problems we face (both air quality and climate change) which stem at least in part from the use of this resource.

If we want to lower gas prices, probably the best thing to do is to “invade” Detroit with higher CAFE standards.

They say America is the land of opportunity and it’s true. Poor kids can grow up to hold up and rob gas stations while the son of a rich man can grow up to become president and hold up and rob the oil of a whole country.

Damn man! Do you realize you are calling 50% of American citizens lunatics?!?!?

Oh. Right-o. Carry on. You are correct.

Seriously though, we (here in the USA) desperately need to raise our gas taxes. Maybe then we could finally get decent mass transit and do more serious research on alternative fuel sources.

Sadly though, higher gas taxes, just like decriminalizing drugs and raising the income tax, are just as deadly politically as they are beneficial to our nation.

Zagadka said:

To the non-google dependent class, it probably is news. The DOE of the US has this to say about it:

"Production
During the war, 7 Iraqi oil wells were set on fire, out of around 1,500 total wells. On April 14, 2003, the last of these fires were extinguished at the South Rumaila field. This was considered a significant accomplishment, given pre-war speculation that Iraq might set many of its oilfields ablaze as it did with Kuwaiti oilfields in 1991. However, in spite of the fact that little damage was done to Iraq’s oil fields during the war itself, looting and sabotage after the war ended was highly destructive, accounting for perhaps 80% of total damage.

On April 22, 2003, the first oil production since the start of the war began at the Rumaila field, with the restart of an important gas/oil separation plant (GOSP). Starting in mid-May 2003, the USACE – which has the lead in restoring Iraq’s oil output to pre-war levels – began a major effort to ramp up production in the country. As of mid-March 2004, Iraqi oil output was fluctuating somewhat, but generally was averaging around 2.4-2.5 million barrels per day (bbl/d) on a “gross” basis." (underline mine)

I am also holding a WSJ article from 3/15 that states that Iraq’s oil production is at pre-war levels. The amount of reporting on this subject has been pretty thorough.That’s in contrast to the Baltimore Sun article you sited: (Do you live in Baltimore?)

I’m not a fan of posturing with google inspired links. My point, then and now, is that oil prices, while dictated by the laws of supply and demand, are routinely affected by other factors like the level of taxes levied agaist them and market manilulation by the producers. The supply is controlled by organizations like OPEC. Both OPEC and non-OPEC countries have the capacity to replace the oil lost due to military hostilities. (But, oil production in Iraq hasn’t been affected as severely as you googled) It is a common mis-perception that oil production capabilities drive prices at the pump. If all of the oil pumping countries, OPEC and non-OPEC alike, were to pump at full capacity, prices at the pump would fall through the floor.** London_Calling** correcly noted that our relative low pump prices (vis a vis the world) are due to our priorities, not market forces.

The OP was this, right?

johhnyt27 asked in the OP:

Iraq was an OPEC member before the gulf war and the US/UN restrictions. While the US is in control of the oil fields right now, it is inconceivable that the US would pump as much oil as it possibly could in an effort to lower oil prices. They would, in effect, be turning Iraq into a non-OPEC nation in the heart of the middle east and be competing against our oil producing allies in the middle east, led by Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia might very well retaliate and restrict production among OPEC members.The oil producing nations and the US have politically agreed to a “band” in which oil prices are allowed to float. Internal discipline with OPEC is generally good (with some notable exceptions) and they’ve been pretty good about keeping the oil flowing. Certainly OPEC could restrict the flow of oil and raise prices. (remember the oil embargo in '74?; I’m guessing not)

But back to the OP…

IMO, London_Calling, answered the question in the most pertinent way; namely that the price of gas is a function of politics, not the war in Iraq. If the OPer was serious, and it wasn’t tongue-in-cheek, the answer is that the USA will need to invade many more countries than Mexico and Canada. (in addition to Iraq)

Genuis! All we have to do is stop repairing roads, and the price of gas will drop by a several dimes per gallon!

Now THAT is what you call some gooooooooood economics.

Johnnyt27 asked:

To actually answer your question…

We would need to invade not just Iraq, but Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and maybe Iran. How’s that? Instead, we could invade a combination of a few other countries like Mexico, Canada and Venezuela. Russia might be a good choice. What do you think? (Forget that will almost certainly start a nuclear war)

For all the silly talk about invading Iraq for oil, the fact is that Iraq produces something like 2-4% of the world’s output needs.

