Exactly how much are oil speculators actually driving up the price of oil?

[Le Jacquelope]

I heard an interesting commentary on the belief that drilling here is irrelevant in the short term because we won't see the oil for up to 10 years (although I don't think that number is accurate). The person pointed out that there would be an immediate impact on the oil futures market because they would know sometime in the next decade, new oil would hit the markets. That price adjustment might not be instantaneous, but it would take place far quicker than the actual oil reaching the market. The funny thing about any change in our energy policies (even done at the individual consumer level) is that it is all going to take years (decades) to fully realize.

There is also the other thing that OPEC might cut production or distribution to match this. They'll do anything to preserve their high oil prices - at least until those oil rigs go online and we see a domestic glut in supply. Problem is, when that oil runs out, we'll be right back stuck in the line of fire with gas guzzling 2 mile per gallon SUVs.

Brazil had the right idea with flex fuel cars.

Obama is talking about pressuring car manufacturers to make more fuel efficient vehicles, which does nothing to affect people who haven't even paid off their current car (or might not be able to afford a new one anyway). New plants and refineries will take years to come on-line. Widespread energy technologies (solar, wind, etc...) will take at least that long to make a serious impact. The thing no one is addressing is that while we're arguing about things that aren't going to happen until long after our economy is in the toilet (and yes, it can get a hell of a lot worse than it is right now), the one thing we do have control over (drilling in our own territories) is being stalled at a 90% clip by the Democrats in Congress. Until that changes, we are at the mercy of oil producers, and I don't really see anything that can be done about it. You can argue about the "why's", but it doesn't change the reality of the situation.

I'm not sure that full-out domestic oil production will put a dent in the situation, unless it provides 100% of our gasoline needs, 10 years from now. The oil price manipulators will take us to the cleaners all the way up until it goes online - worse so, because of the "party's over" deadline.

 

[S-Des]

Brazil had the right idea with flex fuel cars.

I'm not sure that full-out domestic oil production will put a dent in the situation, unless it provides 100% of our gasoline needs, 10 years from now. The oil price manipulators will take us to the cleaners all the way up until it goes online - worse so, because of the "party's over" deadline.

I think almost everyone has gotten the point by now that even if we somehow manage to produce 100% of the oil we need for the next 20 years, it has a limit and needs to be replaced with cleaner, cheaper technology (or our economy has to radically adjust). My frustration is that we are easily a decade away from real solutions, and there is more than enough oil here to get us there and beyond. The arguments being used to block it are just maddening.

As for the amounts available, I've already posted it, but we have more in oil shale alone than Saudi Arabia has left in it's reserves (and that doesn't count Anwar, North Dakota, or off shore). We could pick one or two of these and drill in the least destructive way possible to get us from here to the point where oil is less important (or hopefully someday completely unimportant). Brazil's answer (or some other solution) would be great and I'm all for it, but it will still take at least a decade to fully implement (and that's after it's actually been researched and mass-produced). I'm for anything that will make things better, but just like the Iraq argument, we still have the problem of what to do today.

No matter what gets done, I think the one thing that has gotten through to the public is the inevitability of the change that's coming.

 

[JagFarlane]

There is also the other thing that OPEC might cut production or distribution to match this. They'll do anything to preserve their high oil prices - at least until those oil rigs go online and we see a domestic glut in supply. Problem is, when that oil runs out, we'll be right back stuck in the line of fire with gas guzzling 2 mile per gallon SUVs.

Agreed

Brazil had the right idea with flex fuel cars.

If I recall correctly, all GM cars manufactured since '02 are flex fuel, they just didn't really advertise that till '06

I'm not sure that full-out domestic oil production will put a dent in the situation, unless it provides 100% of our gasoline needs, 10 years from now. The oil price manipulators will take us to the cleaners all the way up until it goes online - worse so, because of the "party's over" deadline.

Agreed that it won't make a dent, early estimates are upwards of 2 million barrels, which is not enough to really make much of a scratch in our current usage. Truthfully, in order to cut back on our usage, the public's behavior would have to be changed. And that would mean, SUVs are used only by those whom actually use them for what they were designed for [outdoors people and contractors] not by soccer moms and men trying to act more masuline, and that we don't keep building McMansions that drink fuel by the barrel to heat them.

