Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 59

Thread: Oil industry worries Libya unrest could spread

  1. #1
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,419
    Blog Entries
    12

    Oil industry worries Libya unrest could spread

    The first major protests to hit an OPEC country put the oil industry on edge Monday, sending crude prices jumping and raising speculation about the use of emergency oil reserves that have only been touched twice in two decades.

    In addition to Libya, the industry is closely watching protests in Algeria, Bahrain and Iran, the second-largest crude exporter in the OPEC behind Saudi Arabia.

    "The concerns in the market go beyond Libya," said Victor Shum, an energy analyst with Purvin & Gertz in Singapore. "It's unlikely we're going to see any meaningful disruption of oil from the Middle East or North Africa, but the spread of this unrest has raised anxieties."

    My Way News - Oil industry worries Libya unrest could spread
    No meaningful disruption, except prices jump like a jack rabbit. And who is to say the remainder of the oil producers aren't going to have their moment?

    Ugh... to our Democrat friends and their enviromaniac buddies that have held us hostage to foreign imports... can we begin to exploit our own plentiful energy sources to the fullest now?

    .
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-13 @ 08:55 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,951

    Re: Oil industry worries Libya unrest could spread

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    No meaningful disruption, except prices jump like a jack rabbit. And who is to say the remainder of the oil producers aren't going to have their moment?

    Ugh... to our Democrat friends and their enviromaniac buddies that have held us hostage to foreign imports... can we begin to exploit our own plentiful energy sources to the fullest now?

    .
    Absolutely not......the sweet and cozy life of the Arctic mouse and Tiger beetle is more important.
    .
    .
    .
    .

  3. #3
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Oil industry worries Libya unrest could spread

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    No meaningful disruption, except prices jump like a jack rabbit. And who is to say the remainder of the oil producers aren't going to have their moment?

    Ugh... to our Democrat friends and their enviromaniac buddies that have held us hostage to foreign imports... can we begin to exploit our own plentiful energy sources to the fullest now?

    If we could, we would have at some point during the last 40 years of consuming more than we could produce. Even the oil companies and the Republicans have said it is not the answer to our crisis. Remember, Bush talking about how we were addicted to oil. I got the feeling some folks are starting to jones about their future fixes

    And, its not like we didn't see it coming decades ago:

    "By January 1974, oil prices had risen from $3 to $11 per barrel. In response to the embargo, President Richard Nixon did lots of counterproductive things, including imposing oil price controls and lowering highway speed limits. Nixon also launched Project Independence, declaring, "Let this be our national goal: At the end of this decade, in the year 1980, the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving." (Automobile aside: Even before the oil embargo, in 1970, Nixon proclaimed in an environmental message to Congress: "I am inaugurating a program to marshal both government and private research with the goal of producing an unconventionally powered virtually pollution free automobile within five years.")

    President Gerald Ford moved the date for achieving American energy independence back to 1985. (Auto Aside: Ford signed the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which set federal standards for energy efficiency in new cars for the first time.)

    President Jimmy Carter made energy policy the centerpiece of his administration. He notoriously declared on April 18, 1977, that achieving energy independence was the "moral equivalent of war." In August of that year, Carter signed the law creating the United States Department of Energy, intended to manage America's energy crisis."
    Energy Independence: The Ever-Receding Mirage - Reason Magazine

    We should have continued the transition to alternative energy programs begun by Carter. Reagan scrapped all those programs and took the solar panels down off the White house. So, its kind of late now to start whining about the bed we made for ourselves, don't you think?
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  4. #4
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,360

    Re: Oil industry worries Libya unrest could spread

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    If we could, we would have at some point during the last 40 years of consuming more than we could produce. Even the oil companies and the Republicans have said it is not the answer to our crisis. Remember, Bush talking about how we were addicted to oil. I got the feeling some folks are starting to jones about their future fixes

    And, its not like we didn't see it coming decades ago:

    "By January 1974, oil prices had risen from $3 to $11 per barrel. In response to the embargo, President Richard Nixon did lots of counterproductive things, including imposing oil price controls and lowering highway speed limits. Nixon also launched Project Independence, declaring, "Let this be our national goal: At the end of this decade, in the year 1980, the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving." (Automobile aside: Even before the oil embargo, in 1970, Nixon proclaimed in an environmental message to Congress: "I am inaugurating a program to marshal both government and private research with the goal of producing an unconventionally powered virtually pollution free automobile within five years.")

    President Gerald Ford moved the date for achieving American energy independence back to 1985. (Auto Aside: Ford signed the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which set federal standards for energy efficiency in new cars for the first time.)

