| Author |
Message |
    
Aesquire
| | Posted on Friday, March 02, 2012 - 02:44 pm: | 
|
An increase of 5% production would not affect prices? Really? Wanna buy a Bridge?
One reason oil & gas are so high is the lack of US production.
More than that is the expectation that this US admin will drive the price up, on purpose, as they have stated.
AND, the rhetoric from a nuclear? Iran to screw the planet to save the jobs of a few evil men.
So we get to the "futures market". Where those who make a living buying and selling look at the rhetoric of Barrack Hussien Obama on both energy and foreign policy, come to a conclusion that prices will rise, and bet that way...and they do.
IF ( as happened last admin. ) the President had announced that we were going to "drill baby drill" and exploit our own resources, the price would fall, months and years before any actual drilling and pipe laying takes place. Because that would indicate more supply, ( and 5% is a lot ) and lower prices in the future, so the folk who buy & sell this stuff would sell to pull a quick profit, buy some back when the price plummets, ( next day, next week... ) and use the profit to buy Orange juice. Or Kiwi Fruit. Or Greek Bonds.......
That has happened before, and may happen again, if, ( for example ) Newt wins the nomination and looks like he's going to win, and makes the "we gonna drill, baby drill!" announcement. Or Barack could do it, tomorrow, but fewer would believe him.
So, what is the real level of inflation?
8%?
28%?
108%?
Who do you believe? A politician who takes massive bribes, or your pocket when you buy groceries? |
Sifo
| | Posted on Friday, March 02, 2012 - 02:51 pm: |
|
When you have a near monopoly (OPEC) setting oil prices, it doesn't take much supply at lower prices to get them to drop the price drastically. Artificially high prices can't exist where you provide competition. |
Aussie2126
| | Posted on Friday, March 02, 2012 - 03:46 pm: |
|
Or in another scenario...
U.S. production could be negated by decisions that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries makes, said Philip Verleger Jr., energy economist, and David Mitchell EnCana, professor of management, at the University of Calgary's business school.
"Suppose the U.S. were to boost production 1 million barrels a day," Verleger said. "OPEC has the capacity to cut 1 million barrels."
The oil industry has been able to convince people there is a connection between U.S. drilling and prices, Verleger said. [Greenwire via NYTimes.com, 1/4/11]
It's not like OPEC is paying their monthly rent with the money ...quite often they cut production to support the price. |
Aussie2126
| | Posted on Friday, March 02, 2012 - 03:58 pm: |
|
Here are the annual totals, in barrels produced, going back to 2003:
2003: 2,073,453,000
2004: 1,983,302,000
2005: 1,890,106,000
2006: 1,862,259,000
2007: 1,848,450,000
2008: 1,811,817,000
2009: 1,956,596,000
2010: 1,998,137,000
The full-year data is available only through 2010, but 10 months of data from 2011 have been made public. Through the end of October 2011, production totaled 1,713,038,000 barrels. If that pace continues, the year-end total should be around 2,055,646,000 barrels -- higher than any year since 2003. That's eight years ago, just as Obama said. [PolitiFact.com, 1/24/12]
US production HAS gone up every year since Bush left office yet the price of oil continues to skyrocket.
OPEC hasn't started shaking in their boots yet. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Friday, March 02, 2012 - 03:59 pm: |
|
They could decrease production to counter our increase. But then, we'd be keeping more money at home instead of financing their gold toilets and oppression of women. |
Aussie2126
| | Posted on Friday, March 02, 2012 - 05:51 pm: |
|
<<< An increase of 5% production would not affect prices? Really? Wanna buy a Bridge?
<<<< So....
I think they are an order of magnitude off.
Not 8%
gas is 83% more than Jan. 2009.
Note the chart above... Our production is up more than 10 percent since Jan. 2009 - what has the price done since then???
Maybe I can sell you a bridge! |
Aussie2126
| | Posted on Friday, March 02, 2012 - 05:53 pm: |
|
Hootowl,
I don't think those are the reasons that the oil companies are trying to pump more - both noble causes but we have never been concerned about those things before... |
Sifo
| | Posted on Friday, March 02, 2012 - 05:59 pm: |
|
They could decrease production to counter our increase. But then, we'd be keeping more money at home instead of financing their gold toilets and oppression of women.