Our gas prices should probably be higher! If they were, it would proably produce the changes noted by I Love Me, Vol. I and jshore.

Yea, sure. If you’d care to read what the articles say, you’d find out that while they aren’t facing the same problems with burning oilwells stopping production, their exports are screwed. There IS more than one step to the process of oil, you know - it doesn’t go from the well to your car.

“Google” > DoE’s spin stories

(I actually got that link from a NGO watchdog group, KTHX)

Zagadka said:

It would seem to me that a country like Iraq, with the capacity to produce a couple million barrels plus of oil daily, would be awash in oil if they were unable to send it through their pipelines. They don’t have the means to store substantial amounts of crude oil do they? I mean, what is actually involved in exporting oil from Iraq? They don’t actually refine the oil there, correct? I think it is done elsewhere. And, if the means of exporting were inhibited, it would quickly be reflected in their ability to produce, unless they had tremondous storage means, right?

To the OP, it is still clear that if we received every single drop of Iraqi oil it would probably still be less than 10% of our daily needs. (more or less)

I have no reason to believe that the DOE is spinning that, and I’ve read it from many other sources.

I don’t know what NGO stands for.

Non Government Organisation. Usually referring to Oxfam, the Red Cross/Crescent, and other non-government aid agencies.
As far as the OP goes, people in the US are already paying historically low prices for their petrol. The cheaper it is presumably the faster it gets used, and so the sooner it runs out (or rather, the price skyrockets to match the cost of extracting it from more and more difficult sources). So are you sure you want it to be cheaper? More expensive now means you get to keep using it for longer.

If cars ran on milk it would be more expensive than running on gasoline, but at least we could invade Wisconsin. :smiley:

I don’t know about that. I’d rather face the Iraqi Republican Guard than an angry Packers fan…

I don’t think so <lol>…

In Alberta ALONE, according to the Alberta Energy and Resource Board (see Link (note this is a 141 page PDF)), there are 62 billion barrels of oil of which 20 billion is estimated to be recoverable with today’s technology. Recoverable natural gas is estimated to be 200 TRILLION cubic feet.

Youse guys got any WMD’s up there? Are you sure? :smiley:

Just out of curiosity, how long does it take you to see a doctor for a normal visit? A week? 2 weeks? I can see a doctor the same day I call. Not much different if I need surgery. And I know exactly how much money this costs me every year.

Your universal health care cost is hidden by a general tax so you literally have no idea what you are getting for your money. From the UK people I’ve talked to, I can’t see how it is any better then the free medical care that the uninsured get in the US. I know people getting free medical care such as chemo but they usually have to wait longer and fill out more paperwork (free means they pay little or no taxes). There is no comparison to health care between the US and the UK.

There is no misconception between the standard of living in the US and the UK. It is better here because there is less socialized spending. Put another way, we are held responsible for our lives and are taxed accordingly (less). That means we have more disposable income in the US than a country with higher taxes. It’s not rocket science. Disposable income translates directly into purchasing power. If you go to college or acquire a trade skill, you will have the income necessary to purchase and completely pay for a modest (cheap) house in 5 years. There aren’t too many countries that can match that and is directly the result of low taxation.

I’m not quite an expert on the oil industry. All I know is that we have the ports in the south running at full capacity, but we’ve had the oil pipelines in the north shut down for some weeks. I presume that they are, indeed, storing crude in large quantities.

They do do some refining (I believe a process involving processing the crude for purity), and they do have some full refining capacity in Iraq. It wouldn’t make much sense to export crude to have it processed and re-imported as gasoline. We have several engineers working on the refitting their refineries.
To the OP, it is still clear that if we received every single drop of Iraqi oil it would probably still be less than 10% of our daily needs. (more or less)
[/quote]

Well, yes. The original plan was not for oil resources. The plan was to use those resources to fund Iraq, so it wouldn’t be costing us hundreds of billions, and that would have been a rather decent plan, if it took into account the attacks.

DoE spins for the same reasons that the military spins. I’m sure they are actually producing 100%, but not shipping it. As for other places reporting it, well, they got their info from DoE, isn’t it? :wink:

Non-Governmental Organization, like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, International Committee for the Red Cross/Red Crescent, Doctors Without Borders, and other independent groups that don’t accept money from governments, and are thus usually given exemption from international politics.

Meh, the World Bank says it better than me