Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Conflict With Iran Means More Costly Fuel

January 18, 2012 by  

Conflict With Iran Means More Costly Fuel

Recent reports indicate that some Americans may be paying as much as $5 per gallon of gasoline by the time the warm-weather driving season arrives.

According to AAA, the average national cost per gallon of unleaded gasoline was $3.38 as of Tuesday, nearly 30 cents higher than it was one year ago and only 72 cents below the highest national average in July 2008.

According to a report by CNN, experts say there are a variety of reasons that Americans can expect to pay more at the pump in coming months. According to the report, modest economic recovery will likely contribute to rising fuel prices as demand increases, and foreign conflicts will also play a role.

The possibility of a conflict with Iran and that country’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz has driven fuel prices up in recent weeks. In 2011, 17 million barrels of oil per day passed through the strait. If it is blocked, about 20 percent of global oil trade could be halted and cause fuel prices to rise.

Experts say that the fuel price increases that many Americans noticed due to Libya’s civil war last year would pale in comparison to the price spikes that would result from an Iranian conflict.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Conflict With Iran Means More Costly Fuel”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • FreedomFighter

    Pipe line with Canada?

    The Obama regime reminds me of a tragic comedy, only the jokes on America.

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • Flashy

      Pipeline with Canada that has highly corrosive material flowing through it, right over the major aquefier of the Central Plains, that does nothing to alleviate the energy problem excepting to continue our addiction to oil and wich will employ at the most 5,000 at any one time most of those which will not be new employees but traqnsfers from other sites. Yeah…right.

      I know…let’s cheer on urinating on their dead so we do everyting we can to have allies over there…

      Or… get the f*** off of oil as opur main energy source ! now…of those three, which i the smart intelligent option to pursue?

      • Ted Crawford

        A large majority of the Scientists involved in these “Green Thecnologies” believe, as I do, that Green energy will be the future source of supply for our needs! The majority consenses is, within two or three Decades, Green energy will be able to supply as much as 50% of our energy needs! We must not destroy our current economy with unrealistic demands today or we will push the realisation of this goal even further into the future!

        • eddie47d

          We have two new subdivisions in Denver area that will be mostly off the grid (brand new homes) retrofitted with solar panels. This adds $26,000 to cost of home but no future heating or cooling bills. I hope alternatives do well and I hope for the best.

          • Matt Newell

            That’s great if you are moving into a brand newly built home, but it costs a LOT MORE than your figure of $26,000 to retrofit an older home. A persons first home is usually a very old house that generally doesn’t have much in the line of environmentally friendly assets. As you move up in wealth, you buy a better home or you slowly remodel what you have. People don’t have jobs to remain in their current home, so how will they be able to afford one of those homes you are talking about? How are they supposed to get to work to make the money to afford those homes if you insist that we should not use oil for gas? Electric cars move the cost from the gas pump to the electric company bill and I can state here that my electric bill has NOT been going down any amount for several years even though I have been trying to do everything I can to make it happen.

        • ChristyK

          The green technologies don’t work for our needs. Every time energy is converted to another form, it loses(wastes) energy. In normal cars, gas is burned(loss) to make heat, which converts (loss) to mechanical energy. In an electrical car, coal/gas/oil is burned (loss) to make heat which is cverted to mechanical energy (loss) to turn a turbine which makes electricity (loss) which is tranported over transmission lines (loss) which is used to charge a battery (loss) which is converted back to electricy (loss) which is converted to mechanical energy (loss). This does not save energy and the batteries are very dangerous to our environment.

          With the grid, there are 2 kinds of energy necessary for the grid to work and for us to have continuous electricy whenever we need it. Some are always on power sources such as nuclear & hydro power. Some increase and decrease as the need changes such as oil/gas/coal power plants. The larger and more frequent the change in demand, the less efficient the energy sources are. Wind/solar only give power when there is wind or sun, not when we need the power. Wind is more efficient than solar but provides most of its power at night and in the winter when demand is low. Because the wind and solar can suddenly stop, it is necessary for the oil/gas/coal plants to always stay “ON” because they can only come up to speed so fast. Therefore they are still burning oil/gas/coal while the wind/solar are working to ensure that the power will be there when we need it. When Wind/Solar become a significant portion of the grid supply they actually increase our reliance on coal/oil/gas. This technology does not work for grid electricity and will not work until a method is devised to store energy for when it is needed. I have my doubts that there will ever be a feasable ability to store that kind of energy for when it is needed, therefore the technology will most likely never work.

