There go oil prices again

[whell]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40811733/ns/business-oil_and_energy/

Its winter, demand goes up. Economy is recovering, production goes up increasing the demand for oil used in production and transportation of goods. Currency woes increase speculation on commodities like oil.

And here we are with no plan to increase domestic supply to help control the cost of oil. Another opportunity lost over the last two years, and no outlook for any change to domestic policy for increasing supply.

[d-ray657]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40811733/ns/business-oil_and_energy/

Its winter, demand goes up. Economy is recovering, production goes up increasing the demand for oil used in production and transportation of goods. Currency woes increase speculation on commodities like oil.

And here we are with no plan to increase domestic supply to help control the cost of oil. Another opportunity lost over the last two years, and no outlook for any change to domestic policy for increasing supply.

So won't letting demand go up without increasing supply, won't increasing costs create a focus for alternatives, such a more fuel efficient transportation, greater use of mass transit, car-pooling, walking, alternative energy sources, etc. Isn't that how the market is supposed to work?

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

So, did you blame Bush for $4 gas, or give credit to Clinton for sub-$1 gas?

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Sub $1 gas :(

I had just got my Geo Metro, with its' 8 gallon tank it was so cheap to run it was almost obscene. $.89/gl divided by 39 mpg = 2.3 cents per mile! Now, $3.10/gl by about 15 average = 20.7. This is depressing.

Adding supply would all things being equal lower the price. Capitalism 101.

Pete

[noonereal]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40811733/ns/business-oil_and_energy/

Its winter, demand goes up. Economy is recovering, production goes up increasing the demand for oil used in production and transportation of goods. Currency woes increase speculation on commodities like oil.

And here we are with no plan to increase domestic supply to help control the cost of oil. Another opportunity lost over the last two years, and no outlook for any change to domestic policy for increasing supply.

Didn't Cheney address this 10 years ago? How can you expect a DEm to fix this in two years if God Cheney spent years making sure it would not be fixed in his lifetime?

And I am damned serious, please answer.
thanks

[finnbow]

Sub $1 gas :(

I had just got my Geo Metro, with its' 8 gallon tank it was so cheap to run it was almost obscene. $.89/gl divided by 39 mpg = 2.3 cents per mile! Now, $3.10/gl by about 15 average = 20.7. This is depressing.

Adding supply would all things being equal lower the price. Capitalism 101.

Pete

... and back then you got a set of free steak knives.

[noonereal]

Sub $1 gas :(

I had just got my Geo Metro, with its' 8 gallon tank it was so cheap to run it was almost obscene. $.89/gl divided by 39 mpg = 2.3 cents per mile! Now, $3.10/gl by about 15 average = 20.7. This is depressing.

Adding supply would all things being equal lower the price. Capitalism 101.

Pete

This is not true in the oil industry.

If ships need to be anchored at sea to create shortages it is done.

[piece-itpete]

So why then is Obama et al playing into the hands of the oil industry by surpressing domestic production?

;)

Pete

[noonereal]

So why then is Obama et al playing into the hands of the oil industry by surpressing domestic production?

;)

Pete


He is not, your question is bogus.

[CarlV]

Adding supply would all things being equal lower the price. Capitalism 101.

Like the trickle down theory? Me thinks Capitalism 101 forgot about the greed factor. ;)
We have only ourselves to blame for our excessive oil consumption.

[Charles]

The sun doesn't rise, it appears to rise.

A lot of different factors at play there.

Pretty much one factor at play here...the blame game.

Chas

[mossbacked]

I think the fact that the Fed continues to monetize and oil is dollar based, that China is now the biggest consumer of oil in the world have a lot to do with it also. Plus the wonderful Obama overreactive ban in the Gulf of Mexico has screwed us for years to come. $5-$7 per gallon, here we come.

[finnbow]

Meanwhile natural gas prices are going down.

[mossbacked]

Meanwhile natural gas prices are going down.

So are most putting that in their cars. Apples to Oranges, as you are so quick to say ??

I read it that whell wanted to discuss OIL prices here.

[finnbow]

So are most putting that in their cars. Apples to Oranges, as you are so quick to say ??

I read it that whell wanted to discuss OIL prices here.

Actually both oil and gas are used in vast quantities (along with coal) to generate electrical power and in industrial/chemical processes. I guess my comment was intended as agreement with Chas that what we have here are market forces at work, along with a lot of unsubstantiated blame.

And yes, oil prices are rising in part due to the number of new cars hitting the road in China and India along with a lot of other factors (including drilling restrictions imposed in response to BP/Halliburton negligence). Lots of factors at play here.

