Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on May 21, 2008, 01:07:50 PM
-
This has to be the only industry in the country that always makes a profit, no matter what, good economy, bad economy, etc. >:(
Don't blame us for prices - oil execs
By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: May 21, 2008: 3:47 PM EDT
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/21/t1home.oil.congress.ap.jpg)
Big Oil execs testified before the Senate Tuesday, saying high oil prices were largely out of their control and more drilling in the U.S. is needed.
The record-high price of gasoline is putting a strain on American motorists - and spurring some to shift their habits. Here are their stories.
OPECBig oil companiesSupply and demandThey are unavoidable or View results
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Amid increasing public outcry over record-shattering oil and gas prices, senators on Wednesday hauled industry executives in to testify about the recent runup.
The Senate Judiciary Committee called the hearing to explore the skyrocketing price of oil, which jumped over $4 a barrel to a new record of over $133. The committee grilled executives from Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500), ConocoPhillips Co. (COP, Fortune 500), Shell Oil Co. (RDSA), Chevron (CVX, Fortune 500) and BP (BP) as to how their companies can in good conscience make so much money, while American drivers pay so much at the pump.
"You have to sense what you're doing to us - we're on the precipice here, about to fall into recession," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. "Does it trouble any one of you - the costs you're imposing on families, on small businesses, on truckers?"
The executives said it did, and that they are doing all they can to bring new oil supplies to market, but that the fundamental reasons for the surge in oil prices are largely out of their control.
"We cannot change the world market," said Robert Malone, chairman and president of BP America Inc. "Today's high prices are linked to the failure both here and abroad to increase supplies, renewables and conservation."
Malone's remarks were echoed by John Hofmeister, president of Shell.
"The fundamental laws of supply and demand are at work," said Hofmeister. The market is squeezed by exporting nations managing demand for their own interest and other nations subsidizing prices to encourage economic growth, he said.
In addition, Hofmeister said access to resources in the United States has been limited for the past 30 years. "I agree, it's not a free market," he said.
The executives pushed the idea that large parts of the U.S. that are currently closed to drilling - like sections of Alaska, the Rocky Mountains and the continental shelf - should be opened.
"The place to start the free market is in our own country," said one executive. [The drilling ban] sets the stage for OPEC to do what we are doing in our own country, and that is effectively limiting supplies."
John Lowe, executive vice president of ConocoPhillips, said Congress should enact a balanced energy policy. In addition to lifting the drilling ban, such a policy could include measures to encourage alternative energy sources, remove the ethanol tariff, promote energy conservation, cut regulations around refining.
"We must work together to find a real solution," said Lowe. "U.S. oil companies should be viewed not as scapegoats, but as assets."
The executives also named several things that Congress should not do, first among them being a hike in taxes or an undoing of the mergers of the late 1990s.
"Americans need companies that can effectively compete for access to new resources," said Peter Robertson, vice chairman of Chevron. "Punitive measures that weakened us in the face of international competition are the wrong measures."
The executives also frowned on a recently passed House bill giving the Justice Department the power to sue OPEC, saying it would have little effect in boosting production.
The testimony was colored by a few outbursts of protest from members of the public. Before the hearing even began, a heckler in the crowd shouted: "Stop ripping off the American public - bring these oil prices down."
The panel took issue with the amount of money oil firms are investing in finding oil, and investing in renewables.
"You know how much cash you have on hand compared to capital investment," said Durbin. "They are begging us for more refineries, for more exploration, when their refineries are only operating at 85 percent."
Chevron's Robertson said the issue wasn't really one of refining, and more just the price of crude.
We are investing all we can [in finding new oil] given the limitations of access and our own human capacity," he said. "We have adequate refined capacity, inventories are at an all time high. The issue is the price of crude."
Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., likely summed up the feeling of many senators on the panel.
"The people we represent are hurting, while your companies are profiting," he said. "We need to get some balance."
http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/21/news/economy/oil_hearing/index.htm?cnn=yes
-
The speculators do the most damage, as FDR said in his inaugural address in 1933 "unscrupulous moneychangers" Edmund Burke said the same thing just before the French Revolution, not to say the execs don't have a hand in taking those profits but it's the publics opinion and fear that drive this machine.
-
Since they are doing so well, maybe the US gov. should scale back a few of those tax payer subsidies for them.
-
Since they are doing so well, maybe the US gov. should scale back a few of those tax payer subsidies for them.
Funny how the Senate makes no mention of that? Guess they can't bite the hand that feeds them.
-
That and maybe we can build some new refineries...
-
I think the failure of the US gov. to put a premium on alternative fuel R&D (the way it emphasized the space race) is going to cost us a lot more than we think.
With all the revenues that South America and the Middle East reap from the sale of their oil...well, they just might start buying up American assets or worse.
And the US has little alternative but to dance to the tune they play.
-
I think we could turn it around. I think the oil companies need to look at themselves as enegy companies instead of oil companies. If I were Mobil I'd want to be around in 500 years or so...find the next thing.
-
That and maybe we can build some new refineries...
....and drill in Anwr. If the granolas wouldn't get in the way of everything, we might be at around $80-85.00 per barrel, but instead we're at $130-140.00 because we have to depend on foreign oil and yet they want to bitch and blame it on Bush. Pathetic!!
-
Its all Bush's fault....we've been cozing up to the House of Saud for years and its all the Repubs fault..nope its America's fault and we have it in our power to change course. How nice would it have been if Bush could have told the Saudi's to go pound sand last week whne they refused to up oil production.
-
....and drill in Anwr. If the granolas wouldn't get in the way of everything, we might be at around $80-85.00 per barrel, but instead we're at $130-140.00 because we have to depend on foreign oil and yet they want to bitch and blame it on Bush. Pathetic!!
'granolas'?
dude, he invaded iraq because he felt like it. the granolas didn't stop him then.
you're saying bush gives a flying shit what greenpeace thinks of drilling?
dude, the $ is in foreign oil, that's why he's behind it. Everytime I hear someone say bush doesn't drilll domestically because of the libs, i have to laugh. He'll borrow $1 tril per year against the lib wishes, and continue a war, but he won't dig alaska huh?
LMAO...
-
George Bush did do this.
Ask the Saudi's about Canadian oil.
Bush's legacy was to have America free from International oil market by ramping up oil production in Canada in the US. The Goal was to drill in Anwar and to increase Canadian oil production by 5 times.
In 2007 the democratic congress revised the goals, started to try to limit Canadian oil and has refused to allow drilling off of Florida or in Alaska.
Congress told him to pound Sand.
Don't blame George Bush for this mess.
He also increased fuel efficiency standards and helped to push to development of hybrid vehicles in 2005.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/energy/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2007/initiatives/energy.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/17/oil-sands.html
-
I think we could turn it around. I think the oil companies need to look at themselves as enegy companies instead of oil companies. If I were Mobil I'd want to be around in 500 years or so...find the next thing.
Its all Bush's fault....we've been cozing up to the House of Saud for years and its all the Repubs fault..nope its America's fault and we have it in our power to change course. How nice would it have been if Bush could have told the Saudi's to go pound sand last week whne they refused to up oil production.
OMG!! Dude you're going to give me a heart attack! :o We are soooo in agreement on this.
That's part of why I believe T. Boone Pickens is such a visionary. Right now he's calling for conversion to nat. gas.
He's not limiting himself to oil, but he's see's the imperative for a new paradigmn.
-
The speculators do the most damage, as FDR said in his inaugural address in 1933 "unscrupulous moneychangers" Edmund Burke said the same thing just before the French Revolution, not to say the execs don't have a hand in taking those profits but it's the publics opinion and fear that drive this machine.
My dad said the same thing. He worked with Unocal for liek 32 years. He said the laws of supply and demand arent at work in this case because there is so much fossil and refining has gotten so efficent, it will be hundreds of years before we see the supply of oil fall..spectulation is whats driving it up
-
I think we could turn it around. I think the oil companies need to look at themselves as enegy companies instead of oil companies. If I were Mobil I'd want to be around in 500 years or so...find the next thing.
They are in the phase of latching on look at T Boone Pickens windfarm, and BP's windfarms, but why switch over to turbine energy when money is still to be had with the black gold.
Energy companies make the most out of any company in the world, 13 trillion +
-
They are in the phase of latching on look at T Boone Pickens windfarm, and BP's windfarms, but why switch over to turbine energy when money is still to be had with the black gold.
Energy companies make the most out of any company in the world, 13 trillion +
Wind Farms are unreliable, Wind Farms require backup generators encase there is no wind. In Texas these idling back-up generators use as much energy as the wind farm.
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzM5MzFhNmFjZmQ2Nzk5NGQzYmNkMjI5ZDc4N2YyYTU=
Wind Power requires a 100% back-up and types of load shedding.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/oil-veteran-boone-pickens-makes-2bn-gamble-on-wind-farm-in-texas-829328.html
Big money is made in Federal grants that do not help to solve the energy problems. That is what Pickens is banking on, that and not owning the natural gas back-up generators nor the regulating power grid and transformation.
You want reliable energy. Then look at nuclear or large scale hydro, or even Natural Gas cogen attached to buildings.
Also there is plenty of easy access coal. Look at CO2 sequestration.
-
I agree with nuclear.
Thanks for the links on the wind farms
Your right, alot of grants going to "alternative energy sources" but umm they are not going anywhere.
-
Interesting comments.
240, did you see a_joker's statement & links? It looks like the democratic congress may have stopped Bush from acting...
-
'granolas'?
dude, he invaded iraq because he felt like it. the granolas didn't stop him then.
you're saying bush gives a flying shit what greenpeace thinks of drilling?
dude, the $ is in foreign oil, that's why he's behind it. Everytime I hear someone say bush doesn't drilll domestically because of the libs, i have to laugh. He'll borrow $1 tril per year against the lib wishes, and continue a war, but he won't dig alaska huh?
LMAO...
Thanks Rob, every week I find someone who seems to post the most retarded quote of the week.........congrats, you won this week!
-
Wind Farms are unreliable, Wind Farms require backup generators encase there is no wind. In Texas these idling back-up generators use as much energy as the wind farm.
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzM5MzFhNmFjZmQ2Nzk5NGQzYmNkMjI5ZDc4N2YyYTU=
I just read that article and it does not back up what you claim, jackass. Don't waste our time posting bullshit.
-
Information from CNN this AM talked about republican senators trying to get drilling passed in Anwr and other areas that has been blocked by environmentalists and democrats.
