 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / May 2008$126 A Barrel - Can $7 / Gallong Be Far Away
Geez, $126 a barrel today. Well, in a year or 2, the gas oughta be about $7 a gallon. Chevy Volt should sell really well, along with some really fuel efficient bikes. Only saving grace in the whole thing is not having to share the road, when we have enough $$$ to go somewhere, with over-the-road, long-haul trucks. There won't be any. Should be some good jobs laying new track soon. Maybe the truck drivers can all take those. Meanwhile, clue as to who to blame: 1) Environmental extremists. 2) Safety extremists. 3) NIMBYs. An extremist in this case is someone who is willing to spend any amount of someone else's money on any supposed problem no matter how unproven and how small. Of course environmental extremists are responsible for a whale of a lot of the misery now. It is their doing that we don't have oil flow from ANWR now, and from off shore oil in many places. The best place to drill for oil on this planet is any piece of land that has oil under it and an American flag over it. If we had drilled all we had access to, we wouldn't have to be importing a drop now. Safety extremists have hung hundreds of pounds of accumulated garbage on cars, most of which I would not buy if they weren't mandated. All this stuff should be optional - antilock brakes, traction control, air bags, etc. We could save probably 500 lbs per car, and thus make mileage go up as well. NIMBYs are probably the most culpable as their motivations are always selfish. The airline industry is in the dump in large part because of the lack of airports that can't be build because of NIMBYs. Electric power plants, electric power distribution wires, etc. etc. - can be blamed on NIMBYs. Its enough to make me wish to bring back crucifixion. >Geez, $126 a barrel today. > >Well, in a year or 2, the gas oughta be about $7 a gallon. Because linear extrapolation has worked so well in the past.  SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > Geez, $126 a barrel today. > > Well, in a year or 2, the gas oughta be about $7 a gallon. Chevy Volt should > sell really well, along with some really fuel efficient bikes. I doubt that (gas at US$7.00 a gallon) will happen. The main reason prices are high now is that the speculators are running wild trading oil futures and the way that the dollar has been devalued over the last couple of years. Even some in the oil/gasoline industry say these prices are not justified by basic market economics (i.e. supply and demand) and can't be sustained. IMO, its going to tip (FWIW, I think it will happen early next year with oil at US$175.00 a barrel and gas at US$5.50 a gallon) before too much longer (much like housing did). I just hope that when it happens it doesn't bring the rest of the economy down with it..... Personally, I wouldn't mind it lasting a while longer - just to get more SUV's and pick-ups (especially the jacked up oversized tire 4x4's that will never see a dirt road - much less go off road) off the road and into the junkyards. -- I am necromancer and I approved this poast. >> Geez, $126 a barrel today. >> >> Well, in a year or 2, the gas oughta be about $7 a gallon. Chevy Volt should >> sell really well, along with some really fuel efficient bikes. > >I doubt that (gas at US$7.00 a gallon) will happen. Yeah, I wouldn't bet a lotta money that it will happen. But... there doesn't seem to be an end to the price rise. > The main reason >prices are high now is that the speculators are running wild trading >oil futures and the way that the dollar has been devalued over the >last couple of years. Even some in the oil/gasoline industry say these >prices are not justified by basic market economics (i.e. supply and >demand) and can't be sustained. Yeah, that's why the research and development necessary to extract the oil from the rocks in the NW US, which is a reserve supposedly 3X the Saudi reserve, doesn't get done. Even tho it could produce at some smaller $/barrel, the people that would have to do the R&D have no assurance that the price of oil won't go back down to $35 / barrel overnight, and their investment would be ruined. >IMO, its going to tip (FWIW, I think it will happen early next year >with oil at US$175.00 a barrel and gas at US$5.50 a gallon) before too >much longer (much like housing did). I just hope that when it happens >it doesn't bring the rest of the economy down with it..... Yeah, there is that. But $7.00 a gallon would do that too. We can't win with this... >Personally, I wouldn't mind it lasting a while longer - just to get >more SUV's and pick-ups (especially the jacked up oversized tire 4x4's >that will never see a dirt road - much less go off road) off the road >and into the junkyards. Why would they go to the junkyard? If somebody sells an SUV, they're going to sell it to someone that is still going to run it until it either wears out or crashes. Until then, it'll still get driven, maybe even by richer people that can more afford the $$$ for gas. >>> Geez, $126 a barrel today. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Yeah, I wouldn't bet a lotta money that it will happen. But... there doesn't >seem to be an end to the price rise. There has to be an end soon. Otherwise, before long, the rising price of gas will start pricing people out of their cars - either when they simply can't afford the gas to drivve to work and/or when they finally decide that its just not worth it to pay the price for gas to drive to work and put up with all the crap there just to beable to fill the tank again. From there, it's all down hill. >> The main reason >>prices are high now is that the speculators are running wild trading [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >won't go back down to $35 / barrel overnight, and their investment would be >ruined. Not necessairly. If they take some of their record profits now and start doing the r&d that is needed, then they will have the processes developed and ready to implement for when it is profitable to extract the oil fromt he rocks. Of course, they could go ahead and start doing so if the govt were to give them subsidies like they give for ethanol and for the way we are subsidizing Saudi Arabia and Iraq.... >>IMO, its going to tip (FWIW, I think it will happen early next year >>with oil at US$175.00 a barrel and gas at US$5.50 a gallon) before too [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Yeah, there is that. But $7.00 a gallon would do that too. We can't win with >this... That's true. My biggest fear is that energy prices will come crashing down overnight, bringing down the stocks of Exxon/Mobil and so on and the rest of the stocks and markets being the lemmings that they are will follow suit.... >>Personally, I wouldn't mind it lasting a while longer - just to get >>more SUV's and pick-ups (especially the jacked up oversized tire 4x4's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >crashes. Until then, it'll still get driven, maybe even by richer people that >can more afford the $$$ for gas. Selling a SUV is getting rather difficult these days. Some dealers around here won't accept them as trades and many used car lots are full of them. Eventually they are going to have to go somewhere. -- "Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight?" --George Carlin >>Yeah, that's why the research and development necessary to extract the oil from >>the rocks in the NW US, which is a reserve supposedly 3X the Saudi reserve, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > so if the govt were to give them subsidies like they give for ethanol > and for the way we are subsidizing Saudi Arabia and Iraq.... First, the US military and foreign policy support for big oil needs to be yanked. This will make the vast reserves of the americas economically viable. I lost count of how many saudi arabias worth of oil