 

[trysail]

(Fair Use Excerpt)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aZAthJYQmF4I&refer=japan#

U.S., Asia Express `Serious Concern' Over Oil Prices
By Megumi Yamanaka and Yuji Okada

June 7 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and Asia expressed ``serious concern'' over record oil prices one day after the market posted its biggest dollar gain ever, and urged consumer-nations to shift to alternative sources of fuel as energy costs rise.

Oil prices have reached ``unprecedented'' levels, officials from Japan, China, India, South Korea and the U.S. said in a joint statement issued after a meeting in Aomori in northern Japan today. Crude oil climbed $10.75 in New York yesterday to settle at $138.54 a barrel, its biggest one-day increase.

``There are few things we can do for the short term,'' U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman told reporters in Aomori today. ``There are things we can do on increasing efficiency and we are working on them.''

Prices more than doubled over the past year, sparking concern oil will fuel inflation and retard economic growth. The U.S. and the four Asian nations, together accounting for half the world's energy consumption, said today wider use of alternative fuels such as clean coal, nuclear power, and renewables will help bolster energy security.

Investing more in oil and gas to boost output capacity and greater effort in accessing petroleum reserves will also expand supplies of conventional fuels, helping to tame energy prices, according to the joint statement.

Cutting Subsidies
The governments of China and India, which sell fuels to domestic users below cost, were in agreement with the U.S., Japan and South Korea that ``a gradual withdrawal of fuel subsidies is desirable,'' the statement said.

India, Malaysia, Indonesia and Taiwan over the past month raised fuel prices and cut subsidies, in a move that may reduce Asian demand and slow global oil-consumption growth.

``This is the first time that we can agree on the necessity of abolishing fuel subsidies by steps,'' Japan's Trade Minister Akira Amari told reporters today. ``Each country has different reasons and contexts, so they cannot do that immediately.''

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said India's fuel-price increase was ``inevitable'' in helping to protect government finances and narrowing oil refiners' losses. ``There are limits to which we can keep consumer prices unaffected by rising import costs.''

Scaling back on subsidies is a step forward in boosting energy efficiency and accelerating a quest for alternative sources, amid rising oil prices. Energy ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized nations, together with government officials from China, India and South Korea, are expected to set energy-conservation targets tomorrow when they meet in Aomori...

 

[trysail]

A conspiracy? Really? You don't believe OPEC cuts production or distribution of oil? Have you not read the facts on this? They're producing more oil than we need. The issue is they're not sending it out.

No shit, Sherlock. When did you figure that out? As a cartel, OPEC would be be illegal under the laws of the United States.

The undocumented assertion (and flat untruth) that "They're producing more oil than we need" is so uninformed that it is laughable. No intelligent educated person could be so gullible to swallow such a patent and demonstrable falsehood.

The fact remains that California has billions and billions of barrels of KNOWN and easily producible reserves of petroleum lying right off the coast. It's just sitting there. It, therefore, follows that the State of California is contributing to high prices by restricting supplies.

When you bitch and whine and moan about high prices, you need go no further than a glimpse at the mirror and a look off Santa Barbara.

Beyond forbidding the production of those reserves, California won't allow the construction of coal-fired generating capacity; California won't permit the construction of LNG importing terminals; California won't allow construction of nuclear generating facilities. Instead, the demagogues (such as yourself) are engaged in all manner of finger-pointing and concocting non-existant conspiracy phantasms.

TANSTAAFL

 

[trysail]

Written by a Canadian:
___________________________

I recently returned from a twenty-three day cruise. As is my usual habit on cruises, I establish myself at a bar for a daily martini (or two) before dinner, and continue this every night for the duration. As many others are similiar creatures of habit, it it usually at this location that I meet and establish some thing of a relationship with a number of fellow "bar rats" for the duration of the cruise. We normally engage in pleasant conversation over a wide variety of subjects, avoiding anything too deep or controversial.

As background I am Canadian, more specifically (and proudly) an Albertan,and a major part of the reason I can spend half the year cruising (I'm 56) is that oil and natural gas prices and the related effect on the Alberta economy have made me rich. Also as a typical Albertan, I tend toward the right end of the political spectrum, as opposed to those Liberal-Trudeau-loving eastern bastards.