      • s c

        Hey, flush, you need a quick trip to Iran. Be prepared to learn Farsi – REAL quick. Be prepared to ‘convert’ – REAL quick. When you come back (you plan to come back, don’t you?), you can amaze us with all the great things that happened there.
        You’ll have to explain why gas is so cheap there (and why it’s getting so expensive here). Take notes and photos. Maybe the State Department will have an opening for you, and you can get paid to be a Billary groupy. Some people have ALL the luck.

        • eddie47d

          Utter nonsense from SC again. Do you lie in bed dreaming up this stuff. “learning Farsi”? I’m amazed your head hasn’t exploded yet with all the hyperbole.

        • 45caliber

          Take notes and photographs! Boy, do you want his shot!

      • TML

        I think it’s important to become oil independent while moving toward “green” energy at the same time.

        I still think more R&D needs put into that invention that burns salt water as fuel using radio waves.

        • Nadzieja Batki

          To create “green” energy the existing energy processes have to be used to set the greeny in place. How is that more efficient or useful?

          • TML

            Being oil ‘independent’ is where it becomes more efficient and useful. Ever since black gold became the fuel of the industrial age, it’s been horded, because it was immediately recognized that it WILL eventually disappear, as a consumable commodity that can not be equivalently reproduced. It’s value goes up and up as we move forward. Demand grows, while supply diminishes into oblivion.

            The cost of purchasing this demand for oil from other nations, even Canada, could better be routed to tapping domestic resources and R&D for alternative energy.

            The alternative to independence, is dependence… the former is always more productive.

          • hitthedeck

            Nadzieja look around in your house and look out the window at your car. Now think about no oil. You would be sitting an empty house and looking out at a frame of a un painted car with no tires or plastic. You would not even have a computer to get this message.

      • hitthedeck

        Flashy your leader sat on his arse while the Iranians were pleading for our help to rid them of a fowl government as their scientists were making an Atomic bomb, but now Obama is rattling the sword big time when it comes to oil. He would start a war for oil that we could be getting from under own feet here at home or Canada. And don’t give me that crap about pollution. Google underground oil and gas lines in America and the map will look like a large plate of spaghetti. Obama’s new energy saving light bulbs will poison more people in the next thirty years with mercury than any damage from a ruptured oil pipe.

      • Matt Newell

        Flashy, can I ask you — what great alternate do we have for oil? Especially as Obama has STOPPED drilling everywhere in the states, he is having his czars close down coal use, solar ONLY works when there is sunshine, windmills ONLY work when the wind blows, the environmentalists have stopped nuclear power use, so what do we use instead of oil?

    • Sirian

      Obummer has cut off the building of the Keystone pipeline to satisfy his environmental base. But wait a bit, he’ll open it back up just before the election – some time this summer I’d imagine. That way he keeps one group happy and then pulls in the other side so he profits politically from both directions. More and more of us are recognizing what this subversive Marxist is driving towards and in the end he will not win a second term in his superior ego wonderland.

      • eddie47d

        It’s been known since last fall that talks on the Keystone project will resume this spring. So you are making a prediction that is way too easy.

        • Sirian

          Prediction? I wasn’t making any prediction. It’s simply the way things are played out during an election cycle. Rather funny that he rejected the pipeline yet later on this year it will re-emerge and become a front page story. As I said eddie, it’s part of the game that’s all, it’s part of the game.

        • eddie47d

          The Net just announced that Obama has stopped the Keystone XL project. Says that the companies will have to find a different route in order to go forward. Back to the drawing board.

  • Bob

    I seem to remember almost the exact same rhetoric last year about how we were going to be seeing $5 a gallon gas sometime last year.

    A story about a kid and a wolf somehow comes to mind here… Is there a real issue here – MAYBE – but Saudi Arabia has already said that they can pick up any lost production due to Iran. But $5/gal gas… jeez… It would be REAL EASY to reduce usage. Just drive down ANY COMMERCIAL street at night and look at all the lights turned on bright. Now, picture them off and just think how much energy that would save…

    • Nadzieja Batki

      For security purposes they won’t turn off the lights. Crime goes down when lights are on.

      • Mac

        Crime also goes down when you have armed citizens protecting themselves.