there is in the western hemisphere. The latest find in brazil rivals saudi arabia's largest fields in size and is called 'the tip of the iceberg'. The oil in the shale is the most difficult to exploit, before that, the heavy oil and the deep oil is *MUCH* easier to deal with. It's not jed's shotgun crude like in Saudi but, it's not going to take all that much to exploit. It just has to cost the oil companies less to exploit. Letting the mideast be as it wants to be will save the taxpayer vast sums and force the oil companies to make market correct decisions. Second, the regulation that keeps out competition in the gasoline business needs to go away. Right now, people with money to invest should be opening new refineries to undercut the existing players. Problem is, there is no free market. It takes a decade of political games and bribes just to get a shovel in the ground *if* successful. All it takes to be unsuccessful is the office holder that went to bat for you to lose an election. This is absurd for everyone but big oil. > That's true. My biggest fear is that energy prices will come crashing > down overnight, bringing down the stocks of Exxon/Mobil and so on and > the rest of the stocks and markets being the lemmings that they are > will follow suit.... Right now the federal reserve has moved on from thehousing bubble to the energy and food bubble. It will burst like all federal reserve bubbles since their first significant one which I think was around 1919. > Selling a SUV is getting rather difficult these days. Some dealers > around here won't accept them as trades and many used car lots are > full of them. Eventually they are going to have to go somewhere. I have an automoile quarterly from the late 70s with a series of cartoons on 'what to do with your gas guzzler' :) >First, the US military and foreign policy support for big oil needs to >be yanked. This will make the vast reserves of the americas economically [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >the mideast be as it wants to be will save the taxpayer vast sums and >force the oil companies to make market correct decisions. Agreed on all points. With oil at US125.00+ and climbing and the record profits that oil companies are making, there is no reason for them to not start exploiting what is here. I can only speak for myself, but I would be more thna willing to pay US$4.00 (see the thread I'm fixing to start)or more for gas that is sourced domestically if it means the money is not going to those raghead cock suckers in saudi arabia to train the next wave of suicide pilots. Never forget, on 9/11, 15 of the 19 were SAUDI ARABIANS. >Second, the regulation that keeps out competition in the gasoline >business needs to go away. Right now, people with money to invest should [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >unsuccessful is the office holder that went to bat for you to lose an >election. This is absurd for everyone but big oil. Then build them in Mexico like the other US manufacturers have done. Sure, they will have to slip a few bribes to the Federales to get things done, but it beats having to fight the environmental wackos and the nimby mffy's and assorted other loons inorder to get the job done. >> That's true. My biggest fear is that energy prices will come crashing >> down overnight, bringing down the stocks of Exxon/Mobil and so on and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >energy and food bubble. It will burst like all federal reserve bubbles >since their first significant one which I think was around 1919. And then the big one in 1929..... >> Selling a SUV is getting rather difficult these days. Some dealers >> around here won't accept them as trades and many used car lots are >> full of them. Eventually they are going to have to go somewhere. > >I have an automoile quarterly from the late 70s with a series of >cartoons on 'what to do with your gas guzzler' :) Care to scan a few and post the images? ;) -- "That's interesting. I hadn't heard that. ..." --George W. Bush on the prospect of US$4.00 gas > Agreed on all points. With oil at US125.00+ and climbing and the > record profits that oil companies are making, there is no reason for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > suckers in saudi arabia to train the next wave of suicide pilots. > Never forget, on 9/11, 15 of the 19 were SAUDI ARABIANS. The oppressive saudi government is, get this, proped up and supported with US tax payer foreign aid! If the people of saudi arabia are to remove the oppressive government they live under, they first need to eliminate US support of it. Blowback at its finest. Now this of course assumes those who benefited most from 9/11 were not involved in conducting the operation. >>Second, the regulation that keeps out competition in the gasoline >>business needs to go away. Right now, people with money to invest should [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>unsuccessful is the office holder that went to bat for you to lose an >>election. This is absurd for everyone but big oil. > Then build them in Mexico like the other US manufacturers have done. > Sure, they will have to slip a few bribes to the Federales to get > things done, but it beats having to fight the environmental wackos and > the nimby mffy's and assorted other loons inorder to get the job done. Whatever bribe the new comer can pay members of mexico's government, big oil can top it. Plus, since big oil owns much of the US government it can effectively prevent delivery. The US is a nation of ticky-tacky laws that are selectively enforced for a reason. The new comer would find everything and then some would be enforced upon his efforts to get a pipeline or tanker trucks over the border. >>> That's true. My biggest fear is that energy prices will come crashing >>> down overnight, bringing down the stocks of Exxon/Mobil and so on and >>> the rest of the stocks and markets being the lemmings that they are >>> will follow suit.... >>Right now the federal reserve has moved on from thehousing bubble to the >>energy and food bubble. It will burst like all federal reserve bubbles >>since their first significant one which I think was around 1919. > And then the big one in 1929..... Yep. >>> Selling a SUV is getting rather difficult these days. Some dealers >>> around here won't accept them as trades and many used car lots are >>> full of them. Eventually they are going to have to go somewhere. >>I have an automoile quarterly from the late 70s with a series of >>cartoons on 'what to do with your gas guzzler' :) > Care to scan a few and post the images? ;) I'll dig out tonight if I remember. >The oppressive saudi government is, get this, proped up and supported >with US tax payer foreign aid! If the people of saudi arabia are to >remove the oppressive government they live under, they first need to >eliminate US support of it. If the people of Saudi Arabia were to remove the oppressive government they live under, they'd replace it with an even more oppressive Islamic fascist state. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>The oppressive saudi government is, get this, proped up and supported >>with US tax payer foreign aid! If the people of saudi arabia are to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > they live under, they'd replace it with an even more oppressive > Islamic fascist state. They might. But that is their business. Not ours. >First, the US military and foreign policy support for big oil needs to >be yanked. This will make the vast reserves of the americas economically >viable. OK, but everything I've read about this says that production of shale oil and tar sands and any of those other difficult to get at oil sources is more than a decade away. Processes have to be invented, perfected, pilot plants have to be built, data taken from them so larger, more efficient plants can be built and then the production can get underway. And that assumes that the oil is not so deep that the energy required to lift it to the surface, or lift the rock bearing it to the surface, does not exceed the amount of energy you finally get out of it once it's processed into useable fuel. >>First, the US military and foreign policy support for big oil needs to >>be yanked. This will make the vast reserves of the americas economically [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > bearing it to the surface, does not exceed the amount of energy you finally get > out of it once it's processed into useable fuel. I am not talking about shale, tar sands are in operation in Canada now, but those are only one of source in the americas. Most of the resources are south and central america, and consists of heavier oil and/or oil deeper in the ground. Not in rocks or sand, just thicker and/or deeper. >>>First, the US military and foreign policy support for big oil needs to >>>be yanked. This will make the vast reserves of the americas economically [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >are south and central america, and consists of heavier oil and/or oil >deeper in the ground. Not in rocks or sand, just thicker and/or deeper. I was talking about US oil, which is the only oil that we can count on, and the only oil that will reduce our balance of trade, and the only oil that we can make to _not_ follow the market price and keep going right thru $250 a barrel. If its foreign oil, we should be ignoring it for the future. >>I am not talking about shale, tar sands are in operation in Canada now, >>but those are only one of source in the americas. Most of the resources >>are south and central america, and consists of heavier oil and/or oil >>deeper in the ground. Not in rocks or sand, just thicker and/or deeper. > I was talking about US oil, which is the only oil that we can count on, and the > only oil that will reduce our balance of trade, and the only oil that we can > make to _not_ follow the market price and keep going right thru $250 a barrel. > If its foreign oil, we should be ignoring it for the future. It's the US corporations that developed the trading markets. It's american irrationality, speculation, etc that cause the idiotcy, there is no way domestic oil supplies would not get run up. Not only that, but there's going to be a world price even if there was a more rational way of selling and buying oil. If they could get $250 a barrel selling to dollar rich China and only $60 selling to people say in NY, guess where that oil is going... it's going to China. The price in the US is going to go up to the same level as the rest of the world or the oil will flow out. If there are price controls in the US and other third-worlding, get ready to stand in some very long lines as the corporate masters export the material wealth of the US just like they do in other 3rd world countries. The problem is market interference. More market interference to try to have cheaper than rest of the world oil here at home will only turn high prices and no shortages into shortages. Instead of buying gasoline at $3.90 a gallon the price will be say $2.00 a gallon but there won't be any for sale. It will be a soviet situation of 'is the toilet paper in today?' If you got in line at the right time and spent your day in line you'll get to buy five gallons for $10, otherwise you get nothing. The only way to have cheap oil in the US is to first get the government out of the way and stop its subsidizes of big oil. That includes the horrid interventionist foreign policy. The second is to get rid of the regulation that prevents new entry into the market. The solution is to un-do all the political favors for big oil. The market will find a supply where ever it is most profitable. This will encourage oil producing nations to be stable it will also result in fairer trade without the CIA and US military force being used to overthrow a government if big oil didn't get an absurdly favorable deal. (that is why the US federal government overthrew Iran's government in the 1950s and has done all sorts of mischief around the world that comes back at us in the form of desperate people being manipulated into doing crazy things by characters such as OBL.) >>>I am not talking about shale, tar sands are in operation in Canada now, >>>but those are only one of source in the americas. Most of the resources [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >corporate masters export the material wealth of the US just like they do >in other 3rd world countries. Well.... we just might have to Nationalize the oil companies and sell the oil based on the cost of production, then. >The problem is market interference. More market interference to try to >have cheaper than rest of the world oil here at home will only turn high [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >us in the form of desperate people being manipulated into doing crazy >things by characters such as OBL.) The solution to this is to get the environmental wackos out of the way and the NIMBYs out of the way and drill every damn square inch of land with oil under it and an American flag over it. F'n environmentalists treat every problem, no matter how tiny, as if there is no bottom to the money pit that needs to be spent on it. That's why were in this shape. >>rational way of selling and buying oil. If they could get $250 a barrel >>selling to dollar rich China and only $60 selling to people say in NY, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>corporate masters export the material wealth of the US just like they do >>in other 3rd world countries. > Well.... we just might have to Nationalize the oil companies and sell the oil > based on the cost of production, then. The powers that be in the US federal government have overthrown foreign governments for that. If they haven't done here in the US already (JFK), but should there be an attempt to nationalize oil companies it would certainly happen. > The solution to this is to get the environmental wackos out of the way and the > NIMBYs out of the way and drill every damn square inch of land with oil under > it and an American flag over it. F'n environmentalists treat every problem, no > matter how tiny, as if there is no bottom to the money pit that needs to be > spent on it. That's why were in this shape. Haven't you noticed? Big oil doesn't seem the least bit interested in drilling in many of the places the 'environmental wackos' block. Wonder why that is? Because big oil benefits. Locking up resources is beneficial to the existing players because it restricts new comers into the business _and_ limits supply to what they already control. >>>rational way of selling and buying oil. If they could get $250 a barrel >>>selling to dollar rich China and only $60 selling to people say in NY, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >beneficial to the existing players because it restricts new comers into >the business _and_ limits supply to what they already control. No, I haven't noticed, as the oil companies desparately want to drill ANWR and the oil companies desparately want to drill offshore and there's basically noplace with decent quality oil that they don't want to drill. The environmental anti-progress, big-business-hating left is just so bent on injuring the "evil" American big business that they don't mind torpedoing American prosperity in the bargain, as well as giving the money to the REALLY evil FOREIGN big business located in the middle east and using the money to finance the terrorists. > On Tue, 13 May 2008 09:02:30 -0500, Brent P >>Haven't you noticed? Big oil doesn't seem the least bit interested in >>drilling in many of the places the 'environmental wackos' block. Wonder >>why that is? Because big oil benefits. Locking up resources is >>beneficial to the existing players because it restricts new comers