On this trip one couple that frequented the bar and I got to know was older, approximately in their later 60s, from New Jersey. He is a retired pilot for TWA (and a Vietnam vet).Typically for conversation we stay away from religion and politics, but based on some comments I understood they were staunch Republicans.

In any case, one evening the discussion did touch on the daily increasing price of oil, and the related increasing cost of gasoline. I mentioned that Alberta had the huge oil sands reserves, second only to Saudi Arabia in the world, and that most Americans had no knowledge of the situation, whereby these reserves and related production would play an increasingly important role in the U.S.' s supply situation, especially from the aspect of relative security of supply.

I was floored that the wife's first question was "Will you sell it to us at a cheap price?" When I said "No, the price would be market price," she seemed offended.

I went on to point out a number of facts: we Candians or Albertans don't even sell it to ourselves at lower than market, in fact (primarily because of taxes), we pay a higher price for gasoline than Americans do. You are complaining about $4.00/gallon gasoline, we are paying well over $5.00/gallon.

Additionally, while the U.S. is the world's largest importer of crude, it is still the world's 3rd largest producer of crude, well ahead of Canada. It never occured to her that if cheaper oil was the answer there would be far more effect in regulating U. S. production prices than looking for "friendly" pricing from friends and allies.

None of this seemed to molify her. Engaging in "wishful thinking," she somehow believes that if Canada was such a great neighbor, we should be willing to supply our oil at a price that helps our American neighbors at a time that they are suffering so terribly because of $4.00/gallon gasoline.

If this is the state of awareness, education, and attitude about energy from relatively educated Americans, you guys are in one hell of alot more trouble than I had ever imagined.

Good luck.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I think almost everyone has gotten the point by now that even if we somehow manage to produce 100% of the oil we need for the next 20 years, it has a limit and needs to be replaced with cleaner, cheaper technology (or our economy has to radically adjust). My frustration is that we are easily a decade away from real solutions, and there is more than enough oil here to get us there and beyond. The arguments being used to block it are just maddening.

It's not maddening. To get at that oil supply means ten years of increased environmental damage, mass deaths and perhaps total extinction of more species of sea/land animals and/or plants, and so on. It's maddening recognize these consequences, but it's utter madness to ignore them - or, more directly, it is a denial of reality.

As for the amounts available, I've already posted it, but we have more in oil shale alone than Saudi Arabia has left in it's reserves (and that doesn't count Anwar, North Dakota, or off shore). We could pick one or two of these and drill in the least destructive way possible to get us from here to the point where oil is less important (or hopefully someday completely unimportant). Brazil's answer (or some other solution) would be great and I'm all for it, but it will still take at least a decade to fully implement (and that's after it's actually been researched and mass-produced). I'm for anything that will make things better, but just like the Iraq argument, we still have the problem of what to do today.

No matter what gets done, I think the one thing that has gotten through to the public is the inevitability of the change that's coming.

Do you realize how expensive it is to extract oil shale? And how energy-intensive that is? Granted, it's not as expensive as, say, $139bbl oil. But then again there are the high environmental and health issues that come with extracting hydrocarbons out of that.

Agreed
If I recall correctly, all GM cars manufactured since '02 are flex fuel, they just didn't really advertise that till '06

Sure would be nice if they did do that. What fuel types do they use? Pure ethanol and gas?

Agreed that it won't make a dent, early estimates are upwards of 2 million barrels, which is not enough to really make much of a scratch in our current usage. Truthfully, in order to cut back on our usage, the public's behavior would have to be changed. And that would mean, SUVs are used only by those whom actually use them for what they were designed for [outdoors people and contractors] not by soccer moms and men trying to act more masuline, and that we don't keep building McMansions that drink fuel by the barrel to heat them.

Then how would soccer moms get their kids to school? Many schools now don't have bus service anymore, and only a fool lets their kid walk to school with the swarms of predators lurking practically everywhere now. (There's always news of some old jackhole trying to snatch a kid in a quiet neighborhood nowadays.) A SUV is absolutely invaluable for a trip out of town, for what few people make those trips now. You're probably also thinking of a mini-van as the solution to this, but please, see below.

