(Close Window)
Topic: Gas Prices. A Pain in the Gas!!!
Message: Posted by: Cory Gallupe (Sep 22, 2005 01:47PM)
I am only 14 so I don't drive, but these gas prices (for those of you that are affected by them) are getting really really ridiculous. There was a threat that it would go up to $2.20 a litre today, but the government had to say no. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
Message: Posted by: Corey Harris (Sep 22, 2005 02:16PM)
The gas prices are killing me. I make my living by being a professional wrestler and I can not afford to go to TV tapings or standard shows any more. Most my income comes from my t-shirt sales and with gas the way it is, Less people show up to the shows and the ones that do show up don't buy any thing.
Message: Posted by: Alniner (Sep 22, 2005 02:55PM)
Yeah, we were just given a threat that by 5:00pm EST the gas prices around GTA (greater Toronto area) would go up to $2.00/liter.
Message: Posted by: Cory Gallupe (Sep 22, 2005 03:08PM)
It was $2.20 here.
Message: Posted by: Gede Nibo (Sep 22, 2005 03:51PM)
Walk.
Message: Posted by: evolve629 (Sep 22, 2005 04:45PM)
I use Ethanol 85 here in MN. It's $2.33 compare to $2.43 regular unleaded. I don't know why E85 is going up in price as well. They sure know how to catch a Wave, the money wave!
Message: Posted by: Cory Gallupe (Sep 22, 2005 06:07PM)
Ethanol??? I think I heard of it, but not quite sure what it is. Its just a type of gas right?
Message: Posted by: Corey Harris (Sep 22, 2005 06:13PM)
My car burns through ethanol like crazy. With normal unleaded gas I get about 424 miles a tank. With ethanol I get roughly about 180 miles a tank. My car was not designed for it. I have also been told by ford that its a bad idea for my car because ethanol will cause rotting certain areas of my car. My big problem with gas is we are paying the same cost for a barrel of gas as we have been for the last 10 years. at 1.42 a gallon for gas, the gas stations would still be making a killing on us.
Message: Posted by: Skip Way (Sep 22, 2005 11:17PM)
E85 is a special fuel formula that uses 85% Ethanol alcohol from renewable organic sources such as grain mixed with 15% gasoline. Since Ethanol is VERY corrosive, special gaskets and modifications must be made to engines that use E85. Generally, cars manufactured in the last five years are E85 ready. You can tell by checking the 8th digit in your vehicle's VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) usually located at the edge of your windshield. Your Ford is E85 compatible if the 8th figure is a V, K or 5 (depending on model). Chevy's use a Z, K or 5. Daimler Chrysler uses a T, G, P or 3. Mazda's use V and Nissan's use B. According to the hype, E85 burns cleaner, conserves gasoline and runs at around 105 Octane. E85 has gained popularity on the West Coast U.S. and is slowly working its way East. It'll be interesting to see how this catches on.

As Corey suggested, I would think that the alcohol, having a lower flash point than gasoline, would burn faster and get poorer gas mileage. http://www.fueleconomy.gov supports this with a tank of regular gasoline getting about 30% better mileage than E85. According to the site, a Ford Taurus 6 cyl averages 19 City & 29 Hwy on regular gas but only gets 14 City and 21 Hwy with E85. E85 emits 25% fewer pollutants and the E85 was about 15% cheaper over the course of a year in spite of the poorer mileage.

Cars that burn recycled animal fats like old McDonald's fry grease are also catching on in this part of the country. You can tell when one cruises past by the distinct odor of cooking oil left in its wake...and yet, they're supposed to be environmentally friendly, economical and affordable.

I'm also anxious to see the hydrogen powerplants Chrysler (?) is supposedly working on. This would be a great time to revive the old rubber band powered cars, eh?

Skip
Message: Posted by: scott b. (Sep 22, 2005 11:53PM)
Nothin but a bunch of penny pinchers :P
Message: Posted by: Partizan (Sep 23, 2005 01:13AM)
You are lucky you don't live in the UK. It works out just under $4 per litre in USD.
Message: Posted by: JesterMan (Sep 23, 2005 07:53AM)
Get ready for another major jolt in the US. Rita is coming. . . (Cue JAWS music)
Message: Posted by: Skip Way (Sep 23, 2005 08:11AM)
Partizan, I don't disagree with you at all...but, they're two different worlds nearly, aren't they? I had the great pleasure of living in Italy and traveling through Europe for 12 years. Gasoline has always been 2-4 times costlier there than in the U.S.. However, Europe's density has led it to establish and maintain some truly fantastic mass transit systems. Your trains, buses and taxi structure makes owning a car nearly unnecessary in many areas. We're far more spread out in the U.S. and not nearly as densely populated. Our mass transit systems lag WAY behind the fantastic Euro system...where they exist at all. I THINK we've evolved as a far more reliant society upon our automobiles for moving around.

We're also spoiled beyond words. In spite of a growing fuel crisis, Americans poured out in droves to buy these huge hulking SUV's, Suburbans, Hummers and everything else that gulps gasoline like a Kennedy downs Scotch. I'll say it again...we are our own worse enemy.

The Europeans have always made economy transportation a priority issue with the availability of little three-wheelers, Citroen Ducks, Sunbeams, Minis and the like. I drove a 1971 2cyl, 2-seat Honda 600 Coupe for years at 45 MPG. Not much to look at but all of these little buggers would run near forever on a tank of petrol. The American government is more concerned with driving our automotive industry into the dirt by producing far heavier "Safe" vehicles that will survive a head-on with a comet...but are far more costly to produce and operate. The American public wants comfort, room and power. Except for the newly reintroduced Cooper Mini and the VW Beetle, we have very few cars that promise the no-frill economy that Europe has to offer.

We Americans demand our cheap gas...and the politicians usually pony up because a pi**ed American is a voting American. Far sooner than later, we're gonna have to pay that piper...just like our sister Europe.

Skip
Message: Posted by: Cliffg37 (Sep 23, 2005 09:19AM)
Hi Skip,

As usual I agree with much of what you said, I will take issue with one point that you did not address. I don't mind paying for the gasoline I need. I also don't mind riding a bicycle to run some small errands. if I don't have to carry to much.

I do mind is the oil companies price gouging techniques. Raising the price because the price went up is fine. Raising the price as a profit building technique, exploiting situations in the news is not. I also have a real issue with the salaries the top oil execs earn. If you cut them in half, these people would still live VERY comfortably and maybe we could lower the prices for the "working" public. Now I am not a communist, I do believe that someone who works a job is entitled to thier salary, but these execs are earning millions.

I agree with you 100% about SUV's these silly vehicles basically throw gasoline out the tail pipe. For years, when I needed payload room in my vehicle, I used a pick-truck. Not flashy, but better mileage, and it got the job done.
Message: Posted by: Partizan (Sep 23, 2005 11:59AM)
Our government (UK) takes around %60 in tax on gas, this along with road tax, MOT, congestion charge, speed cameras, parking fines/fees and so on.
The congestion charge alone is (in USD) $15 per day, that excludes parking which for 4 hours can be $12 so a minimum of $27 for four hours in London.

Public transport (London) is poor value for money. If they even get you there you have to pay through the nose while avoiding terrorists, drunks, muggers and other nasty obstacles. And the Underground and Mainline trains close at 00:00 until 05:00 so that leaves buses and expensive taxis.
Have a great night out in London (plan on going home before midnight though!)
Message: Posted by: Alniner (Sep 23, 2005 03:18PM)
Partizan. No wonder you guys drink all day long. You need to make sure you're done partying by midnight. Geesh.
Message: Posted by: Cory Gallupe (Sep 23, 2005 03:43PM)
I had a big feeling a lot of people would answer to this. I found out that it was a threat for $2.25 here. Not $2.20. Not much of a difference tho. In the future, it will just keep gettin worse and worse.
Message: Posted by: Skip Way (Sep 23, 2005 07:25PM)
Cliff, I agree with you...but, how are we going to control this in a free economy system. We demand...they supply...at a cost. At the same time, if we WERE to reduce the millions that these oil company fat cats rake in, this alone would actually reduce our direct cost by, what? Thirty cents per gallon? According to the Energy Information Agency, Americans consume an average of 2.04 million gallons of oil products per month. To make any headway, we need to reduce this demand. This alone will bring the prices within reasonable limits again.

Partizan, I wasn't aware that London's mass transit was so unreliable and costly. I always believed that affordable and reliable mass transit was a European staple. Interesting.

Skip
Message: Posted by: Partizan (Sep 24, 2005 03:01AM)
The rest of europe is fine, just England is the problem.

We have a Euro lottery. UK players pay £1.50 per line, European players pay €1.50 for the same line which is £1.01 in UK money. work that out!!!
Message: Posted by: Steve Dela (Sep 24, 2005 06:30AM)
And I have not won yet :(

Well I drive now and Petrol is costing me around £30 a week which in USD is $53
yes that is every week! thank god I do magic.

Steve Dela
Message: Posted by: Cory Gallupe (Sep 24, 2005 07:17AM)
It cost about 200 dollars here to fill my dads truck alone
Message: Posted by: magician2000 (Sep 24, 2005 07:44AM)
[quote]
On 2005-09-23 02:13, Partizan wrote:
You are lucky you don't live in the UK. works out just under $4 per litre in USD.
[/quote]
Petrol is sitting at just around 1.17 euro per lt. Remeber when you are comparing gallons that a US Gallon is 3.8 lts and an Imperial Gallon is 4.5 lts.
Not sure where you got the price for the Euro millions lottery price but over here in Ireland it costs 2 Euro to play.
Message: Posted by: Kevin Ridgeway (Sep 24, 2005 10:58AM)
Well you should see us at the pump in our Freightliner...just over $300 to fill it up...and we never even let it get that empty. What's worse is that is diesel. Up until a few years ago diesel was always cheaper than gas, then it chnaged, which really makes no sense as diesel is basically whats left at the bottom of the barrel.

