Oil Drops Sharply As Gas Plummets

[700UW]

Feds Expect Fuel Prices to Climb Higher

WASHINGTON - There's pump shock at every corner gas station, with prices well over $2 a gallon and still rising. And the government says you better get used to it. The Energy Department projects high gasoline prices and $50-plus crude oil at least through next year as producers struggle to keep up with demand

Prices to Climb

 

[a320av8r]

Even with oil prices at an all time high, W. is filling the stratergic reserves. This alone is helping to keep the prices high, not to mention lining the pockets of his oil buddies.
I know- lets invade a small middle eastern dictatorship. The people will love us for it. We'll get $20 barrel oil and the revenues can rebuild they're country. The defense contractors (Texans) will get a boost from new weapons (besides boeing's 767 tankers) and Dickie will get the servicing contracts.

h34r:

 

[aafsc]

Even with oil prices at an all time high, W. is filling the stratergic reserves. This alone is helping to keep the prices high, not to mention lining the pockets of his oil buddies.
I know- lets invade a small middle eastern dictatorship. The people will love us for it. We'll get $20 barrel oil and the revenues can rebuild they're country. The defense contractors (Texans) will get a boost from new weapons (besides boeing's 767 tankers) and Dickie will get the servicing contracts.

h34r:

[post="261185"][/post]​

You are right. They are feeding from the public trough.

 

[Busdrvr]

OK, a little background for the conspiracy crowd.

In the 70's the idiot oil Shieks decided they'd restrict supply. Oil prices went up. People bought crappy little cars, and the smellies (french) transitioned most of it's power generation to Nukes, and oil exploration BOOMED. By the mid 80's, Saudi oil production was roughly 1/3 of the level it was anbout 5 years earlier, and the price was approx 1/3. the lesson? It pay's to keep oil cheap and plentiful. With cheap and pletiful oil, a very stupid political hack with the last name of Cuomo, dismanteled a brand spanking new nuke plant in NY and replaced that power generation with OIL. One of the head idiots that lobbied for the closure was one of the "green" party presidential candidates. Real bright, shut down a nuke plant (the newest one in the nation) so that you can burn oil....

Fast forward to the late 90's. the asian economy is collapsing. the oil markets, despite the best efforts of opec, find themselves with a glut. Instead of filling the SPR and keeping prices STABLE, our government chose to give consumers what they wanted, oil at $10 a barrel. Who cares about the future right? Well $10 oil is too cheap to encourage drilling. Why would you spend $15 a barrel for tough to get oil when it sells for $10? the effect? A large number of little guys (the "wildcatters) went belly up. Oil exploration became concentrated in the hands of a few large oil companies. then when oil started up in 2000, our wise government, instead of supporting exploration, chose a short term solution. There is a FINITE amount of oil in the SPR. Do you think the Saudis know that? do you think they know that if we start pumping out 5 million a day, opec merely needs to cut back by 5 million a day and prices stay the same? Oh, and the SPR gets depleted at the same time... Real bright.

What's the current administrations "energy plan"?
1. Encourage more nuke plants (Kerry was opposed)
2. Encourage construction of more Refineries (How's the left feel about that?)
3. Expand natural gas use
4. Expand coal use
5. alt fuels research.

What is it you want? I think I know, most of you want to be able to tell ME what I should drive.

 

[a320av8r]

Let the oil companies merge.
Mobile/Exxon, BP/Amoco, Chevron/Texaco,etc. All since W. took office.
After all, they paid for the Office of the President.

 

[Busdrvr]

I say let the oil companies merge. No problem with competition, there is none.
Mobile/Exxon, BP/Amoco, Chevron/Texaco,etc. All since W. took office.

[post="261188"][/post]​

So when is it you think those mergers started?

I'm all for competition. It's a shame the government stood back and watched so many wildcatters go under. But then again, thems oil boys. That's got to be worth quite a few feathers for lib to put a few out of business .

You want cheaper oil? Build nuke powerplants
Cheaper gas? Make it easier to build new refineries
Cheaper oil? encourage exploration (wouldn't want "handouts" for them oil companies if they agree to exploration right.. )
Cheaper oil? Open up ANWR
Cheaper oil? proceed with plans for LNG terminals.
Cheaper oil? Don't waste finite resources building "feel good" projects like windfarms, use it for proven technology that doesn't quit producing on hot calm wind summer days.

You want expensive oil? Deplete the SPR
Expensive gas? make it virtually impossible to build new refineries
Expensive oil? "protect" our barran wastelands like ANWR.
Expensive oil? Dismantle nuke plants and replace them with oil fired ones.
Expensive oil? Allow the middle east to continue on it's previous anti-USA path.
Expensive oil? Allow despots like Chavez to stay in power.
Expensive oil? Put all you eggs in the "conservation" basket. Make life a living 55 MPH he11 in an unairconditioned Yugo, just so the middle east can just lower output and keep prices high anyway (with there growing market share)

 

[delldude]

suddenly when oil skyrockets the dem's are left with egg on their faces.....public opinion wants cheap oil...ANWR looks like a good deal....don't tell me what i can't drive.....open offshore, build more refineries.....there will be more jobs,lower economic shock.they cater to the greens and now they're falling apart.....howard dean will save them...yeah,right.i

 

[aafsc]

OK, a little background for the conspiracy crowd.

