PDA

View Full Version : Who is really responsible for gas prices?



zeus3925
03-23-2012, 09:16 AM
http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/21/markets/oil-gas-prices-speculators/index.htm

It isn't Obama--it is the speculators. Now guys, put on your genius hats, how would you deal with it if you were Prez?

Before saying "pipeline", check this out:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/22/news/economy/keystone-pipeline/index.htm?hpt=hp_bn3

road kill
03-23-2012, 09:29 AM
http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/21/markets/oil-gas-prices-speculators/index.htm

It isn't Obama--it is the speculators. Now guys, put on your genius hats, how would you deal with it if you were Prez?

Before saying "pipeline", check this out:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/22/news/economy/keystone-pipeline/index.htm?hpt=hp_bn3
I would open deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
I would open drilling in ANWAR.
I would open deep water drilling off the NE coast.
I would approve the "pipeline."
I would propose a massive state of the art refinery in the midwest.
KS/IA/NB/ somewhere like that.

Prices would drop immediately through "SPECULATION!!!"

I would also offer tax incentives for improving natural gas powered vehicles.
And tax incentives for an alternate way to operate private cars & trucks.

If your premise is true, these steps would affect "SPECULATION" dramatically.

But the progressive idealogues will attack this idea with a vengence!!:cool:


RK

troy schwab
03-23-2012, 09:35 AM
I would open deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
I would open drilling in ANWAR.
I would open deep water drilling off the NE coast.
I would approve the "pipeline."
I would propose a massive state of the art refinery in the midwest.
KS/IA/NB/ somewhere like that.

Prices would drop immediately through "SPECULATION!!!"

I would also offer tax incentives for improving natural gas powered vehicles.
And tax incentives for an alternate way to operate private cars & trucks.

If your premise is true, these steps would affect "SPECULATION" dramatically.

But the progressive idealogues will attack this idea with a vengence!!:cool:


RK

This is the biggest problem we have...... the country has actually closed like three refineries in the last ten years...... thats our biggest problem. And it is the direct result of government regulators...... IE OBAMA!!

zeus3925
03-23-2012, 10:08 AM
Maybe new refineries have not been built but there has been expansion at many of the existing ones.

The NIMBY's aside, there has been heretofore little incentive to build refineries with falling reserves of cheap domestic oil. New refineries in southwest Asia, that have been exporting competitively world wide, have also cut into our domestic market.

Domestic drilling is going on now at a record pace and technology is producing new oil to the degree the U.S. is now a petroleum exporter. It hasn't reduced prices.

For some of the deep water advocates, how would you deal with another blowout like the BP incident?

road kill
03-23-2012, 10:13 AM
Maybe new refineries have not been built but there has been expansion at many of the existing ones.

The NIMBY's aside, there has been heretofore little incentive to build refineries with falling reserves of cheap domestic oil. New refineries in southeast Asia, that have been exporting competitively world wide, have also cut into our domestic market.

Domestic drilling is going on now at a record pace and technology is producing new oil to the degree the U.S. is now a petroleum exporter. It hasn't reduced prices.

For some of the deep water advocates, how would you deal with another blowout like the BP incident?

Are you asking about dealing with specualtion and gas prices?

Or are you asking about some emotional attachment you have to something that has not and likely will not happen?????

Let's see what our friends who live on the shores of the gulf have to say about the MSM over reaction to the devesation created by 1 oil spill.
How bad is the permanent damage to the flora and fauna in the gulf??:rolleyes:


I answered your question, accurately, with detail, yet succinctly.
So, as is typical progressive fashion, you change the question and add emotion.

RK

Buzz
03-23-2012, 10:41 AM
There was a proposal to build a huge refinery in SE South Dakota. All these republican voting, rugged individualist farmers who "claim" to have a strong libertarian streak were OUTRAGED, and they attended meetings & fought it tooth and nail.

Franco
03-23-2012, 11:10 AM
I would open deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
I would open drilling in ANWAR.
I would open deep water drilling off the NE coast.
I would approve the "pipeline."
I would propose a massive state of the art refinery in the midwest.
KS/IA/NB/ somewhere like that.

Prices would drop immediately through "SPECULATION!!!"