Kevin
Message: Posted by: Skip Way (Sep 24, 2005 09:16PM)
Kevin, doesn't diesel provide better mileage per use? I've always heard that diesels offer nearly double the mileage of a petrol engine. I understand that the Freightliner drinks the fuel being a commercial rig...but what about the passenger vehicles? Just curious.

Skip
Message: Posted by: magician2000 (Sep 25, 2005 08:42AM)
Skip. I switched from petrol to diesel, and saw a nice % increase in MPG I went5 from getting 34.8 MPG in a 1.8 liter Nissan Primara to 40.9 MPG in a 1.9 liter VW Passat. (Note this is in US MPG, not Imperial MPG) 1 US Gal = 3.8 liters, 1 Imperial Gal = 4.5 liters. Just so the Europeans don't think there is any thing wrong with my cars.
Message: Posted by: Cory Gallupe (Sep 25, 2005 10:03AM)
The prises are stoping people from going to places too. we wanted to go to a store 30 mins away, but we couldn't because the ******************* gas prices. Man they make me angry!!!!!
Message: Posted by: inidyls (Sep 25, 2005 01:18PM)
WOW , I must be the only person in the world that's not complaining about the price of gas. What really cracks me up is all the enviromentalists complaining about the price of gas. There's so many alternatives than oil but we choose oil , why is that? We also make everything that runs on gas like lawnmowers, chainsaws, heck some of us heat our houses with oil.
Ask yourself this question if you had a product that was in high demand would you raise the price? Sure you would. Look at alcohol, cigarettes, drugs. If you were in the desert with no water and you were dying of thirst and somebody came to you with a bottle of water for $20 would you pay for it. Whose fault is it for the water being so expensive?
If cigarettes went up in price to $10 a pack would you still buy it? Is that the cigarette companies fault?
Message: Posted by: Cory Gallupe (Sep 25, 2005 01:29PM)
Ah..... ya, it would be the ciggarette companies fault. But that's what makes me soo mad, we need gas, people cant seem to do without it, so they crank the prices to take advantage of us. We HAVE to buy it. But I hope that these prices cause people to buy enviromentally friendly cars.
Message: Posted by: inidyls (Sep 25, 2005 08:01PM)
You make my point , do something about it. There is so many other resources we could use but we choose not too. Why? Cause where lazy and we like to complain.
I also just read that car owners in the US. used more gas this year already than last year, so if gas prices are so high why are we buying more?
Message: Posted by: Jaymz023 (Sep 26, 2005 10:36AM)
Gas in Wyoming is $2.89/gallon. This is ridiculous. Im only 26 and I can remember when gas was under $1 a gallon!
Message: Posted by: Kevin Ridgeway (Sep 26, 2005 11:09AM)
It costs a lot of money for research, development, for other energy resources. The same holds true for further development of of our drilling of new areas. Of course a company would only do this if they see potential profits.

The law of economics shows that if someone can make it cheaper they will. However, if OPEC see that someone out there is trying to do it cheaper than they are, they will just drop the price of a barrel of oil to $10...no company could compete with that. Currently it costs OPEC about $1.50 to pump a barrel of oil. So they could "afford" to charge $10 if it meant keeping others out of the marketplace.

Kevin
Message: Posted by: inidyls (Sep 26, 2005 02:34PM)
[quote]
On 2005-09-25 14:29, themagicman101 wrote:
Ah..... ya, it would be the ciggarette companies fault. But that's what makes me soo mad, we need gas, people cant seem to do without it, so they crank the prices to take advantage of us. We HAVE to buy it. But I hope that these prices cause people to buy enviromentally friendly cars.
[/quote]

How comes no one was complaining when gas was under a $1.00?
How comes no one buying enviromentally cars years ago?
How comes no one was complaining years ago about people cant seem to do without oil?
I'll tell you its about the all mighty dollar
Just like Kevin said if opec gets competition they'll lower there price and put out there competition just like walmart does. Ahhh yes that's good but you'll keep buying oil won't you , because it's cheap again until they raise there price again
Message: Posted by: inidyls (Sep 26, 2005 02:36PM)
And if you think boycotting will do any good try again, they'll just sell to China even cheaper so China buys more.
Message: Posted by: TomKMagic (Sep 26, 2005 09:50PM)
I paid $2.73 for premium today!!! That is about $.50 less than 2 weeks ago. My '95 300zx gets thirsty. The '89 CRX is pretty good when I am not redlining it. LOL

TomK
Message: Posted by: Jerrine (Sep 27, 2005 01:00AM)
Last time I bought gas it was just over $1. Get a bike, you get to skate on the insurance too, what a racket.
Message: Posted by: Skip Way (Sep 27, 2005 07:03AM)
Before hanging up my badge, I would ride my bike 20 miles round trip to and from work each day. It was a great way to stay in shape and it helped strip the stress away from each day. Then I was hit from behind by a driver who simply wasn't paying attention. I haven't been able to ride a bike comfortably since...a mental issue more than a physical one...but very real all the same.

Skip
Message: Posted by: Professor Piper (Sep 27, 2005 10:39AM)
Some points to remember (some of which have been mentioned in passing) on alternative transportation:

Here in the States we are VERY spread out (as Skip pointed out)...For instance: It is 17 miles from my house to where I and my fiancee work...So bicycling wouldn't be practical (Or possible as we live in a 'hilly' area that is very difficult to travel by bike every day...Not to mention the entire trip is on a 2 lane road that would be insanely dangerous to ride.

I rode a bike exclusively when I lived in Las Vegas (VERY, VERY flat), plus there are bike lanes there and plenty of sidewalks to dodge to when needed....Most folks don't have that option.

Alternative transportation is a GREAT idea and mainstream work is progressing (Hybrid car sales are way up)...

For myself? I have 8 Alaskan Malamute/Siberian Huskey crosses that I am about to begin training as a dog sled team (with a wheeled cart)....

So, if the bottom DOES drop out I'll be ready with transportation!!!

Purina Dog Food is a LOT cheaper than Gasoline!! (and my dogs 'emissions' ARE biodegradable!!)

Prof. Piper
:juggle:
Message: Posted by: Cory Gallupe (Sep 27, 2005 11:40AM)
HAHAHA, are you serious tho???
Message: Posted by: Skip Way (Sep 27, 2005 12:22PM)
Way to go, Professor! My wife has been bugging me to fly us to Alaska for the Iditarod Dogsled Race. She wants to see the start of the race then fly north to the finish line. Thank goodness, we live in the South so I don't have to worry about hearing, "Honey, Sam's Club had this GREAT SALE on dogsleds, and...well..."

When we lived in Virginia Beach, VA, we owned a 4-seater Rhoades pedal car (www.rhoadescar.com) that was street legal and had four independent pedals and 35 speeds. We used it for parades mostly, but enjoyed Sunday afternoon rides along the boardwalk. I actually miss that thing. Unfortunately, if we rode one around here, we'd probably be run off the road by the insane drivers hereabouts.

Where have all the Mayberrys gone?

Skip :o)
Message: Posted by: Professor Piper (Sep 27, 2005 03:07PM)
Themagicman101 wrote:

[quote]HAHAHA, are you serious tho???[/quote]

Sure, why not? My dogs have extreme stamina and are smart as hell...If the petroleum industry does go belly up then I'll be ready...If it doesn't, then they are a lot of fun to run on trails in the woods!

Skip...

Yeah, we'd love to see the Iditarod too, but probably won't make it up there...My babies were all born in the lower 48 and have yet to see substantial amounts of snow...

But boy can they RUN!

Prof. Piper
Message: Posted by: Cory Gallupe (Sep 27, 2005 03:55PM)
SWEET! How many do ya have? those dogs sure are hardy.
Message: Posted by: Professor Piper (Sep 27, 2005 10:38PM)
Themagicman101...

We have 8...The Momma and Daddy and their 6 kiddos (Mom and Dad are almost 3 years old the 'pups' are gonna be two in the Spring)....

They are definately a handful...They need LOTS of attention and care, but we love it...I'd post a pic of Zeus (the daddy) but the Café won't let me use him as my Avatar...Bummer....He is absolutely gorgeous...HUGE (125 pounds) and unbelievably cool...Very sweet, smart but goofy, and incredibably loyal...

The pups are a regular 'gang'...They love each other, but fuss every now and again...Their favorite game is 'Gang up on Granpa' (I'm Granpa)....

One of these days you may actually get to see them...We are trying to find out how to get pictures of them used for Calenders (They are ALL extremely beautiful)....

Who knows...It may happen.

Prof. Piper
:juggle:

P.S....If you were wondering about their intelligence here's an anctedote to let you know: I'm a juggler as well as a Magician...I can juggle with them all around me, drop a ball or club and they will NOT touch my props...I've never 'told' them not to mess with my stuff, they just know...Granpa's toys are HIS toys and NOT ours to play with!!!
Message: Posted by: Cory Gallupe (Sep 28, 2005 11:13AM)
Haha, that's cool, tell me if you get that calender out, I want to get one! Why wont the Café let you post a pic???
Message: Posted by: Professor Piper (Sep 28, 2005 07:52PM)
I can't use his pic as my Avatar (My user pic)...