Here's another link. 240, looks like Bush has tried to push for more domestic drilling (I don't know how hard though).
http://aprn.org/2008/04/29/president-pushes-for-anwr-drilling/
All the oil execs said the main reason for increase in crude oil prices was world-wide demand and all suggested allowing more drilling here at home to increase supply. This is now a must IMO, until we can explore effective, alternative energy sources. Tax subsidies should be cut off to the oil companies unless they are investing in new energy technology.
-
Information from CNN this AM talked about republican senators trying to get drilling passed in Anwr and other areas that has been blocked by environmentalists and democrats.
Here's another link. 240, looks like Bush has tried to push for more domestic drilling (I don't know how hard though).
http://aprn.org/2008/04/29/president-pushes-for-anwr-drilling/
All the oil execs said the main reason for increased in crude oil prices was world-wide demand and all suggested allowing more drilling here at home to increase supply. This is now a must IMO, until we can explore effective, alternative energy sources. Tax subsidies should be cut off to the oil companies unless they are investing in new energy technology.
So what if Tax subsidies are cut off, you think that money is going to go back to the taxpayers?
-
I just read that article and it does not back up what you claim, jackass. Don't waste our time posting bullshit.
Camus,
Which part, wind power isn't reliable, or that wind power doesn't require standby generation,
http://www.ncpa.org/prs/tst/20040501hsburnett.htm
Because of intermittency problems, wind farms need conventional power plants to supplement the power they do supply. Bringing a conventional power plant on line to supply power is not as simple as turning on a switch; therefore most “redundant” fossil fuel power stations must run, even if at reduced levels, continuously. Accordingly, very little fossil-fired electricity will be displaced and few emissions will be avoided because fossil-fueled units (operating at less than their peak capacity and efficiency or operating in “spinning reserve” mode – which means they are emitting more pollution per energy produced than if operating at peak efficiency, imagine a car idling near train tracks in case the power goes out) must be kept immediately available to supply electricity when the output from wind turbines drop because wind speed slows or falls below minimums required to power the turbines. Kilowatt-hours produced by wind turbines cannot be assumed displace the emissions associated with an equal number of kWh from fossil-fueled generating units. Combined with the pollutants emitted and CO2 released in the manufacture and maintenance of wind towers and their associated infrastructure, substituting wind power for fossil fuels does not improve air quality very much.
-
Thanks Rob, every week I find someone who seems to post the most retarded quote of the week.........congrats, you won this week!
Joe,
Saddam gave the UN the inspections he demanded. They found nothing. He attacked anyway. He now admits there were not WMD, as does Rove and Cheney.
These are facts.
He attacked because he wanted to. He didn't HAVE to. It was an elective war.
-
;D
-
;D
:o
>:(
-
where is that at?
-
Removing subsidies will not put $ in people's wallets, but if the oil companies are seeing such good profit while our people are hurting, there's no good reason to give them tax breaks...unless they are investing in solutions to our fuel/energy crisis with long term solutions. Giving them subsidies for exploring new technology helps us all.
Three things that need to be done now.
1- We need to start drilling in our country to increase supply. This will certainly bring down the oil prices quickly. We cannot depend on other countries to supply all our energy. Prices will not go down because worldwide demand is increasing quickly.
2- Force car manufacturers in this country to increase fuel efficiency.
3- Give incentives to companies to explore effective new technology.
-
Removing subsidies will not put $ in people's wallets, but if the oil companies are seeing such good profit while our people are hurting, there's no good reason to give them tax breaks...unless they are investing in solutions to our fuel/energy crisis with long term solutions. Giving them subsidies for exploring new technology helps us all.
Three things that need to be done now.
1- We need to start drilling in our country to increase supply. This will certainly bring down the oil prices quickly. We cannot depend on other countries to supply all our energy. Prices will not go down because worldwide demand is increasing quickly.
2- Force car manufacturers in this country to increase fuel efficiency.
3- Give incentives to companies to explore effective new technology.
Agreed, except that drilling and affecting the supply will not happen as quickly as we want.
-
where is that at?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/your_scene_blog/2008/05/the-gas-prices.html
Remember, this is exactly what Americans voted for. Or did you think electing two oil men was going to lower oil prices? ::)
-
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/your_scene_blog/2008/05/the-gas-prices.html
Remember, this is exactly what Americans voted for. Or did you think electing two oil men was going to lower oil prices? ::)
You might want to thank Congress as well.
-
You might want to thank Congress as well.
I heard somewhere in the last 24 hours that congress has been voting restricting drilling in America for the last 20 years.
Is that true?
-
I heard somewhere in the last 24 hours that congress has been voting restricting drilling in America for the last 20 years.
Is that true?
Environmental lobby.
http://www.farallones.org/e_newsletter/2006-03/Offshoredrillingplan.htm
For the last twenty-five years, the outer continental shelf has been protected from offshore oil drilling in two ways: the moratorium that is voted on by Congress each year and that has historically enjoyed bipartisan support; and by Presidential fiat – first from the Senior Bush and later by President Clinton. Congress is set to vote once again on the moratorium in October. The presidential decree is poised to expire in 2012.
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/archive/anwr-information-update.html
Although the existence of oil and gas deposits on the Arctic coastal plain had been known for decades, the discovery of the Prudhoe Bay oil field west of ANWR in 1968 was critical to the pressure for ANWR exploration and development. Prudhoe Bay, with the 800-mile-long Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) carrying oil to the Pacific at Valdez, led to a boom in Alaska's economy. Every Alaska citizen receives a direct annual payment of hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars as their share of the oil revenue.
-
The country can not drill its way out of high oil prices. The solution is to mandate vehicles that do not run on gasoline. We already have the technology to do this. We did it in California in the 1990s. Over the objections of car makers who insisted they could not do it (technologically) the CA Air and Resources board mandated that a certain percentage of vehicles sold in the state be zero emission vehicles.
Given a choice between making money or losing out to the competition, most carmakers offered a vehicle that met the mandate and did not run on gasoline. Toyota offered an electric version of the RAV4 http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/rav4ev/ other manufacturers offered similar electric cars…. And all was well.
Until the oil interests realized that their gravy train in CA was in trouble and in danger of spreading to other states. "If this movement away from gas powered cars catches on, we're fucked!" So they lobbied hard to have the mandate rescinded. They won, and electric cars were no longer sold in the state.
A few people who did not lease--but bought--those electric cars still have them but all the leased electric cars were returned at the end of the lease term (customers were not allowed to buy them at that point) and destroyed. See the movie Who Killed the Electric Car? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/
Obviously the technology for those electric cars is still around; in fact, it is much more advanced now. Honda has a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle ready to go http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/
And so does BMW http://www.hybridcars.com/vehicle/bmw-hydrogen-7.html
So does Toyota… The only thing stopping these vehicles from being sold NOW is the strength of the oil lobby; there are vested interests in the this country that would like nothing better than to keep the country addicted to oil. The higher the price... the better. :'(
-
Camus,
Which part, wind power isn't reliable, or that wind power doesn't require standby generation,
http://www.ncpa.org/prs/tst/20040501hsburnett.htm
Because of intermittency problems, wind farms need conventional power plants to supplement the power they do supply. Bringing a conventional power plant on line to supply power is not as simple as turning on a switch; therefore most “redundant” fossil fuel power stations must run, even if at reduced levels, continuously. Accordingly, very little fossil-fired electricity will be displaced and few emissions will be avoided because fossil-fueled units (operating at less than their peak capacity and efficiency or operating in “spinning reserve” mode – which means they are emitting more pollution per energy produced than if operating at peak efficiency, imagine a car idling near train tracks in case the power goes out) must be kept immediately available to supply electricity when the output from wind turbines drop because wind speed slows or falls below minimums required to power the turbines. Kilowatt-hours produced by wind turbines cannot be assumed displace the emissions associated with an equal number of kWh from fossil-fueled generating units. Combined with the pollutants emitted and CO2 released in the manufacture and maintenance of wind towers and their associated infrastructure, substituting wind power for fossil fuels does not improve air quality very much.
That standby generation requires as much energy as a wind farm generates.
-
a_joker, what is your backround (how do you know so much detail on this topic?). Impressive.
Yes, it won't happen as quickly as we'd like but it would be one of the faster solutions.
I agree about emissions for cars (or another source of energy if its effective).
-
I am a mechanical engineer.
I design heating and energy systems for green buildings. So I spend quite a bit of time researching these topics.
-
This has to be the only industry in the country that always makes a profit, no matter what, good economy, bad economy, etc. >:(
Don't blame us for prices - oil execs
By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: May 21, 2008: 3:47 PM EDT
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/21/t1home.oil.congress.ap.jpg)
Big Oil execs testified before the Senate Tuesday, saying high oil prices were largely out of their control and more drilling in the U.S. is needed.
The record-high price of gasoline is putting a strain on American motorists - and spurring some to shift their habits. Here are their stories.
OPECBig oil companiesSupply and demandThey are unavoidable or View results
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Amid increasing public outcry over record-shattering oil and gas prices, senators on Wednesday hauled industry executives in to testify about the recent runup.
The Senate Judiciary Committee called the hearing to explore the skyrocketing price of oil, which jumped over $4 a barrel to a new record of over $133. The committee grilled executives from Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500), ConocoPhillips Co. (COP, Fortune 500), Shell Oil Co. (RDSA), Chevron (CVX, Fortune 500) and BP (BP) as to how their companies can in good conscience make so much money, while American drivers pay so much at the pump.
"You have to sense what you're doing to us - we're on the precipice here, about to fall into recession," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. "Does it trouble any one of you - the costs you're imposing on families, on small businesses, on truckers?"
The executives said it did, and that they are doing all they can to bring new oil supplies to market, but that the fundamental reasons for the surge in oil prices are largely out of their control.
"We cannot change the world market," said Robert Malone, chairman and president of BP America Inc. "Today's high prices are linked to the failure both here and abroad to increase supplies, renewables and conservation."
Malone's remarks were echoed by John Hofmeister, president of Shell.
"The fundamental laws of supply and demand are at work," said Hofmeister. The market is squeezed by exporting nations managing demand for their own interest and other nations subsidizing prices to encourage economic growth, he said.
In addition, Hofmeister said access to resources in the United States has been limited for the past 30 years. "I agree, it's not a free market," he said.
The executives pushed the idea that large parts of the U.S. that are currently closed to drilling - like sections of Alaska, the Rocky Mountains and the continental shelf - should be opened.
"The place to start the free market is in our own country," said one executive. [The drilling ban] sets the stage for OPEC to do what we are doing in our own country, and that is effectively limiting supplies."