I would also offer tax incentives for improving natural gas powered vehicles.
And tax incentives for an alternate way to operate private cars & trucks.

If your premise is true, these steps would affect "SPECULATION" dramatically.

But the progressive idealogues will attack this idea with a vengence!!:cool:


RK

Agreed!

Not to mention the high paying jobs created. The average oilfield hand around here makes close to six figures and those a little higher up make well into six figures.

In regards to the question about another BP situtaion; BP lost so much money that all companies have taken notice. None of them want that situation ans will take all the preventive measures to ensure so.

Thankfully, there is no longterm damage done by the BP spill, contrary to what the outsiders have hoped for. The beaches are prestine, the seafood is as good as ever and the fishing has been excellent. Even the oyster beds which were predicted to be out for sevearl years were bountiful this past Winter. As much as the Feds have tested seasfood harvest, they haven't been able to find any that has been tainted by the spill!

paul young
03-23-2012, 11:15 AM
i think Wisconsin would be a fine site for a refinery. that much closer to the Canadian crude.
then build a pipeline right through the nation's breadbasket to the Mississipi, and barge it from there.Paul

Daniel J Simoens
03-23-2012, 11:16 AM
It's funny because when Bush was in office the left was screaming it was all his fault. Now that Obama is in office it's the speculators fault and the Prez can't do anything about it, which the right has been saying all along.

road kill
03-23-2012, 11:22 AM
i think Wisconsin would be a fine site for a refinery. that much closer to the Canadian crude.
then build a pipeline right through the nation's breadbasket to the Mississipi, and barge it from there.Paul

Agreed, I chose KS or NB just because of proximity.
But in WI right now, the leftys control the senate.
We couldn't even get an iron mine in.
In a county that needed the jobs badly.
Even the head of the AFL-CIO in WI turned on the dems on this.
His name is Lyle Balistreri, search him on YouTube, he goes off on these clowns to their faces.

RK

BTW-WI is bordered to the north by who?
Any yoopers here?

paul young
03-23-2012, 11:29 AM
Agreed!

Not to mention the high paying jobs created. The average oilfield hand around here makes close to six figures and those a little higher up make well into six figures.

In regards to the question about another BP situtaion; BP lost so much money that all companies have taken notice. None of them want that situation ans will take all the preventive measures to ensure so.

Thankfully, there is no longterm damage done by the BP spill, contrary to what the outsiders have hoped for. The beaches are prestine, the seafood is as good as ever and the fishing has been excellent. Even the oyster beds which were predicted to be out for sevearl years were bountiful this past Winter. As much as the Feds have tested seasfood harvest, they haven't been able to find any that has been tainted by the spill!


well, who knew?

if we want to improve our coastal waters productivity, we just need to dump a few billion gallons of crude oil in the water.

taken a look at BP's earnings lately? they're doing just fine, it seems! 25.7 billion in 2011. i don't think they were hurt too bad. -Paul

paul young
03-23-2012, 11:33 AM
Agreed, I chose KS or NB just because of proximity.
But in WI right now, the leftys control the senate.
We couldn't even get an iron mine in.
In a county that needed the jobs badly.
Even the head of the AFL-CIO in WI turned on the dems on this.
His name is Lyle Balistreri, search him on YouTube, he goes off on these clowns to their faces.

RK

BTW-WI is bordered to the north by who?
Any yoopers here?

last time i looked at a map, it was Minnesoooota. just a hop, skip and jump to to the border, though.-Paul

road kill
03-23-2012, 11:53 AM
last time i looked at a map, it was Minnesoooota. just a hop, skip and jump to to the border, though.-Paul

Not sure when you looked, may wanna check again.
We got MI's UP mostly.
A little MN, but not as much as da yoopers.
Then there is that lake Superior section.
Mostly the land of 10,000 Lakes is to the west.

RK

zeus3925
03-23-2012, 11:55 AM
Are you asking about dealing with specualtion and gas prices?

Or are you asking about some emotional attachment you have to something that has not and likely will not happen?????

Let's see what our friends who live on the shores of the gulf have to say about the MSM over reaction to the devesation created by 1 oil spill.
How bad is the permanent damage to the flora and fauna in the gulf??:rolleyes:


I answered your question, accurately, with detail, yet succinctly.
So, as is typical progressive fashion, you change the question and add emotion.