Lots of SUVs now are wagon types. My Highlander Hybrid is a 2 wheel drive version, which is listed for insurance reasons as a car-based SUV, versus the 4wd which is a truck-based SUV. It is, in relation to other SUVs, listed by the Government as a gas sipper, and that's before the hybrid advantage kicks in. It's also BARELY big enough to haul my wife and me, plus our 3 kids and food and stuff. Some SUVs also have a higher MPG than vans; to date I have not seen one hybrid van on the market, so the Highlander Hybrid certainly wins that matchup. That is not to say mini-vans are out of the running here as a SUV replacement - but as far as MPG is concerned, until there are hybrid vans that are produced, they're out of the running when you consider the gas savings that can be realized by hybrid SUVs.

Our RAV4-EV SUV is electric powered - pity it isn't produced anymore. But for all intents and purposes, by itself, it is exactly the kind of SUV you want to see on the road, exactly because it uses no gasoline, not even a drop.

Previous to getting this used Rav4-EV, what we had in our garage was the Highlander Hybrid and the Prius. The Prius was the ideal commuter car but we replaced that with the pure electric SUV which barely hauls our family. The Prius simply could not practically carry 2 people plus 3 kids (2 babies and one toddler).

</rant>

 

[S-Des]

It's not maddening. To get at that oil supply means ten years of increased environmental damage, mass deaths and perhaps total extinction of more species of sea/land animals and/or plants, and so on. It's maddening recognize these consequences, but it's utter madness to ignore them - or, more directly, it is a denial of reality.

Yeah, so we'll just keep getting the oil from Canada, who's getting it from sand (which is the most environmentally damaging procedure around). We're using the oil, no matter what. To say it's somehow OK as long as we don't dig it up here is just silly. No other country is stopping their drilling for oil, but somehow if we do it, it will result in "mass deaths" and "total extinctions of more species"?

Do you realize how expensive it is to extract oil shale? And how energy-intensive that is?

Yeah....if you read my earlier post, I quoted all the projected costs at great detail. Quite a bargain compared to what we're facing. Funny that no one seems to consider the amount of energy that is wasted getting oil here from all over the globe, rather than obtaining it locally and saving that output. I wonder if any of the governments we get oil from take half the care about obtaining it that we do (and if they don't, how is it not hypocritical for us to keep buying it from them, rather than drilling it here with higher standards for environmental concerns?).

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Yeah, so we'll just keep getting the oil from Canada, who's getting it from sand (which is the most environmentally damaging procedure around). We're using the oil, no matter what. To say it's somehow OK as long as we don't dig it up here is just silly. No other country is stopping their drilling for oil, but somehow if we do it, it will result in "mass deaths" and "total extinctions of more species"?

I guess my point is, I want to reduce the use of oil. Spending resources opening new oil fields takes away from that, distracts from that. And why ADD more environmental destruction to what is going on already? No offense but it sounds like "they're wrecking their environment, so let's join in." Nope, not for me.

The potential damage caused by a resurgence of 2mpg SUV's - a resurgence which has happened before, mind you - is enough of a deterrent for me.

Yeah....if you read my earlier post, I quoted all the projected costs at great detail. Quite a bargain compared to what we're facing. Funny that no one seems to consider the amount of energy that is wasted getting oil here from all over the globe, rather than obtaining it locally and saving that output.

But why join the rest of the world in ruining our environment more?

 

[S-Des]

I guess my point is, I want to reduce the use of oil. Spending resources opening new oil fields takes away from that, distracts from that. And why ADD more environmental destruction to what is going on already?

I don't disagree. We should do everything possible to reduce our dependence on oil (including using nuclear power to offset our current wasteful methods of generating electricity). However, we have an oil based economy. You're not just talking about people not being able to cruise main street. Everything we transport (home and abroad) uses gas and diesel (along with electricity). We are already seeing price increases on food and goods that is going to make it really tough on the poor and middle class, and it's just going to get worse (it will also hurt the poor in other countries we ship to). In the meantime, it's not like we're stopping our oil purchases, so saying we shouldn't drill because it'll hurt the environment is intellectually dishonest (because we're still buying it from sources that are far more damaging than ours would be). In addition, we're hurting the value of our dollar, and contributing to the economic problems we're having right now.

