Posted by
on Sunday, April 27, 2008 1:06:26 PM
You probably think I was just trying to grab some attention and would use that to create fear and suspicion but this weekend <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080427/ap_on_bi_ge/britain_refinery_strike">gas hit $9.35 US per gallon in Scotland</a>.
Just for those who need a quick reference, 1 gallon US = 3.785 litres, and 3.785 x $2.47 = $9.35. What really has them mad is petrol WAS $8.10 a gallon before the strike. That was the NORMAL price.
You can't blame US oil executives for that one. Keep in mind that up until a couple of years ago, Britain was a "net" exporter of oil. When reading the article or related articles that <a href="http://europe.theoildrum.com/story/2006/9/17/135527/399">increased taxation on oil companies </a>caused a decrease in exploration and production, ultimately leading to higher prices on dwindling supplies, one has to wonder what our future is with either of the two current Democrat candidates.
Now imagine that Hillary or Barak has their way and heavy taxes are levied on the oil industry in the US. Then imagine, not a strike, but another Katrina or worse yet an embargo by a foreign country. If you don't realize that our country is on the same path as other countries now paying over $11 a gallon for gas then you must really have your head in the sand.
Band-aid plans like Barrow's suggestion to stop filling the Federal Reserve is the typical political rhetoric. The Fed currently buys 70,000 barrels a day, while the US imported <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html">11,174,000 barrels per day as of this year</a>. The Fed purchases are .6 of 1% of overall purchases.
Using John logic, <a href="http://savannahnow.com/node/486892">if there is any</a>, that prices would drop by 25 cents per gallon if the Fed quit buying up .6% of the current imports. I guess if we all stayed home just ONE day and did nothing but visit the family we could cause the SAME or even greater drop in fuel prices. At .6% we would only have to do this once every 167 days. In this case why not MANDATE a Federal driving vacation where 2 days a year we all just stay home? Remember, I am using the same logic here as the other guy.
The sad part, all of this filling of the Federal Strategic Reserve at over $110 a barrel, which by the way would be over 7.7 Million dollars a day, is being done to replace oil that we <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/nationalspecial/31cnd-oil.html?pagewanted=print">put on the market when oil was $69 a barrel</a>. Another hose job on the US citizen. We realesed oil and now we are replacing it with oil that is about $40 a barrel more expensive. That was a wise move. Once again the logic of the current political process.
John Barrows "plan" to drop the price by 25 cents a barrel is even refuted by the agency that he used for a reference. He estimates 25 cents while they estimate a few pennies. I would be on the side of the people that have a clue at what they are doing rather than a congressman, who the last time he came in close contact with oil was when he dripped salad dressing on his pants.
Barak talks change we can believe in. I think he has a point that we do need a change in the way Washington works and we can begin that change by electing people to office that have real life skills, experiences, and deals with the same issues the majority of this country has to deal with on a daily basis.