RK

I was seeking your response on both because they are intertwined. I don't think you read the attachments at all before you responded.

In response to your response, would you cram the pipeline down the throats of state of Nebraska or work out an alternative? Would you go for drilling off the NE over the will of the states there or tell them to stuff it like a big federal government.

The BP spill is not the only spill that goes on in the Gulf, but it was remarkable only in scale. It happens in offshore drilling with regularity. Do you want to drill without the technology or a plan in place to deal with it? As far as lawsuits being a deterrent, the Santa Barbara spill didn't cause any major change in direction.

Buzz
03-23-2012, 12:39 PM
It's funny because when Bush was in office the left was screaming it was all his fault. Now that Obama is in office it's the speculators fault and the Prez can't do anything about it, which the right has been saying all along.

I guess you don't really listen to what the left says then, because they were SCREAMING speculators.

Buzz
03-23-2012, 12:42 PM
Agreed, I chose KS or NB just because of proximity.
But in WI right now, the leftys control the senate.
We couldn't even get an iron mine in.
In a county that needed the jobs badly.
Even the head of the AFL-CIO in WI turned on the dems on this.
His name is Lyle Balistreri, search him on YouTube, he goes off on these clowns to their faces.

RK

BTW-WI is bordered to the north by who?
Any yoopers here?

Didn't Rs just lose control of the senate the other day?

They will lose more in a little while.

Do you realize that Wisconsin is last in the nation on job creation? Where are all those folks that were going to abandon Illinois and head north to the business friendly climate up there?

road kill
03-23-2012, 01:05 PM
Didn't Rs just lose control of the senate the other day?

They will lose more in a little while.

Do you realize that Wisconsin is last in the nation on job creation? Where are all those folks that were going to abandon Illinois and head north to the business friendly climate up there?

Thanks for the dose of humor and inaccurate "facts."

HAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!!

Here is a tip Buzz, don't bet the ranch on your emotions.

BTW-this is no longer about the thread title.



RK

Buzz
03-23-2012, 01:29 PM
I guess the Bureau of Labor Statistics is dead wrong, or they're political...:roll eyes:

Don't you get tired of me spread those inaccurate "facts?"

http://m.jsonline.com/topstories/142860605.htm

http://media.jsonline.com/images/103068384_jobsmarchnonfarmrevised.jpg

road kill
03-23-2012, 01:41 PM
I guess the Bureau of Labor Statistics is dead wrong, or they're political...:roll eyes:

Don't you get tired of me spread those inaccurate "facts?"

http://m.jsonline.com/topstories/142860605.htm

http://media.jsonline.com/images/103068384_jobsmarchnonfarmrevised.jpg

Yes, I dispute these facts.
When I get to a computer I will post a chart opposing yours.
I won't comment on the objectivity of your sources, you have already established that.

What this has to do with the OP's Q I do not know.

Maybe your graph refers to state jobs?


RK

Buzz
03-23-2012, 02:02 PM
What this has to do with the OP's Q I do not know.

Maybe your graph refers to state jobs?


RK

The graph refers to state jobs. I know, you want to say I started it but how said this?




But in WI right now, the leftys control the senate.
We couldn't even get an iron mine in.
In a county that needed the jobs badly.

Any yoopers here?

When we know this...

Senator Pam Galloway Resigns Seat On Wisconsin Legislature, GOP Loses Senate Control

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/pam-galloway-wisconsin-recall-election-resign-senate_n_1354268.html

Yer trying to make it sound like Dems have been in charge for awhile and are stifling job creation.

My bad, I should have used the MacIver Institute or "news service" whatever they represent themselves as...

Franco
03-23-2012, 02:19 PM
well, who knew?

if we want to improve our coastal waters productivity, we just need to dump a few billion gallons of crude oil in the water.

taken a look at BP's earnings lately? they're doing just fine, it seems! 25.7 billion in 2011. i don't think they were hurt too bad. -Paul

Well, like I said in my post, there will be those that are disappointed that the BP spill didn't cause any long term damage. Obviously by your post, you are one of them!