I don't know how to include a pic of him here in a post...sorry

Prof. Piper
:juggle:

If the calendar ever does come out, I'll be sure to let you know!
Message: Posted by: Cory Gallupe (Sep 29, 2005 02:11PM)
Cool, thanks.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Oct 1, 2005 09:43AM)
[quote]
On 2005-09-27 02:00, Jerrine wrote:
Last time I bought gas it was just over $1. Get a bike, you get to skate on the insurance too, what a racket.
[/quote]

"Bikes and bus passes" that's my motto!
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Oct 1, 2005 09:48AM)
[quote]
On 2005-09-27 11:39, Professor Piper wrote:
Some points to remember (some of which have been mentioned in passing) on alternative transportation:

Here in the States we are VERY spread out (as Skip pointed out)...For instance: It is 17 miles from my house to where I and my fiancee work...So bicycling wouldn't be practical (Or possible as we live in a 'hilly' area that is very difficult to travel by bike every day...Not to mention the entire trip is on a 2 lane road that would be insanely dangerous to ride.
[/quote]

Didn't say it was the answer for everyone. Although my 4.5 mile bike ride to Wal*Mart is also on a two lane road and it so hilly that I have to get out and push that bike a couple of times. (Coming home down those two hills is a gas though!)

The point is we have to get creative in our transportation choices.

[quote]
I rode a bike exclusively when I lived in Las Vegas (VERY, VERY flat), plus there are bike lanes there and plenty of sidewalks to dodge to when needed....Most folks don't have that option.
[/quote]

They put "bike lanes" on some of the streets in NYC. The truckers promptly used them to park in while they loaded/unloaded! :mad:

[quote]
Alternative transportation is a GREAT idea and mainstream work is progressing (Hybrid car sales are way up)...

For myself? I have 8 Alaskan Malamute/Siberian Huskey crosses that I am about to begin training as a dog sled team (with a wheeled cart)....

So, if the bottom DOES drop out I'll be ready with transportation!!!

Purina Dog Food is a LOT cheaper than Gasoline!! (and my dogs 'emissions' ARE biodegradable!!)

Prof. Piper
:juggle:
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Oct 1, 2005 09:50AM)
[quote]
On 2005-09-28 20:52, Professor Piper wrote:
I can't use his pic as my Avatar (My user pic)...

I don't know how to include a pic of him here in a post...sorry

Prof. Piper
:juggle:

If the calendar ever does come out, I'll be sure to let you know!
[/quote]

Could you get a picture of yourself up close to him and use that? (I don't see why not, I have a rubber bunny!)
Message: Posted by: Professor Piper (Oct 1, 2005 09:31PM)
Mandrake..

Cool idea about having us both in a pic...I'll give it a try, but don't know if it will work or not...For some reason I'm having trouble getting pictures I take with my camera (a VHS-C camcorder that is also a digi-still camera) transfered out of it's own software and into documents...

I'd LOVE to be able to ride the bike everywhere again...It just isn't possible here...The roads (and drivers) are simply too dangerous to risk it.

Take care,

Prof. Piper
:juggle:
Message: Posted by: Cory Gallupe (Oct 2, 2005 07:40AM)
I've realized something with these avatars. Everyone has a person in it. So you cant have an avatar unless you are in it???
Message: Posted by: ssucahyo (Oct 2, 2005 08:54AM)
Also happen in my country.......all peple feel bad about the raise of the gas, this is the first time gas raise very high. From Rp.2400 to Rp.4500.
andusuually after gas raise all the goods will follow raise the price......live is getting hard.....
Message: Posted by: DomKabala (Oct 3, 2005 04:30AM)
[quote]
On 2005-10-02 08:40, themagicman101 wrote:
I've realized something with these avatars. Everyone has a person in it. So you cant have an avatar unless you are in it???
[/quote] That unfortunately is correct my friend...only pictures or facsimiles of yourself! Here in the Sunshine State I payed $2.93 a gal. for regular unleaded this morning! This is cutting into my lifestyle quite abit and it seems I never have mad-money to spend on magic anymore! :mad: :bluebikes: :bikes: :rotf: :mad:

<<<<KRaZy4kardz>>>>
Message: Posted by: Cory Gallupe (Oct 3, 2005 12:27PM)
Its cutting in my lifestyle too! If I miss the bus in the morning for school, my parents are furious, and they wont bring us places cuz its too hard on gas.
Message: Posted by: magician2000 (Oct 5, 2005 08:51AM)
[quote]
On 2005-09-23 09:11, Skip Way wrote:
However, Europe's density has led it to establish and maintain some truly fantastic mass transit systems. Your trains, buses and taxi structure makes owning a car nearly unnecessary in many areas. [/quote]
Skip. I would have to disagree with you on this point. I live in Italy (Sardinia) for 2 years in 1988-90, and have been Ireland for the past 2 years, and from what I have seen in the areas that I live, mass transit is pitiful. In Sardinia it was non-exsistant, and currently in the Ireland, unless you are in the Dublin area it is below pitiful. A 1.5 on scale of 1-10.
Message: Posted by: John S. (Oct 5, 2005 08:17PM)
The level of Greed in the US botheres me. Gas prices around me are about 2.80 and I can't believe we pay for it. There probally not going to lower the prices because they have us thinking oh 2.50 is cheap! I hope my government will do something about this soon.
John
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 7, 2008 07:06PM)
Heh, I found this old thread from 2005 while searching for something else. I did not realise that gas prices were already a hot topic of discussion here way back in 2005!
Message: Posted by: JTW (Jun 7, 2008 07:21PM)
REading this thread I thought I'm moving to where these guys are it's under $3.00 a gallon! Then I realized WHEN they were posted! Ouch and now they are talking about $6.00 a gallon by labor day! Woweee!
Message: Posted by: kregg (Jun 7, 2008 07:46PM)
We think we have if rough try $9.66 in Paris and $11.29 in Turkey. Also, from 2001 to 2005 gas prices rose by 77 cents. Between 2006-2008 gas went from $2.10 to it's current price.
I joked on another forum that with all of the people driving less and switching to fuel efficient vehicles ... gas prices should be heading back down.
The good news, South Dakota is building the first new refinery in 30 years. The bad news, it's not going make a difference by the time it's finished if we don't get behind the eight ball.
Message: Posted by: Dustin Baker (Jun 7, 2008 08:00PM)
You know it's funny. People want cheap gas, but they don't want refineries built or drilling expanded. I wonder how they figure they'll get the price to go down then?

The fact is, people NEED gas. The product has a near "0" elasticity, much like pharmacudicals. You simply can't survive without it. Thanks to this fact and the percieved scarcity of oil, oil futures are through the roof - making the price go up at the pump.

Is there anything you can do to lower the price of gas? Sure.
If you're in the US, you can write your representatives about allowing drilling in A.N.W.A.R. We might not get the physical gas for 10years, but a huge boost in available supply will massively reduce the percieved scarcity - reducing the price at the pump.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 7, 2008 08:46PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-07 21:00, Dustin Baker wrote:

If you're in the US, you can write your representatives about allowing drilling in A.N.W.A.R. We might not get the physical gas for 10years, but a huge boost in available supply will massively reduce the percieved scarcity - reducing the price at the pump.
[/quote]
In fact, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Government, the reduction at the pumps would be expected to be nominal at best.

It might reduce the price of a barrel of oil by about 75 cents in 2025! The best case scenario leads to a reduction of $1.44 per barrel in 2027. None of this would have a significant effect at the pump.

Excerpted from the just-released EIA study at

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html

"With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030, based on the low and high resource cases, respectively. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. Relative to the AEO2008 reference case, 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. Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount."
Message: Posted by: Dustin Baker (Jun 7, 2008 08:53PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-07 21:46, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-06-07 21:00, Dustin Baker wrote:

If you're in the US, you can write your representatives about allowing drilling in A.N.W.A.R. We might not get the physical gas for 10years, but a huge boost in available supply will massively reduce the percieved scarcity - reducing the price at the pump.
[/quote]
In fact, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Government, the reduction at the pumps would be expected to be nominal at best.

It might reduce the price of a barrel of oil by about 75 cents in 2025! The best case scenario leads to a reduction of $1.44 per barrel in 2027. None of this would have a significant effect at the pump.

Excerpted from the just-released EIA study at

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html

"With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030, based on the low and high resource cases, respectively. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. Relative to the AEO2008 reference case, 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. Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount."
[/quote]

And the EIA said that gas would be at $4.00 a gallon last summer, during which time it dropped below $3.00 in many areas.

The EIA doesn't know jack about economics, and this is a purely economic issue.

The price of gas has nothing to do with how much there REALLY is - it has to do with how much people THINK there is. As stated, "gas futures" determine the price at the pump, not the current supply. 'Anticipation of future supply' determines price.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 7, 2008 09:43PM)
"The EIA doesn't know jack about economics, and this is a purely economic issue."

Dustin, come on, saying that the EIA knows 'jack about economics' is ridiculous.

The EIA is staffed with many excellent economists.

And nitpicking about whether a particular one of their predictions is off by some months is silly. Their broader prediction, that gas prices would skyrocket in the near term, was essentially correct.

But, fine, if you reject EIA as an authoritative voice on the matter, how about legendary oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens?

He also is on record as saying that 1.4 million barrels a day from ANWAR would have next to no impact on price. Listen to this great interview with him:

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/05/t-boone-pickens.html

Dustin, what specifically do you know about economics or oil that the experts I've referred to above do not? I mean, you are entitled to your opinion, but COME ON! You truly think they are all ignorant that future supply determines / influences price?