John Lowe, executive vice president of ConocoPhillips, said Congress should enact a balanced energy policy. In addition to lifting the drilling ban, such a policy could include measures to encourage alternative energy sources, remove the ethanol tariff, promote energy conservation, cut regulations around refining.
"We must work together to find a real solution," said Lowe. "U.S. oil companies should be viewed not as scapegoats, but as assets."
The executives also named several things that Congress should not do, first among them being a hike in taxes or an undoing of the mergers of the late 1990s.
"Americans need companies that can effectively compete for access to new resources," said Peter Robertson, vice chairman of Chevron. "Punitive measures that weakened us in the face of international competition are the wrong measures."
The executives also frowned on a recently passed House bill giving the Justice Department the power to sue OPEC, saying it would have little effect in boosting production.
The testimony was colored by a few outbursts of protest from members of the public. Before the hearing even began, a heckler in the crowd shouted: "Stop ripping off the American public - bring these oil prices down."
The panel took issue with the amount of money oil firms are investing in finding oil, and investing in renewables.
"You know how much cash you have on hand compared to capital investment," said Durbin. "They are begging us for more refineries, for more exploration, when their refineries are only operating at 85 percent."
Chevron's Robertson said the issue wasn't really one of refining, and more just the price of crude.
We are investing all we can [in finding new oil] given the limitations of access and our own human capacity," he said. "We have adequate refined capacity, inventories are at an all time high. The issue is the price of crude."
Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., likely summed up the feeling of many senators on the panel.
"The people we represent are hurting, while your companies are profiting," he said. "We need to get some balance."
http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/21/news/economy/oil_hearing/index.htm?cnn=yes
It does not matter which side of the fence you are on, Dem, or Rep., both sides should have addressed the "oil issue" long ago. 1973 & 1979 shortages should have been a "kick in the butt" to find alternative fuels. The Oil companies have strong lobbies, that block any changes. Regarding Bush, even if he made any true suggestions to assist in this matter, its "too little too late". The less said about him the better. Americans like to drive "big ass" vehicles, well, now that China, & India are coming out as "drivers", the middle east does not care who gets the oil, just who pays the most for it!! Are we sure that this is not a backlash to being in Iraq? I have a small car now, and it costs almost $40.00 to fill it. I truly feel for people who need large vehicles....Its a damn shame. :-X
-
Camus,
Which part, wind power isn't reliable, or that wind power doesn't require standby generation,
http://www.ncpa.org/prs/tst/20040501hsburnett.htm
Because of intermittency problems, wind farms need conventional power plants to supplement the power they do supply. Bringing a conventional power plant on line to supply power is not as simple as turning on a switch; therefore most “redundant” fossil fuel power stations must run, even if at reduced levels, continuously. Accordingly, very little fossil-fired electricity will be displaced and few emissions will be avoided because fossil-fueled units (operating at less than their peak capacity and efficiency or operating in “spinning reserve” mode – which means they are emitting more pollution per energy produced than if operating at peak efficiency, imagine a car idling near train tracks in case the power goes out) must be kept immediately available to supply electricity when the output from wind turbines drop because wind speed slows or falls below minimums required to power the turbines. Kilowatt-hours produced by wind turbines cannot be assumed displace the emissions associated with an equal number of kWh from fossil-fueled generating units. Combined with the pollutants emitted and CO2 released in the manufacture and maintenance of wind towers and their associated infrastructure, substituting wind power for fossil fuels does not improve air quality very much.
That standby generation requires as much energy as a wind farm generates.
Still waiting for a source. thanks.
-
That standby generation requires as much energy as a wind farm generates.
Still waiting for a source. thanks.
Yes. This doesnt make sense. Backup generators would only be needed infrequently....not fulltime as indicated. Implying that a whole area would rely totally on one area of energy would be illogical. The wind gens could channel flow directly to the grid to take some of the load off at least.
-
That standby generation requires as much energy as a wind farm generates.
Still waiting for a source. thanks.
The source is in the last post you quoted.
Power plants on standby use cooling towers to load shed,
They actually use as much fuel (energy) however they dump the steam in to cooling towers. This is why emission don't decrease.
http://www.ncpa.org/prs/tst/20040501hsburnett.htm
Accordingly, very little fossil-fired electricity will be displaced and few emissions will be avoided because fossil-fueled units (operating at less than their peak capacity and efficiency or operating in “spinning reserve” mode – which means they are emitting more pollution per energy produced than if operating at peak efficiency, imagine a car idling near train tracks in case the power goes out) must be kept immediately available to supply electricity
-
The source is in the last post you quoted.
Power plants on standby use cooling towers to load shed,
They actually use as much fuel (energy) however they dump the steam in to cooling towers. This is why emission don't decrease.
http://www.ncpa.org/prs/tst/20040501hsburnett.htm
Accordingly, very little fossil-fired electricity will be displaced and few emissions will be avoided because fossil-fueled units (operating at less than their peak capacity and efficiency or operating in “spinning reserve” mode – which means they are emitting more pollution per energy produced than if operating at peak efficiency, imagine a car idling near train tracks in case the power goes out) must be kept immediately available to supply electricity
What is your solution? We need solutions....Ideas.
-
The true solution in my opinion is proper energy management. Using the right fuel for the application, and trying to maximize efficiencies. Plug loads are a huge problem.
I am a big believer in Nuclear energy, and geothermal energy.
But mot in the ways that you think, I believe its is to use the ground temperatures to moderate ventilation and air conditioning directly. This is happening in some big buildings in Northern Europe.
Ocean Cooling is happening Hawaii, Lake cooling in Toronto.
There are big district system in Russia that are much more effective, because they generate electricity and then share the heat with the communities. New York City is pioneer this technology in some of their new Office towers.
Some of this technology is hard to implement on a small scale because of tenant metering. People in North America don't like to share.
In warm enough places (ground temperature) use Rakine power generation (Nevada, etc.) They are doing a big Rakine project in North Dakota.
I also believe in Plug-in hybrids, I think the technology is closer then many realize, and there are kits right now for some hybrids to turn them into plugin hybrids.
I think Nordic wrote about Data centers. Data center design electricity is going to be about 10X higher in the near future.
Presently most major data centers are about 7kW a rack, with increased power requirements, streaming movies, HD Content, Cell phone videos, the new data centers (5 years) will be around 80kW a rack.
The EPA knows this is about to happen and has started some new power requirements for electrical devices.
-
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/your_scene_blog/2008/05/the-gas-prices.html
Remember, this is exactly what Americans voted for. Or did you think electing two oil men was going to lower oil prices? ::)
same shit
-
The speculators do the most damage, as FDR said in his inaugural address in 1933 "unscrupulous moneychangers" Edmund Burke said the same thing just before the French Revolution, not to say the execs don't have a hand in taking those profits but it's the publics opinion and fear that drive this machine.
Absolutely. Oil prices are set by Futures contract prices on the Nymex.
It is the supply & demand for Futures contracts that really sets the price.
-
$4 gas at 5% unemployment is better than $3 gas at 10% unemployment, no? I would like to know where the liberals are hiding that blamed Bush for high gas prices. Americans are to blame for high gas prices. When you bitch about global warming and oil rigs off the coast, shut your fucking utopian trap when energy prices go up. Its pathetic that most Americans and John McCain became more open to more US drilling ONLY when gas hit $4 a gallon. You should have been for that 10 years ago when we had $2.00 gas. You get what you fucking deserve when you let the religion of enviromentalism get in the way of energy policy. Stop wasting subsidies and taxpayer money on crap like solar energy and wind farms. Stop wasting our food on ethanol. And please stop being suckers to dipshits like T. Boone Pickens who are just trying to get more of your taxpayer money. Stop blaming oil companies, stop blaming the speculators. If the speculators are wrong, they lose a shitload of money. Dont shoot the messenger. Blame the politicans, environmentalists, and the federal reserve. In general, stop being a bunch of fucking morons.
-
The libs whop blamed bush are silent now that their messiah is in office.
-
Its all Bush's fault....we've been cozing up to the House of Saud for years and its all the Repubs fault..nope its America's fault and we have it in our power to change course. How nice would it have been if Bush could have told the Saudi's to go pound sand last week whne they refused to up oil production.
-
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/your_scene_blog/2008/05/the-gas-prices.html
Remember, this is exactly what Americans voted for. Or did you think electing two oil men was going to lower oil prices? ::)
What is your excuse now?
-
LOL and thats the game youre gonna play...nice.. good luck with that
liberals.. hahaha look..hahaha see...
fuckin kid.. i have told you this wasnt a political thing for a year now.. an you are still playing this game.. man o man are you fucked in the head
Its all Bush's fault....we've been cozing up to the House of Saud for years and its all the Repubs fault..nope its America's fault and we have it in our power to change course. How nice would it have been if Bush could have told the Saudi's to go pound sand last week whne they refused to up oil production.
and thats from hh6 a republican...
but i see your whole schtick is to play the us vs them game... im not gonna even insult you any more..
-
$4 gas at 5% unemployment is better than $3 gas at 10% unemployment, no? I would like to know where the liberals are hiding that blamed Bush for high gas prices. Americans are to blame for high gas prices. When you bitch about global warming and oil rigs off the coast, shut your fucking utopian trap when energy prices go up. Its pathetic that most Americans and John McCain became more open to more US drilling ONLY when gas hit $4 a gallon. You should have been for that 10 years ago when we had $2.00 gas. You get what you fucking deserve when you let the religion of enviromentalism get in the way of energy policy. Stop wasting subsidies and taxpayer money on crap like solar energy and wind farms. Stop wasting our food on ethanol. And please stop being suckers to dipshits like T. Boone Pickens who are just trying to get more of your taxpayer money. Stop blaming oil companies, stop blaming the speculators. If the speculators are wrong, they lose a shitload of money. Dont shoot the messenger. Blame the politicans, environmentalists, and the federal reserve. In general, stop being a bunch of fucking morons.
and its obamas fault for the unemployment right.. not the economy tanking before he got office.. wow ok
-
LOL and thats the game youre gonna play...nice.. good luck with that
liberals.. hahaha look..hahaha see...
fuckin kid.. i have told you this wasnt a political thing for a year now.. an you are still playing this game.. man o man are you fucked in the head
Its all Bush's fault....we've been cozing up to the House of Saud for years and its all the Repubs fault..nope its America's fault and we have it in our power to change course. How nice would it have been if Bush could have told the Saudi's to go pound sand last week whne they refused to up oil production.
and thats from hh6 a republican...
but i see your whole schtick is to play the us vs them game... im not gonna even insult you any more..
I thought your whole argument was that supply and demand had no play in this?