[Charles]

Meanwhile natural gas prices are going down.

Best news I've heard ever since the doctor told me I didn't have the clap!!!

Chas

[mossbacked]

Actually both oil and gas are used in vast quantities (along with coal) to generate electrical power and in industrial/chemical processes. I guess my comment was intended as agreement with Chas that what we have here are market forces at work, along with a lot of unsubstantiated blame.

And yes, oil prices are rising in part due to the number of new cars hitting the road in China and India along with a lot of other factors (including drilling restrictions imposed in response to BP/Halliburton negligence). Lots of factors at play here.

Right, only other Presidents could receive blame for any event on the planet. Even if it was a liberal stubbing a toe on a curb in DC, a few years ago the President was berated for a week or two.

I forgot the current administration is so "cerebral" and perhaps even "too cerebral" for us to keep up.

Lot's of factors, but I guess you want to minimize that the Fed continues to monetize and oil is dollar based, that China is now the biggest consumer of oil in the world, and the wonderful Obama overreactive ban in the Gulf of Mexico which has screwed us for years to come.

[Charles]

Actually both oil and gas are used in vast quantities (along with coal) to generate electrical power and in industrial/chemical processes. I guess my comment was intended as agreement with Chas that what we have here are market forces at work, along with a lot of unsubstantiated blame.

And yes, oil prices are rising in part due to the number of new cars hitting the road in China and India along with a lot of other factors (including drilling restrictions imposed in response to BP/Halliburton negligence). Lots of factors at play here.

Know what Finn, I just typed up a lengthy response which basically said what you have just said.

I wuz proud of meself!!!

Then when I went to post it I was denied permission, and lost it all.

Kind of a pisser, but after spending most of a day dealing with Intuit tech support trying to get my payroll updates to download, it was a walk in the park.

Chas

[mossbacked]

Know what Finn, I just typed up a lengthy response which basically said what you have just said.

I wuz proud of meself!!!

Then when I went to post it I was denied permission, and lost it all.

Kind of a pisser, but after spending most of a day dealing with Intuit tech support trying to get my payroll updates to download, it was a walk in the park.

Chas

I have found that if it takes you a while to fashion your post, you need to left click, mouseover and copy your text so if you "time out", you have it saved on your "clipboard" when you log back in. Then you can simply paste and post.

[finnbow]

Lot's of factors, but I guess you want to minimize that the Fed continues to monetize and oil is dollar based, that China is now the biggest consumer of oil in the world, and the wonderful Obama overreactive ban in the Gulf of Mexico which has screwed us for years to come.

Nope and maybe on your 2 bolded points. The US still uses 3 times as much oil as China.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

As for an overreaction in the Gulf, that is an opinion shared by the oil industry and disputed by environmentalists, fishermen, and the tourism industry. BP demonstrated rather clearly that we have the technology to drill in deep water, but don't yet have the technology to rapidly respond to blowouts.

[Charles]

Right, only other Presidents could receive blame for any event on the planet. Even if it was a liberal stubbing a toe on a curb in DC, a few years ago the President was berated for a week or two.

I forgot the current administration is so "cerebral" and perhaps even "too cerebral" for us to keep up.

Lot's of factors, but I guess you want to minimize that the Fed continues to monetize and oil is dollar based, that China is now the biggest consumer of oil in the world, and the wonderful Obama overreactive ban in the Gulf of Mexico which has screwed us for years to come.

I'll admit, if the EPA were to unleash the coal, oil, and nuclear industries to do their thing, not only would it create good jobs, but it would lower, or at least help stabilize our energy costs.

Canada is doing pretty good selling oil to the US. Next thing you know they'll be wearing towels on their heads instead of bomber hats.

Bottom line is, this issue should have been addressed 20 years ago. And if we keep fucking around we're going to be burning our furniture.

Chas

[Charles]

I have found that if it takes you a while to fashion your post, you need to left click, mouseover and copy your text so if you "time out", you have it saved on your "clipboard" when you log back in. Then you can simply paste and post.

I've done that before, but apparently I zigged where I should have zagged this time.

No big deal, ain't your life or your wife,

Chas

[finnbow]

Our aversion to nuclear energy, particularly in the Dem party is ridiculous. Furthermore, the way Reid (and Obama) shut down the Yucca Mt. Project as an indirect way of curtailing growth in the commercial nuclear industry is a travesty (hopefully to be overruled by the courts.)

WRT to unleashing the coal industry, I think they're fairly unleashed as it is with the exception of some stuff in WV (mountain top removal projects). That practiced need to be curtailed though IMHO.