It's not a matter of, "They're doing it, so why shouldn't we?" It's a matter of, "If we're going to use it, then we should control as much of it as possible to limit the economic and environmental costs". As I said, it's hypocritical to use the oil, but pretend it's not as harmful because we're not drilling for it in our backyard.

 

[trysail]

It's not maddening. To get at that oil supply means ten years of increased environmental damage, mass deaths and perhaps total extinction of more species of sea/land animals and/or plants, and so on. It's maddening recognize these consequences, but it's utter madness to ignore them - or, more directly, it is a denial of reality.

... while the humans starve to death in the dark and the cold.

Brilliant.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Exactly how much are politicians actually driving up the price of oil?

A lot more than oil speculators.

Last week Sen. Charles Schumer gave a typically cynical, dishonest, demagogic, insincere "fist pounding" speech berating Saudi Arabia for failing to increase production by 1 million barrels per day. He claimed that this means gas costs 50-cent more than it would otherwise. ("Typically" not just for Schumer, but for the entire corrupt breed of professional pols.)

One-million gallons a day is the amount of oil that ANWR would be producing if Schumer and his looting colleagues had not voted on numerous occasions to prhohibit it. Not to mention all the other parts of the U.S. they've made off limits for mineral exploitation.

Actually, I have mixed feelings about that. For a long time I've had a secret attraction to the "energy policy" that George Will decribed in a column last week: "America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit. Let it not be said that America has no energy policy."