Exactly!
Note the chart above... Our production is up more than 10 percent since Jan. 2009 - what has the price done since then???
You seem to be in denial of the most basic economic principals known to mankind. There are other economic factors at work too though, such as the devaluation of the dollar during that same period; AKA, quantitative easing. |
Aussie2126
| | Posted on Friday, March 02, 2012 - 07:42 pm: |
|
My point exactly -- lack of drilling did not cause this increase.
It appears that a large increase has not fixed it - so, if we just drill more...
We can't drill enough to offset the entry of China and India into the market.
Add in the devaluation, the non enforcement of speculation rules, Iran's nuclear threat, Isreal's threat to prevent it, Iran's threat to close the strait, and on and on and on.....
We can't drill enough to lower the price!!! We don't have that much oil.
We use 18.8 MBD (million barrels a day)
We produce 5.47 MBD
World demand is 87.4 MBD
We already increased our production more than ten percent since Jan 2009.
If we increase it 30% more... that would be a increase of 1.6 MBD or 1.8% added to the world supply.
Now if the Saudis and OPEC don't cut production and China and India don't ramp up demand and... That will affect the price by what percentage?
I may not understand economics...
But I do understand spitting into the wind. |
Kenm123t
| | Posted on Friday, March 02, 2012 - 07:50 pm: |
|
We can drill and get more oil we have to there is no choice. The chinese are drilling between fla and cuba and we cant. We have plenty of oil that is accessible if we get the anti oil yahoos under control. we can process fuel out of coal but O says ooo no no coal. Stop parroting the lib line.
You want more fuel simple loose the market forces Ex get oil to market safely in 12 months and you get 20 years tax free sales you ll have more oil found in north america than the known reserves in the world today. Want something to happen let people take risks and make money. |
Ninefortheroad
| | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 07:39 am: |
|
I know it is only a dream but...
If we as a whole country made the real decision and committed effort to become oil independent in a reasonable amount of time, then why couldn't we.
I say we could. That would drastically change the scenario. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 08:34 am: |
|
One popular theory is that the REAL policy is to use everyone elses oil so we have all that's left. I don't really buy that, since it implies more wisdom than I expect from D.C.
We have been "committed to become oil independent" for at least since before Carter.
We spent billions in tax dollars on coal to gas tech. ( dating from WW2 ) and the result? More dependence than ever, and accelerating. Because the Saudi's undercut the coal project. Obama doesn't like coal, and wishes to kill the industry.
We sure can't get that goal with less drilling.
Steve, you don't seem to understand the futures market. Part psychology, part rational enlightenment, 8%, and surely 18% more oil would lead to huge drops in price. See "Trading Places".
Here this will explain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4Uv4ftekaI
As relates to oil....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssfBVKrobYI&feature =related
So, what we need is a substitute for gasoline than can be produced for less than $1.50 a gallon. ( after taxes....)
We also need a substitute for oil and natural gas burning power plants. Which we could easily build, by going to safe, clean nuclear, AND building the recycling system already mandated by Congress, but stopped by folk like Harry Reid. ( that, btw, France already uses, effectively. IMHO Harry should be locked in Yucca mountain as in "Cask of Amantillado" by Poe. )
Real world, current tech can make waste disposal fairly trivial, by burning up the nastiest stuff, making power. The rest, and largest part of "nuclear waste" is contaminated booties, etc, which can be safely stored aboveground in the desert, I would suggest near the turtle bordello at Fort Irwin. There's an Armored Regiment there to protect it, ( live fire practice is always valuable ) and it would make a dandy test ground for anti-border crossing tech.