into >>the business _and_ limits supply to what they already control. > No, I haven't noticed, as the oil companies desparately want to drill ANWR and > the oil companies desparately want to drill offshore and there's basically > noplace with decent quality oil that they don't want to drill. Since when? I've never heard even one big oil PR person or lobbiest say anything of the sort. Now Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and a few elected office holders blather on and on about drilling there, but I haven't noticed anything about big oil wanting to. Do you have some source that says they want to that isn't part of the mass media that engages in this stupid left-right crap? > The > environmental anti-progress, big-business-hating left is just so bent on > injuring the "evil" American big business that they don't mind torpedoing > American prosperity in the bargain, as well as giving the money to the REALLY > evil FOREIGN big business located in the middle east and using the money to > finance the terrorists. Lol. American properity was targeted a long time ago by people who use environmental movement for their own goals a long time ago. What's the term, 'useful idiots', that's what the environmentalists are these days. Useful idiots to an end goal. Big oil likes things the way they are just fine. It doesn't want more supply of oil and gasoline. It has done everything it can to narrow supply to increase margins and profits. The *ONLY* way you're going to get more supply, lower prices, and someone willing to drill those places is to remove the regulation that protects big oil from new competition. Big oil is making record profits under the current conditions, there is no reason for them to change things. I've posted links to the documents many times in the past where big oil layed out the plan to constrict gasoline production capacity to increase margins. That was the business plan they layed out and the one they executed to record profits. There is _zero_ evidence they are going to change business plans to a 'flood-the-market' with supply stance. >> On Tue, 13 May 2008 09:02:30 -0500, Brent P > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Since when? I've never heard even one big oil PR person or lobbiest say >anything of the sort. http://www.adn.com/oil/story/384213.html Here's one newspaper account of the State of Alaska court torpedoing Exxon's plan to drill the North slop of Alaska. It is ludicrous to say that the oil companies don't want to drill for oil. They're scratching like crazy to keep up with demand, and mostly failing. Envirowackos are the reason, plain and simple. >Now Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and a few elected >office holders blather on and on about drilling there, but I haven't >noticed anything about big oil wanting to. They do. There in business to do that. The _other_ oil up there is running out. If they don't find more, they're going to be sitting there someday not making any money at all, 'cuz there won't be any flow. > Do you have some source that >says they want to that isn't part of the mass media that engages in this >stupid left-right crap? See link. I'm busy cleaning the house. Having friend over for a week or so in order to do a few things for me while I recover from surgery. Place is absolutely upside down. Don't have time to find more, but again, it's ludicrous to say that an oil company doesn't want to drill oil. Its a seriously foolish argument. >Lol. American properity was targeted a long time ago by people who use >environmental movement for their own goals a long time ago. What's the >term, 'useful idiots', that's what the environmentalists are these days. >Useful idiots to an end goal. Yeah, there's likely some truth to _that_. There doesn't seem to be any trouble at all to get Americans to oppose something, but they're mostly left-wingers who now have a tradition of obstrucionism. I think it may even get them high to oppose things. >Big oil likes things the way they are just fine. It doesn't want more >supply of oil and gasoline. It has done everything it can to narrow [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Big oil is making record profits under the current conditions, there is >no reason for them to change things. No, the other way is to replace oil with something else. Electricity seems to be the most likely candidate, and solar-electric is the most likely of the type to choose from. But, according to people that want to do it, it'll take until the year 2100 to get to the whole country running on electricity, including the transportation. >I've posted links to the documents many times in the past where big oil >layed out the plan to constrict gasoline production capacity to increase >margins. That was the business plan they layed out and the one they >executed to record profits. There is _zero_ evidence they are going to >change business plans to a 'flood-the-market' with supply stance. Sure, they'll do that when they can take advantage of their competitor's inability to supply more because the enviro-wackos are prohibiting their competitor's efforts to expand. But, the envirowackos are at the bottom of this mess, and that's a fact. >>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 09:02:30 -0500, Brent P >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > http://www.adn.com/oil/story/384213.html > Here's one newspaper account of the State of Alaska court torpedoing Exxon's > plan to drill the North slop of Alaska. Register to login? WtF? Opening paragraph: Exxon Mobil Corp. can't be trusted to keep its latest promise to develop a huge North Slope oil and gas field that's lain dormant since its discovery decades ago, a top state official decided Tuesday. Further on: Exxon, the top leaseholder in the 106,201-acre field, in February offered a $1.3 billion drilling plan in hopes of halting the state's legal effort to break up the field and possibly lease the acreage to other companies. But in a 78-page decision issued Tuesday, state Natural Resources Commissioner Tom Irwin sternly rejected Exxon's development plan -- its 23rd over the years -- saying the company and other leaseholders repeatedly broke past commitments and have engaged in "a constant shell game" for more than two decades. Irwin, who presided over a court-ordered hearing on the plan in March, questioned the credibility of oil company executives who testified and concluded that allowing the companies "another opportunity to delay development of this valuable state resource is too risky." And then towards the end of the article: Anyway, Irwin wrote, Exxon and other Point Thomson leaseholders can't be trusted to keep their word. He noted, for example, that the latest plan of development has a loophole giving Exxon an out based on "permitting delays." > ------ This whole thing is about locking up resources LOL! It's big oil companies keeping supply bottled up and playing games to prevent other oil companies from developing it. It's about Exxon and others using one excuse after another to DELAY development while keeping their control over the resources!!!!!! There's nothing about environmentalists in this article. The state government wants the oil and natural gas coming out of the ground ASAP and Exxon has been playing games for a couple-three _DECADES_ jerking around that they'll 'get around' to drilling for it. I love it when someone else's cite proves my argument. It worth the registration! > It is ludicrous to say that the oil companies don't want to drill for oil. > They're scratching like crazy to keep up with demand, and mostly failing. > Envirowackos are the reason, plain and simple. Oil companies aren't about flooding the market down to $15 a barrel, they are about making PROFITS. Maximium != maximium production. >>Now Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and a few elected >>office holders blather on and