Or can't you even keep track of your own arguments?
-
QE2. Oil priced in dollars. Do the math.
-
I thought your whole argument was that supply and demand had no play in this?
Or can't you even keep track of your own arguments?
what are you talking about.. i still feel that.. where are you going with this.. that post had nothing to do with that.. i was just showing you how youre talking about liberals that complained about Bush and oil.. and the bold print is a conservative repub......blaming Bush..keep up son
-
and its obamas fault for the unemployment right.. not the economy tanking before he got office.. wow ok
Obama has made things DRASTICALLY worse with all his utopian bullshit. But as a 95% er, I would never expect you to realize or understand that, let alone think for yourself.
-
Obama has made things DRASTICALLY worse with all his utopian bullshit. But as a 95% er, I would never expect you to realize or understand that, let alone think for yourself.
what are you talking about.. i still feel that.. where are you going with this.. that post had nothing to do with that.. i was just showing you how youre talking about liberals that complained about Bush and oil.. and the bold print is a conservative repub......blaming Bush..keep up son
-
what are you talking about.. i still feel that.. where are you going with this.. that post had nothing to do with that.. i was just showing you how youre talking about liberals that complained about Bush and oil.. and the bold print is a conservative repub......blaming Bush..keep up son
Hey Option FAIL - look at HH^'s argument that you pimped. You fucking idiot. Seriously - do you even read what you post lately.
His claim was that we should have dealt with SA over SSSSUUUUPPPLLLYYYY an then you bumped it as supposedly the cause of the problem.
Yet - your whole thing has been that supply and demand has nothing to do with the price.
Seriously - at what point do you look in the mirror and check yo self?
-
calm down susan,..i didnt say i agree with him over the reasons.. i just found it funny that a repub blamed Bush.. and you ignore it...
now if you watch news.. there is no supply shortage in oil to the US before of after this middle eastern conflict...
Speculators, not supply and demand, are driving oil prices up .By KEVIN G. HALL
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON -- Why? If demand is down and supplies are plentiful — and they are — why would prices be going up?
Because Wall Street speculators are driving up oil and gasoline prices again — just in time to dampen holiday cheer.
“It’s all about investor optimism, and that’s been the story about 2010 ... that’s the primary reason why we’re seeing oil prices at $90 (a barrel) and gasoline making an uncharacteristic climb in December towards $3 a gallon,” said Troy Green, a national spokesman for the AAA Motor Club, which monitors gasoline prices.
AAA’s Fuel Gauge Report shows the nationwide average for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline stood at $2.968 on Wednesday. That’s up 11 cents a gallon from a month ago and 33 cents a gallon over one year ago. That means it costs about $1.65 more per fill-up than a month ago and $4.95 more than a year ago.
It’s even worse on the West Coast, where this week prices have averaged higher than $3.15 a gallon, according to Energy Department data.
If oil prices keep climbing beyond $100 per barrel, as Goldman Sachs projects for 2011, higher fuel prices may blunt efforts by the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve to stimulate the weak economy.
“I think we’re at that point. With (nearly) 10 percent unemployment, it’s a much more impoverished consumer that can’t afford it. It’s almost a bludgeoning instrument in terms of what it will do to consumer sentiment,” said John Kilduff, a veteran energy analyst and partner in the hedge fund Again Capital. “What might have been a very bright shopping season could get the wind taken out of its sails by these high prices.”
Rising prices could erase the stimulus coming from the 2 percentage point reduction in payroll taxes proposed this week by President Barack Obama and Republican congressional leaders. This would hit the working poor particularly hard.
“The money they get from government tax relief, they’ll have to go pay in higher prices for food and energy,” said Michael Masters, head of Masters Capital Management and a frequent witness before Congress about financial speculation in oil contracts.
The Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the Energy Department, said Wednesday that there is, in fact, increasing demand for oil compared with last year’s low demand amid the recession.
But supplies are abundant, it said in its weekly report, This Week in Petroleum — especially when compared with a few years ago.
Obama’s departing chief economic adviser, Lawrence Summers, shrugged off rising oil prices Wednesday.
“Oil goes up, oil goes down,” he said.
Economic growth in emerging markets and China has raised global demand for oil, the EIA said, while U.S. demand for oil year-over-year grew by 750,000 barrels per day in August and 900,000 in September. The numbers, it said, are of “an order approaching, or even exceeding, growth levels seen in China.”
However, the EIA cautioned that “even given strong growth this year, U.S. oil demand remains well below peak levels seen in 2005, and recent growth rates relative to year-ago levels are not expected to continue.”
There’s been so much oil in storage on land this year that oil tankers were actually converted into floating storage facilities.
-
Saudi: No oil supply problem
Published: 8/03/2011 at 08:31 PM
Online news:
Tweet
World oil prices slid Tuesday as Saudi Oil Minister Ali Naimi said the amount of crude available on the world market was "very adequate" amid fears the Libya crisis could cause a supply shortage.
New York's main contract, light sweet crude for delivery in April, shed $1.12 to $104.32 a barrel, one day after soaring to $106.95 -- the highest level for 2.5 years.
In late London trade Tuesday, Brent North Sea crude for April was down $2.23 to $112.81.
Naimi told Saudi Arabia's state SPA news agency: "Current supplies in the market are very adequate, and there is an extra output capacity that could be used if needed.
"Recent crude prices do not reflect the fundamentals of supply and demand in the oil market as much as they are caused by financial speculation and a negative and unrealistic take on supplies," he said.
Naimi added that Saudi Arabia had an extra output capacity of 3.5 million barrels per day "which could be used and help in covering any shortage".
Analysts said the dip in prices could be short-lived as cyber-activists in OPEC kingpin Saudi Arabia have called for protests Friday demanding change in the kingdom -- stoking concerns Riyadh faces a political test too.
"My only concern is that tensions are still there for other Middle East countries and any further uprisings could see oil spike further," ETX Capital trader Manoj Ladwa told AFP.
Members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) are holding consultations over the oil market in light of the Libyan turmoil, the Kuwaiti oil minister said on Tuesday.
"We are in consultation but have not yet decided which direction" we are heading, Sheikh Ahmad Abdullah al-Sabah told reporters when asked if OPEC was discussing whether to raise crude production.
He also denied that Kuwait, OPEC's fifth largest producer, had increased output.
The OPEC cartel pumps about 40 percent of the world's oil.
Crude oil prices had jumped on Monday as traders fretted about escalating clashes in Libya between forces loyal to Kadhafi and rebels seeking to end his four-decade rule.
Rebels on Tuesday said they rejected a mediator's offer of talks with Kadhafi and demanded that he leave the country. Tripoli meanwhile dismissed as "rubbish" any suggestion of an approach from the Libyan leader.
"Along with talk of ... Kadhafi looking for a safe exit, crude oil has retraced some of its recent gains," trader Ladwa said.
Oil prices also weakened on Tuesday as the United States refused to rule out tapping its oil reserves to tackle high oil prices.
White House chief of staff William Daley said Sunday that the US had not ruled out tapping its strategic oil reserves to help dampen the higher cost of oil.
-
And why is investor optimism down? Hint: QE2 and other reckless Obama policies.
-
Drilling will do nothing but enrich those who get the contracts to drill. In the end the price will continue to rise.
-
And why is investor optimism down? Hint: QE2 and other reckless Obama policies.
ohhhhhhh ok... so its obamas fault.. cool..
id take that rather than "there is a low supply so the blah blah" that shit was dispelled a long time ago..
-
Yergin: Oil prices not driven by supply and demand…
Michael Giberson
Reuter’s reports remarks of Daniel Yergin made in Singapore:
“Oil prices today do not reflect the world’s supply and demand fundamentals. Instead, prices are reflective of the weak dollar and expectations of a strong economic recovery,” Yergin told reporters on the sidelines of a conference.
Changing value of the dollar aside, isn’t all that Yergin is saying is “it isn’t supply and demand, it is expectations about supply and demand”? And don’t the twin concepts of supply and demand already embed expectations, so isn’t all that Yergin is saying is “it isn’t supply and demand, but really, it is supply and demand”?
Maybe, slightly more charitably, Yergin might be taken as emphasizing that recent oil price movements have been driven by expectations of future supplies and demands rather than simply based on immediate production and consumption plans.
Or maybe what Yergin is saying is, “it isn’t supply and demand fundamentals, so don’t go hiring some cheapy, low-class energy economics consulting firm, instead you need a prize-winning energy consultant who can dress up ordinary supply and demand factors in words worthy of our world-class fees
-
calm down susan,..i didnt say i agree with him over the reasons.. i just found it funny that a repub blamed Bush.. and you ignore it...
now if you watch news.. there is no supply shortage in oil to the US before of after this middle eastern conflict...
Speculators, not supply and demand, are driving oil prices up .By KEVIN G. HALL
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON -- Why? If demand is down and supplies are plentiful — and they are — why would prices be going up?
Because Wall Street speculators are driving up oil and gasoline prices again — just in time to dampen holiday cheer.
“It’s all about investor optimism, and that’s been the story about 2010 ... that’s the primary reason why we’re seeing oil prices at $90 (a barrel) and gasoline making an uncharacteristic climb in December towards $3 a gallon,” said Troy Green, a national spokesman for the AAA Motor Club, which monitors gasoline prices.
AAA’s Fuel Gauge Report shows the nationwide average for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline stood at $2.968 on Wednesday. That’s up 11 cents a gallon from a month ago and 33 cents a gallon over one year ago. That means it costs about $1.65 more per fill-up than a month ago and $4.95 more than a year ago.
It’s even worse on the West Coast, where this week prices have averaged higher than $3.15 a gallon, according to Energy Department data.
If oil prices keep climbing beyond $100 per barrel, as Goldman Sachs projects for 2011, higher fuel prices may blunt efforts by the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve to stimulate the weak economy.
“I think we’re at that point. With (nearly) 10 percent unemployment, it’s a much more impoverished consumer that can’t afford it. It’s almost a bludgeoning instrument in terms of what it will do to consumer sentiment,” said John Kilduff, a veteran energy analyst and partner in the hedge fund Again Capital. “What might have been a very bright shopping season could get the wind taken out of its sails by these high prices.”
Rising prices could erase the stimulus coming from the 2 percentage point reduction in payroll taxes proposed this week by President Barack Obama and Republican congressional leaders. This would hit the working poor particularly hard.
“The money they get from government tax relief, they’ll have to go pay in higher prices for food and energy,” said Michael Masters, head of Masters Capital Management and a frequent witness before Congress about financial speculation in oil contracts.
The Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the Energy Department, said Wednesday that there is, in fact, increasing demand for oil compared with last year’s low demand amid the recession.
But supplies are abundant, it said in its weekly report, This Week in Petroleum — especially when compared with a few years ago.
Obama’s departing chief economic adviser, Lawrence Summers, shrugged off rising oil prices Wednesday.
“Oil goes up, oil goes down,” he said.
Economic growth in emerging markets and China has raised global demand for oil, the EIA said, while U.S. demand for oil year-over-year grew by 750,000 barrels per day in August and 900,000 in September. The numbers, it said, are of “an order approaching, or even exceeding, growth levels seen in China.”
However, the EIA cautioned that “even given strong growth this year, U.S. oil demand remains well below peak levels seen in 2005, and recent growth rates relative to year-ago levels are not expected to continue.”
There’s been so much oil in storage on land this year that oil tankers were actually converted into floating storage facilities.
::) ::)
Oil procies and food prices and commodity prices were SKYROCKETING due to QE2 and other WTF policies well before the ME flare up. the ME situationis just a convenient ruse for obama dildos to shift responsibility for hs reckless and irresponsible policies.
-
ohhhhhhh ok... so its obamas fault.. cool..
id take that rather than "there is a low supply so the blah blah" that shit was dispelled a long time ago..
Hahaha, so you don't think QE2 and the rest of Obama's ridiculous economic policies had anything to do with it? If so, you're farther gone than I thought.
-
::) ::)
Oil procies and food prices and commodity prices were SKYROCKETING due to QE2 and other WTF policies well before the ME flare up. the ME situationis just a convenient ruse for obama dildos to shift responsibility for hs reckless and irresponsible policies.
so its not supply and demand or is it?
-
Yergin: Oil prices not driven by supply and demand…
Michael Giberson
Reuter’s reports remarks of Daniel Yergin made in Singapore:
“Oil prices today do not reflect the world’s supply and demand fundamentals. Instead, prices are reflective of the weak dollar and expectations of a strong economic recovery,” Yergin told reporters on the sidelines of a conference.
Changing value of the dollar aside, isn’t all that Yergin is saying is “it isn’t supply and demand, it is expectations about supply and demand”? And don’t the twin concepts of supply and demand already embed expectations, so isn’t all that Yergin is saying is “it isn’t supply and demand, but really, it is supply and demand”?
Maybe, slightly more charitably, Yergin might be taken as emphasizing that recent oil price movements have been driven by expectations of future supplies and demands rather than simply based on immediate production and consumption plans.
Or maybe what Yergin is saying is, “it isn’t supply and demand fundamentals, so don’t go hiring some cheapy, low-class energy economics consulting firm, instead you need a prize-winning energy consultant who can dress up ordinary supply and demand factors in words worthy of our world-class fees
amd why is thedollar weak option F? hhhhmmmmm? ? ? ? ? ? ?
-
so its not supply and demand or is it?
It's the perception of supply and demand and actual supply and demand. Something being helped along by Obama's refusal to drill and the fact that Saudi Arabia's vaunted excess capacity is pretty much little more than a fairy tale.
amd why is thedollar weak option F? hhhhmmmmm? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Couldn't be QE2 and the other suicidal economic policies of the dipshit in the WH.
-
Hahaha, so you don't think QE2 and the rest of Obama's ridiculous economic policies had anything to do with it? If so, you're farther gone than I thought.
miss me with that "further gone shit"
Im calling a spade a spade. And i dont defend Obama on most of the shit he has pulled, but what im not gonna do is place blame where it isnt warrented. As a smart guy i just cant do it. Now we can go on and put the arguments in order or make a cluster fuck that ends with obama again..
My arguments have always been.. Oil supply has never been in danger. The lack of new refineries are the issue. The US refineries still get all the oil they can handle.
Thats my argument and it has always been my arguments. The changes in prices are a result of "we can do what the fuck we want" attitudes by oil companies. Because if the regular rules of economics applied. The fact that the prices rise and the demand lowers but there are still record profits made suggests that simple supply demand effect isnt applicable here.
-
It's the perception of supply and demand and actual supply and demand. Something being helped along by Obama's refusal to drill and the fact that Saudi Arabia's vaunted excess capacity is pretty much little more than a fairy tale.
Couldn't be QE2 and the other suicidal economic policies of the dipshit in the WH.
ok i see aint no changing your mind on this.. it isnt supply..it isnt the perception of supply...we all know there is a shit ton of supply.. there hasnt been a day since the 70s that we havent refined at 100% capacity.. thats just truth. so its not like there is a shortage or the thought of a shortage. it just isnt.
-
There's a shit ton of supply? When you factor in the ever-increasing demand from the developing world then no, there really isn't. Saudi Arabia's claimed ability to produce an excess 2-3 million barrels a day is a fairy tale.
Oil was already ready rising before Libya and the ME unrest thanks to QE2 and other failed Obama policies.
If gas hits $5/gallon and stays there for a prolonged period of time coupled with the current job situation then I guarantee the Messiah won't win reelection.
-
ok i see aint no changing your mind on this.. it isnt supply..it isnt the perception of supply...we all know there is a shit ton of supply.. there hasnt been a day since the 70s that we havent refined at 100% capacity.. thats just truth. so its not like there is a shortage or the thought of a shortage. it just isnt.
And guess what? Obama's EPA shut down Texas refinery permits as recent as last year.
So do me a favor - SSSTTTFFFUUU with your kneepadding of this horrible admn and stop being a lock step hack with whatever it does.
-
And guess what? Obama's EPA shut down Texas refinery permits as recent as last year.
So do me a favor - SSSTTTFFFUUU with your kneepadding of this horrible admn and stop being a lock step hack with whatever it does.
aye bitch.. i told you a million times before ... so the fucking lock step shit dosent fly.. it just dosent not when i made a list of shit i dont agree with. now you can say "well you just want him to be more liberal" it dosent take away from the fact that im not in line wit the majority of shit he does.. so take a chill pill. back away from the caps lock key and shut the fuck up little man
-
There's a shit ton of supply? When you factor in the ever-increasing demand from the developing world then no, there really isn't. Saudi Arabia's claimed ability to produce an excess 2-3 million barrels a day is a fairy tale.
Oil was already ready rising before Libya and the ME unrest thanks to QE2 and other failed Obama policies.
If gas hits $5/gallon and stays there for a prolonged period of time coupled with the current job situation then I guarantee the Messiah won't win reelection.
So do you think that we have refineries that are operational with no supply?
-
So do you think that we have refineries that are operational with no supply?
We're not producing what we're capable of producing thanks to the Messiah's refusal to issue new permits.
-
We're not producing what we're capable of producing thanks to the Messiah's refusal to issue new permits.
so that means you think that we have refineries that are not working at 100% capacity?
-
so that means you think that we have refineries that are not working at 100% capacity?
More drilling = more refineries.
-
EPA Bars Texas' Operating Permit to Refinery
Tuesday, 25 May 2010 07:07 PM Article Font Size
The federal government has removed Texas' authority to issue an operating permit to a southeast Texas refinery, saying the state is violating the federal Clean Air Act in dozens of cases.
Al Armendariz, the regional head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, says the EPA objected to 40 permits late last year largely because they allowed flexible rules for emitting pollutants. He says months of talks failed, so the EPA blocked Texas from issuing its permit. Instead, the EPA will issue a stricter one for the independently owned Flint Hills Corpus Christi East Refinery.
Armendariz says the EPA will also block Texas from issuing permits in 39 other cases, including those for facilities owned by Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Dow Chemical.
State environmental regulators said they would respond.
© Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Read more on Newsmax.com: EPA Usurps Texas' Operating Permit to Refinery
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
-
More drilling = more refineries.
not really.. because we have been in need of refineries. and it has to do with the overwhelming supply.. they all work too hard.. now the tree people wont let another refinery to be built. thats the issue here.. even if we discovered a zillion gallons of crude today in some hick ass area of Montana.. we still would be operating at the same capacity... its the lack of refineries that kills US
-
shit the last refinery was built in 1976. oil companies are not interested in flooding the market with oil
-
Hahaha, it's almost comical that people live in fairy tale land with these claims about all this excess supply that, in reality, doesn't exist.
Would one of you two mind humoring me as to why the price of oil up has been going up for months now? Don't just respond with "it's the speculator". Tell me why you think they're driving it up.
-
Armendariz says the EPA will also block Texas from issuing permits in 39 other cases, including those for facilities owned by Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Dow Chemical.
________________________ ____________________--
-
CNN Money
The secret group setting the price of oil: Us.
In this excerpt from The Asylum: The Renegades Who Hijacked the World's Oil Market, Leah McGrath Goodman witnesses a NYMEX energy trader hazing ritual and watches Bill O'Reilly uncover how those traders set the price of a barrel of oil.
Floor of the NYMEX
By Leah McGrath Goodman, contributor
It was dawn when I received my first of many after-hours phone calls from Mark Bradley Fisher, otherwise known as the Fish. A self-made millionaire with a Napoleonic sense of his own destiny, Fisher prided himself on his work ethic, his intellectual prowess, and his ability to rise early in the morning and toil late into the night. As a result, he had a habit of calling me almost exclusively at inconvenient times.
It was February 2005, the year Wall Street began to realize something was wrong with the oil market. Fisher, however, was not particularly disturbed. After all, he was one of the wealthiest and most powerful energy traders in the world.
Fumbling in the darkness, I nearly fell out of bed trying to find my cell phone. As I flipped it open, Fisher sounded none too pleased at the five-ring wait.
"What are you doing?" he barked in his trader's rasp, the line crackling softly in the background.
The Fish never identified himself over the phone. You were just supposed to know it was him. Despite his coarseness and affinity for semi-sadistic pranks—often inflicted on the less fortunate of his many admiring acolytes—he was one of the few oil traders off Wall Street who boasted a fistful of Ivy league degrees. Traders in the multitrillion-dollar commodities market had long been aware of his indomitable presence—often acutely so—but, to the rest of the world, the Fish was a virtual unknown.
And he liked it that way.
He was already at work. Maybe he'd just arrived, or maybe he'd never left. Some traders swore the Fish never slept. That was how it was in the oil market, brimming with tall tales and conjecture. I could envision him sitting bolt-upright behind his desk, office shower to the right, views of the Hudson to the left, buried in a flotilla of computer screens and price charts, guzzling a can of soda in the dark, silent office building. Fisher had a penchant for sugar and his poison of choice was Pepsi, a can of which was by his side for much of the day.
"Nothing," I answered, struggling to wake up. "Sleeping."