Y'see, my hope is that someday the population rebels against the dictatorship of cynical "green" elites, and demands an end to all this nonsense. When that day comes this nation will be sitting pretty, although all the rest of you in the world may be fucked. I guess there's a little bit of imperialist in me after all, just as there is in Sen. Schumer and the other members of that ongoing criminal enterprise known as the U.S. Congress.

~~~~

PS - Schumer made up that "50-cents per gallon" bit, like he and his ilk make up all kinds of stuff when it's expedient, but the point remains.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ROXANNE

The outcome you get is the meaning of anything. Or, said differently, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Outside my home I have a solar still I invented. It's totally passive and costs pennies to make. It performs like shit, but it works, and I experiment on it to increase the production of distilled water. The product is increasing. I'm getting closer to the outcome I want.

Now! I'm not a brainiac or Mister Wizard Scientist. Just a simpleton who understands some 8th grade science. The county just built a desal plant for 400 MILLION, and it doesnt work very well. Its broke more than it works. The water board is populated by social workers and teachers and lawyers, and none of them know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to engineering. But its a lucrative gig for all of them and they have lotsa cash to give away.

The outcome is they make money and the contractors make money, and not much else happens. Its business as usual for government managed projects.

Back in the 1830s the city of Tallahassee started work on a 25 mile railroad, and my ancestor started work on a 150 mile railroad. My ancestor built his railroad in about 2 years (3rd in the nation) and Tallahassee didnt complete its railroad unil 20 years later.

Until government gets its paws out of commerce we will continue to have scarcity at ruinous costs.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Until government gets its paws out of commerce we will continue to have scarcity at ruinous costs.

Observation: The relative affluence or poverty of a society can be measured by the extent to which government keeps it's paws out of commerce, ceteris paribus.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

It's not maddening. To get at that oil supply means ten years of increased environmental damage, mass deaths and perhaps total extinction of more species of sea/land animals and/or plants, and so on. It's maddening recognize these consequences, but it's utter madness to ignore them - or, more directly, it is a denial of reality.

Mass deaths? Get a grip.

Loss of a few minor little species of bug or whatever? Here's a shocking thought:

Big deal.

Yeah I know, it's unfortunate if some snail darter or queer little weevil goes extinct, it's bad stewardship and a loss of biological "capital." It's to be avoided - but not at any cost. So let's get real - species come and go all the time on this planet, and these tiny little marginal reductions are meaningless in the big scheme of things (a few hundred million years from now the sun will expand and turn this entire rock in a cinder anyway). Meanikngless unless your religion worships the snail darter, that is - and that's your problem then.

Hey J - given your concern about depletion and the enviro impact of oil extraction, you're going to become a crusader for nuclear power, right? Or are you one of those who's only energy "recommendation" is "Stop! Stop! Stop! No! No! No!" You know, the people who either out of ignorance or cynical dishonesty insist that we can sustain our population and the comforts, conveniences and broadened horizons industrial civiliation provides on cute little boutique windmills, solar cells and "biofuels?"

You want to see "mass death?" Just knock the energy underpinnings out from under industrial civilization.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Ok, I have a really stupid question -

Friday the New York Stock Exchange took a 400 point dump. According to the pundits it was because of "frenzied buying" of oil futures.

Oil futures are not sold on the NYSE. They are sold on the New York Merchantile Exchange (different deal). So...?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

... while the humans starve to death in the dark and the cold.

Brilliant.

At the rate we're going, we're going to face that reality regardless. Except if we go your way, we'll never get back out of that hole.

Until government gets its paws out of commerce we will continue to have scarcity at ruinous costs.

That's not an example of how evil or incompetent Government is - that's an example of how incompetent management is.

Government runs a lot of things in this country just fine. Which is why we have Government-maintained roads and many Government public utilities in the country that run just fine, and it is why people do not want to get rid of PUCs or bring in more toll roads.

And why don't you show us an example of a modern nation that survives without the Government being involved in commerce? Your argument that the absence of Government in commerce would make for a world better than what we have in America now. You have no case history to back you up on that, only theory. And please, I beg you, bring up Hong Kong. Please.

Mass deaths? Get a grip.

Loss of a few minor little species of bug or whatever? Here's a shocking thought:

Big deal.

And that's why your ideology is losing office. Thank you for making my point. I'd love for you to say that on television - then Obama would thank you, too.

Yeah I know, it's unfortunate if some snail darter or queer little weevil goes extinct, it's bad stewardship and a loss of biological "capital." It's to be avoided - but not at any cost. So let's get real - species come and go all the time on this planet, and these tiny little marginal reductions are meaningless in the big scheme of things (a few hundred million years from now the sun will expand and turn this entire rock in a cinder anyway). Meanikngless unless your religion worships the snail darter, that is - and that's your problem then.

Gotta love ignorance of this magnitude.