on about drilling there, but I haven't >>noticed anything about big oil wanting to. > They do. There in business to do that. The _other_ oil up there is running > out. If they don't find more, they're going to be sitting there someday not > making any money at all, 'cuz there won't be any flow. The oil running out farce again. But even if true, what you are saying is that they don't want to increase production but keep the status quo control on production, which is what I am saying. >> Do you have some source that >>says they want to that isn't part of the mass media that engages in this >>stupid left-right crap? > See link. The one that shows the oil company has been dicking around for 20+ years and the state government is so pissed off about it they denied the recent plan so they could get someone else to drill because big oil's latest proposal was full of loopholes so they could dick around for another few YEARS? > I'm busy cleaning the house. Having friend over for a week or so in order to > do a few things for me while I recover from surgery. Place is absolutely > upside down. Don't have time to find more, Sure... one link nicely hidden behind manditory registration.... so I have to waste my time registering and waiting for the confirm..... But it was worth it, since it supports my argument that the oil companies aren't all that interested in increasing supply, only locking it up so they control it. > but again, it's ludicrous to say > that an oil company doesn't want to drill oil. Its a seriously foolish > argument. To say that means you are ignorant of business practices. Maximum production is rarely maximum profit. Debeers entire business model is based on controlling supply and limiting the amount of diamonds that are available on the market. That is big oil's current business model more or less. >>Lol. American properity was targeted a long time ago by people who use >>environmental movement for their own goals a long time ago. What's the >>term, 'useful idiots', that's what the environmentalists are these days. >>Useful idiots to an end goal. > Yeah, there's likely some truth to _that_. There doesn't seem to be any > trouble at all to get Americans to oppose something, but they're mostly > left-wingers who now have a tradition of obstrucionism. I think it may even > get them high to oppose things. De-program yourself from the left-right nonsense. GWB, McCain.... conservative... lol. >>Big oil likes things the way they are just fine. It doesn't want more >>supply of oil and gasoline. It has done everything it can to narrow [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>Big oil is making record profits under the current conditions, there is >>no reason for them to change things. > No, the other way is to replace oil with something else. Electricity seems to > be the most likely candidate, and solar-electric is the most likely of the type > to choose from. But, according to people that want to do it, it'll take until > the year 2100 to get to the whole country running on electricity, including the > transportation. Replacing oil with another highly regulated energy source doesn't increase the supply of oil. >>I've posted links to the documents many times in the past where big oil >>layed out the plan to constrict gasoline production capacity to increase >>margins. That was the business plan they layed out and the one they >>executed to record profits. There is _zero_ evidence they are going to >>change business plans to a 'flood-the-market' with supply stance. > Sure, they'll do that when they can take advantage of their competitor's > inability to supply more because the enviro-wackos are prohibiting their > competitor's efforts to expand. But, the envirowackos are at the bottom of > this mess, and that's a fact. Refineries were _shut down_ to decrease capacity to increase margin. Anyway, big oil isn't about to increase supply, it's not in their interest. >>>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 09:02:30 -0500, Brent P >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Register to login? WtF? Didn't happen for me. >Opening paragraph: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >repeatedly broke past commitments and have engaged in "a constant shell >game" for more than two decades. So, you have an oil company proposing to drill and a politician standing in the way of it. What else is new? >Irwin, who presided over a court-ordered hearing on the plan in March, >questioned the credibility of oil company executives who testified and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >of development has a loophole giving Exxon an out based on "permitting >delays." Whatever... there's always some excuse to keep an oil company from even having a chance to get started. Delays, delays, delays, and its at the hands of the legal bunch, fueled by the envirowackos. >> ------ > >This whole thing is about locking up resources LOL! No, its about government obstructionism. >It's big oil >companies keeping supply bottled up and playing games to prevent other >oil companies from developing it. Its about big oil companies not being allowed to get into their oil fields and drill 'em. > It's about Exxon and others using one >excuse after another to DELAY development while keeping their control >over the resources!!!!!! If they don't control the resouces, they can't drill them, so of course they want to keep control of them. The delay is at the hand of the state. >There's nothing about environmentalists in this >article. Nope, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the motivation for the denials of the permits comes from that sector. >The state government wants the oil and natural gas coming out >of the ground ASAP and Exxon has been playing games for a couple-three >_DECADES_ jerking around that they'll 'get around' to drilling for it. I don't have time to research the reason for the delay, but I'd bet some good amount of money that the oil companies are just attempting to avoid losing money by investing a lot of it in the effort to drill the oil, and then being prohibited from doing so by yet another government delay. >I love it when someone else's cite proves my argument. It worth the >registration! Doesn't. >> It is ludicrous to say that the oil companies don't want to drill for oil. >> They're scratching like crazy to keep up with demand, and mostly failing. >> Envirowackos are the reason, plain and simple. > >Oil companies aren't about flooding the market down to $15 a barrel, >they are about making PROFITS. Maximium != maximium production. They could produce a whale of a lot more oil, and the price wouldn't go down that much - people would just resume driving their SUV's and the consumption would go up, they'd sell more gas, and make more $$$ overall. >>>Now Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and a few elected >>>office holders blather on and on about drilling there, but I haven't [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >is that they don't want to increase production but keep the status quo >control on production, which is what I am saying. They want to develop other oil fields up there so they are ready when the currently producing wells taper off. >>> Do you have some source that >>>says they want to that isn't part of the mass media that engages in this [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >latest proposal was full of loopholes so they could dick around for >another few YEARS? Naw, its the one that shows that the oil company has submitted 23 different proposals to drill and had them rejected, so therefore there is no drilling. >> I'm busy cleaning the house. Having friend over for a week or so in order to >> do a few things for me while I recover from surgery. Place is absolutely >> upside down. Don't have time to find more, > >Sure... one link nicely hidden behind manditory registration.... I didn't have