I'd met Fisher before, but this was the first time he had contacted me at home. He coughed, attempting to disguise the laugh that confirmed, at least to him, I was a slacker. "Come by my office today at eleven. I want you to see something." he paused before adding: "But you have to promise me I won't read about it tomorrow in the Wall Street Journal."
As a reporter for Dow Jones & Co., the financial news service that, along with the Journal, is owned by News Corp. (NWS), my beat was the energy market. My duties included writing two wire stories a day, one in the morning and one in the evening, about where oil prices were heading and why. So far, it had not been a difficult job, because ever since the start of the Iraq War oil prices went mostly one way—up.
There was a small problem, though. With oil prices going up every day, I was beginning to run out of clever narrative devices and plot twists to keep my commentary interesting. Most of the time, I would just sit at my desk, trying to think of a new way of saying the same thing I'd said the day before—that there no longer appeared to be enough oil in the world to meet rising demand, that the rock on which modern industrial civilization had been built seemed to be slowly crumbling.
The strange term being tossed around by experts at the time was "peak oil." Dismissed by the opposing experts as a ridiculous doomsday scenario, it referred to the moment when the world's oil production would begin to decline until supply ran out. The feeling was that this would not be a good thing, since there was no decent alternative for oil and no reliable way of knowing exactly when the planet had reached its tipping point. In the meantime, guessing when peak oil would arrive had become somewhat like a parlor game to industry insiders, each trying the shout the others down. But behind the scenes, a much more terrifying question overshadowed the debate: had peak oil already arrived—and nobody wanted to admit it yet?
On one point the experts could agree. The world was not prepared for the catastrophic end of oil. Without question, its depletion would mean more wars, more political strife, and more awkward death matches between the West and the oil-rich Middle East.
Still, even as the United States fought wars in two Middle East nations and kept drilling for oil in ever more perilous depths of the ocean, nobody seemed especially alarmed at the thought of oil drying up. By all appearances, switching from oil to something less dangerous was going to be gut-wrenching, no matter how high oil prices got. Americans remained bent on driving their monster SUVs while an endless stream of upwardly mobile classes in increasingly populous nations such as China and India wanted nothing more than to drive monster SUVs of their own.
I arrived out of breath and a few minutes late for my appointment with the Fish after getting off the train at the World Trade Center pit. Dodging traffic on the West Side Highway, I passed a slew of trader hangouts: the Pussycat lounge & steakhouse, a seamy gentlemen's club and Wall street institution; Cordato's Deli, the sub shop next door with the secret champagne room in back with an even more secret passageway to the Pussycat; and Moran's, the church-turned-Irish-pub that remained, either way, a place of devout worship.
It was just after eleven a.m. when I reached the spot where Fisher plied his trade: the New York Mercantile Exchange, called Nymex, the biggest, most influential energy market in the world. Just beyond its doors, bets were placed on the future prices of the planet's most important commodities—crude oil, gasoline, heating oil, and natural gas, as well as gold and silver—in a football field–size room teeming with sweaty traders. A members-only club favoring the rich and well connected, this was the temple of the chosen few who stood as the final arbiters of what the world paid every day for a barrel of oil or a gallon of gas.
Power plants, gas stations, fuel distributors, and oil companies across the globe paid close attention to this rarefied casino, watching carefully for any price changes that would determine how much they would pay for fuel and what they'd charge their customers, the ordinary consumer. Newspapers and television networks trumpeted Nymex's prices as the holy gospel, beaming them throughout the continents for all to follow—banks, hedge funds, Wall street investors, even the top-producing oil nations of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and Norway.
Yet nobody seemed to know who, exactly, these New York oil traders were or how they, of all people, got to wield such immense power. how did someone like, say, the Fish, a balding, middle-aged father of two from Long Island, come to dominate the market that decided what consumers would pay to drive their cars or heat their homes? Wasn't the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries—the mysterious oil cartel known as OPEC—supposed to be dictating the price of oil? What about Saudi Arabia, the country holding the world's largest proven oil reserves? Where was its energy market? And what really happened behind the tightly closed doors of Nymex's heavily guarded, sixteen-story building?
The answers, I soon found out, lay in the secrets of the pits, the clandestine trading arena where market speculators, mostly men in their thirties and forties, gathered every day to beat and berate one another in a money game so absurd that even they could scarcely believe they were being allowed to play it.
As I approached the building, I noticed what seemed like some sort of triumphal procession under way. Passersby were oblivious, just as they'd always been oblivious to the giant energy market in their midst. Nymex had camouflaged itself well among the high-rises of its upscale neighborhood.
What I didn't know then was that I was about to witness my first Mark Fisher signature event. This is what Fisher wanted to make sure I saw—one of his grandiose exhibitions of power. Hundreds of people poured out of the revolving doors of the skyscraper on the Hudson River: traders, executives, secretaries, compliance staff, technical personnel. I knew that the exchange was open and the oil market was trading, but who was trading it, I could not guess. It seemed as if all the market's members had dropped whatever they'd been doing to flock to the pier. Among the rabble, I even saw Mitchell Steinhause, the oil market's token chairman.
As I quickly learned, the Fisher event usually involved a boisterous horde, a smaller group of scapegoats, and some sort of ritual sacrifice. Today was no exception. At the center of the crowd stood Fisher's herd of sacrificial lambs, four or five men in their twenties, all rookie energy traders in various states of dress. They teetered at the edge of the ice-strewn Hudson, shivering in the subzero squalls. Beside them was the master of ceremonies himself, the Fish, who even looked a bit like Napoleon. A short, stout forty-four-year-old with a preternatural gift for fiery oratory, he addressed the throng from the comfort of his winter parka. Despite his height, Fisher seemed to tower menacingly over his captives.
These young men, he said, had been summoned to the river because they had bet they could win a round of Texas hold'em, a poker game they'd unwisely proceeded to lose. since the wager had indicated the losers would swim the freezing waters in sight of their colleagues, it was now time for them to pay up.
Some of Fisher's victims had come prepared. Two were wearing professional wet suits. One had his shirt off. Another had stubbornly opted to dress as if for a normal day, keeping on his Gucci loafers with the gold clasps, worn without socks, as was the style.
How you took your punishment said a lot about you. The traders who were wearing the wet suits were seen as cunning; the trader without his shirt on fearless; and the last, the one with the designer shoes, an admirable stoic. These were all excellent qualities to have if you were a trader in the pits, where how you took your medicine often determined how well you got paid.
Fisher had positioned emergency rescue workers along the marina to go in after anyone who didn't make it out, ambulances idling nearby. The market spectators tittered with eager anticipation. That is to say, the staff and attendant membership of the world's reigning oil market exhibited the basic characteristics of a lynch mob, heckling the traders and urging them to jump. A couple of the young men whose cardinal sin had been to play poker badly tried to laugh it off, but as Fisher began the final countdown to their plunge, there wasn't a person in the audience who didn't see the fear on their faces.
No one attempted to stop the brutish hazing. On the contrary, the bystanders were fully into it. Fisher, the market's ringleader, had everyone in his thrall. This was one time I was glad to be the reporter, observing but divorced from the events.
As I watched the scene unfold, I wondered just how long had the oil traders been acting this way? These were the chosen ones? The ones who called the shots on what we paid to drive our cars and heat our homes?
It was all too surreal.
If those who held the key to the global energy market could stand by while blithely throwing their own traders, their life blood, into the hudson, then what would they be willing to do to us, the faceless public?
That day, oil prices topped $50 a barrel.
The pit traders just shrugged.
And that was only the beginning. Over the next three years, oil prices would slingshot to nearly $150 a barrel before crashing back toward $30 in a matter of days, roiling the global economy and raising suspicions that oil prices were rising and falling on little more than pixie dust. Against the backdrop of Washington politicians lamely suggesting that altering daylight savings hours or offering gasoline tax holidays might offer lasting relief, Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly fumed at energy market executive John D'Agostino during an April 2008 interview on his television program, The O'Reilly Factor. What followed was a truly bizarre exchange, revealing what even supposedly informed individuals think about how the oil market works.
When O'Reilly is told that a group of traders in New York are responsible for the price of oil and gas in much the same way that traders of the New York Stock Exchange are responsible for the price of Microsoft (MSFT) stock, he simply cannot believe his ears. Instead, he concludes that it must be the sheikhs of the middle east or Venezuela's ultra-leftist president, Hugo Chavez, who are arbitrarily slapping price stickers on barrels of oil. As the conversation gradually deteriorates, a member of O'Reilly's backstage crew is heard to say, "Oh shit, Bill's made an ass of himself again." But O'Reilly's confusion about the method behind the madness of the global energy market is typical—and worth hearing in full.
O'Reilly: OK now, look, in my town out on Long Island, gasoline has gone up 75 cents a gallon in about a month, a month and a half. Why now? Why this point in time?
D'Agostino: Well, a couple of things. One is oil has been high and has stayed high.
O'Reilly: Now, who's driving that? Is that the greedy sheikhs and Hugo Chavez?
D'Agostino: No, no, no, I don't know about that. What we know for a fact is that we have a weak dollar. We have global demand that's staying put, no matter how much the price has gone up. [A weakened dollar means you need more dollars to buy the same amount of oil, hence a higher price.]
O'Reilly: We had that last year. The demand has gone up globally since last—but let's—wait a minute. let's walk through it so everybody understands what we're talking about. The Organization of Petroleum exporting Countries sets the price for a barrel of oil. And they keep raising it and raising it and raising it. Dick Cheney went over there and tried to say, "hey, give us a break." They gave Cheney the middle digit. All right? so they can, they can charge whatever they want to charge, correct?
D'Agostino: No. OPEC only sets the oil supply. . . . The price of oil is actually set in New York. . . .
O'Reilly: Is there a guy who says $125 a barrel?
D'Agostino: No. There's a huge market. It's filled with hedgers. It's filled with speculators. It's filled with moms and dads, average Americans. It's a big market that sets the price.
O'Reilly: somebody has to put the $125 on the barrel. Who does it?
D'Agostino: They're getting it from this market. . . .
O'Reilly: Who is "they"?
D'Agostino: The oil producers. They're looking at this, just like when you decide how much a share of IBM (IBM) is worth. You look at the price on the New York Stock Exchange.
O'Reilly: The CEO of Shell (RDS) or the CEO of Exxon Mobil (XOM) says, "We're going to pay $125 a barrel." Is that what they say? I thought it was the sheikhs and Hugo Chavez saying, "We're going to charge you $125 a barrel."