In the 70's the idiot oil Shieks decided they'd restrict supply. Oil prices went up. People bought crappy little cars, and the smellies (french) transitioned most of it's power generation to Nukes, and oil exploration BOOMED. By the mid 80's, Saudi oil production was roughly 1/3 of the level it was anbout 5 years earlier, and the price was approx 1/3. the lesson? It pay's to keep oil cheap and plentiful. With cheap and pletiful oil, a very stupid political hack with the last name of Cuomo, dismanteled a brand spanking new nuke plant in NY and replaced that power generation with OIL. One of the head idiots that lobbied for the closure was one of the "green" party presidential candidates. Real bright, shut down a nuke plant (the newest one in the nation) so that you can burn oil....

Fast forward to the late 90's. the asian economy is collapsing. the oil markets, despite the best efforts of opec, find themselves with a glut. Instead of filling the SPR and keeping prices STABLE, our government chose to give consumers what they wanted, oil at $10 a barrel. Who cares about the future right? Well $10 oil is too cheap to encourage drilling. Why would you spend $15 a barrel for tough to get oil when it sells for $10? the effect? A large number of little guys (the "wildcatters) went belly up. Oil exploration became concentrated in the hands of a few large oil companies. then when oil started up in 2000, our wise government, instead of supporting exploration, chose a short term solution. There is a FINITE amount of oil in the SPR. Do you think the Saudis know that? do you think they know that if we start pumping out 5 million a day, opec merely needs to cut back by 5 million a day and prices stay the same? Oh, and the SPR gets depleted at the same time... Real bright.

What's the current administrations "energy plan"?
1. Encourage more nuke plants (Kerry was opposed)
2. Encourage construction of more Refineries (How's the left feel about that?)
3. Expand natural gas use
4. Expand coal use
5. alt fuels research.

What is it you want? I think I know, most of you want to be able to tell ME what I should drive.

[post="261187"][/post]​

No, I don't want to tell you what to drive. However, someone's son/daughter has to fight and die or get seriously injured in order for you, me, and everyone else here to drive our vehicles. If they would have been serious about weening this country off foreign oil after the first Arab oil embargo, we would be much better off today. Of course, the oil families will never allow it. I agree with you that we should increase nuclear power (build the plants in the middle of nowhere so no one will complain), increase the use of hydrgen, etc. They could use the electricity of the nuclear plants to just make hydrogen in mass by electrolysis and then ship the hydrogen around the country. This is just one idea. The point is to make this country self-sufficient. Isn't that afterall what the republicans preach to the "little people"? If we were self sufficient, we would not have to deal at all with other countries, especially the Arabs. And we could keep our troops at home. I believe that the technology to rid us of oil exists but that they (those who make great fortunes with oil) will not permit it to be revealed. Also, mass transit could have been developed better since the early 70's in all our large cities. Of course, only a few large cities in this country have a half way decent mass transit system. If they would have had a national plan to fund the large and medium size cities in the 1970s, imagine how much less oil we would be using today.

 

[Busdrvr]

However, someone's son/daughter has to fight and die or get seriously injured in order for you, me, and everyone else here to drive our vehicles.

You mean someone like me? but understand this. Saudi Arabia will ALWAYS be the big producer (except brief periods of time when they are flexing their cartel muscles). Why? They got the cheapest to pump oil they make a "profit" at $2 a a barrel at the well head. If we ALL drove Yugos, guess what, THEY'D HAVE AN EVEN BIGGER SHARE of the market.

I agree with you that we should increase nuclear power (build the plants in the middle of nowhere so no one will complain),

I'd live within a mile of one.

They could use the electricity of the nuclear plants to just make hydrogen in mass by electrolysis and then ship the hydrogen around the country.

actually Hydrogen still takes up too much space per BTU to be practical in cars. A better idea is to do coal gasification and liquification to produce Methane and Methanol. Methanol can then be used with a lye catalyst to convert veggie oil into diesel, or it can be burned as fuel by itself (like in race cars). Still less btu's per gallon than Gas (used as racing fuel because high oxy content allows Fuel air mixtures much higher than the 14.7/1 of gasoline.

The point is to make this country self-sufficient. Isn't that afterall what the republicans preach to the "little people"?

Have you been ignoring the news? The republicans are PRO NUCLEAR POWER. The dems are ANTI-NUCLEAR power. The republicans are FOR development of DOMESTIC petroleum resources, the dems are ANTI-DEVELOPMENT of domestic petroleum resources.

I believe that the technology to rid us of oil exists but that they (those who make great fortunes with oil) will not permit it to be revealed.