to register... dunno what's going on with that. >so I >have to waste my time registering and waiting for the confirm..... But >it was worth it, since it supports my argument that the oil companies >aren't all that interested in increasing supply, only locking it up so >they control it. It only looks that way... to you... >> but again, it's ludicrous to say >> that an oil company doesn't want to drill oil. Its a seriously foolish [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >available on the market. That is big oil's current business model more >or less. Diamonds are a luxury item, yet DeBeer's execs would probably be arrested for anti-trust practices if they set foot in the USA. >>>Lol. American properity was targeted a long time ago by people who use >>>environmental movement for their own goals a long time ago. What's the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >Replacing oil with another highly regulated energy source doesn't >increase the supply of oil. It won't have to. We won't be using oil after the electricity runs the country, other than petrochemicals. We can easily supply our own oil for that. >>>I've posted links to the documents many times in the past where big oil >>>layed out the plan to constrict gasoline production capacity to increase [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Anyway, big oil isn't about to increase supply, it's not in their >interest. Refineries were shut down because of envirowacko whining... never should have happened. >>But in a 78-page decision issued Tuesday, state Natural Resources >>Commissioner Tom Irwin sternly rejected Exxon's development plan -- its [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So, you have an oil company proposing to drill and a politician standing in the > way of it. What else is new? Read the acticle without assumption. The politician is pissed off at Exxon's dicking around for two plus decades and their new 'plan' that will let them dick around for many years to come. He wants the leases to go to a company that will actually sink a well! > Whatever... there's always some excuse to keep an oil company from even having > a chance to get started. Delays, delays, delays, and its at the hands of the > legal bunch, fueled by the envirowackos. There was nothing stopping exxon from drilling except exxon. All exxon had to do was present a plan where it couldn't continue to screw around and not sink wells while holding the lease. There were no environmentalists, no legal barriers. Only exxon's refusal to make an iron clad promise to get off its a.s and DRILL. >>> ------ >>This whole thing is about locking up resources LOL! > No, its about government obstructionism. Did you even read the article? The problem is Exxon made a proposal that would allow it to stall for years to come. There hasn't been any government obstruction. Alaska's government wants a contract where Exxon cannot sit on it's hands any longer. It wants someone to DRILL. >>It's big oil >>companies keeping supply bottled up and playing games to prevent other >>oil companies from developing it. > Its about big oil companies not being allowed to get into their oil fields and > drill 'em. Exxon has the lease. They have decided not to drill for over two decades. They want that condition to continue with more loopholes so they can sit around and not drill for many more years to come. The government in Alaska rejected the proposal because of those loopholes, they want someone to drill and will re-allocate the LEASE to other companies that _WILL DRILL_. >> It's about Exxon and others using one >>excuse after another to DELAY development while keeping their control >>over the resources!!!!!! > If they don't control the resouces, they can't drill them, so of course they > want to keep control of them. > The delay is at the hand of the state. Sounds like you didn't read the article at all. Are you in that much denial? Reading comprehension disease caught from gpstroll? The delay has been exxon not getting around to it. The state wants the leases to go to someone else because as they say it, exxon's latest proposal looks like it will just use the loopholes to screw around and not drill for years to come. Read the friggin' article instead of just the headline and assuming! Geebus. >>There's nothing about environmentalists in this >>article. > Nope, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the motivation for the denials of > the permits comes from that sector. READ YOUR OWN f.cking CITE! The denial was because the proposal had too many loopholes where by Exxon could choose _NOT TO DRILL_. "Development of the field would mean huge tax and royalty revenues for the state. Exxon drilling led to discovery of Point Thomson's gas and oil reserves in 1977. But the company hasn't developed the field because of the lack of a gas pipeline and the field's extreme subsurface pressure, which would require tougher, costlier wells to control, Exxon managers say. Irwin, in his decision, said Exxon and other leaseholders have looked to "warehouse" Point Thomson while concentrating on projects elsewhere in the world." >>The state government wants the oil and natural gas coming out >>of the ground ASAP and Exxon has been playing games for a couple-three >>_DECADES_ jerking around that they'll 'get around' to drilling for it. > I don't have time to research the reason for the delay, but I'd bet some good > amount of money that the oil companies are just attempting to avoid losing > money by investing a lot of it in the effort to drill the oil, and then being > prohibited from doing so by yet another government delay. You don't have time to read your cites. Gotcha. Then don't waste my time posting. >>I love it when someone else's cite proves my argument. It worth the >>registration! > Doesn't. You should try reading it. >>> It is ludicrous to say that the oil companies don't want to drill for oil. >>> They're scratching like crazy to keep up with demand, and mostly failing. >>> Envirowackos are the reason, plain and simple. >>Oil companies aren't about flooding the market down to $15 a barrel, >>they are about making PROFITS. Maximium != maximium production. > They could produce a whale of a lot more oil, and the price wouldn't go down > that much - people would just resume driving their SUV's and the consumption > would go up, they'd sell more gas, and make more $$$ overall. I think they know the business better than you. The business plan is out there and they are executing it. You just want to deny the reality of it. >>The oil running out farce again. But even if true, what you are saying >>is that they don't want to increase production but keep the status quo >>control on production, which is what I am saying. > They want to develop other oil fields up there so they are ready when the > currently producing wells taper off. Controlling supply. >>> See link. >>The one that shows the oil company has been dicking around for 20+ years >>and the state government is so pissed off about it they denied the >>recent plan so they could get someone else to drill because big oil's >>latest proposal was full of loopholes so they could dick around for >>another few YEARS? > Naw, its the one that shows that the oil company has submitted 23 different > proposals to drill and had them rejected, so therefore there is no drilling. Only the current proposal was rejected. Exxon failed to live up to previous proposals. Read why it's rejected: "But in a 78-page decision issued Tuesday, state Natural Resources Commissioner Tom Irwin sternly rejected Exxon's development plan -- its 23rd over the years -- saying the company and other leaseholders repeatedly broke past commitments and have engaged in "a constant shell game" for more than two decades. Irwin, who presided over a court-ordered hearing on the plan in March, questioned the credibility of oil company executives who testified