[d-ray657]

I have found that if it takes you a while to fashion your post, you need to left click, mouseover and copy your text so if you "time out", you have it saved on your "clipboard" when you log back in. Then you can simply paste and post.

Good tip. Usually, unless you were writing in the quick reply block, you can just use the back arrow if your post is rejected, and then save the post to your clipboard. If you know in advance that you're going to write a long post, it's safest to do it on the word processor and cut and paste. I know this courtesy of the school of hard knocks.

Regards,

D-Ray

[CarlV]

Yes, we need to use nuclear power. It is quite safe now as long as there are no accidents transporting it. I saw the French recycle it then bury it on site minimizing that aspect. The costs would be more than we would be willing to pay though I'm sure.

WRT to unleashing the coal industry, I think they're fairly unleashed as it is with the exception of some stuff in WV (mountain top removal projects). That practiced need to be curtailed though IMHO.
Gosh, I saw a tv documentary on that. The flammable faucet water (in Tenn?) too. :(

[BlueStreak]

... and back then you got a set of free steak knives.

Free and worth every penny.:(

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Got my bicycle out and dusted it off yesterday. Next big challenge is to get my fat ass up on it. I found it saved me a lot of gas money making local trips on the bike when I could, on the last gouging go 'round.

When it comes to politics and gasoline, I seem to remember, a few years back, right wing pundits telling me that the President had nothing to do with the price of gas. So, I figure since these arrogant know it alls, know it all, that the coming rise must have nothing to do with the President.:p

Dave

[whell]

Didn't Cheney address this 10 years ago? How can you expect a DEm to fix this in two years if God Cheney spent years making sure it would not be fixed in his lifetime?


Cheney, AKAIK, was never in a position to fix this. There were certainly meeting which helped formulate policy, but most of the policy was never implemented. We still have an aging power grid, we still have a bass-akwards policy regarding local exploration and drilling, and we're still going nowhere fast with nuclear. So we're left of kiss ass - as Bush used to do - or bow, which is the current fashion, to every tin-pot dictator or Middle Eastern kingdom that we import oil from.

To borrow from one of your prior posts: Obama is our president now, not Bush or Cheney. Get over it. Early in his administration we had an opportunity to get on the right track with domestic energy production, and we took a pass.

[merrylander]

I'll admit, if the EPA were to unleash the coal, oil, and nuclear industries to do their thing, not only would it create good jobs, but it would lower, or at least help stabilize our energy costs.

Canada is doing pretty good selling oil to the US. Next thing you know they'll be wearing towels on their heads instead of bomber hats.

Bottom line is, this issue should have been addressed 20 years ago. And if we keep fucking around we're going to be burning our furniture.

Chas

The oil is coming from Canada, but the people shipping it are the big oil companies. And in the process they are fucking up the environment in the Northern Territories (or whatever the call that area now) around the oil sands.

[noonereal]

To borrow from one of your prior posts: Obama is our president now, not Bush or Cheney. Get over it. Early in his administration we had an opportunity to get on the right track with domestic energy production, and we took a pass.

and I stand by that, but Cheney's policy (secretive as it was) was indisputably about keeping profits high for oil and gave no consideration to the American peoples needs.

BTW, do you have any beliefs that are not from the right? i have many problems with the present administration, do you have any with the boy king's?

[merrylander]

Sorry whell but Prince Dickie invited Exxon, Enron, and their buddies into the Whitehouse to write the energy bill.

[d-ray657]

The policy choices made 40 years ago, when we had the first "energy crisis" that had gas prices soaring to nearly a dollar a gallon and long lines waiting to get into gas stations, resulted in further enabling our addiction to oil. That was a perfect opportunity to begin a long-term investment in to the infrastructure for more effective mass transit systems. Instead, the focused remained on oil. The Feds and other levels of government continued to subsidize the oil companies by focusing dollars on roads, encouraging more personal vehicle use and sprawling energy-sucking metropolitan areas. The excesses of the '80s, with the desire for bigger and more with respect to cars, housing and most everything tightened the grip of the oil addiction. It's not in our interest to continue to focus resources on finding more smack. We need to continue to look in other directions for our energy.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

and I stand by that, but Cheney's policy (secretive as it was) was indisputably about keeping profits high for oil and gave no consideration to the American peoples needs.

Once again, I'll say "post your evidence of this." And once again, I'm sure you'll punt. If that was "Cheney's policy", he screw it up but good, save the last year of Bush's presidency. Must info I've based on the info that has since been leaked about the "closed door meetings" is that the focus was on increasing supply. Please explain how increasing supply increases the price of anything.