And BP's profits would have been better by over 35BILLION had they not had the accident! That amount is NOT chump change to global oil companies.

road kill
03-23-2012, 03:06 PM
The graph refers to state jobs. I know, you want to say I started it but how said this?




When we know this...

Senator Pam Galloway Resigns Seat On Wisconsin Legislature, GOP Loses Senate Control

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/pam-galloway-wisconsin-recall-election-resign-senate_n_1354268.html

Yer trying to make it sound like Dems have been in charge for awhile and are stifling job creation.

My bad, I should have used the MacIver Institute or "news service" whatever they represent themselves as...

No I'm not.
I am stating that the leftys and 1 RHINO stopped the mine.
We don't need any more state employees here.
We need private sector jobs and we are growing in that area quite nicely!!



New Philadelphia Fed Report Forecasts Solid Economic Growth in Wisconsin Over Next Six Months

Forecast Marks the Best Turnaround in the Nation; Best Forecast for State Since 2003


MADISON –The Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank released a new economic growth forecast for states yesterday. The report forecasts Wisconsin to grow 1.95 percent over the next six months. It is the best economic forecast for the state since 2003. Wisconsin also experienced the most improved forecast in the nation. Wisconsin’s three-month change was 2.36 percentage points, moving to a forecast of solid gains.

Governor Scott Walker today released the following statement on the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s forecast of solid growth in Wisconsin over the next six months:

“Strong signals suggest we are turning things around for Wisconsin’s economy, and the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s newest report of state leading economic indexes provides yet one more indication that our pro-jobs policies are moving us in the right direction. Although there is much work left to be done, the forecast along with additional economic indicators such as our state’s lowest unemployment rate since 2008 indicate we are heading in the right direction.”

Democrats previously touted the now outdated Philadelphia Fed forecast as evidence that the Governor’s policies were hurting job growth in Wisconsin.

A copy of the report and historical data can be found at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s website.




The same source used just a couple months ago to BASH Walkers excellent performance.
If ya get a chance, read that emboldened RED part 10 or 20 times, will ya????;-)


I am here to help........:D


RK

zeus3925
03-23-2012, 03:19 PM
Another Obama plot, eh?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/crude-oil-rises-as-commodity-prices-rebound-2012-03-23?link=MW_story_latest_news

zeus3925
03-23-2012, 03:20 PM
Well, like I said in my post, there will be those that are disappointed that the BP spill didn't cause any long term damage. Obviously by your post, you are one of them!

And BP's profits would have been better by over 35BILLION had they not had the accident! That amount is NOT chump change to global oil companies.

why would anyone be disappointed over no long term damage? GOP twisted logic!

Buzz
03-23-2012, 03:37 PM
No I'm not.
I am stating that the leftys and 1 RHINO stopped the mine.
We don't need any more state employees here.
We need private sector jobs and we are growing in that area quite nicely!!



The same source used just a couple months ago to BASH Walkers excellent performance.
If ya get a chance, read that emboldened RED part 10 or 20 times, will ya????;-)


I am here to help........:D


RK

The operative word is "FORCAST." You're looking into your crystal ball. I'm just putting up "HISTORY."

If the forecasts come true, I'll be happy for Wisconsin.

paul young
03-23-2012, 04:08 PM
Well, like I said in my post, there will be those that are disappointed that the BP spill didn't cause any long term damage. Obviously by your post, you are one of them!

And BP's profits would have been better by over 35BILLION had they not had the accident! That amount is NOT chump change to global oil companies.

no, i'm only disappointed that we didn't learn anything from it. it will happen again. we just don't know where and when.

Big Oil has only our best interests at the root of their decision making process. and they will never understate the risks involved to serve their interests. no way they would do that.

as i said before, i can't beat them, so i joined them. investing in energy companies is a very good investment. almost 26 billion is a tidy little sum, i think they'll survive nicely. those that bought when the sh!t was hitting the fan are glad they did.-Paul

Franco
03-23-2012, 05:07 PM
My responces in red.


no, i'm only disappointed that we didn't learn anything from it. it will happen again. we just don't know where and when.

Easy to be critical, so what is your alternative plan to drilling? Stop drilling, stop drilling in the gulf, stop deep water drilling? Lets hear your solution.