    President Jimmy Carter made energy policy the centerpiece of his administration. He notoriously declared on April 18, 1977, that achieving energy independence was the "moral equivalent of war." In August of that year, Carter signed the law creating the United States Department of Energy, intended to manage America's energy crisis."
    Energy Independence: The Ever-Receding Mirage - Reason Magazine

    We should have continued the transition to alternative energy programs begun by Carter. Reagan scrapped all those programs and took the solar panels down off the White house. So, its kind of late now to start whining about the bed we made for ourselves, don't you think?
    That's like saying that we're addicted to food.

    No matter how many times you post these talking points, they not going to suddenly become true.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #5
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Oil industry worries Libya unrest could spread

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    That's like saying that we're addicted to food.

    No matter how many times you post these talking points, they not going to suddenly become true.

    If you wish to keep your head in the sand and continue to be surprised each time the price of gas goes up, knock yourself out!
    Last edited by Catawba; 02-23-11 at 01:00 PM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  6. #6
    Guru
    USA_1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    BANNED
    Last Seen
    04-16-11 @ 02:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,142

    Re: Oil industry worries Libya unrest could spread

    Oil companies worried? Hardly.
    The oil companies are jumping for joy. Record profits, here they come.
    "This Administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country."" GWB

  7. #7
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-11-17 @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: Oil industry worries Libya unrest could spread

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    That's like saying that we're addicted to food.

    No matter how many times you post these talking points, they not going to suddenly become true.
    But it is true, apdst! Jimmy Carter was the last U.S. President to put forth any meaningful U.S. energy policy. IMHO, had Reagan and Congress (at the time) supported his efforts more, we would be much closer to being energy independent. But lobbyist for big oil companies came onto the scene and all such efforts were squashed. Don't believe me? Look at what happened to the electric car in the mid-80's! Saturn/GM built one of the most fuel efficient cars America had ever seen. By all accounts, it was a very good product. But then came big oil lobbyist and the rest is unfortunate history.

    This issue with light bulbs being so controversial...I say WTF are you people thinking!? It's old technology that reportedly is far less energy efficient than the new flourescent bulbs. More expensive, but last longer and uses less energy. Where's the problem? Is it the push by the fed on this issue that has so many up in arms or have studies shown incandescent bulbs to be less efficient than flourescent bulds and, as such, the government is pushing us to becoming more energy independent?

    If light bulb companies are so concerned about not being able to compete, I say they should follow the market and retool their plants to produce the kinds of light bulbs and light fixtures consumers want (or what the federal government has mandated for the betterment of the nation where energy efficiency and self-sufficiency is concerned).

    Again, I say, "WAKE UP, AMERICA!!!" I wouldn't want to live in a Communist country and I don't see this as leading to that in any way. However, I do believe that sometimes the citizens of this country needs a little "push" out of their comfort zone to see that there can be something better out their on the horizon if we stopped long enough to see what's happening around us outside our boarders. We might be strong in military might and economic foretitude, but we're starting to lag behind in technolog - technology, in some cases, we pioneered (i.e., nuclear)! That, to me, is sad.

    So, when I see fuel prices creep higher and higher due to yet another uprising in the Middle-East in less than TWO-YEARS, and our President warned us then about being complacent concerning our consumption of fossil fuels, yes, I do take a step back and say, "Are you people crazy? Do you not see the foolishing behind sticking with the status quo?" Perhaps you will when you have to push your SUV a mile down the road to the nearest gas station only to see the sign on the pump that reads, "Out of Gas"....again.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 02-23-11 at 01:36 PM.

  8. #8
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,419
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Oil industry worries Libya unrest could spread

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    If we could, we would have at some point during the last 40 years of consuming more than we could produce. Even the oil companies and the Republicans have said it is not the answer to our crisis. Remember, Bush talking about how we were addicted to oil. I got the feeling some folks are starting to jones about their future fixes

    And, its not like we didn't see it coming decades ago:

    "By January 1974, oil prices had risen from $3 to $11 per barrel. In response to the embargo, President Richard Nixon did lots of counterproductive things, including imposing oil price controls and lowering highway speed limits. Nixon also launched Project Independence, declaring, "Let this be our national goal: At the end of this decade, in the year 1980, the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving." (Automobile aside: Even before the oil embargo, in 1970, Nixon proclaimed in an environmental message to Congress: "I am inaugurating a program to marshal both government and private research with the goal of producing an unconventionally powered virtually pollution free automobile within five years.")

    President Gerald Ford moved the date for achieving American energy independence back to 1985. (Auto Aside: Ford signed the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which set federal standards for energy efficiency in new cars for the first time.)