BTW, do you have any beliefs that are not from the right? i have many problems with the present administration, do you have any with the boy king's?

By "boy king", are you referring to Bush? Or Obama? That "uncivil" moniker has been applied to both. I'll assume Bush, and I've posted a number of times about policies I've disagreed with from the prior administration.

[whell]

The policy choices made 40 years ago, when we had the first "energy crisis" that had gas prices soaring to nearly a dollar a gallon and long lines waiting to get into gas stations, resulted in further enabling our addiction to oil. That was a perfect opportunity to begin a long-term investment in to the infrastructure for more effective mass transit systems. Instead, the focused remained on oil. The Feds and other levels of government continued to subsidize the oil companies by focusing dollars on roads, encouraging more personal vehicle use and sprawling energy-sucking metropolitan areas. The excesses of the '80s, with the desire for bigger and more with respect to cars, housing and most everything tightened the grip of the oil addiction. It's not in our interest to continue to focus resources on finding more smack. We need to continue to look in other directions for our energy.

Regards,

D-Ray

Yes, I think we should exploit any and ALL sources of energy. Competitively priced (without gov't subsidies), "greener" sources of energy are still years away, but we have current needs. Let's get moving on the energy supply that is available now.

[whell]

Sorry whell but Prince Dickie invited Exxon, Enron, and their buddies into the Whitehouse to write the energy bill.

Wow. what a concept. Invite individuals who know something about energy exploration, extraction and delivery to a meeting about energy policy. Yes, I recognize that you named energy companies whose names are linked with pejoratives, pejoratives that were not on the table in 2000 - 2001. A number of other "more reputable" energy companies also allegedly attended.

Of course, this is what we think, or what has been leaked. "Fact" remains under the lock and key of executive privilege.

[Charles]

I was reading that most of out solar panel manufacturing facilities have folded their teepees and moved to China.

The subsidy money must have run out.

Chas

[whell]

I was reading that most of out solar panel manufacturing facilities have folded their teepees and moved to China.

The subsidy money must have run out.

Chas

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70B5R620110112

Evergreen is still operating a facility here in mid-Michigan. Wonder how much longer that will last. I wonder if a current trend might look like this: try to make a buck as long as the subsidy money doesn't dry up, and when it does, close up and move on.

Still it underscores the point that many of these technologies can't survive on their own in the marketplace unless they are subsidized. They're just not ready for prime time, and its possible some never will be.

[merrylander]

Wow. what a concept. Invite individuals who know something about energy exploration, extraction and delivery to a meeting about energy policy. Yes, I recognize that you named energy companies whose names are linked with pejoratives, pejoratives that were not on the table in 2000 - 2001. A number of other "more reputable" energy companies also allegedly attended.

Of course, this is what we think, or what has been leaked. "Fact" remains under the lock and key of executive privilege.

Yeah "executive privilege" people will only offer advice to the government if they can do it in secret. Wonder why that is? Afraid that if the public knew what they were adising the goverment to do there would be an outcry?:rolleyes:

[merrylander]

I was reading that most of out solar panel manufacturing facilities have folded their teepees and moved to China.

The subsidy money must have run out.

Chas

Or the free traders don't want proper tarriffs on the Chinese panels. Wonder if their solar panels are any better than their sheetrock?:p

[whell]

Yeah "executive privilege" people will only offer advice to the government if they can do it in secret. Wonder why that is?

Pro'ly to keep the lefty environmental whackos - the same ones who helped block Anwar for example - from having a cow about everything and anything that might have been discussed.

[merrylander]

Drilling in Anwar would be a mistake if for no other reason than the weather. It is so bloody unpredictable that in the event of a spill it could be days before you could get anything in there.

The number of plane crashes there should tell you something.

I see they had to shut down the BP maintained pipeline recently, wonder why?

[whell]

Drilling in Anwar would be a mistake if for no other reason than the weather. It is so bloody unpredictable that in the event of a spill it could be days before you could get anything in there.

The number of plane crashes there should tell you something.

I see they had to shut down the BP maintained pipeline recently, wonder why?

BP doesn't maintain it, do they? I thought a local (Alaskan) company did. Anyway, that pipeline, and many others, shut down from time to time when leaks are discovered, or for maintenance. I think I heard that it was shut down for a few days, but is back up and running now.

In this area, a unique gasoline formulation is required for use in the summer months (by EPA regs). A single pipeline feeds it from a remote refinery to distributors in this area (brilliant planning and execution). A couple years back, that pipeline was shut down for a few weeks, and gas prices spiked to crazy levels.

Speaking of remote, here's Prudhoe Bay:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/4114817.bin