What you simply fail to see here is that the amount of oil in ANWAR - even according to many optimistic estimates - is nominal given the world level of demand. It simply does NOT represent "a huge boost in available supply" as you seem to think.
Message: Posted by: kregg (Jun 7, 2008 09:53PM)
According to Texas oilman Boone Pickens, "...oil will become $150 per barrel" and "... we should use natural gas for transportation." He went on to say, "use of nuclear power and wind turbines should be expanded."
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 7, 2008 09:57PM)
Yes, Boone Pickens is a very smart man - at least on matters of energy (which are the only opinions of his I know anything about).

Here is another interview with him, talking about renewable energy:

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/126/a-mighty-wind.html?page=0%2C1
Message: Posted by: kregg (Jun 7, 2008 10:11PM)
As I recall the oil companies turn away from domestic oil during the 1970's boom/bust, then, increased oil imports because the cost of getting it out of the ground exceeded the incentive to drill for more. The more capitalism flourishes globally, the more expensive oil will be to drill, ship and process.
Message: Posted by: Decomposed (Jun 12, 2008 11:18PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-07 22:53, kregg wrote:
According to Texas oilman Boone Pickens, "...oil will become $150 per barrel" and "... we should use natural gas for transportation." He went on to say, "use of nuclear power and wind turbines should be expanded."
[/quote]

Nuclear power to run my Sentra....nice and clean.
Message: Posted by: MagiClyde (Jun 18, 2008 04:03AM)
[quote]Nuclear power to run my Sentra....nice and clean.[/quote]

That might be just what you need to generate the 1.21 jigawatts necessary to activate your flux capacitor at 88 MPH and go "back to the future!" ;)
Message: Posted by: kregg (Jun 18, 2008 07:27AM)
I keep hearing of $4 per gallon gasoline, but, regular unleaded has only reached $3.98. My father told me it has hit $4.20 in Indiana. Evidently taxes in my location aren't as high as most areas. Perhaps every added tax should be posted on the receipt.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jun 18, 2008 12:17PM)
Just paid around $4.65 in Northern CA yesterday. We've got a lot of oil wells around here, too.

Actually, drilling in ANWAR is unnecessary for another reason- oil companies were given drilling contracts in a whole bunch of other areas since 2000- and they haven't done any exploration or drilling in half of them.

The main beef I have with gas prices is that I have to pay up- I live 35 miles from my day job, so bicycling's out of the question, and there's no real public transportation that will take me there. The company doesn't encourage telecommuting, and my old Toyota Corolla gets about the same freeway mpg as many U.S. hybrids. It'd be one thing if gas was a "luxury" expense, like liquor, cable TV, or dining out. Instead, it's a required expense like water and electricity- and there's only so much you can do to reduce its costs. It's rapidly taking a larger and larger piece of my "budget pie", so to speak, and I'm frustrated about that.
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Jun 18, 2008 02:32PM)
I just got back from a trip to Venezuela. Here in the states I drive a VW Jetta, diesel. It costs about $60 for a fill-up.

In Venezuela, I could fill it up for between 1-2 dollars. The whole tank!
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 18, 2008 02:51PM)
How much would your house be worth in Venezuela?
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Jun 18, 2008 05:28PM)
Don't know much about housing prices, but I did see a few that the locals said, "A house like that would go for...." and it didn't sound too far away from what I would consider a similar place in the USA goes for - but bear in mind that prices both here and there vary wildly due to location, etc...
Message: Posted by: Decomposed (Jun 19, 2008 05:35AM)
$3.87 a gallon last fill up but that price will not last long. Wondering when the gigs will slow down. Opps they already have. :(
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 19, 2008 04:16PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-07 21:46, balducci wrote:
It might reduce the price of a barrel of oil by about 75 cents in 2025! The best case scenario leads to a reduction of $1.44 per barrel in 2027. None of this would have a significant effect at the pump.
[/quote]

All Bush had to do was mention that he wanted to open up oil drilling in Anwar, off the coasts, and go after oil shale and oil dropped $5 a barrel today. Directly related? Who knows. But I strongly believe that if we actually passed laws saying that we WERE going to start doing those things it would seriously effect the speculative market for the better.

I decided to do a little research last night. It's true that Anwar and the coastal regions 'only' have about 19 billion barrels of recoverable oil each that we know of and at our current rate of consumption we could use all of that in 3 years. (Assuming of course that we didn't use anything else)

However, we also have over 1 TRILLION barrels of oil available in Oil Shale. Now when Oil was less than $60 to $80 a barrel, oil shale was too expensive to extract. However, at the current cost of oil, it's definately economically feasable and the amount of oil there is enough to last us over 100 years at our current rate of consumption.

Also, here's another interesting quote:
Shell Oil Company has successfully conducted small-scale field tests of an insitu process based on slow underground heating via thermal conduction. Larger scale operations are required to establish technical viability, especially with regard to avoiding adverse impacts on groundwater quality. Shell anticipates that, in contrast to the cost estimates for mining and surface retorting, the petroleum products produced by their thermally conductive in-situ method will be competitive at crude oil prices in the mid-$20s per barrel.

(James T. Bartis, et. al., "Oil Shale Development in the United States: Prospects and Policy Issues" (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2005), p. x. http://rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf)

There are other alternatives that are also being blocked by Congress. Nuclear energy is probably the cleanest form of energy we have but everyone who doesn't want us to use oil because of the environment doesn't want us using nuclear either. Also, natural gas is very clean to run on and there are many fleet vehicles that use it and you can get a natural gas car from Honda in California or New York but no where else. But guess what. Drilling for additional Natural Gas is also being blocked even though we have essentially unlimited reserves of Natural Gas available.

Other solutions are even farther off but I'm sure Congress will find a reason to block most of them also.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 19, 2008 04:17PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-18 15:32, Chessmann wrote:
I just got back from a trip to Venezuela. Here in the states I drive a VW Jetta, diesel. It costs about $60 for a fill-up.

In Venezuela, I could fill it up for between 1-2 dollars. The whole tank!
[/quote]

And do you know why that is? It's because about 80% of their energy is provided through off shore drilling.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 19, 2008 06:13PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-19 17:16, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-06-07 21:46, balducci wrote:
It might reduce the price of a barrel of oil by about 75 cents in 2025! The best case scenario leads to a reduction of $1.44 per barrel in 2027. None of this would have a significant effect at the pump.
[/quote]

All Bush had to do was mention that he wanted to open up oil drilling in Anwar, off the coasts, and go after oil shale and oil dropped $5 a barrel today. Directly related? Who knows. But I strongly believe that if we actually passed laws saying that we WERE going to start doing those things it would seriously effect the speculative market for the better.
[/quote]
Um, except that's actually not the main reason it dropped. The main reason it dropped is because China took steps today to dampen demand for oil by cutting subsidies and raising fuel prices. See this link:

[url]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080619.woilprices0619/BNStory/energy/home[/url]
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 19, 2008 06:23PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-19 17:17, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-06-18 15:32, Chessmann wrote:
I just got back from a trip to Venezuela. Here in the states I drive a VW Jetta, diesel. It costs about $60 for a fill-up.

In Venezuela, I could fill it up for between 1-2 dollars. The whole tank!
[/quote]

And do you know why that is? It's because about 80% of their energy is provided through off shore drilling.
[/quote]
Well, I have to disagree with you once again.

The overwhelming main reason it is so cheap is because President Hugo Chávez' government subsidizes the price of oil and gas in the country so that it retails for much less than a quarter of its real market price:

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jan/18/oil.venezuela[/url]

If the U.S. subsidized the price of gas at the pump by 80% or more, you would have cheap gas too!
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 19, 2008 06:48PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-19 19:23, balducci wrote:


If the U.S. subsidized the price of gas at the pump by 80% or more, you would have cheap gas too!
[/quote]

If you call that "cheap."

"Why does it have to come from the taxpayers? Why can't the government pay for it?"
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 19, 2008 06:54PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-19 19:48, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-06-19 19:23, balducci wrote:

If the U.S. subsidized the price of gas at the pump by 80% or more, you would have cheap gas too!
[/quote]

If you call that "cheap."

"Why does it have to come from the taxpayers? Why can't the government pay for it?"
[/quote]
Well, I know what you mean, but of course us comparing the situation in Venezuela and the U.S. in the first place is like comparing Apples and Oranges.

The government in Venezuela owns (substitute took over or nationalized or stole) most or all of the big oil companies there, so it can use the profits it makes to pay off its citizens.

It should be noted that many low income Americans have benefited from Hugo's largess. If you don't know what I mean, you can google it.
Message: Posted by: kregg (Jun 19, 2008 06:58PM)
Americans drive 4.5 billion fewer miles in April:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080619165426.g1xpji51&show_article=1
Must be why gas prices rose in May. ;)
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 19, 2008 07:06PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-19 19:58, kregg wrote:
Americans drive 4.5 billion fewer miles in April:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080619165426.g1xpji51&show_article=1
Must be why gas prices rose in May. ;)
[/quote]
If you or anyone insists on focusing on America, then in my humble opinion you'll never understand the oil price story. What happens in America is only one piece of the puzzle these days.

So Americans drove somewhat less in April. Your article says that 4.5 billion fewer miles is a reduction of 1.8 percent. Big whoop.

Around the same time, oil use in China rose by 16.5 percent year on year.

[url]http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/29/content_8075648.htm[/url]
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 19, 2008 07:13PM)
Lobo, as a lawyer you might enjoy reading and critiquing this op-ed story that appeared in the NY Times today. It proposes that the U.S. sue OPEC:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/opinion/19evans.html
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 19, 2008 09:48PM)
[quote]
Well, I have to disagree with you once again.