Big Oil has only our best interests at the root of their decision making process. and they will never understate the risks involved to serve their interests. no way they would do that.

Their only interest is making money for their investors. And, that means safety, because accidents lower profits. Heads rolled at BP as expected. They risk trillions and you are going to lecture them on risk?

as i said before, i can't beat them, so i joined them. investing in energy companies is a very good investment. almost 26 billion is a tidy little sum, i think they'll survive nicely. those that bought when the sh!t was hitting the fan are glad they did.-Paul
good for you!

Golddogs
03-23-2012, 05:19 PM
Well, like I said in my post, there will be those that are disappointed that the BP spill didn't cause any long term damage. Obviously by your post, you are one of them!

And BP's profits would have been better by over 35BILLION had they not had the accident! That amount is NOT chump change to global oil companies.


Franco, I enjoy your posts. You are consistent and don't get ugly. You understand good debate.

So, I would hope you agree that " had they not caused the accident" would be a more accurate statement.

BP knew the blow out valve was bad. Rolled the dice and lost HUGE. They caused the blowout by failing to replace a known defective valve.

And FWIW, I am extremly glad that the mess they caused was cleaned up so well. The Valdez spill is still rearing it's ugly head after all these years.

If the end result of this is that the Gulf drillers are less likely to gamble in the future, it bod's well for future drilling.

Buzz
03-23-2012, 05:30 PM
I believe that had BP not "caused" the accident, we wouldn't be talking about Obama's deep water moratorium. If anyone remembers, just a week or two before the accident, Obama had opened up more coastline to drilling, then the spill happened. It couldn't have been worse timing.

The only thing that comforts me is the hope that these other guys won't be dumb enough to ignore broken safety equipment like BP chose to.

Franco
03-23-2012, 05:35 PM
Franco, I enjoy your posts. You are consistent and don't get ugly. You understand good debate.

So, I would hope you agree that " had they not caused the accident" would be a more accurate statement.

BP knew the blow out valve was bad. Rolled the dice and lost HUGE. They caused the blowout by failing to replace a known defective valve.

And FWIW, I am extremly glad that the mess they caused was cleaned up so well. The Valdez spill is still rearing it's ugly head after all these years.

If the end result of this is that the Gulf drillers are less likely to gamble in the future, it bod's well for future drilling.

I'll buy that! That would be the decision of the Cheif Drilling Engineer on that rig and he made a bad call. I just don't know how one can eliminate human error. The last thing these companies want is a costly disaster and damage to their brand.

As inexpensive as blowout preventers are compared to the entire project, you can bet that all blowout preventers have been checked and quadruple checked by all drillers.

Franco
03-23-2012, 05:44 PM
I believe that had BP not "caused" the accident, we wouldn't be talking about Obama's deep water moratorium. If anyone remembers, just a week or two before the accident, Obama had opened up more coastline to drilling, then the spill happened. It couldn't have been worse timing.

The only thing that comforts me is the hope that these other guys won't be dumb enough to ignore broken safety equipment like BP chose to.

Buzz, there is a difference between opening up areas for leases and actually issuing permits to drill. Several months ago, the current administration reopend leases for exploration. The reason that none of the companies bid on the leases was because there is no assurance that the administration would issue drilling permits on those leases. What company is going to spend a couple billion on leases and not know if and when they can begin drilling?

Franco
03-23-2012, 10:22 PM
Thank you Neil Cavuto for directing me to the Bureau Of Land Mangement;-)

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/oil___gas_statistics/fy_2011.Par.36361.File.dat/chart_2011_07.pdf

At the bottom right of the page, one can compare the drilling permits issued in 08 under Bush (6,617) to Obama in 11 (4244) !!!

If one looks at the drilling permits issued for Louisiana;

08 45
09 2
10 1
11 3

So when Obama says he is doing everything he can, we all know it is B S, that is spelled with a capital B and a capital S;-)

And, when Obama says he has opened up land or seas for drilling, beware of the smoke and mirrors because it is all about "drilling permits".

HPL
03-26-2012, 11:25 PM
Here's an interesting take on the Gas situation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=qKdScVerrBU&vg=medium

Marvin S
03-26-2012, 11:35 PM
possibly relevant - Shell is trying to figure out how they will pay for the remainder of the Iranian oil shipped or to be shipped with the UN embargo going into effect.