  • http://facebook Justicejc

    This $5.00 gas per gallon. The Government is doing whatever it pleases. If a war stars in Iran the american people will be paying for that war with $5.00 a gallon gasoline. We the people did not authorized the war in Iran. Iran did not cross the border into the “UNITED STATES”.The United States has not be attacked by Iran. So the Kenya Obama boys is a war munger, And he wants to end this world with a new transformation. This is Kenya Boy Obama agenda. To screw the american people

    • Dave

      Yeah, we need peeple with your kind of “mind set” to figger things out fer us awl. You sound purty smart.

  • Doc Sarvis

    Our addiction to oil, foreign AND domestic, is a threat to our national security. A wholesale shift to other energy technologies AND great increases in energy conservation/efficiency of energy use is the best course to address the problem.

    • Sirian

      The only reason it is a threat to our national security Doc is that the special interest groups and environmental groups managed to buy their way into the pockets of Congress years ago. Since they have been a major influence, via their lobbyists, what has been pushed through, an explosion of limiting regulations on private industry that in and of itself it has collared us to a point of exactly what you said it “is a threat to our national security”. We have the resources that could turn us into Saudi within ten years max. Totally independent energy wise and our economy would profit considerably more than it presently is. Your desire to convert to “green energy” and such, OK, then get your lobbyists to push for total and complete conversion of all vehicles produced in the U.S., imports included, to CNG. Oh wait a sec, can’t do that, would have to do some frakking to get enough Natural gas. Nope, that is a terrible environmental hazard and extremely toxic to everyones drinking water, causes earthquakes and global warming too. . . Oh never mind, it’s only a Catch 22, right?

      • Doc Sarvis

        I assure you that oil money/interests have way more sway in congress than environmental groups.

        • Matt Newell


        • Mac

          Wait the same people who decried Nuke plants and refineries and prevented any new ones from really being built for the last 30 years? Yeah guess your right Doc they don’t have sway over congress. cough* cough* BS!

    • s c

      Whoa there, bunky. Your Emperor wants gas at $5 a gallon (or higher) and YOU have the gall to doubt your fearless leader. Who are YOU to make an independent decision? Your Emperor knows what’s best for America. All that programming for NOTHING. No more checks for you for pretending to “care” on this website, comrade.

      • Doc Sarvis

        If we paid what oil costs us in real terms it would be a lot higher than $5/gallon, in fact we probably would have already given up on it as a major energy source. We pay through the nose for the military operations to keep our supply going and not just in dollars but in American and foreign lives. We pay for the infrastructure to support our gas centered lifestyle. We pay through poor air and water quality and the health affects those influence.
        Yes, gas would be WAY more expensive if we did not subsidize it in so many ways.

        • Sirian

          Subsidies, schumdzideezz – just what would you call unemployment checks? Isn’t that a subsidy also? In essence it is – subsidizing unemployed people via government funds that originate from the remaining employed people and the companies they work for. Let me remind you, although it probably won’t do much good, the U.S. Government does not earn any money – it simply takes it!! And please, get off that heavily worn high horse of “We pay through poor air and water quality and the health affects those influence.” Really? Well, if that be a credible high horse to ride just why is it that people of the U.S. have a much longer life span than people of Europe, Africa, South America and Asia? Let me see, “in fact we probably would have already given up on it as a major energy source.” Alright twiddle, just what would you replace it with that would be acceptable to your agenda? Left over carrots and peas? As usual your statements have very little credibility in the common sense arena. The price of a gallon of gas would drop by a dollar, over night, if all new regulations that have been doled out to the producers since February, 2009, were repealed or eliminated, as so stated by the CEO of Shell Oil. Yes, gas very well could jump to $5 a gallon if not up to $8 – $10 or more in the not so distant future but government subsidies to the oil companies is not the main cause of it. You obviously have no common sense whatsoever when it comes to the markets – foreign or domestic. Better yet you haven’t the slightest twinge of understanding of economic terrorism that is being played out on us. Never mind, no point in even attempting to explain that for you would say it’s caused by global warming or some such other idiotic reason. Now, break out your preset listing of statistics and fire away. Your manner of thinking is at times truly unbelievable!

          • Nadzieja Batki

            Thank you.