The overwhelming main reason it is so cheap is because President Hugo Chávez' government subsidizes the price of oil and gas in the country so that it retails for much less than a quarter of its real market price:

If the U.S. subsidized the price of gas at the pump by 80% or more, you would have cheap gas too!
[/quote]

Hmmm, so it'a about 25% of what the actual cost should be? So that means a tank of gas SHOULD cost 160p to 200p to fill a 4X4? And from the article that would equal what? 4 cups of coffee instead of 1? Wow, I guess you're right, the cheap prices are totally because of subsidies.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 19, 2008 10:02PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-19 19:23, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-06-19 17:17, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-06-18 15:32, Chessmann wrote:
I just got back from a trip to Venezuela. Here in the states I drive a VW Jetta, diesel. It costs about $60 for a fill-up.

In Venezuela, I could fill it up for between 1-2 dollars. The whole tank!
[/quote]

And do you know why that is? It's because about 80% of their energy is provided through off shore drilling.
[/quote]
Well, I have to disagree with you once again.

The overwhelming main reason it is so cheap is because President Hugo Chávez' government subsidizes the price of oil and gas in the country so that it retails for much less than a quarter of its real market price:

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jan/18/oil.venezuela[/url]

If the U.S. subsidized the price of gas at the pump by 80% or more, you would have cheap gas too!
[/quote]

Are the two reasons entirely distinct? What I mean by that is, if offshore drilling weren't so extensive, would the government subsidize it?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 19, 2008 10:21PM)
[quote]
Are the two reasons entirely distinct? What I mean by that is, if offshore drilling weren't so extensive, would the government subsidize it?
[/quote]

I agree with that and actually started to phrase my response as the fact that it was probably a combination. Then I started to do the math and realized that even if the governement wasn't subsidizing it by as much as the article claims, the price would still be ridiculously low. (All based on examples from the article. I don't actually know what 42p IS in American dollars. The quick google search I was doing talked about Venezuela currency being Bolivars. I'm assuming that p is a fraction of that like pennies to dollars? Not sure, if someone does know or wants to spend more time with google than I did, please speak up.)
Message: Posted by: Decomposed (Jun 19, 2008 10:24PM)
Still $3.87 a gal close to house. But for how long? Thinking of heading to Home Depot and get me some equipment to drill in my backyard. Either that or burying an underground tank somewhere back there.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 19, 2008 10:32PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-19 23:02, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Are the two reasons entirely distinct? What I mean by that is, if offshore drilling weren't so extensive, would the government subsidize it?
[/quote]
I'm afraid I do not entirely understand your question ... ???

However, I have to ask, does anyone here know just how extensive Venezuela's off shore drilling really is?

This article (possibly a year or two out of date) says that Venezuela is rich in oil and gas but has no offshore production outside of the relatively small Lake Maracaibo region:

[url]http://www.energyfiles.com/americas/venezuela.html[/url]

This article from 2007 says that the first Venezuelan offshore oil well located out to sea was going to start towards the end of last year:

[url]http://www.conapri.org/English/ArticleDetailIV.asp?articleid=290496&CategoryId2=15049[/url]

This article also confirms that Venezuela’s first offshore oil well (out to sea) was going to get started in 2007:

[url]http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Venezuela/Oil.html[/url]

"PdVSA has stated that it will bring Corocoro onstream by the end of 2007. Corocoro would represent Venezuela’s first offshore oil production."

But from this link it sounds as though Corocoro just came onstream a month or two ago:

[url]http://www.energycurrent.com/index.php?id=2&storyid=10209[/url]

All in all, it sounds as though Venezuela has exploited very little of its off shore capacity.

I wonder, is it possible you are confusing Venezuela with Brazil (which I believe DOES have considerable off shore oil production)?
Message: Posted by: kregg (Jun 19, 2008 10:33PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-19 20:06, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-06-19 19:58, kregg wrote:
Americans drive 4.5 billion fewer miles in April:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080619165426.g1xpji51&show_article=1
Must be why gas prices rose in May. ;)
[/quote]
So Americans drove somewhat less in April. Your article says that 4.5 billion fewer miles is a reduction of 1.8 percent. Big whoop.

Around the same time, oil use in China rose by 16.5 percent year on year.
[/quote]

1.8 percent reduction is HUGE considering the average size of our cars and trucks compared to the playmobiles of other countries. Second, how about a little perspective: USA 20,730,000 bbl/day, China 6,534,000 bbl/day.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 19, 2008 10:33PM)
Went back to the article and realized that it's a British article and they are using British money for the example. So basically, they are saying that it costs 42 British pence to fill up a SUV's tank. (I think that converts to about 82 cents in US) That's for a FULL TANK OF GAS FOR AN SUV! So, even if the government subsidy is keeping it at 1/4 it's actual cost, we're talking about $3.50 to fill up your tank! Less than the current cost for 1 gallon of gas. Please, if I'm making an error in the calculation, please point it out.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 19, 2008 10:40PM)
[quote]
I wonder, is it possible you are confusing Venezuela with Brazil (which I believe DOES have considerable off shore oil production)?
[/quote]

Hmmm, yes, very possible but I don't think that changes anything. The article stated that they are primarily an oil exporter nation, not an importer. So the oil they use is home grown and that's why it's as cheap as it is. Check the price of gas in Saudi Arabia. Nations all over the globe are looking for oil and many are starting drilling off shore, including China which has leased an offshore oil field from Cuba about 50-60 miles off the Florida coast. I don't hear China saying, "what's the use? It'll take 10 years before we can use it." We'll be using oil for much longer than the next 10 years.

I'm ALL for finding alternatives but complete conversion to ANY alternative is likely to be MUCH farther out than 10 years. In the meantime, I'd hate to see the World economy crash completely because of refusal to act now.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 19, 2008 10:41PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-19 23:33, kregg wrote:

1.8 percent reduction is HUGE considering the average size of our cars and trucks compared to the playmobiles of other countries. Second, how about a little perspective: USA 20,730,000 bbl/day, China 6,534,000 bbl/day.
[/quote]
Yes, but it's only a 1.8 percent reduction in the amount of oil used to produce gas used in cars and trucks.

USA 20,730,000 bbl/day, but only a fraction of that is used for gas.

But let's assume it all goes towards gas for cars.

I'll use your bbl/day figures. Check this:

1.8% times USA's 20,730,000 bbl/day = 373,140 bbl/day savings in the USA

16.5% times China's 6,534,000 bbl/day = 1,078,110 extra demand in China

So, like I said, big whoop. China's increased demand more than makes up for the demand destruction recently seen in the USA. All this might change in the future, of course.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 19, 2008 10:49PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-19 23:40, rockwall wrote:

I'm ALL for finding alternatives but complete conversion to ANY alternative is likely to be MUCH farther out than 10 years. In the meantime, I'd hate to see the World economy crash completely because of refusal to act now.
[/quote]
Oh, hey, probably 25% or more of my personal wealth (outside of my home) is directly invested in oil and related industries. So I am all for increased drilling etc.

I just think some of the proposals in the news recently are dog and pony show stuff to calm the masses.

A number of people / networks were reporting today that the oil companies in the U.S. _already_ have rights to 68 million acres of federal land containing 14 years or more of oil supply, which are presently going undeveloped by choice on the part of the oil companies.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 19, 2008 11:23PM)
[quote]
A number of people / networks were reporting today that the oil companies in the U.S. _already_ have rights to 68 million acres of federal land containing 14 years or more of oil supply, which are presently going undeveloped by choice on the part of the oil companies.
[/quote]
The only thing that's being reported is what some Democrat congressmen have said. I'd lover to read an analysis on that statement. My 'suspicion' is that if they it's undeveloped, there's a reason like federal laws and hoops make it too difficult. I really don't know. If they do have 14 years or more of oil supply in those lands, why would they want more opened up. Is it cheaper to access in the lands they want opened up or what? I'd like to know.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 19, 2008 11:40PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 00:23, rockwall wrote:

The only thing that's being reported is what some Democrat congressmen have said. I'd lover to read an analysis on that statement.
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/opinion/19thu1.html]TRY HERE[/url].

"Separate studies by the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Wilderness Society, a conservation group, show that roughly three-quarters of the 90 million-plus acres of federal land being leased by the oil companies onshore and off are not being used to produce energy. That is 68 million acres altogether, among them potentially highly productive leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska."

So I suppose you can google for those two studies if you want to read further.

Actually, this may be the BLM report right here:
[url=http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/EPCA_Text_PDF.Par.18155.File.dat/Executive%20Summary%20text.pdf]TRY HERE[/url].

Or the Executive Summary anyway. You have the title, I think the main report should be easy to find now.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 20, 2008 12:29AM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-19 23:33, rockwall wrote:
Went back to the article and realized that it's a British article and they are using British money for the example. So basically, they are saying that it costs 42 British pence to fill up a SUV's tank. (I think that converts to about 82 cents in US) That's for a FULL TANK OF GAS FOR AN SUV! So, even if the government subsidy is keeping it at 1/4 it's actual cost, we're talking about $3.50 to fill up your tank! Less than the current cost for 1 gallon of gas. Please, if I'm making an error in the calculation, please point it out.
[/quote]


I'm showing average Venezuelan income at something like 1/8 of average American income, so bear in mind that getting $3.50 in Venezuela is like getting $25-$30 or so in the USA.
Message: Posted by: kregg (Jun 20, 2008 07:58AM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-19 23:41, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-06-19 23:33, kregg wrote:

1.8 percent reduction is HUGE considering the average size of our cars and trucks compared to the playmobiles of other countries. Second, how about a little perspective: USA 20,730,000 bbl/day, China 6,534,000 bbl/day.
[/quote]
Yes, but it's only a 1.8 percent reduction in the amount of oil used to produce gas used in cars and trucks.
[/quote]
1.8 percent is for gasoline, not oil. A barrel (42 gallons) of crude yields 20 gallons of gasoline. We have also added 10% ethanol to our gas; this inflated grain prices too. Add in the cost of the other additives and presto. The profits (8%) seen by the oil companies are not historic by percent, but by volume. Countries selling refined gasoline to the US benefit from our weaker dollar. The oil companies may be engaging in a bit of trade speculation to force up barrel price. It is very well likely that they aren't buying as much oil; instead using what they have in storage. Otherwise, their profits would be lower across the board. If China is buying extra barrels at market price they haven't learned the meaning, "buy low, sell high" (we in the west own most of the oil companies).
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 20, 2008 09:11AM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 08:58, kregg wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-06-19 23:41, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-06-19 23:33, kregg wrote:

1.8 percent reduction is HUGE considering the average size of our cars and trucks compared to the playmobiles of other countries. Second, how about a little perspective: USA 20,730,000 bbl/day, China 6,534,000 bbl/day.
[/quote]
Yes, but it's only a 1.8 percent reduction in the amount of oil used to produce gas used in cars and trucks.
[/quote]
1.8 percent is for gasoline, not oil. A barrel (42 gallons) of crude yields 20 gallons of gasoline. We have also added 10% ethanol to our gas; this inflated grain prices too. Add in the cost of the other additives and presto. The profits (8%) seen by the oil companies are not historic by percent, but by volume. Countries selling refined gasoline to the US benefit from our weaker dollar. The oil companies may be engaging in a bit of trade speculation to force up barrel price. It is very well likely that they aren't buying as much oil; instead using what they have in storage. Otherwise, their profits would be lower across the board. If China is buying extra barrels at market price they haven't learned the meaning, "buy low, sell high" (we in the west own most of the oil companies).
[/quote]
Okay, you don't seem to have commented on the rest of my post. So I take it you now agree with me now that the savings in the U.S. you identified was swamped by the extra demand in China over the same period?

You say "we in the west own most of the oil companies".

If you have the time and care to do so, could you explain to me what you mean by that?

Do you mean that most of the oil companies in the world are Western-based ... well, you might be right but I don't see how it matters.

The number of companies doesn't matter much in itself. There might be more companies, but most of them might be tiny and insignificant in size.

In fact, most and all of the largest oil companies in the world are State-owned.

Check out this wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajor

Note that the six largest, non state-owned energy companies in the world (this list may be a bit out of date, but it is good enough for discussion's sake) are:

* ExxonMobil (XOM)
* BP (BP)
* Royal Dutch Shell (RDS)
* Total S.A. (TOT)
* Chevron Corporation (CVX)
* ConocoPhillips (COP)

But, get this, together they only control 5% of global oil and gas reserves!

And, as far as all oil companies in the world goes, ExxonMobil is only the the 14th largest in the world!

In other words, most (95%) of the oil supply is controlled by, and the 13 largest oil companies in the world are all, state-owned companies.

So, as you said, we in the West might (?) own most of the oil companies, but they are relative pipsqueaks in size compared to the State-owned oil companies in the world, and the Western companies control only a tiny amount of the world's oil reserves.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 20, 2008 09:52AM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 00:40, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 00:23, rockwall wrote:

The only thing that's being reported is what some Democrat congressmen have said. I'd lover to read an analysis on that statement.[/quote]
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/opinion/19thu1.html]TRY HERE[/url].

...

Actually, this may be the BLM report right here:
[url=http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/EPCA_Text_PDF.Par.18155.File.dat/Executive%20Summary%20text.pdf]TRY HERE[/url].
[/quote]

Thanks for the links.
I read the opinion piece in the NYTimes first. His biases were obvious and left me wondering how accurate the piece was based on those biases or how much he was 'slanting' his information to fit his thinking.

So, I went to the 2nd link which was the BLM Executive summary and found a very interesting line at the end of the study which seems to be ignored by NYTimes article writer.

"Approximately 17 percent of the Federal land in these areas (48.0 million acres) is
accessible under standard lease terms. Based on resource estimates, these lands
contain 8 percent of the oil (2.3 billion barrels) and 10 percent of the gas (23.6 trillion cubic feet)."

In other words, when the Congressmen or the NYTimes article writer claim that the oil companies have access to 30billion barrels of oil on existing lease property, they actually only have access to 2.3 billion barrels.
Message: Posted by: kregg (Jun 20, 2008 10:16AM)
"Okay, you don't seem to have commented on the rest of my post. So I take it you now agree with me now that the savings in the U.S. you identified was swamped by the extra demand in China over the same period?"

It means that China is banking on expanding their reserves by purchasing at an all time high, as we in the west are changing our behavior. As we search for options to limit our dependence on a single source of energy 1.8 percent in a single month(!), during the school year no less, is a big sign of that behavioral shift. Meanwhile, the oil companies are pumping more money out of China and this makes shareholders very happy. As this money comes back in we need to shred it and raise interest rates.

You say "we in the west own most of the oil companies".

"If you have the time and care to do so, could you explain to me what you mean by that?"

Technically every sovereign nation own their mineral rights. But, the companies are responsible for bringing the product to market through outside contractors.

"Do you mean that most of the oil companies in the world are Western-based ... well, you might be right but I don't see how it matters."

It matters because they are publicly traded and held by stockholders ... that's you and me partner.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 20, 2008 08:09PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-07 22:57, balducci wrote:
Yes, Boone Pickens is a very smart man - at least on matters of energy (which are the only opinions of his I know anything about).

Here is another interview with him, talking about renewable energy:

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/126/a-mighty-wind.html?page=0%2C1
[/quote]
Whoa! What a guy. You've gotta love T Boone:

[url]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080620.wdonation0620/BNStory/National/home[/url]

For the life of me, I never realised (or perhaps I'd forgotten) that he used to live in Calgary, Canada.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jun 20, 2008 08:26PM)
Man a lot of smart people used to live in Calgary ;)

John
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Jun 20, 2008 10:08PM)
Until they got smarter and moved to the USA!

(sorry - I couldn't resist, John!)
Message: Posted by: Decomposed (Jun 23, 2008 06:29AM)
Why don't we all pitch in and start building more mass transit in China.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 24, 2008 04:58PM)
[quote]

"Separate studies by the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Wilderness Society, a conservation group, show that roughly three-quarters of the 90 million-plus acres of federal land being leased by the oil companies onshore and off are not being used to produce energy. That is 68 million acres altogether, among them potentially highly productive leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska."

[/quote]

Here is a Republican response to the Use it or Lose it bill you linked to:
http://republicanleader.house.gov/news/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=94327

However, I'll be the first to admit that it is as one sided as the article you linked to. This is what makes it so hard for any of us to know the truth of anything. Everyone twists everything to support thier side that it makes it very difficult to know the truth. It seems like it used to be that you could rely on the news to present an un-biased fact-based investigative report but generally they only report the talking points of one side or the other any more.

Mike
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 24, 2008 09:22PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-24 17:58, rockwall wrote:
[quote]

"Separate studies by the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Wilderness Society, a conservation group, show that roughly three-quarters of the 90 million-plus acres of federal land being leased by the oil companies onshore and off are not being used to produce energy. That is 68 million acres altogether, among them potentially highly productive leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska."

[/quote]

Here is a Republican response to the Use it or Lose it bill you linked to:
http://republicanleader.house.gov/news/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=94327

However, I'll be the first to admit that it is as one sided as the article you linked to. This is what makes it so hard for any of us to know the truth of anything. Everyone twists everything to support thier side that it makes it very difficult to know the truth. It seems like it used to be that you could rely on the news to present an un-biased fact-based investigative report but generally they only report the talking points of one side or the other any more.

Mike
[/quote]
I appreciate how you said it is "a Republican" response as there are a number of Republicans on side with the Democrats about off shore drilling and drilling in Alaska. Just as, I imagine, there must be some Demos calling for increased drilling.

The article at the link you posted only quoted a small part of the story from the WSJ. If you want to see the entire thing, you can find it reproduced here:

http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/06/16/quest-for-oil-where-to-look-is-the-question/

The WSJ article also notes (and that particular Republican response failed to mention) that:

"Even if the lands are opened to drilling, however, most experts don’t expect immediate relief from high prices. The more-accessible reserves off the coasts of California and Florida would take several years to bring into production, and the remote Arctic refuge would take a decade or more. Even once those fields did come online, their impact on prices would likely be limited. The largest field in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is believed to contain about 1.4 billion barrels of oil — roughly half what Saudi Arabia exports in a single year."

Just emphasising the point that much more than simply more drilling is needed. Alternate energy sources and conservation measures are probably at least as important.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 24, 2008 10:48PM)
I absolutely agree that alternative energy sources are at least as important. But that just means that oil is also at least as important and that we should still be persuing that. In fact, every country should be wanting the US to look for more oil as any oil we produce will help ease the burden on the entire world oil stock.