JDogger
03-27-2012, 12:25 AM
OK. I'm confused here. It happens both with dog training advice on the main forum, and here PP too.
We want smaller government, not larger government. We don't want the government to over-regulate. Yet, when it comes to gas prices we want to government to step in and do something. We want to drill. Open new areas to exploration and development and when we do, we want the government to set the price of that oil and gas. Well and good. However, the producers of that oil and gas are for the large part multi-national companies that can pick and choose the markets in which they want to sell their products.
If the President and congress were to step and say, "what's drilled here, stays here", would that be more regulation or less?
Some here say, "We live in Cuba now". Would living in Venezuela be more palpable?
If we were to nationalize the oil and gas industry to save a few bucks...can't the arguement be made to nationalize the health care industry as well?
Hew, apologies for donning the Kotter hat, Barbarinos are always pissing upstream. JD

HPL
03-27-2012, 12:43 AM
OK. I'm confused here. It happens both with dog training advice on the main forum, and here PP too.
We want smaller government, not larger government. We don't want the government to over-regulate. Yet, when it comes to gas prices we want to government to step in and do something. We want to drill. Open new areas to exploration and development and when we do, we want the government to set the price of that oil and gas. Well and good. However, the producers of that oil and gas are for the large part multi-national companies that can pick and choose the markets in which they want to sell their products.
If the President and congress were to step and say, "what's drilled here, stays here", would that be more regulation or less?
Some here say, "We live in Cuba now". Would living in Venezuela be more palpable?
If we were to nationalize the oil and gas industry to save a few bucks...can't the arguement be made to nationalize the health care industry as well?
Hew, apologies for donning the Kotter hat, Barbarinos are always pissing upstream. JD

Yes we want the government to open up areas to drilling (and actually grant the permits) and to approve construction of new refineries. Both of these moves are more getting the government out of the way than having the government getting involved. The only person I have heard suggest that the oil industry be nationalized was a female democrat (Maxine Waters http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/18133170/1159312541/name/InTheirOwnWords.wmv) and I haven't heard many conservatives suggest that prices should be regulated, only that if reserves were freed up and drilling began in earnest prices would likely fall as supply increased and as the perception of an administration that was PRO production took effect.

On a bit of a nit-picky aside, the word you were looking for is "palatable" (acceptable or satisfactory) and you unfortunately hit on another real but totally unrelated word that spell check wouldn't catch: "palpable" (able to be touched or felt).

JDogger
03-27-2012, 01:31 AM
Do you really believe supply and demand forces are moving the global market for oil and gasoline? JD

Hew
03-27-2012, 08:22 AM
It is interesting to note the many mutually exclusive gas price arguments that the left has posited on this board:

1) Bush can control gas prices
but
2) Obama cannot control gas prices

3) We can't drill our way out of our troubles
but
4) Obama has personnaly drilled thousands of wells using just his teeth and that's awesome!

5) We only have a teensy weensie amount of oil in North America so why bother exploiting our resources?
but
6) We sell some to Asia/China and that effects our gas prices
and
4) Obama has personnaly drilled thousands of wells using just his teeth and that's awesome!

7) Oil is a world-wide commodity
but
1) Bush can control gas prices

7) Oil is a world-wide commodity
but
8) North American oil sold to Asia/China negatively effects our gas prices

9) Oil speculators control gas prices
but
10) Oil is not a world-wide commodity

11) Obama intrepidly passed Obamacare as we're still waiting to find out what's in the bill
but
12) Obama is waiting to determine all possible environmental impacts of Keystone before approving it.

The right's argument is pretty simple, cogent and constistent: 1) get the F out of the way and let us drill as much as we safely can, 2) protect our foreign interests to that we can assure a steady supply of the imported oil we need and 3) encourgage the market to come up with VIABLE and profitable alternative fuel sources that consumers will embrace.