What like the 150 MPG carb? It doesn't exist. It's called thermodynamic efficiency, and our current cars do quite well. But refer to my previous statement. It costs $2 to get a barrel of oil out of the ground in Saudi Arabia. Let's say I have a technology that will produce oil, as much as you can burn, for $40 a barrel with half that amount comming as up front fixed costs. You in? What happens then when the Saudis can pump oil for cheaper than we can produce it and undercut us to say $21 a barrel (we'd still produce since MR>MC, but you lose you're investment). What happens if oil then goes to $19 a barrel? We could always require U.S. citizens to only use "Busdrvr's miracle oil" @ $40 a barrel. Do you think the chinese would go along? Or do you think they'd buy the cheaper Saudi oil? How would U.S. workers compete if energy costs in China were then much cheaper than here? Sounds simple, but it isn't.

Also, mass transit could have been developed better since the early 70's in all our large cities. Of course, only a few large cities in this country have a half way decent mass transit system. If they would have had a national plan to fund the large and medium size cities in the 1970s, imagine how much less oil we would be using today.

What percent of oil is used by people living in our largest cities who decide they like driving? This isn't Europe. My wife doesn't walk from our tiny little apartment in our tiny little village to the local bakery to buy bread daily. She drives to the Supermarket and gets a Yukon XL full. When I go to work, I don't jump on the little train. It would be kind of silly to send one out to get me, and the extra hour a day in commute time I'd have IF I were lucky enough to not have to wait for the little train, and assume it travels an average speed of 30 MPH (including the obvious connnection time and stops for others) is not worth the "savings. I burn 3-4 gallons a day going to work and back. That's $10 max. - the cost of my "train ride". How much is YOUR time worth? We are spread out MUCH more than the Euro's. That's the way it is. Then again, that's one of the things that make this country great.

 

[bookmdano]

Well, that's good news, but it will only be great news if it gets back into the low 40's again...

Fingers crossed

[post="261129"][/post]​

Don't get so exited that you wet the paper until you've read the fine print.

 

[700UW]

Bush and Oil

 

[FM2436]

George W Bush does not have any influence over the oil companies.In case you didn't notice the prices started going up before last year's election.

Old fashioned greed is what is driving the oil prices and the Arab sheiks and U.S. oil companies are just trying to find out where the price tolerance threshold is and then keep the prices at that level.

If I owned an Oil Company I would increase the price until people stopped buying the gasoline then lower the price until my market share returned and keep it at that level.It is just business and not politics.

[post="261173"][/post]​

One name is really all that's needed to explain the rising demand in oil...CHINA.

In the April 2005 issue of Air Transport World (page 9), there's a brief article about how China has overtaken Japan as the largest air market in Asia in terms of scheduled departing seats. China's form of communist capitalism is exploding and, as I've read, in the next 20-years China's economy could surpass the USA as the world's leading economic superpower.

 

[a320av8r]

As it should since Wal-Mart is their 7th largest trading partner, eclipsing other nations.
You can't buy American made goods anymore since everything has been outsourced.
The last thing I bought that was made in America is my Honda. Isn't that ironic!

 

[Busdrvr]

Remember 15-20 years ago when everything was "made in Japan" and we absolutely couldn't compete? Japan was on it's way to being the world most powerful economy. They had "TQM", "six Sigma" and other buzzwords, along with lifetime employment. Remind me again how that turned out?

FWIW, I think the EU is the worlds largest economy, but with slow growth/high unemployment, we'll catch them soon....

 

[JS]

However, someone's son/daughter has to fight and die or get seriously injured in order for you, me, and everyone else here to drive our vehicles.

You mean someone like me? but understand this. Saudi Arabia will ALWAYS be the big producer (except brief periods of time when they are flexing their cartel muscles). Why? They got the cheapest to pump oil they make a "profit" at $2 a a barrel at the well head. If we ALL drove Yugos, guess what, THEY'D HAVE AN EVEN BIGGER SHARE of the market.

No, if we burn less fuel, the Saudi's market share will drop. The only reason we buy oil from them is because we don't produce enough ourselves. If we consume less, that will result in less oil that needs to be imported.

...

Also, mass transit could have been developed better since the early 70's in all our large cities. Of course, only a few large cities in this country have a half way decent mass transit system. If they would have had a national plan to fund the large and medium size cities in the 1970s, imagine how much less oil we would be using today.

What percent of oil is used by people living in our largest cities who decide they like driving? This isn't Europe. My wife doesn't walk from our tiny little apartment in our tiny little village to the local bakery to buy bread daily. She drives to the Supermarket and gets a Yukon XL full. When I go to work, I don't jump on the little train. It would be kind of silly to send one out to get me, and the extra hour a day in commute time I'd have IF I were lucky enough to not have to wait for the little train, and assume it travels an average speed of 30 MPH (including the obvious connnection time and stops for others) is not worth the "savings. I burn 3-4 gallons a day going to work and back. That's $10 max. - the cost of my "train ride". How much is YOUR time worth? We are spread out MUCH more than the Euro's. That's the way it is. Then again, that's one of the things that make this country great.

[post="261208"][/post]​

News flash -- Busdrvr is not the only person in the world. No, you don't HAVE to use mass transit. The point is to make it available and useful, and more people will use it. Not only will oil consumption drop, but traffic congestion will lessen so that your wife can drive the Yukon with the two bags of groceries unhindered.