Hey J - given your concern about depletion and the enviro impact of oil extraction, you're going to become a crusader for nuclear power, right? Or are you one of those who's only energy "recommendation" is "Stop! Stop! Stop! No! No! No!" You know, the people who either out of ignorance or cynical dishonesty insist that we can sustain our population and the comforts, conveniences and broadened horizons industrial civiliation provides on cute little boutique windmills, solar cells and "biofuels?"

You want to see "mass death?" Just knock the energy underpinnings out from under industrial civilization.

Excuse me, but I have repeatedly come out in support of nuclear power, as has the guy behind the Gaia theory. We can put up a huge solar infrastructure far faster than that, to give us a daytime demand boost before more nukes come online.

 

[Handprints]

Ok, I have a really stupid question -

Friday the New York Stock Exchange took a 400 point dump. According to the pundits it was because of "frenzied buying" of oil futures.

Oil futures are not sold on the NYSE. They are sold on the New York Merchantile Exchange (different deal). So...?

In the short run (ie months), rising oil prices are inflationary: they add to the costs of things. In the long run rising oil prices are deflationary: they make companies/people decide not to do/buy things because the costs of energy makes them more expensive. The NYSE is a very fast-acting voting mechanism for whether or not companies will grow fast, slow or somewhere in between. When oil futures took off, that proved the possibility that oil prices could go a lot higher, a lot faster, than most people thought was likely. As result, stock investors decided that the chances of NYSE companies growing fast (or even slowly) were worse than they thought and sold off some of their holdings, driving the stock index down.

Hope that's of use,
H

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I don't disagree. We should do everything possible to reduce our dependence on oil (including using nuclear power to offset our current wasteful methods of generating electricity). However, we have an oil based economy. You're not just talking about people not being able to cruise main street. Everything we transport (home and abroad) uses gas and diesel (along with electricity). We are already seeing price increases on food and goods that is going to make it really tough on the poor and middle class, and it's just going to get worse (it will also hurt the poor in other countries we ship to). In the meantime, it's not like we're stopping our oil purchases, so saying we shouldn't drill because it'll hurt the environment is intellectually dishonest (because we're still buying it from sources that are far more damaging than ours would be). In addition, we're hurting the value of our dollar, and contributing to the economic problems we're having right now.

Those are indeed the real consequences of our energy policy, and I believe we should ONLY subsidize fuel for food transportation fuel costs and maybe related things. Haulers carrying food should have a manifest and list the percentage of food in their cargo. Ding. Take a proportion of that % off their price of diesel. Say if it's 100% food they're hauling, take 50% off. ONLY for food. People seriously need to eat, so I think voters can swallow this idea.

I'm not sure if the sources we're buying oil from are more damaging than ours would be. Processing domestic oil shale is as damaging as drilling for light sweet crude and it affects us directly, right in our own ground and right over our own skies. This will be added to the damage that is being done in Canada's sands, and the refineries in the Middle East. They won't magically start doing less damage. We'll only have added more damage to the environment in the end.

If we drill here for more oil and you can show, in that scenario, that the other nations will start doing less damage, then I could START to agree on that part - otherwise, I would just as soon ride this out until electric cars start trickling back onto the roads. I'd go so far as to mandate the end of production of gasoline powered cars (so the poor would not have to turn in their gasoline cars right this instant) and give steep tax breaks for the purchase of electric cars, and help pay for it by killing the oil industry tax breaks. Consumer spending, freed by the lack of gasoline bills, will take care of a hefty amount of the rest.

Of course then we have another big problem: how to fund the roads without a gas tax?

It's not a matter of, "They're doing it, so why shouldn't we?" It's a matter of, "If we're going to use it, then we should control as much of it as possible to limit the economic and environmental costs". As I said, it's hypocritical to use the oil, but pretend it's not as harmful because we're not drilling for it in our backyard.

I see it as a matter of, "If we drill more, and they drill, where are we actually reducing the harm being done?"

I will clarify (in bold print next time, if I have to): I am not saying it's not harmful, no way no how, just because we're not drilling in our own back yard. Whoever says that is spewing rubbish. It is harmful. I do feel that it is more harmful if we start drilling more in our back yard.

IMO, this oil crisis is what we need to facilitate the inevitable end of gasoline powered cars. We need it to end, soon, even if it has to be dragged down kicking and screaming, and what better way for it to end than by the very corrupt market that gave it birth?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

In the short run (ie months), rising oil prices are inflationary: they add to the costs of things. In the long run rising oil prices are deflationary: they make companies/people decide not to do/buy things because the costs of energy makes them more expensive. The NYSE is a very fast-acting voting mechanism for whether or not companies will grow fast, slow or somewhere in between. When oil futures took off, that proved the possibility that oil prices could go a lot higher, a lot faster, than most people thought was likely. As result, stock investors decided that the chances of NYSE companies growing fast (or even slowly) were worse than they thought and sold off some of their holdings, driving the stock index down.

Hope that's of use,
H

I've got a little note for ya with regards to futures trading and the irrelevance of buyers-in to the price.