HPL
03-27-2012, 08:32 AM
Do you really believe supply and demand forces are moving the global market for oil and gasoline? JD
Actually, I believe that it is the PERCEIVED energy policies of the current (and in the past, past) administration. The last time prices got this high, that son of Satan (better known in lib circles as W. Bush) relaxed offshore drilling and BOOM, the prices immediately fell to the lowest in several years. That leads me to believe that an aggressive production policy can have a direct effect on prices.

zeus3925
03-27-2012, 08:43 AM
Trouble is that petroleum resources are finite and what is produced is going to cost you more and more until the earth is a sucked up cinder. But, there are those here that won't spend a dime on research in a viable alternative to petroleum. How much blood and treasure are you willing to hemorrhage keeping dictatorial madmen and foreign potentates afloat?

Franco
03-27-2012, 09:04 AM
Trouble is that petroleum resources are finite and what is produced is going to cost you more and more until the earth is a sucked up cinder. But, there are those here that won't spend a dime on research in a viable alternative to petroleum. How much blood and treasure are you willing to hemorrhage keeping dictatorial madmen and foreign potentates afloat?

We are no where close to depleting global oil reserves!

Which gives us time to embrace and develope alternatives. I for one refuse to buy a new vehicle until I can get one that runs on CNG. As much as I would love to go out and buy a new pickup today, I'll keep driving my 07 Ford until then.

Gerry Clinchy
03-27-2012, 11:04 AM
The right's argument is pretty simple, cogent and constistent: 1) get the F out of the way and let us drill as much as we safely can, 2) protect our foreign interests to that we can assure a steady supply of the imported oil we need and 3) encourgage the market to come up with VIABLE and profitable alternative fuel sources that consumers will embrace.


Trouble is that petroleum resources are finite and what is produced is going to cost you more and more until the earth is a sucked up cinder.

NONE of us disputes that oil supply is finite, though there is some dispute on the amount that will be available & how long that will be able to serve ours & the rest of the world's needs.

It is also undisputable that China, India (and probably soon some other countries) are increasing their consumption of oil and are likely to continue doing so.

ALL agree that we need to find alternative fuels to replace oil. Again, the only disagreement is on how quickly we need to do this, the best long-term plan for doing so, and how much it is viable to pay during the transition period.

China has doubled its usage of oil from 5 million to 10 million barrels/day since 2005. They are also willing to gobble up our dirty coal to fuel their economic/industrial engine. Do we really believe that if US (et al) decrease oil usage by 2 million barrels/day, China will have any hesitation in gobbling up whatever we don't use? I really don't think so. Not to mention that their general populace is kind of liking their taste of capitalism; even protesting for higher wages in their manufacturing sector.

The common sense part is how to keep our economic engine running while we solve these problems ... these problem of alternative energy sources will not be solved without capital for such investment. Public or private is not even a question ... the govt only has what they can tax out of the private sector (or borrow!), so all such investment ultimately depends on the private sector's economic health.

There is no question (I hope) that the increase in cost of oil has an impact not just on how much we drive, but the cost of everything in our daily use. Not many of us are self-sufficient in food, heating and electricity.

So, the question in my mind is whether this administration has had policies that demonstrate they can have the common sense we need. It seems pretty obvious that $4/gal gas (and other oil products we use) is a drag on the economic engine. The car won't run unless the engine has fuel. A sensible transition plan seems lacking.

zeus3925
03-27-2012, 11:24 AM
watd.wuthering-heights.co.uk/chartpages/r/r4oildiscons.html


But consumption is over taking discovery which usually happens when a resource becomes more scarce. The more scarce the resource, the higher the price, regardless who controls the White House.

zeus3925
03-27-2012, 11:35 AM
NONE of us disputes that oil supply is finite, though there is some dispute on the amount that will be available & how long that will be able to serve ours & the rest of the world's needs.

ALL agree that we need to find alternative fuels to replace oil. Again, the only disagreement is on how quickly we need to do this, the best long-term plan for doing so, and how much it is viable to pay during the transition period.

So, the question in my mind is whether this administration has had policies that demonstrate they can have the common sense we need. It seems pretty obvious that $4/gal gas (and other oil products we use) is a drag on the economic engine. The car won't run unless the engine has fuel. A sensible transition plan seems lacking.