D'Agostino: No. They're all looking to the exchanges, the free markets, to set the price. . . . The free markets right now are saying the price of crude oil is about $120 a barrel. It's been going up. It continues to go up. And gasoline prices are directly related to crude oil prices.
O'Reilly: . . . But you still haven't explained, and I don't know if you can, Mr.—with all due respect, Mr. D'Agostino—who puts the $120 on—a human being has to do that. And somebody has to make a decision.
D'Agostino: It would be great if there was just one person who was doing that, because then we could go talk to him.
O'Reilly: But there has to be. Because just to get the word out, somebody has to say the word. so if you don't know, you don't know, because I certainly don't.
The viewers of the O'Reilly Factor also could not believe D'Agostino was telling the truth. After the program aired, they responded with dozens of furious e-mails.
And one death threat.
Contrary to popular opinion, oil prices were not being controlled by Arabs or leftist dictators. They were being controlled by the same bootstrapping traders who had embarked on an extraordinary experiment from the depths of a redbrick mansion in downtown Manhattan exactly thirty years earlier.
Individuals who, like the anonymous Wall Street professionals about to unleash a crippling financial crisis on the world, took the subway and ferry to work, earned unheard-of riches, gave to charity, and thought nothing of bringing the global economy to its knees.
-
What a pointless article that does nothing but blame the speculator without actually explaining why they operate like they do. Should we be surprised that Blacken isn't actually capable of formulating his own opinion and instead needs to rely on yet another article to articulate his point? No.
I'll ask you again. Why has the price of oil been rising for months now? And don't just say "the speculators". WHY are the speculator driving the price up? This time do it in your own words. ::)
Wall St. millionaire my ass.
-
Prices were skyrocketing well before the ME flareup due to QE2, drilling moritoriums, EPA insanity, Obama's WWWTTTFFF agenda, etc, yet only now TK tries to blame "speculators".
Ha ha ha ha.
-
i see, because you don't agree it's pointless ::)
-
Prices were skyrocketing well before the ME flareup due to QE2, drilling moritoriums, EPA insanity, Obama's WWWTTTFFF agenda, etc, yet only now TK tries to blame "speculators".
Ha ha ha ha.
[size=24]pointless
[/size]
-
i see, because you don't agree it's pointless ::)
::) ::)
Why was gasoling prices spiking along with food, gold, silver, wheat, etc before the ME flare up? hhhhmmmm?
-
Prices were skyrocketing well before the ME flareup due to QE2, drilling moritoriums, EPA insanity, Obama's WWWTTTFFF agenda, etc, yet only now TK tries to blame "speculators".
Ha ha ha ha.
They can't seem to grasp that those are the reasons that the price has been rising. They seem to think that speculators just arbitrarily price contracts at $100+ and people willingly buy it. For everyone person happily selling a $100+/barrel contract there's a person on the other end bitching about having to pay it.
But don't worry, Blacken's a Wall. St. MILLIONAIRE! ::)
i see, because you don't agree it's pointless ::)
It's pointless because it doesn't actually address anything beyond claiming "the speculators did it", you uneducated moron. It doesn't address why the speculators do it. It's a puff piece written to cater towards the uneducated like yourself. He could have cut out 99.99% of that article and still accomplished the same thing.
The fact you won't answer my question in your own words shows how severely uninformed you are on this topic (like everything else).
::) ::)
Why was gasoling prices spiking along with food, gold, silver, wheat, etc before the ME flare up? hhhhmmmm?
It's pointless talking to this welfare leech living in his parent's basement. He's incapable of critically thinking for himself so there's no point in asking him to explain something.
-
[size=24]pointless
[/size]
This is why you are a deluded left wing hack with no education, no knowledge, no understanding, no experience, no intuition, and no comprehension of anything economic whatsoever.
You = moron.
-
This is why you are a deluded left wing hack with no education, no knowledge, no understanding, no experience, no intuition, and no comprehension of anything economic whatsoever.
You = moron.
BOOM!
-
They can't seem to grasp that those are the reasons that the price has been rising. They seem to think that speculators just arbitrarily price contracts at $100+ and people willingly buy it. For everyone person happily selling a $100+/barrel contract there's a person on the other end bitching about having to pay it.
But don't worry, Blacken's a Wall. St. MILLIONAIRE! ::)
It's pointless because it doesn't actually address anything beyond claiming "the speculators did it", you uneducated moron. It doesn't address why the speculators do it. It's a puff piece written to cater towards the uneducated like yourself. He could have cut out 99.99% of that article and still accomplished the same thing.
The fact you won't answer my question in your own words shows how severely uninformed you are on this topic (like everything else).
It's pointless talking to this welfare leech living in his parent's basement. He's incapable of critically thinking for himself so there's no point in asking him to explain something.
pointless
-
Hahaha, it's almost comical that people live in fairy tale land with these claims about all this excess supply that, in reality, doesn't exist.
Would one of you two mind humoring me as to why the price of oil up has been going up for months now? Don't just respond with "it's the speculator". Tell me why you think they're driving it up.
because they can... they drove it up and still made record profits...no one seems to address that..
-
BOOM!
obama's fault
[/b][/u]
-
because they can... they drove it up and still made record profits...no one seems to address that..
::) ::) ::)
So why did they drop after the collapse of 2008? Why have they been skyrocketing since QE2? Why have they been skyrocketing since Obama's Kamikaze policies? Just a coincidence?
Ha ha ha Ha - what fools you leftists are. And who is "They"? The evil jews? ha ha ha.
-
because they can... they drove it up and still made record profits...no one seems to address that..
Because they can? Really? Do you understand how these markets work? They offer a contract price and they find someone willing to pay it. They don't just arbitrarily set the price and people pay it. There has to be a reason for someone to justify paying $100+. If there wasn't a justifiable reason then the price would come down (like when US demand plummeted the last time gas prices went out of control).
Now what could those reasons be? QE2, Obama's reckless policies. The unrest in the Middle East. The increased demand from the developing world. The list goes on and on.
-
Because they can? Really? Do you understand how these markets work? They offer a contract price and they find someone willing to pay it. They don't just arbitrarily set the price and people pay it. There has to be a reason for someone to justify paying $100+. If there wasn't a justifiable reason then the price would come down (like when US demand plummeted the last time gas prices went out of control).
Now what could those reasons be? QE2, Obama's reckless policies. The unrest in the Middle East. The increased demand from the developing world. The list goes on and on.
I'm sure they will fit O'Donnell, Palin, Bush, Koch Bros, Rush, Beck, and Reagan into it somewhere.
-
D'Agostino: No. OPEC only sets the oil supply. . . . The price of oil is actually set in New York. . . .
O'Reilly: Is there a guy who says $125 a barrel?
D'Agostino: No. There's a huge market. It's filled with hedgers. It's filled with speculators. It's filled with moms and dads, average Americans. It's a big market that sets the price.
O'Reilly: somebody has to put the $125 on the barrel. Who does it?
D'Agostino: They're getting it from this market. . . .
O'Reilly: Who is "they"?
D'Agostino: The oil producers. They're looking at this, just like when you decide how much a share of IBM (IBM) is worth. You look at the price on the New York Stock Exchange.
O'Reilly: The CEO of Shell (RDS) or the CEO of Exxon Mobil (XOM) says, "We're going to pay $125 a barrel." Is that what they say? I thought it was the sheikhs and Hugo Chavez saying, "We're going to charge you $125 a barrel."
D'Agostino: No. They're all looking to the exchanges, the free markets, to set the price. . . . The free markets right now are saying the price of crude oil is about $120 a barrel. It's been going up. It continues to go up. And gasoline prices are directly related to crude oil prices.
O'Reilly: . . . But you still haven't explained, and I don't know if you can, Mr.—with all due respect, Mr. D'Agostino—who puts the $120 on—a human being has to do that. And somebody has to make a decision.
D'Agostino: It would be great if there was just one person who was doing that, because then we could go talk to him.
-
theres no point
-
D'Agostino: No. OPEC only sets the oil supply. . . . The price of oil is actually set in New York. . . .
O'Reilly: Is there a guy who says $125 a barrel?
D'Agostino: No. There's a huge market. It's filled with hedgers. It's filled with speculators. It's filled with moms and dads, average Americans. It's a big market that sets the price.
O'Reilly: somebody has to put the $125 on the barrel. Who does it?
D'Agostino: They're getting it from this market. . . .
O'Reilly: Who is "they"?
D'Agostino: The oil producers. They're looking at this, just like when you decide how much a share of IBM (IBM) is worth. You look at the price on the New York Stock Exchange.
O'Reilly: The CEO of Shell (RDS) or the CEO of Exxon Mobil (XOM) says, "We're going to pay $125 a barrel." Is that what they say? I thought it was the sheikhs and Hugo Chavez saying, "We're going to charge you $125 a barrel."
D'Agostino: No. They're all looking to the exchanges, the free markets, to set the price. . . . The free markets right now are saying the price of crude oil is about $120 a barrel. It's been going up. It continues to go up. And gasoline prices are directly related to crude oil prices.
O'Reilly: . . . But you still haven't explained, and I don't know if you can, Mr.—with all due respect, Mr. D'Agostino—who puts the $120 on—a human being has to do that. And somebody has to make a decision.
D'Agostino: It would be great if there was just one person who was doing that, because then we could go talk to him.
::)
do you ant me to show clips of this guy getting schooled by Schiff?
-
theres no point
Yeah, because again you got obliterated. Wake up already and smell the Kenyan Coffee
-
if it has to do with this topic, if not it's pointless
-
::)
do you ant me to show clips of this guy getting schooled by Schiff?
Hahaha, ask this clown to explain in his own words and he copy/pastes some lines from the article he just posted. This uneducated douche is, once again, done. What an embarrassingly stupid person.
Beach Bum really ought to start deleting his troll posts from this board.
2 pages of Blacken and Mal posting today and they still can't explain why the speculators have driven the price up. Says a lot.
-
well this embarrassingly stupid person doesn't live with his mother, how about yourself yes or no simple question
-
well this embarrassingly stupid person doesn't live with his mother, how about yourself yes or no simple question
???
You live in your parent's basement.
I almost feel sorry for you. You're not actually capable of thinking for yourself. You can't even formulate a response to the simple question I asked without ripping off someone else's opinion. Perfect example of the failure that is the American education system.
-
i have my own home,so do you live with mommy yes or no ???
-
well this embarrassingly stupid person doesn't live with his mother, how about yourself yes or no simple question
Amazing - we have been predictng the natural and predictable effects of QE2 for months now and you idiots still are in denial and now want to blame "speculators" for food, oil, gold, silver, wheat, etc in order to shift blame away from the WWWWTTTTFFFF policies of obama/bernake et al.