We have plenty of natural gas, but it's regional as to the pipelines and structure. Best used for home heating and chemical feed stock, not electricity production. ( which MUST increase to charge the electric cars )
Coal, you can argue about the eco- impact, which is huge, and the human cost which, since it happens to the "bitter clinger" types, is ignored until the next spectacular mine explosion and rescue on tv, then forgotten again. But coal/gasoline would be about $55 a barrel, but require guarantees of sales to get the civilian capital investment. Government can't afford that investment, since they already spent all the money on pork. For a couple of generations in the future. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 08:47 am: |
|
I don't care if that green substitute for oil is made with algae, switchgrass, or baby harp seals. It can't be made with food, Soylent Green feed stock, or other stuff that would mess up the worlds economy. Like food to alcohol does today.
I might even go with the Soylent Green feed stock as an energy source, but want to be the one to pick the raw materials, not the D's or R's. ( don't tell them but Congress and the leadership of Both parties is first on the list for conversion, then PETA, then .... ) 
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/darpa-solicita tion-can-you-replace-jp8-jet-fuel-with-a-biofuel-0 2428/
http://www.alternat1ve.com/biofuel/2006/12/23/b-52 -runs-all-eight-engines-on-fischer-tropsch-synthet ic-fuel-blend/
Pity this project was halted by the Greenies. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 09:14 am: |
|
One popular theory is that the REAL policy is to use everyone elses oil so we have all that's left. I don't really buy that, since it implies more wisdom than I expect from D.C.
I keep waiting for this strategy to come up in these discussions. This is the first time I've actually seen it. Is it really a "popular theory"? I've never heard it from anyone before, but I admit I've never searched it out either.
I have for a long time wondered if this might be a "hidden plan" from the liberals that are so staunchly against oil use. It's a pretty evil plan when you consider the implications. I've never really put it past a liberal to have such evil plans. I've also never put it past them to not be able to see that far into the implications of their policies. I just haven't made up my mind.
One big flaw in that plan is that when we are the last big source of oil on the earth, technology will find other solutions that will become economically viable. We would have effectively managed to become the masters of bronze in the iron age. Not a smart strategy anyway I see it. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 09:24 am: |
|
My point exactly -- lack of drilling did not cause this increase.
Have you ever attended an economics class? The law of supply and demand is one of the most basic principles of economics. It has 3 variables: 1) Supply, 2) Demand, and 3) Price. You are taking a very complex commodity that has many things affecting all three variables, then you examine a fraction of what is done to one variable in a vacuum and claim to be able to see a clear result. A result that goes against know economic principles BTW.
I may not understand economics...
This much you have made abundantly clear. A number of times now. |
Court
| | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 09:57 am: |
|
I understand supply and demand.
I think our over supply of collective ignorance and our lack of demand for common sense, the lost concept of accepting and exercising responsibility . . . well, just may be playing a role.
You've got an amateur driving the bus . . . . expect an entraining ride.
But . . please oh please . . . don't do anything to screw this guys' "vision of transparency" up . . . I've shorted the home team and my comfy retirement is predicated on the lazy staying both lazy and in control for a bit longer.
Having had a chance to chat with the Attorney General last week I'm confident the common quests of entitlement and lazy are in good hands.
I promise you can then have your common sense and country back. |
Macbuell
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - 12:10 pm: |
|
US production has gone up because the Bush administration awarded leases for drilling on public land during his term AND from companies drilling on private land which the government cannot prevent. It takes years for an oil well to actually start producing oil. It doesn't just happen overnight after a lease is awarded. These increases in production are due to Bush not Obama. Obama has done everything in his power to obstruct domestic oil production. They have not allowed drilling on public land and recently denied a pipeline from Canada to cross the US border even though it would have delivered millions of gallons of oil and created thousands of jobs.
Quit drinking the Obama kool aid. He is fully against domestic oil exploration and this is fully know and understandable when you realize he needs and wants the support of the environmentalist voters. He's talking out of both sides of his mouth, LIKE HE ALWAYS DOES. Painting him as someone who is for domestic oil exploration and production is just flat out stupid. |
Johnnymceldoo
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - 02:31 pm: |
|
Inflation, gas prices, soaring health insurance costs, Iran, stagnant economy...the issue I care about most as a blue collar "99%er" is weather or not a young political activist college student is able to get her birth control paid for by her catholic college. |
|