Energy policy has been kicked around since Nixon days and every president has backed away from setting one. Usually it comes down to "Be careful what you wish for" argument. In this polarized political environment no pol is going to face the wrath of the segment that is certain to have a vehement objection to whatever. You will not see an energy policy by this POTUS or any other soon. Those oilmen have very deep pockets and they play political hardball.

road kill
03-27-2012, 11:40 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=qKdScVerrBU&vg=medium


RK

duckheads
03-27-2012, 11:42 AM
watd.wuthering-heights.co.uk/chartpages/r/r4oildiscons.html


But consumption is over taking discovery which usually happens when a resource becomes more scarce. The more scarce the resource, the higher the price, regardless who controls the White House.

The source is not more scarce. The policies of this administration are keeping the oil companies from getting to the source on public lands. Go look back at Franco's post on number of permits issued in Louisiana. What don't you understand?

duckheads
03-27-2012, 11:50 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=qKdScVerrBU&vg=medium


RK

Liberal hypocracy knows no bounds!!!!!!!

zeus3925
03-27-2012, 04:41 PM
The source is not more scarce. The policies of this administration are keeping the oil companies from getting to the source on public lands. Go look back at Franco's post on number of permits issued in Louisiana. What don't you understand?

I will respectfully disagree with your assertion that the resource is getting scarce. If consumption exceeds discovery then eventually the system will collapse. You can no longer sink an 69 1/2 foot well near Titusville , PA and hope to find oil. The easy stuff has been produced and the next oil will be more expensive.

There are some here that wish to drill every where regardless of the consequence. However, there are other industries that depend those waters for a living. I favor lifting the restrictions in deep water, but only if there is a plan in place to deal with another BP type disaster. Oil production should not supplant other economic interests or good environmental practice.

Hew
03-27-2012, 04:51 PM
The easy stuff has been produced and the next oil will be more expensive.
Doesn't that presume no technological advances in finding and drilling the oil? Isn't it quite likely that your very same words were spoken in 1912 as well?


There are some here that wish to drill every where regardless of the consequence.
Who might they be?

zeus3925
03-27-2012, 05:36 PM
Doesn't that presume no technological advances in finding and drilling the oil? Isn't it quite likely that your very same words were spoken in 1912 as well?



I dunno, Hew. I wasn't around in 1912.

Certainly newer technology is online, but does it make the commodity cheaper? That is open to much debate. Even though newer technology is helping to discover more petroleum world wide production is in decline.

zeus3925
03-27-2012, 05:43 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Oil_Prices_1861_2007.svg

zeus3925
03-27-2012, 06:00 PM
2008 cost of petroleum production by country.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/28/oil-cost-factbox-idUSLS12407420090728

Franco
03-28-2012, 05:28 PM
U S House Of Reps subpoena documents about Obama administration's deep-water moratorium.

.................................................

Jobs were lost and our domestic energy supply cut," Fleming said. "That's why there must be subpoenas. It's time the administration answer to the people on this matter."

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/03/house_republicans_subpoena_doc.html

Gerry Clinchy
03-29-2012, 03:53 PM
While we've been watching the Zimmerman case and the Supreme Court's arguments on Obamacare ... the EPA has put forth new regulations for coal-fired power plants.

Let's see ... got the oil thing plugged up; now will pretty much preclude any new coal plants. After the election, come up with some new regs that put the old coal plants out of business. (I suppose the upside is that this is one campaign promise that Obama is keeping? He said he'd let new coal plants be built, but it would bankrupt those who tried to do it.) Now, we'll have a choice of NG (they'll find some stuff to plug that up) ... and we get to use TA-DA! green energy! at much greater cost than we're now paying for electricity.

That really ought to help all of our manufacturers produce goods more effectively to compete with China and India (who merrily will burn all the coal or oil that we're not allowed to burn). It won't do a dang thing for greenhouse gasses (even if there is any truth to those alarms) since China and India (and some others) should add much more to that problem than we can offset by our austerity. Come to think of it ... I wonder if this is what O really meant when he mentioned "redistribution of wealth", from the US to everybody else?

Where DO these geniuses come from?

We didn't get to "elect" these geniuses in the EPA, so why do they have so much power? There is a bill before Congress to allow Congress to approve MAJOR regs like this ... but Reid won't let it get to the floor. So Inouhe is introducing a motion for disapproval ... which is a privileged action that Harry can't prevent.