          • Dave

            I really beleive that CEO from Shell. He certainly is only looking out for the US of A. Ha, what a load that is.
            In most european countries since the mid 80′s they have had cas getting more than 50 MPG. Yet we don’t even push for more efficiency from our auto makers. Little baby steps. What pushed them? They had high gas prices. They then innovated and got more efficient. We ae lard asses almost everyone of us. Lazy and if we only did pay the real price for gas we would be so much further along. By the way, I’ve lived “off the Grid” for over fifteen years now. Started back in the early 70′s but of course it has cost me time, money and effort. But it is well worth it and I almost have all my food worked out so I can escape the insanity of these idiotic arguments.

  • Macawma

    Geez, where did all you liberal nut jobs come from? You are the same crazies that believe in “global warming”. If you want to ride a bike to work, great. Those of us who live too far from jobs and services, will still need fuel. I have driven a hybrid for the last 5 years, to try to economize. Every time I go to any metropolitan area, I see multitudes of cars on the freeways with one person aboard. I will agree that the mindset of most people is “convenience at all cost”, but I disagree that we should not be drilling the Bakken or ANWAR for our own oil resources. These belong to us, and OPEC just grins from ear to ear every time they read a blog from people like you; just means they can keep upping the price of their commodities.

  • AK Tom

    When our current prez was running for office he lectured us on ways we could conserve energy like making sure our tires were inflated correctly and getting regular tune-ups. Now as supreme leader he still wants us to conserve energy while his wife michelle “Antoinette”obama takes a separate jet on vacation to Hawaii and jets off to Spain with 40 of her closest friends. Of course all the blind followers of this obamanation think it’s perfectly OK that he’s played over 80 rounds of golf since he’s been in office yet they howled in protest while GWB went to his ranch and worked on his vacations. Oh the hypocrisy!

  • Bert Cundle Sr.

    We are getting out of wars… Good time to increse prices and blame other countries. Feed hostility… WHO REALY IS TO BLAME? Sure enough U.S. has made plenty of foes. Maby if we treat the reat of the world as our foe, the U.S. can Unify, for self preservation!

    • eddie47d

      Wars and rumors of war always increase the price of oil or any commodity. Iran is hardly the threat that the Elites want us to believe so isn’t it time to wise up and turn the Military Industrial Complex off. We are not dependant on Iran for oil but China is so we are then setting them up to turn against us. (or) Maybe they would join us and then divide up the spoils of war as all good conquerors do. Neither scenario is beneficial for the world but that is what the Elites do to benefit themselves.

      • s c

        That was sneaky, e. However, in trying to shield Obummer, you forgot that he’s just a face in the crowd like Bubba Clinton is. You might get away with it under other circumstances, but as long as Obummer is allowed to feed his monumental, world-class ego, he will NEVER be anything but a would-be ELITIST.
        Now, WHY would you try to get the rest of us to think that Obummer is ‘just another guy’ who just happens to be a prez? Have you given ANY thought to
        the idea that if it becomes “necessary” for Obummer to use a war to try and boost his popularity that he WON’T get us into a war with Iran? Don’t you find it hard to walk a long, slick tightrope with your eyes always CLOSED?

      • eddie47d

        I’ll leave the clever spin up to you SC since you say you are the “educated” one. Nowhere did I say or would I support Obama going to war in Iran so pull your head out SC and if you need any help stuff some Preparation H up in there. That ought to loosen up your cranium a bit.

  • 45caliber

    Considering that we get about 1/4 to 1/3 of our fuel from Iran, I certainly would expect to see gasoline prices go up if we have a conflict with them. They wouldn’t ship it to us.

    The four countries we get most of our oil from are Iran, Venezualia, Mexico, and Canada. And our libs want to stop getting it from Canada since they get it from their oil sands.

    • eddie47d

      Iran doesn’t even make the top 15 of countries we get oil from. They are more on par with Libya .05% but less than 4%. China get 20% from Iran and we get 20% from Saudi Arabia. Since it is illegal (our old boycott) to directly buy oil from Iran and import it to the US I doubt if many exporters would be involved anyways.