and concluded that allowing the companies "another opportunity to delay development of this valuable state resource is too risky."" Now try to comprehend that. They've been screwing around for more than two decades breaking their commitments to DRILL for one reason or another. They don't want to drill. What's with the gpstroll level reading comprehension? >>so I >>have to waste my time registering and waiting for the confirm..... But [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It only looks that way... to you... It's in plain language. Government wants the royalty money and is pissed off at exxon's delays and excuses for not drilling. It's quite clear. >>> but again, it's ludicrous to say >>> that an oil company doesn't want to drill oil. Its a seriously foolish >>> argument. >>To say that means you are ignorant of business practices. Maximum >>production is rarely maximum profit. Debeers entire business model is >>based on controlling supply and limiting the amount of diamonds that are >>available on the market. That is big oil's current business model more >>or less. > Diamonds are a luxury item, yet DeBeer's execs would probably be arrested for > anti-trust practices if they set foot in the USA. Why? The US government has no problem with cartels. Just so long as they are government approved, like the federal reserve and major league baseball. >>Refineries were _shut down_ to decrease capacity to increase margin. >>Anyway, big oil isn't about to increase supply, it's not in their >>interest. > Refineries were shut down because of envirowacko whining... never should have > happened. Do I have to drag out the documents again? They were closed to increase margin. >There was nothing stopping exxon from drilling except exxon. Oh hell. How about Exxon being given the option of drilling or not drilling without having to ASK ANYBODY FOR ANYTHING, and especially approval. Give 'em 5 years, if they don't drill, take the area away from 'em and give it to someone else. It still looks to me like they've filed a series of 23 plans to drill and had 'em all rejected. Lets try to do it without plans submitted to anyone but those that are going to do the drilling. Keep the f'n state, and espcially the environmental weenies, the hell out of it. Then we'll see. >>There was nothing stopping exxon from drilling except exxon. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > having to ASK ANYBODY FOR ANYTHING, and especially approval. Give 'em 5 years, > if they don't drill, take the area away from 'em and give it to someone else. The issue is that they already got ~25 and haven't drilled. > It still looks to me like they've filed a series of 23 plans to drill and had > 'em all rejected. That's not what the article says. The article says this latest one was rejected and Exxon has given excuses about the pressure of the natural gas in the ground and other such things for the last 30 years regarding why they didn't get around to drilling. > Lets try to do it without plans submitted to anyone but those that are going to > do the drilling. Keep the f'n state, and espcially the environmental weenies, > the hell out of it. > Then we'll see. They had past proposals accepted, then they gave excuses and didn't do any drilling. It's right there in the article. They whined about there not being a pipe line, they whined about the pressure, they've been stalling for 30 years while keeping the rights to the natural gas and oil on this public land so nobody else could drill for it. It is quite obvious they had proposals accepted in the past and then didn't bother carrying through. That is what has the people in the Alaska government annoyed with Exxon. It's that Exxon has been giving excuse after excuse for 20 something years why they haven't extracted any oil or natural gas. Their latest proposal leaves ways for them to do it again and the state government is like 'screw exxon, let's find someone who is actually going to drill'. >>>There was nothing stopping exxon from drilling except exxon. >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >state government is like 'screw exxon, let's find someone who is >actually going to drill'. It sounds like valid concerns to me. Exxon may be wary of getting locked into a contract or arrangement that forces them to drill when maybe they can't, or maybe it won't be profitable, or maybe they won't have a way to transport the stuff, or maybe it'd be too dangerous, or etc. It may be that its just more expensive there than somewhere else, so they're waiting until drilling this is cheaper than drilling somewhere else that they've been exploiting. Get the damn "We gotta get a plan approved by the state" bullshit out of the way, give 'em X amount of time to drill, and take the rights away if they don't drill. Simple. But, I'm still thinking that the state is actually up to some kind of obstructionism, or they would do something like that. > It may be that its just more expensive there than somewhere else, so they're > waiting until drilling this is cheaper than drilling somewhere else that > they've been exploiting. All the more reason to get another company in there that is willing. > Get the damn "We gotta get a plan approved by the state" bullshit out of the > way, give 'em X amount of time to drill, and take the rights away if they don't > drill. Simple. But, I'm still thinking that the state is actually up to some > kind of obstructionism, or they would do something like that. Um, it's not private property. It's public, aka government owned land. But if we are making public lands a free-for-all consider this my claim on yellowstone park to build a giant geo-thermal electrical generation plant. >OK, but everything I've read about this says that production of shale oil and >tar sands and any of those other difficult to get at oil sources is more than a >decade away. Tar sands are actually already in production. But the other stuff... that'll ALWAYS be more than a decade away. It's stuff that's there for politicians to waste tax money on, and provide excuses for blocking drilling of conventional oil. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>OK, but everything I've read about this says that production of shale oil and >>tar sands and any of those other difficult to get at oil sources is more than a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >there for politicians to waste tax money on, and provide excuses for >blocking drilling of conventional oil. The long and short of it is that we have no energy policy, and that's mainly because to advocate the production of more energy, in a timeframe that would be soon enough to avert shortages and huge price rises, would mean having to kick the environmental lobbies in the teeth and develop the energy in spite of them. None of the politicians seem to have the guts to do that. > The long and short of it is that we have no energy policy, and that's mainly > because to advocate the production of more energy, in a timeframe that would be > soon enough to avert shortages and huge price rises, would mean having to kick > the environmental lobbies in the teeth and develop the energy in spite of them. > None of the politicians seem to have the guts to do that. There is an energy policy. It's one of interference and creating sweet deals for connected corporations while using the environment as an excuse and environmentalists as scape goats. There should be no energy policy at all, where a free market determined the course. (with property rights such that companies could not foul their neighbor's property or dump their waste in waterways, lakes, etc) Such a system would protect the environment and provide all the energy people desire. Just wait until the politicians start creating water policies. I expect connected companies to be contracted to pipe great lakes water out to AZ and then using a market trading system force people with the good sense of living next to giant fresh water lakes to pay for the stupidity of people who want to live in the desert and have a green lawn. >Just wait until the politicians start creating water policies. I >expect connected companies to be contracted to pipe great lakes water >out to AZ and then using a market trading system force people with the >good sense of living next to giant fresh water lakes to pay for the >stupidity of people who want to live in the desert and have a green >lawn. We've already got that, with California and the Colorado river. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On May 13, 7:51 pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Just wait until the politicians start creating water policies. I > expect connected companies to be contracted to pipe great lakes water > out to AZ and then using a market trading system force people with the > good sense of living next to giant fresh water lakes to pay for the > stupidity of people who want to live in the desert and have a green > lawn. Or the idiocy here in GA where the state is actually considering suing to get the GA/TN border moved about a couple of miles north (they claim that the current border is incorrect due to a surveying error) so they can tap the Tennessee River to meet the needs of Atlanta's mcmansions and golf courses (of course, that's when they are not eyeing us here in south Georgia and our aquifer or tangling with FL and AL over the (I believe) Chattahochee river and how much water the Army Corps Of Engineers should let flow to those states. -- I am necromancer and I approved this poast. >There has to be an end soon. Otherwise, before long, the rising price >of gas will start pricing people out of their cars - either when they >simply can't afford the gas to drivve to work and/or when they finally >decide that its just not worth it to pay the price for gas to drive to >work and put up with all the crap there just to beable to fill the >tank again. Of course there is no guarantee against this happening. It could happen. The response will likely be that people start packing into vans with 10 passengers, and/or drive to the vicinity of work on Monday, return on Friday, etc. and that'd be because they _have_ to. There wouldn't be much choice other than simply quitting work and going on welfare. > From there, it's all down hill. It would probably result in Great Depression II. >>Yeah, that's why the research and development necessary to extract the oil from >>the rocks in the NW US, which is a reserve supposedly 3X the Saudi reserve, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >so if the govt were to give them subsidies like they give for ethanol >and for the way we are subsidizing Saudi Arabia and Iraq.... Well, of course it'd be nice if they'd do that. But if they can take their record profits and give it to the stockholders, that is probably what the stockholders expect them to do. I don't see that they have a great incentive to go exploiting US oil, especially when the environmental extremists and those politicians who are in their pockets are likely to make increased production of US oil more risky or less profitable. >>>IMO, its going to tip (FWIW, I think it will happen early next year >>>with oil at US$175.00 a barrel and gas at US$5.50 a gallon) before too [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >the rest of the stocks and markets being the lemmings that they are >will follow suit.... Its probably a fear of something with the same probability of happening as that of getting hit with a meteor or eaten by a shark. I wouldn't worry about an energy price collapse. >>>Personally, I wouldn't mind it lasting a while longer - just to get >>>more SUV's and pick-ups (especially the jacked up oversized tire 4x4's [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >around here won't accept them as trades and many used car lots are >full of them. Eventually they are going to have to go somewhere. Yep. They'll get sold cheap, either by the car lots that are full of them or the private owners that are fed up with the expense. But they'll be cheap... That already represents a big monetary loss to the general public which is probably on an early tier of the Great Depression II, if it ultimately comes to that. > stockholders expect them to do. I don't see that they have a great incentive > to go exploiting US oil, especially when the environmental extremists and those > politicians who are in their pockets are likely to make increased production of > US oil more risky or less profitable. Who profits from the environmental oil restrictions? BIG OIL. It keeps competition out, it keeps supply controlled. And then there is a bonus, a scape-goat! >> stockholders expect them to do. I don't see that they have a great incentive >> to go exploiting US oil, especially when the environmental extremists and those [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >competition out, it keeps supply controlled. And then there is a bonus, >a scape-goat! They're not going to profit if the US economy collapses, which it is in the process of doing right now. People are selling belongings to pay the daily bills, and when they run out of stuff to sell, its going to get hairy. And $7 / gallon would see a Great Depression II. 25% unemployment, and that's likely only if we're lucky. I see where John McCain is also OK with totally ruining the US economy while attempting the impossible to solve what looks more and more like a hoax every day, global warming. >>> stockholders expect them to do. I don't see that they have a great incentive >>> to go exploiting US oil, especially when the environmental extremists and those [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > process of doing right now. People are selling belongings to pay the daily > bills, and when they run out of stuff to sell, its going to get hairy. You seem to think the ruling class gives a sh.t. It's about having *everything*. > And $7 / gallon would see a Great Depression II. 25% unemployment, and that's > likely only if we're lucky. > I see where John McCain is also OK with totally ruining the US economy while > attempting the impossible to solve what looks more and more like a hoax every > day, global warming. It's been a hoax from the very begining. It's about re-establishing a feudal order, or at least an old order where the ruling class controlled people through fear. Global warming is just same old play the high priests of countless ancient societies used to control populations. Do as I say and I'll stop the sun from being eaten by the monster. Sure, people don't believe in the monster any more so it's cloaked in 'science'. But the population is too ignorant to look behind the curtain. Anyway the end is the wealthy ruling class has everything, the masses have nothing and are treated as 'resources', as livestock. Much like the third world. These people have been doing it all over the world for centuries, of course they'll do it in the USA, it just takes longer. Look at the regulation that has gone in over the last century under the guise of 'protecting' us. Much of it has effectively established a system that is functionally close to that of guilds, cartels, etc. The central bank manipulates the value of the money which steals wealth of the middle class through inflation. Wrapped up in it is the income tax too. Then this money is funneled out in the political system to the wealthy through corporations in form of all sorts of subsidizes and government contracts. Lately the public infrastructure is being effectively sold off for pennies on the dollar. The government can take our land and then give it to a connected company. Throw in property taxes and are we effectively any different than peasants who have to give a share of our crop each year to the lord of the land? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.