I really don't understand the resistance to drilling in ANWR. The place is HUGE and the drilling would impace a tiny portion of the entire area. I've heard it described as a postage stamp on a football field. Please explain why the resistance? I find it the height of hypocrisy that Democrats want to sue Saudi's for not increasing production in THIER backyard but refuse to do anything in our own.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 24, 2008 11:34PM)
Well, as noted above, the amount in ANWR is believed to be minuscule compared to what is in Saudi Arabia. And if there ever was a spill in ANWR, it is feared that the environmental impact there would dwarf the impact of a similar spill in Saudi Arabia. So the the cost / benefit equation doesn't work out as favourably for ANWAR as it does for Saudi Arabia. Much bigger risk but also much smaller reward.

Also, you have to get the oil out of Alaska. What T Boone Pickens has to say on that:

[url]http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2007/06/04/story2.html?f=et160&b=1180929600%5E1471042[/url]

---
PICKENS: Now you hear people say, well, if you'd open up the millions of acres in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and let the oil companies find the oil, we would have plenty for America. No!

The (capacity of the) pipeline from the North Slope to Valdez, Alaska, is just 2 million barrels. The United States is using 21 million barrels a day. That pipeline is down to 700,000 barrels now. So IF we found a huge field at ANWR, it would do no more than fill up that 2 million-barrel line. And they're not going to build another pipeline.
---

Personally, I think off shore drilling is a much better idea.

And, yes, I also think that suing the Saudis or suing OPEC is ludicrous.
Message: Posted by: Decomposed (Jun 26, 2008 07:04AM)
When will oil stop going up. Every dang day it rises.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 26, 2008 09:17AM)
Probably not for a while...buy some stock.
Message: Posted by: kregg (Jun 26, 2008 09:26AM)
Now's not the time to buy. Remember: buy low, sell high.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jun 26, 2008 09:36AM)
Kregg, it's only going to get higher.

My main question is "What can [i]we[/i] do to lower the cost?" My wife and I just bought some bicycles...
Message: Posted by: kregg (Jun 26, 2008 12:10PM)
You're on the right track. Think of the great cardiovascular workout you'll get while saving money. We obviously have to learn why independence is so very important. With our current fuel dependency we have about a two million bpd shortfall. We should realize not only the folly of long commutes to work & back, but, calculate how much of the most valuable tangent we lose (time) when making those arduous trips.
I think we need to invest in hydrogen stations and engines. Let Southern California lead the way, apparently Washington is more interested in their usual nonsense of fixing the blame instead of the problem. Ironically that problem is dependence.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 26, 2008 11:28PM)
I think that two of your quotes are descriptive of how selective facts can be used to misrepresent the truth.
[quote]
On 2008-06-24 22:22, balducci wrote:
The largest field in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is believed to contain about 1.4 billion barrels of oil — roughly half what Saudi Arabia exports in a single year."
[/quote]
This quote references the ‘the largest field’, hoping the reader will then make the assumption that is pretty much all the oil there when there is actually about 10 billion barrels available.

[quote]
On 2008-06-25 00:34, balducci wrote:
Well, as noted above, the amount in ANWR is believed to be minuscule compared to what is in Saudi Arabia. And if there ever was a spill in ANWR, it is feared that the environmental impact there would dwarf the impact of a similar spill in Saudi Arabia.
[/quote]

Here, you do exactly what I predicted, making it sound like there isn’t enough oil in ANWR to make a blip. In actuality, ANWR contains enough oil to completely replace our oil supply for 3 years. That may not sound like a ton but we don’t need to replace our supply, we just need to supplement it to increase the available oil supply to bring prices down. Add to that additional oil from offshore drilling, oil from oil shale, additional Nuclear Power Plants, new alternative technologies, increased fuel conservation. ALL of these things working together are needed to bring down the price of energy.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LindaChavez/2008/06/20/oil_crisis_is_solvable
“There are almost 20 million acres in ANWR, but only about 2,000 acres -- 0.01 percent of the total -- are needed for drilling. And this small territory could produce around 10 billion barrels of oil.”
Based on the amount of area needed to open up in ANWR for drilling and the barren and remote nature of the area, I think people claiming to be worried about the environmental impact are either ignorant about the area or are being disingenuous and are just using that argument to block any type of drilling because they essentially want oil prices high for political reasons.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 26, 2008 11:48PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-27 00:28, rockwall wrote:
I think that two of your quotes are descriptive of how selective facts can be used to misrepresent the truth.
[quote]
On 2008-06-24 22:22, balducci wrote:
The largest field in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is believed to contain about 1.4 billion barrels of oil — roughly half what Saudi Arabia exports in a single year."
[/quote]
This quote references the ‘the largest field’, hoping the reader will then make the assumption that is pretty much all the oil there when there is actually about 10 billion barrels available.

[quote]
On 2008-06-25 00:34, balducci wrote:
Well, as noted above, the amount in ANWR is believed to be minuscule compared to what is in Saudi Arabia. And if there ever was a spill in ANWR, it is feared that the environmental impact there would dwarf the impact of a similar spill in Saudi Arabia.
[/quote]

Here, you do exactly what I predicted, making it sound like there isn’t enough oil in ANWR to make a blip. In actuality, ANWR contains enough oil to completely replace our oil supply for 3 years. That may not sound like a ton but we don’t need to replace our supply, we just need to supplement it to increase the available oil supply to bring prices down. Add to that additional oil from offshore drilling, oil from oil shale, additional Nuclear Power Plants, new alternative technologies, increased fuel conservation. ALL of these things working together are needed to bring down the price of energy.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LindaChavez/2008/06/20/oil_crisis_is_solvable
“There are almost 20 million acres in ANWR, but only about 2,000 acres -- 0.01 percent of the total -- are needed for drilling. And this small territory could produce around 10 billion barrels of oil.”
[/quote]
I don't want to argue with you as I think I mostly agree with you, but I think you are taking my words out of their context.

You asked why should 'we' not drill in ANWR as we ask Saudi Arabia to open up more drills over there. You were making a point that it is hypocritical for us not to drill in ANWR when we ask them to drill over there. That is the question I was addressing.

If we use your numbers, 10 billion, that is still only about 4 or so years of Saudi production. The cost / benefit still doesn't work out as well in ANWR as it does for drilling in Saudi Arabia etc.

I appreciate your point of view, but keep in mind that many knowledgeable people in the oil industry (Boone Pickens for one) have openly stated their opinion that ANWR is not worth the effort. If there are finite resources to direct towards drilling, as there are, there are better prospects than ANWR to target in North America. Also, keep in mind the pipeline issue I mentioned previously (i.e., the very limited capacity that exists for bringing oil from ANWR to the rest of the U.S.).

Please don't think I am against drilling in ANWR just because I tell you why it doesn't make sense. Really, I have no problem with drilling up there in principle.

Consider, I fully support the oil sands activity in my own backyard in Alberta and that project is presently, say, 100 times the environmental nightmare that drilling in ANWR could ever be. I mean, I'm hopeful they will come to their senses and work harder to resolve the environmental problems associated with the oil sands but I'm not saying they should stop until they do.

Allow me to repost something from before, in case you missed it ...

Excerpted from the just-released U.S. EIA study at

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html

"With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030, based on the low and high resource cases, respectively. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. Relative to the AEO2008 reference case, 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. Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount."
Message: Posted by: Decomposed (Jun 27, 2008 11:52AM)
Seems the media pumped it for a while now its not major news anymore. I mean you hear it then they switch to Brittany etc. Wondering if they want to spin it so it doesn't create a panic.

I just started to drive when we had to wait in line for gas during the oil embargo, even and odd days to fill up etc. That was a joke compared to what is to come.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 27, 2008 06:22PM)
Solution for the oil crisis? Maybe, maybe not.

Bugs that eat waste and excrete petrol:

[url]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece[/url]
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 27, 2008 06:53PM)
On a lighter side, I got my Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less bumper stickers in the mail today. When my wife walked in and saw them she immediately started laughing and said she was going to stick it to her shirt before we go out tonight. Hmmm, it does make a kind of funny T-Shirt slogan! :)
Message: Posted by: Decomposed (Jun 27, 2008 11:50PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-27 19:53, rockwall wrote:
On a lighter side, I got my Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less bumper stickers in the mail today. When my wife walked in and saw them she immediately started laughing and said she was going to stick it to her shirt before we go out tonight. Hmmm, it does make a kind of funny T-Shirt slogan! :)
[/quote]

I like that......too bad you do not live in D.C.
Message: Posted by: kregg (Jun 28, 2008 06:18PM)
Okay all you folks gassing about gas prices. My local gasoline hole went DOWN 3 cents from $3.98 to $3.95.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 28, 2008 07:12PM)
I heard somewhere that gas in Europe is essentially the same as that in the US before the taxes get added on. I don't know if that is true or not. Can someone who knows post some actual numbers? Just curious.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 28, 2008 08:58PM)
This report, page 2, tells you the price of gasoline or petrol at various countries:

http://www.theaa.com/onlinenews/allaboutcars/fuel/2008/June2008.pdf

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/fuel/

The story at this link tells you how much of the price of gas is tax at various countries in Europe:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/fair_deal_for_drivers/1942640/UK-drivers-pay-highest-fuel-taxes-in-Europe.html

Put it all together, and you should have your answer.
Message: Posted by: Kjellstrom (Jun 30, 2008 05:22PM)
How to get free gas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5MMs8l-F7k

Very clever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P7oGdbY33M
Message: Posted by: Josh Chaikin (Jul 1, 2008 12:39PM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF1njCql-Vc
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 3, 2008 03:10PM)
$50 of free gas. Woo-hoo. Lucky Nevadans or Nevadians or whatever they're called.

[url]http://globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080703.wrgas03/GIStory/[/url]
Message: Posted by: Decomposed (Jul 5, 2008 02:41AM)
$152 a barrel before end of next week............$200 before 31 Dec, heard it here first.
Message: Posted by: inidyls (Jul 5, 2008 01:25PM)
Three ways to cut prices on oil

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOpcPfAarjY&feature=related
Message: Posted by: Decomposed (Jul 5, 2008 04:11PM)
Great video and so true but Congress will not touch it. It will be $8 before you know it and then perhaps there will be an uprising in the USA that will capture congress attention.


Also, the entire world needs to come together during this crisis.

PS: I just mowed the grass. I could almost fill up my Nissan tank on what I put/spend in the lawn mower gas can now.
Message: Posted by: kregg (Aug 5, 2008 10:12AM)
Two weeks after the President asked congress to lift the restrictions on offshore drilling the energy traders have responded by selling off their shares. Remember, I wrote that now is not the time to buy? ;) $119 per barrel, local regular is now below $3.70 per gallon. Just think how low it would go if the group with the lowest job approval rating did something.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 5, 2008 10:41AM)
Demand is way down...Americans are driving something like 9% fewer miles.
Message: Posted by: kregg (Aug 5, 2008 02:06PM)
[quote]
On 2008-08-05 11:41, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Demand is way down...Americans are driving something like 9% fewer miles.
[/quote]

Where can I find that report? 1.8% was the highest figure I read.
Message: Posted by: Doug Higley (Aug 5, 2008 02:13PM)
Wait Kregg...I'LL post here and my stalker Balducci will come in and tell us everything we need to know.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 5, 2008 02:14PM)
I'd heard the story on the radio while driving, and from the little bit of internet looking around I've done since reading your post, looks like I mis-heard it. It was a couple of weeks ago, so I can't say for sure, but my best guess is that what I'd heard was actually that we'd driving 9 billion (and change) fewer miles in May, '08 than in May, '07. My bad.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Aug 5, 2008 03:12PM)
[quote]
On 2008-08-05 11:12, kregg wrote:
Two weeks after the President asked congress to lift the restrictions on offshore drilling the energy traders have responded by selling off their shares. Remember, I wrote that now is not the time to buy? ;) $119 per barrel, local regular is now below $3.70 per gallon. Just think how low it would go if the group with the lowest job approval rating did something.
[/quote]
Hey Kregg? Um, nobody actually started drilling more, yet. Price is down because demand is- everyone started changing their driving habits to offset the cost of fuel. (I'm still paying $4.23 a gallon, though.)

I maintain that drilling's a red herring. The oil companies are sitting on millions of acres of land, some of it just outside of ANWAR. They've also been posting record profits. Again. (And they're buying back their own stock like mad so they don't have to claim those profits.) If you were in their business, would you want to increase supply and tank your prices? They don't actually want to drill; they just want all the land they can grab while they've still got a president that views them favorably.

By the way- don't let yourself be confused about the difference between the oil crisis and the energy crisis. We don't use oil to generate the majority of the power on our electrical grid.

-Erik
Message: Posted by: kregg (Aug 6, 2008 11:07AM)
[quote]
On 2008-08-05 16:12, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Hey Kregg? Um, nobody actually started drilling more, yet.
[/quote]

Oil is a "futures" market, speculators try to sell high. A change in policy is enough to make them scurry. If more oil is added to the system, we will need more refinement capacity. Now, to make up for our consumption demands we are buying gasoline from other nations. These conglomerates and despots drop their prices in an effort to keep us from changing public policy; an effort to keep prices artificially inflated.
However, with 75% of the US population calling for energy independence it's likely that we will finally take charge of our markets and resource developments to prevent this sort of thing from reoccurring.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 6, 2008 11:33AM)
[quote]
On 2008-08-06 12:07, kregg wrote:

Oil is a "futures" market, speculators try to sell high. A change in policy is enough to make them scurry.
[/quote]
First of all, let me say that a futures market is not used solely for speculation. It is also used for hedging, which is the antithesis of speculation (at least in the context of this discussion).

You are correct that speculators would try to sell high, but you are quite mistaken if you believe speculation is driving the oil market.

The only people who believe that are "arm-chair" economists and "arm-chair" oil analysts. This is not just my opinion.

As I've said before, T Boone Pickens and the EIA have thrown cold water on the speculation idea (review my earlier posts).

More recently, at the end of July the federal task force set up to investigate the role of speculators in the oil market said that it had found no evidence that those investors are systematically pushing up the cost of energy.

Rather, it said that the rise in oil prices over the last five years was largely due to fundamental factors like rapidly rising consumption and sluggish growth in energy supplies worldwide.

It also threw cold water on the oil speculators blame game by noting:

"if speculative activity has pushed oil prices above the levels consistent with physical supply and demand, increases in inventories should emerge as higher prices reduce consumption and investment in productive capacity is encouraged. Although this process may take time to unfold, inventories of crude oil and petroleum products, according to available data, have declined significantly over the past year. The view that financial investors have pushed prices above fundamental values is also difficult to square with the fact that prices for other commodities that do not trade on established futures markets (such as coal, steel, and onions) have risen sharply as well."

http://www.cftc.gov/stellent/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/file/itfinterimreportoncrudeoil0708.pdf
Message: Posted by: Vandy Grift (Aug 6, 2008 11:42AM)
[quote]
On 2008-08-06 12:33, balducci wrote:
The only people who believe that are "arm-chair" economists and "arm-chair" oil analysts. This is not just my opinion.

[/quote]

That may be true. But it hasn't stopped the House of Representatives for passing legislation "directing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to use all its authority, including the agency's emergency powers, to "curb immediately" the role of excessive speculation in energy futures markets".

As well as introducing legislation that would increase the money, or margin, that speculators would have to put up to trade oil futures at the New York Mercantile Exchange to 25 percent of the value of the underlying commodity. Currently, the margin on oil futures is about 7 percent.

But that's only cause the Dems can't decide if it's big oil or big speculation is the evil force at work. In other words, it's a bunch of crap and a waste of the Houses time. But I guess Nancy Pelosi fans like dog and pony shows and anything that hurts, or appears to be an attempt to hurt business, over real ideas.

"Today, we are putting oil speculators on notice." What an idiot.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Aug 6, 2008 01:46PM)
[quote]
On 2008-08-06 12:07, kregg wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-08-05 16:12, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Hey Kregg? Um, nobody actually started drilling more, yet.
[/quote]

Oil is a "futures" market, speculators try to sell high. A change in policy is enough to make them scurry. If more oil is added to the system, we will need more refinement capacity. Now, to make up for our consumption demands we are buying gasoline from other nations. These conglomerates and despots drop their prices in an effort to keep us from changing public policy; an effort to keep prices artificially inflated.
However, with 75% of the US population calling for energy independence it's likely that we will finally take charge of our markets and resource developments to prevent this sort of thing from reoccurring.
[/quote]
Actually, I heard a bit more on this today on the radio. Turns out that in June, OPEC announced they'd increase output from 8 million barrels to 8.9 million barrels, but it would take a few weeks for the additional supply to reach the markets. So a few weeks passed- then the president made his request to congress to lift restrictions on offshore drilling, just as the additional oil hit the markets.

One source is here (check the last two paragraphs): http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=aCXazfUEZvlg&refer=india

So, my mistake- fall in price is not just from decreased demand; there is additional supply on the market.

Oh, Vandy- to answer the question as to whether it's "big oil" or "big speculation"- it's both. And reform which addresses either or both will help bring down prices.

As for actual energy policy reform, there is a bill in the Senate- [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S.3268:]S.3268[/url] Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008. Status- currently being filibustered. [url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_2.htm]Seems there's a lot of energy bills being filibustered, recently[/url], such as S. 3335, H.R. 6049, S. 3186, and S. 3044.

I think if I go any further, it'll violate the no politics rule. But, if you're interested, remember the first rule of good investigation: "Follow the Money." Head over to http://www.opensecrets.org and take a look at which energy companies are giving how much to whom...
Message: Posted by: kregg (Aug 10, 2008 09:19AM)
An excerpt from article on the downward trend of barrel prices: "If the trend continues into September at anything like the same rate of descent, most of the inflationary spike of the past 12 months will miraculously have been sliced away. This is a dramatic reversal, and it is worth trying to work out why it is happening and what it means.
Just possibly, it means that what investors refer to in shorthand as the great "oil up" story has finally revealed itself not as the fundamental reflection of scarce supply that its adherents liked to claim, but as a simple, speculative bubble that was always going to burst."

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/08/08/do0801.xml

The last paragraph will do little to ease the inflationary pressure on consumer goods. As we've seen in the past (those of us who lived through the 1970's) once the prices have gone up, most business' won't lower prices down to pre-inflationary prices unless competition motivates them to do so.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 22, 2008 01:34PM)
Oil is up like crazy today.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93BU7CO2&show_article=1

Oil prices are spiking more than $25 a barrel as rising anxiety over the U.S. government's proposed bailout of the financial system batters the dollar and sends investors scrambling for safe-haven assets.

Investors worried Monday that the mammoth $700 billion rescue proposal will dramatically ramp up U.S. borrowing, an inflationary move that sent the dollar sharply lower versus its rivals.

Light, sweet crude for October delivery was up $25.45 to $130.00 on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Message: Posted by: kregg (Sep 22, 2008 02:29PM)
Since Hurricane Ike hit we've had difficulty keeping gas stations full in the sprawling South East, especially in metro the metro areas. Add that to the ridiculous "drill" bill concocted by the 9% gang on Capitol Hill, not to mention the goofs who are trying to load up the bailout bill & presto ...