    President Jimmy Carter made energy policy the centerpiece of his administration. He notoriously declared on April 18, 1977, that achieving energy independence was the "moral equivalent of war." In August of that year, Carter signed the law creating the United States Department of Energy, intended to manage America's energy crisis."
    Energy Independence: The Ever-Receding Mirage - Reason Magazine

    We should have continued the transition to alternative energy programs begun by Carter. Reagan scrapped all those programs and took the solar panels down off the White house. So, its kind of late now to start whining about the bed we made for ourselves, don't you think?
    You did notice I wrote "energy resources"... not oil only. Coal/shale, nuke, gas, and oil.

    You know... things Dems oppose across the board. Things we have in abundance.

    Now are you going to tell me Dems support these things? ROTFLOL...

    PS. Transition to alternative energy will not fuel industry, and when the government inserts itself the Mehikana's tortilla prices skyrocketed... food prices rise.

    As for whining... well, it's Dems that have had their foot on the brakes, and claimed it would take 10-years to get this energy online... that was 20-years ago. Way to go Dems!

    .
    Last edited by zimmer; 02-23-11 at 01:57 PM.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  9. #9
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Oil industry worries Libya unrest could spread

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    You did notice I wrote "energy resources"... not oil only. Coal/shale, nuke, gas, and oil.

    You know... things Dems oppose across the board.

    Now are you going to tell me Dems support thee things? ROTFLOL...

    .
    \

    Coal and gas, are all finite fossil fuels as well and do nothing to reduce the CO2 we are producing that is causing global warming. That would just be trading one problem for another much bigger problem. Shale is just to expensive to make oil from. The US can no longer afford to continue to think in short-term ways. That kind of short-term thinking since we passed peak oil in this country 40 years ago is what brought us to where we are today, having to fight wars to maintain our energy supplies. The longer we wait to make the transition to clean energy the harder we make it on ourselves. Nuclear has potential to be part of the solution. Obama just proposed more funding for nuclear energy than any other president in history - 8 billion dollars.

    So, we either get off the pot and start being responsible for our own energy sources, or be prepared to continue to deteriorate our economy and environment.
    Last edited by Catawba; 02-23-11 at 02:12 PM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  10. #10
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: Oil industry worries Libya unrest could spread

    "National energy policy," if one can even call the array of inconsistent and fragmented approaches pursued in the U.S. a "policy," is one defined by complacency. Calls to action ring through Washington and even modest measures are undertaken during crises. Yet, once the crises fade, policy rigor mortis sets in. There is an inherent bias against the pursuit of bold Apollo/Manhattan Project-style energy initiatives once energy prices fall back to comfortable levels. That a disproportionate share of the world's oil reserves are located in politically unstable regions and that there is a growing risk of resource nationalism has little bearing on policy considerations. Instead, relatively low prices are assumed to be natural condition (signaling no need for change/diversification of the nation's energy supply) and a situation that will persist indefinitely. Contradictory information is either filtered out or discarded. Crises are forgotten.

    Even as the first global energy crises erupted in 1973 (there was a near crisis in 1967, but a proposed Arab oil embargo collapsed before it gained momentum), the reality is that the U.S. has not significantly broadened its energy supply. Worse, it has not done so, even as its domestic oil production has gently but persistently declined since that time, leaving it more vulnerable to sustained supply disruptions than it would otherwise be if it had the productive capacity to offset some of those disruptions. In effect, the U.S. has squandered some 40 years during which it could have meaningfully reduced its vulnerability that exists from the combination of a lack of alternatives, growing global competition for existing energy resources, and geopolitical factors that could undermine access to those resources.

    Without doubt, were the price of oil to skyrocket, U.S. policy makers would argue that the U.S. is helpless, that the high prices (or even rationing) experienced by U.S. consumers is unavoidable, that nothing can be done. The great tragedy is that all of that would have been incorrect had U.S. policy makers learned from past crises and made energy diversification a priority. In other words, the crisis would not just be the result of external, uncontrollable factors. It would also be a direct consequence of deliberate policy choices and decisions.

    At present, the Libya crisis has pushed the price of oil toward $100 a barrel. While that situation is very likely temporary, the reality is that even after the 2008 oil price spike, U.S. policy is not fundamentally different. That there is a different Administration that offered abundant campaign rhetoric on energy has not changed things. Fiscal allocations and policy changes have not matched the campaign rhetoric. Furthermore, there is no bold Apollo/Manhattan-sytle project being planned, much less underway in its early stages.

    Instead, the nation creeps along a nearly stagnant incremental path that is actually leading to growing long-term energy shock risk exposure, as the sluggishness of its policy outcomes lags changes being brought about by growing world demand for existing sources of energy and increasing geopolitical risk in a number of major energy resource producers. "Think small" remains the de facto mantra of bipartisan energy policy. In the long-term, that's far from a wise policy choice, as the nation's capacity to deal with energy shocks becomes a matter of variables beyond its control i.e., how large the shock is and how long it lasts.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •