jfuh

Lies don't get anymore obvious in this. No one here has said that supply and demand do not effect prices.
You sir are a liar - a very bad one at that.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

obvious Child

I was just pointing out that other fuel sources are marginally more useful in the terms of energy it takes to make then you get from it. Changing low grade shale oil into higher grade octane may be one of theses, which would result in even more imports of oil. Not good.

What's the data for cracking low grade shale oil?

So? They have a nationalized company that can control prices. Hence why their gas prices are cheap. However, look at their core inflation + unemployment. Yikes. As I argued before, the only way we can seriously reduce prices quickly is to nationalize our oil and enact price ceilings. I believe that Britain is largely self sufficient in terms of hydrocarbons and their prices are through the roof. The whole international commodity market concept is generally lost on most people.

State Oil. That's what you get.

True, but even then our prices would still be set by international markets. Meaning, if Iran goes ape-**** we'd still feel the pain. True, a lesser pain, but pain nonetheless. I can't figure out why people seem to think that being self sufficient makes us immune to the ebb and flow of commodities in a free market. Hell even in closed markets there is black markets that drive prices up.

True, however those two nations are the two who have seen the largest rise in consumption. When India and China haven't added 25% to their consumption, the rest of the world to account for the drastic rise in prices would have to be consuming HUGE amounts more then they were four years ago. That simply doesn't make realistic sense.

Oil Consumption Continues Slow Growth | Worldwatch Institute

World oil consumption is rising between 1~2% annually. That does NOT account for the ridiculous price increases. The US hasn't changed its oil consumption rates in three years.

In 2007 oil went from $50 to $100. ONE YEAR where the consumption rise was a mere 1% more then the year before. S/D cannot account for the doubling. Meanwhile the dollar is steadily declining.

__________________
"Typically, liquidity is called, "profit" - Apdst

Sir Loin

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh Hyperbole doesn't help your case. Please then it should be very simple of you to cite this. You are making the claim, I'm simply asking for your proof - you know, the whole mess with burden of proof and all.

Actually we both know that there are thousands of pending lawsuits by environmental groups stopping drilling from occurring upon oil leases. If you want to quibble about exactly how many thousands, go right ahead. I’m taking the word of the “expert” guest on CNN. As the other two "expert" guest did not dispute his numbers, I'm gonna pass on that humdinger of an argument you are offering. Feel free to crow FAIL at me with a bullhorn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh But let's just say that it is indeed that the "environmentalist whack jobs" are the ones who are stopping the drilling in already approved and already leased land to drillers.Than by the same logic opening up drilling of off shore would be just as fruitless. Those powerful "environmentalist whack jobs" would just as much hault drilling there as well to which millions of tax payer money to re-open and re-legislate on the whole matter would've been an utter waste of money and time - more importantly we still wouldn't see a single drop.

Be they brought by well intentioned environmentalist or the whack job variety, I did not claim the reason that drilling is not occurring on every lease is because of same. One component of any honest answer to the question, is that there are court injunctions and pending court cases. Thousand of them. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.

jfuh

I don't disagree, because in the end you're still reliant on the very resource that gets you into this mess and there simply won't be a change in the utilization of that resource unless there is market drive.

I don't follow what you're asking for.

Their core inflation and unemployment are not the result of their fuel prices. It was given as an example of how being completely self sufficient can result in the decrease of price.
Well for GB they artificially impose hardcore taxes on their gas thus the "through the roof" prices.
The only way that we can really reduce energy costs are through reducing our consumption of (more efficient means) and switching to something that is not a limited resource. There's just no way of getting around that.

Eh

We consume 1/4 of the worlds energy - becoming self sufficient would mean that we now have a 0 consumption of what is generated outside of our own nation. Those billions of barrels that go to us are now international. The international price of oil would plummet dramatically. Of course then OPEC would most certainly decrease production so as to decrease supply and balance out the demand to drive prices back.
But here's the bottom line. Most of our reserves are uneconomical to tap unless the price of oil is high - as it is now and beyond so really a catch 22.

25% increase? How do you figure? From your source it states that China's demand increased 5.5% didn't see a figure for India. But how would that combine to 25%?

It has just not considerably more.

Demand rise of 1% from what many believe to have been a maxed production that occured in 2005. From your source. The demand has grown but the supply has actually decreased.
2005 vs 2007 : 73.8 to 73.2 Mbarrels/day

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

jfuh

I cited two sources one an "expert" from CNN as well that said the law suits had nothing to do with it. I honestly don't understand how it's so difficult to produce but a single source to support your premise.

To pretend that oil companies are ecstatic of high oil prices raking in record profits and sitting around not doing anything about various leases they already have and not doing anything about them IS dishonest.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

Navy Pride

bvious Child
Educator



Join Date: Apr 2008
Last Online: Today 05:07 PM
Location: Land of the Anti-Stupid
Posts: 1,141
Thanks: 32
Thanked 165 Times in 119 Posts

Re: Bush trumps Congress; Moves first on drilling

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navy Pride
I said its called the law of supply and demand.......The reason oil prices are high now is because the Arabs have cut production and there is not enough oil to go around..........If we have our own source of supply for oil that would never be a problem.........

Wrong again. (are you ever right on anything regarding this subject?)

The primary cause of the rise in oil prices is due to a weak dollar. This in turn drives inflation causing financial institutions to hedge their money, aka, they buy oil to protect against inflation driving prices up.

So if you want cheap gasoline, get Uncle George and Uncle Ben to appreciate the dollar.

There is plenty oil to go around. Ignoring Donaldsutherland's numerous posts about this doesn't make you right.


I felt sorry for you so I got the quote from OC that proves my point.........You can apologize any time now...............

__________________
FOR THE LIKES OF LIBERALS LIKE KERRY AND DURBIN:

"IF YOU CAN'T STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS FEEL FREE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM."

Sir Loin

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh I cited two sources one an "expert" from CNN as well that said the law suits had nothing to do with it. I honestly don't understand how it's so difficult to produce but a single source to support your premise.

Actually I see now where you were going before. It looks to me like you are right; I can't find a single instance of a lease already paid for that has been stopped by a lawsuit. Either the “expert” was wrong or I seriously mangled his comments. Probably the latter. Oy veh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh To pretend that oil companies are ecstatic of high oil prices raking in record profits and sitting around not doing anything about various leases they already have and not doing anything about them IS dishonest.

I’ve had this bookmarked for a while; I found it fairly interesting as it deals with the claims about the oil companies “hoarding” their oil leases.
Institute for Energy Research Blog Archive Issue Focus: Oil and Gas Leasing on Federal Lands

obvious Child

Essentially if the energy cost to change low grade shale oil into gasoline is BTU positive. It's silly if we spend more energy to create it then we get from it.

Some of it yes. Not all of it though.

Self sufficient in oil yes, hardly in anything else. The Kingdom's non-hydrocarbon exports are extremely limited.

But their oil is still priced at international rates. The oil and gas coming out of the off shore drilling rigs isn't priced any differently.

In the long run, yes. But most of the arguments lately have been around the short run.

But remember much of that is coal, gas and nuclear. Remember that the majority of oil is used for vehicles. One of the major uses in electricity is simply turning the lights on for 300 million people.

In theory yes. Again remember that much of the US production isn't light, sweet crude. The US produced a hell of a lot of heavy, sour and low grade. Not initially suitable for vehicle use. Also remember that oil, even though it has its own economics does behave like other commodities. The US is self sufficient in corn production and all our corn is priced at international levels. The era of globalization has ensured that virtually every product that can be exchanged on a market will be, and being self sufficient doesn't make you immune from price changes on the global level.

lol. To get the oil we need to be self sufficient we need high prices, which is why we're trying to be self sufficient. Better yet, let's get off oil as a fuel source and save it for oh, fertilizers and plastics.

It was just a large number. You see my point. Both India and China haven't added relative significant amounts to their consumption. India only added around 300,000 barrels. All in all, it's chump.

But the article also states that new sources have replaced it. Furthermore, the Saudis just added about 800,000 more barrels to total supply and Iraq is pumping even more. Supply hasn't radically changed either. And given the numbers, 182 million barrels where the total world consumption is over 26 billion isn't a whole lot. Enough to cause prices to increase, but hardly enough to even come close to doubling.

looking squarely at the numbers, the change in supply and demand can't account for these prices.

__________________
"Typically, liquidity is called, "profit" - Apdst

obvious Child

Way to fail navy.

You claimed that some of the lefties said that supply and demand had nothing to do with it.

You quoted me saying

Do you know what primary means?

You claimed this:

"More proof that the price of gasoline is supply and demand no matter how much the left says it isn't..............." Post 109

Nowhere in the post you quoted do I say that S/D is irrelevant. Only that there are other primary factors that effect the price far more.

Reading Comprehension. You might want to take it at your local community college.

You are still lying at this point.

__________________
"Typically, liquidity is called, "profit" - Apdst

jfuh

Without going into the credibility of the IER (whom deny global warming and are environmental as long as it does not interfere with oil drilling). There is some truth. Indeed the oil companies must surrender the lease within 10 years if they do not have a producing well. However there are ways around that. The company only needs to have a working well that does produce, but then run into "technical challenges" or "equipment malfunctions" to continue the lease. IOW they've found oil but don't care to do anything about it - it's now their reserve.
Additionally in the same that is said of the "extrapolation" which your source uses to asses the quantity of oil on federal land that is already leased but "does not neccessarily have oil" the same is said of off shore and ANWR.

Fact of the matter is that the lands which are already leased have long since already been test drilled as well as have production, but the oil companies for reasons that I can not definitively be certain of, simply are not utilizing what they already have.
Which shines a light on an even greater question. IF the land which the oil companies already lease now are non-productive (as your source seems to be eluding to). Then why are they still paying lease on it? Seems highly irrational to be paying for something that you neither need nor use. Which lends further support that they are attempting to hoard more land and stockpile reserves for thier own profit through legal jarble.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me