  • ranger hall

    The talk of war always raises the price of oil, even when there is NO war. BUT the suppling countrys Raise the cost per barrel, THE OIL companies raise the Price of oil SO WHO makes MONEY and More Billions off the Consumers. The oil countries and the oil companies and the Politicians have been doing this for Many, many years. And we have done nothing. This method is used to make millions and millions on oil that is in storage, That was bought at a lower rate.
    The Powers to be want the Prices of oil to be around 3.00 THEY did this, No problems from the people, Then they wanted 4.00, They now have this, no problems from the People. 7-8 dollars a gal. This is their goal. By doing so the Unjustifed Profits have been in the billions and billions of dollars each year.
    This also keeps the americans Broker,less money for other items we need. Food,Medical,electri,clothes.Auto reg. Insurance, Personnel protection items.ETC. Have you noticed that EVERYTHING we need the prices keep Going Skyward. While our income Keeps going to HEEEL.
    The Powers to Be, will own or CONTROL all THE MONEY, aLL THE LAND, aLL THE FOOD, and ALL THE WATER. THEN WE will be nothing But SHEEP.

  • ranger hall

    IRAN only became our Enemy because we CAUSED it. All because of Our Friend the SHAH. We protected the criminal and all the Money he stole from Iran. They wanted their Criminal Back, We told them to go To you know where. Double Standards we have for criminals…But he was our Politicians BUDDY. WE have been doing this to any Arab Country that are not our Politicians BUDDIES, Look at all the ones that we give protection to and the ones we do not.Does not matter how they run their countries as long as they are our BUDDIES. SAUDIE ARABIA is the worst.BUT we have to keep the Royal Family in POWER…

  • hitthedeck

    The closed minds of liberal and conservative Americans never ceases to amaze me. When they speak about oil the only thing that is on their mine is pollution or cost. They visualize an old Cadillac going down the highway with black smoke blowing out its tailpipe. That is the stereotype that has been but on a product that is used to create just about product we use today. You can not make a product with the ingredients of wind or sunlight but oil is the main ingredient for thousands of products from paint to the clothing on our backs. You really have to think about a world without oil. You have to think about the price of oil and think about the increase in price on thousands of products going up every time the price of a barrow of oil goes up with the increased cost of delivery. The politicians have used the curtailment of oil as a tool to force green alternant energy on the American people. By stopping domestic drilling they have put us at the mercy of the people that are using our own revenues to finance their war against us. We have a government who thinks they know better than some of the most brilliant business men in America who know how to control pollution and create alternate clean energy. The American people buy what works and can not afford to gamble on what the government thinks is best. We all know that it’s always been best for them and not us!

  • http://Boblivingstonletter Gottaplenty

    I dont Think there is any capability to think in the ones we encounter on this site , 45. When all they can put out is regurtitated rhetoric it is time to move on .. what a bunch of idiots. Crossing the ogalola auquafer is such a travisty. How about your sewer line from your house crossing some water source. Best get that shut off it has already poluted something.

  • Earl, QUEENS, NY

    WE NEED THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE WHICH OBAMA REJECTED!!!! …. BHO blames the GOP; saying it didn’t give him enough time to assess the impact of the pipeline. First – if his daughters misbehaved, would Obama blame it on Bush and the GOP?? BHO has been POTUS 3 years now. When will he start taking responsibility for his blunders and failed policies?? It’s obvious he will take all of the credit for a tenth of 1% of any reduction in unemployment, and a (dubious) handful of so-called saved jobs. But he won’t take blame for the millions of jobs lost in the past 3 years or the thousands of jobs which will not be created because of his rejection of this pipeline.

    Second – What does time have to do with it?? We’ve had decades to see the impact of CAFÉ standards – thousands of needless deaths and injuries each year because of lighter less safe vehicles. Will BHO propose repealing CAFÉ standards?? Nooooo!! In fact, he wants even more rigid standards, ignoring the negative impact. Likewise, we’ve known for decades of the negative impact of the DDT ban – millions of needless deaths in Africa. Now BHO has to choose between 2 special interest constituency groups – the environmentalist wackos and unions. Although I’m anti-union, I will side with unions on this issue.

    Third – let’s remember that both union leaders and the environmentalist wackos will still vote for BHO, regardless of which of the 2 he sides with. Union leaders and environmentalist wackos will not vote GOP or conservative just because BHO disappointed one of the two. As for those on our side, we should nominate true conservative candidates. But come November, let’s vote for whoever gets the GOP nomination. Romney or Gingrich may not be much better. But there is no such thing as a democrap who will say “NO” to the flat earth – no growth environmentalist wackos. Today’s leftwing Democrap Party will only give the environmentalist wackos more of what they want to do to destroy our liberty and prosperity.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.