Oil is going back down slightly right now because investors are selling off. Does that not run contrary to the temperature-betting analogy? "Profit taking" was the word that made me take notice.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080609/oil_prices.html

Now note, I'm just a country bumpkin when it comes to issues about oil. But I have a good ear and eye for when things don't add up right, and here, it doesn't look like things add up right.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

HEY PEE WEE

The worst kept secret on the planet is: Flunkeys are the government. Everyone above flunkey is a political patronage parasite. They dont make widgets, they dont serve meals on wheels, they dont point guns at anybody. Every political system in the universe is identical in this way.

Napoleon said that London was where he wanted to go, but the army went to Moscow because he had the money they needed to go anywhere. Robert E.Lee made the same complaint about Gettysburg, it was not where he wanted to fight. Great commanders dont let the rear echelon mother fuckers make such decisions very often, because the outcome is always the same. Stalin had the same problem. Roosevelt didnt. Roosevelt prevailed because he unleased the creativity and enthusiasm of ordinary people.

Wherever Roosevelt had a problem he collected the best & brightest and gave them the problem to solve. And they did. His attitude about polar bears and owls and such was: Lets solve the immediate problem now and fix the goddamn animals tomorrow.

But thats exactly where we are as a society. We have no great leaders and the flunkeys are calling the tune. Obama and Dubya and McCain are hand puppets for the special interests. Society would be better off to stop sending money to Washington, and do the work itself.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PEEWEE The global economy is headed out our ass into the crapper, is where its going. Oil speculators know it. All the big companies are moving to dipshit countries like Vietnam and Africa because the labor costs are much less than China and India, if thats possible.

I mean, the Chinks and Wogs want cars! The thought never occurs to a Gook.

The Gooks will fuck up half of what they make, but so what? They get paid in dog turds. They'll harness a Gook to a turnstile and he'll think he died and went to paradise....because he now has a fat turd with his rice.

 

[JagFarlane]

I've got a little note for ya with regards to futures trading and the irrelevance of buyers-in to the price.

Oil is going back down slightly right now because investors are selling off. Does that not run contrary to the temperature-betting analogy? "Profit taking" was the word that made me take notice.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080609/oil_prices.html

Now note, I'm just a country bumpkin when it comes to issues about oil. But I have a good ear and eye for when things don't add up right, and here, it doesn't look like things add up right.

Ok there are a lot of factors that go into the price of oil. Not only do you have the supply vs demand, but recession, and the weak dollar.
First, we have supply vs demand. Supply has not gone up in the past couple of years, while worldwide demand is increasing by developing countries. A lot of these countries have subsidies for their fuel, China, India, Venezuela, and Indonesia just to name a couple. They want their economies to grow, and thus subsidize fuel prices in order to attempt to do this. So, their people don't feel the pain at the pump, yet...however a lot of these countries are now working in plans to try to wean their people off of cheap gas.
Now, the economy is in a recession, so typically what happens during that time is stockholders sell off and head into commodities. This is very normal, and if you follow the trends, clear to see. Now, add into that fact that now you have 401K funds...large chunks of money that the managers have at their disposal. The managers primary task is, of course, to make money for that 401K, so they are going to follow this and shift the money into commodities. So, not only do you have the typical shifting of funds, but now the extra money from larger and larger 401K funds being shifted.
The dollar is weak, all research points to that. There used to be a time where you could go to Canada with a dollar and buy things on the cheap, this is no more as the Canadian dollar has, gasp, been on par or worth more. This is true with the dollar vs the euro, the pound, and the yen. Oil is traded worldwide in dollars, so when the dollar is weak, say the euro has more buying power. The dollar can be finicky, last week it was gaining, till the European Central Bank mentioned possibly raising its rates, which cause the dollar to drop. The US Treasury has made a stance to no longer lower rates, which caused it to rise slightly, and should rise again, if the rumors of raising rates at the end of the year come true.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JAG

A weak dollar is good for American exports and tourists coming here. I suspect that a large part of the problem is American oil. We still pump a lot of oil. When the dollar crashed because of the real estate markets, I imagine a lot of speculators jumped on top of American oil futures to make a short term killing.

But a weak dollar should help our sales of timber, cattle, grain, aircraft, military stuff, and Britney CDs.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

And that's why your ideology is losing office. Thank you for making my point. I'd love for you to say that on television - then Obama would thank you, too.


Gotta love ignorance of this magnitude.


Excuse me, but I have repeatedly come out in support of nuclear power, as has the guy behind the Gaia theory. We can put up a huge solar infrastructure far faster than that, to give us a daytime demand boost before more nukes come online.

My apologies on the nuke crack. As for the rest, all's fair in contentious debate (within the bounds of civility - you and I are "throwing elbows," not being uncivil.) BTW, I'm not ignorant, I just disagree with you. I'm actually very well informed, but there's no reason for you to know that (although one should not presume otherwise).

As for "my ideology losing elections," a point is coming when middle class voters connect the dots between, shortages, massive price hikes and chipping away at their standard of living, and the green orthodoxy that is causing those things to happen. Then we'll see who loses elections.