Unreal. You leftists really are an unbelievable bunch.
-
Haha, of course you do.
You claimed you didn't run any gimmick accounts yet you've been caught out on at least six now.
You claimed to be a millionaire Wall St. investor (you're not).
You claimed to be a pilot AND a soldier that fought in three wars (you didn't).
You claimed to run your own successful multi-million dollar business (you don't).
:D :D :D :D
Notice Blacken changes the subject anytime you ask him even the most simplest of questions? Thanks for playing, high school dropout. 8)
-
i have my own home,so do you live with mommy yes or no ???
Cardboard box in Penn Station does not count.
-
Dubbed “Johnny of Arabia” by the Wall Street Journal, John D’Agostino is a Harvard Business School graduate who became the youngest vice president at the New York Mercantile Exchange – the world’s largest energy derivatives exchange – and spearheaded the Exchange’s breakthrough international partnership: the first ever Middle Eastern based energy exchange, the Dubai Mercantile Exchange (DME). He is the main character in New York Times best-selling author Ben Mezrich’s book, Rigged: The True Story of an Ivy League Kid Who Changed the World of Oil, which chronicles how this Italian-American from Brooklyn conquered Harvard Business School and helped revolutionize the world of oil and energy trading exchanges.
i think he knows a little more than a couple of guys that post on getbig
-
do you live with mommy yes or no, are you ashamed to answer ???
-
Cardboard box in Penn Station does not count.
It's clear that he still lives with mommy and daddy. And it's also clear that he's one of the 1/3 of Americans that leeches their benefits from the govt.
Dubbed “Johnny of Arabia” by the Wall Street Journal, John D’Agostino is a Harvard Business School graduate who became the youngest vice president at the New York Mercantile Exchange – the world’s largest energy derivatives exchange – and spearheaded the Exchange’s breakthrough international partnership: the first ever Middle Eastern based energy exchange, the Dubai Mercantile Exchange (DME). He is the main character in New York Times best-selling author Ben Mezrich’s book, Rigged: The True Story of an Ivy League Kid Who Changed the World of Oil, which chronicles how this Italian-American from Brooklyn conquered Harvard Business School and helped revolutionize the world of oil and energy trading exchanges.
i think he knows a little more that a couple of guys that post on getbig
Once again, he didn't say anything in that article beyond "the speculators did it". Your reading comprehension skills are pretty sad.
Why are you incapable of formulating your own opinion without copy/pasting something someone else wrote? Are you really that stupid?
do you live with mommy yes or no, are you ashamed to answer ???
i have my own home,so do you live with mommy yes or no
-
Yeah, because again you got obliterated. Wake up already and smell the Kenyan Coffee
Dude i destroyed like 6 of your threads... and you still havent come up with why we got record prices and record profits with lower demand
-
Dude i destroyed like 6 of your threads... and you still havent come up with why we got record prices and record profits with lower demand
Lower demand? Here was I thinking that China was consuming more oil per day than at any other point in their history. Silly me.
-
D'Agostino: No, no, no, I don't know about that. What we know for a fact is that we have a weak dollar. We have global demand that's staying put, no matter how much the price has gone up. [A weakened dollar means you need more dollars to buy the same amount of oil, hence a higher price.]
________________________ ________________________ ______-
QE2 you fucking morons.
-
Dude i destroyed like 6 of your threads... and you still havent come up with why we got record prices and record profits with lower demand
I addressed that in a different thread fool, and you know that.
-
why didn't you just answer the first time, and yes i have my own house
-
D'Agostino: No, no, no, I don't know about that. What we know for a fact is that we have a weak dollar. We have global demand that's staying put, no matter how much the price has gone up. [A weakened dollar means you need more dollars to buy the same amount of oil, hence a higher price.]
________________________ ________________________ ______-
QE2 you fucking morons.
Hahaha, blacken just owned himself with that post. Truly a dumb ass. Also proof that he doesn't even read what he copy/pastes. :D :D :D :D
About time to wrap this thread up.
-
Lower demand? Here was I thinking that China was consuming more oil per day than at any other point in their history. Silly me.
i was talking about in 08 when gas hit $4.50/gal
do you want to make a bet that petro usage decreased in Q2-Q4 of 08?
-
i was talking about in 08 when gas hit $4.50/gal
do you want to make a bet that petro usage decreased in Q2-Q4 of 08?
Petro usage dropped in Q2-Q4? Really? Couldn't have had anything to do with gas hitting $4.50/gal.......
You do realize that the drop in demand is what drove the price back down, right? Or are you actually arguing that the drop in demand was what drove prices up in the first place?
-
D'Agostino: No, no, no, I don't know about that. What we know for a fact is that we have a weak dollar. We have global demand that's staying put, no matter how much the price has gone up. [A weakened dollar means you need more dollars to buy the same amount of oil, hence a higher price.]
________________________ ________________________ ______-
QE2 you fucking morons.
BUMP for Option F and blacken.
-
QE2 = Lower USD = Higher Oil Prices = More Economic Pain
by: Michael Fitzsimmons November 11, 2010
www.seeingalpha.com
________________________ _______________________---
CNBC marches out one "expert economist" after another in their quest to figure out what is wrong with the U.S. economy, whether QE2 will work, how can jobs be created, etc. etc.
It's amazing how seldom America's reliance on foreign oil imports is mentioned in these conversations. The U.S. imports around 12,000,000 a day at a current price of $87/dollars a barrel. This equates to over $1 billion dollars a day ($1,044,000,000) and $381 billion a year.
According to the Commerce Department, the U.S. trade deficit in September was $44 billion. This is clearly unsustainable, yet how often does one hear that over $30 billion dollars of this deficit is due to one commodity alone: foreign oil imports? Logically, the U.S. cannot reduce the wealth flowing out of the country without significantly reducing foreign oil imports.
Some of the commenters on my articles believe my opinions are some leftist plot. This isn't a "left" or "right" or even an "environmental" issue. This is arithmetic. This is a patriotic American looking pragmatically at America's problems and saying, hey, we aren't even trying to fix the problem. The U.S. has yet to even take a baby step in the right direction by adopting a strategic long-term comprehensive energy policy.
And there is apparently no hope America will take adult steps by adopting the only technology that can significantly reduce foreign oil imports by using a domestically available, cheap, and clean fuel: natural gas transportation.
So, what are we doing? The best solution our policymakers can come up with is QE2. How can our foreign oil import problem be solved by the Fed printing more money via QE2 or any other financial tom-foolery? I am an engineer by training, but let me offer an equation for U.S. economic policymakers to consider:
QE2 --> lower dollar --> higher oil prices -> more economic pain for the U.S.
It's really that simple. It's the equivalent of economic "thermal runaway".
After the world complained when Nixon walked away from the Bretton Woods agreement, U.S. Treasury secretary John Conally famously said "Our currency, your problem."
I would rephrase this today as "Fitzsimmons' Law of Economics": "Their oil, our problem."
The solution, of course, is natural gas transportation. We could easily lop 5,000,000 barrels a day off our foreign oil import bill within 5 years by adopting natural gas transportation. At today's $87/barrel, that is $435 million dollars a day of "stimulus" that would stay inside the country creating millions of well-paying jobs. Such a program would re-industrialize and re-invigorate the U.S. economy. We could enter an era of economic prosperity for decades into the future. Oh, and by the way, we'd have a cleaner environment. If economic and environmental prosperity is a leftist plot, then please, by all means, label me a "leftist".
But alas, the powers-that-be (and they control both Dems and Repubs) won't hear of it. They'd rather watch their and their children's country go down the tubes sucking on the teat of foreign oil producers. So what is an U.S. investor to do? I would suggest buying big oil: Chevron (CVX), Conoco Phillips (COP), Exxon Mobil (XOM), and smaller companies such as Marathon (MRO), Murphy Oil (MUR), and Occidental (OXY). These companies are going to thrive as failed U.S. economic policy, combined with emerging market demand, provide a strong tailwind for oil prices to climb higher and higher over the coming years. In fact, the Federal Reserve and Ben Bernanke are the best friends an oil executive could have.
Disclosure: Long COP
-
QE2 = Lower USD = Higher Oil Prices = More Economic Pain
by: Michael Fitzsimmons November 11, 2010
www.seeingalpha.com
________________________ _______________________---
CNBC marches out one "expert economist" after another in their quest to figure out what is wrong with the U.S. economy, whether QE2 will work, how can jobs be created, etc. etc.
It's amazing how seldom America's reliance on foreign oil imports is mentioned in these conversations. The U.S. imports around 12,000,000 a day at a current price of $87/dollars a barrel. This equates to over $1 billion dollars a day ($1,044,000,000) and $381 billion a year.
According to the Commerce Department, the U.S. trade deficit in September was $44 billion. This is clearly unsustainable, yet how often does one hear that over $30 billion dollars of this deficit is due to one commodity alone: foreign oil imports? Logically, the U.S. cannot reduce the wealth flowing out of the country without significantly reducing foreign oil imports.
Some of the commenters on my articles believe my opinions are some leftist plot. This isn't a "left" or "right" or even an "environmental" issue. This is arithmetic. This is a patriotic American looking pragmatically at America's problems and saying, hey, we aren't even trying to fix the problem. The U.S. has yet to even take a baby step in the right direction by adopting a strategic long-term comprehensive energy policy.
And there is apparently no hope America will take adult steps by adopting the only technology that can significantly reduce foreign oil imports by using a domestically available, cheap, and clean fuel: natural gas transportation.
So, what are we doing? The best solution our policymakers can come up with is QE2. How can our foreign oil import problem be solved by the Fed printing more money via QE2 or any other financial tom-foolery? I am an engineer by training, but let me offer an equation for U.S. economic policymakers to consider:
QE2 --> lower dollar --> higher oil prices -> more economic pain for the U.S.
It's really that simple. It's the equivalent of economic "thermal runaway".
After the world complained when Nixon walked away from the Bretton Woods agreement, U.S. Treasury secretary John Conally famously said "Our currency, your problem."
I would rephrase this today as "Fitzsimmons' Law of Economics": "Their oil, our problem."
The solution, of course, is natural gas transportation. We could easily lop 5,000,000 barrels a day off our foreign oil import bill within 5 years by adopting natural gas transportation. At today's $87/barrel, that is $435 million dollars a day of "stimulus" that would stay inside the country creating millions of well-paying jobs. Such a program would re-industrialize and re-invigorate the U.S. economy. We could enter an era of economic prosperity for decades into the future. Oh, and by the way, we'd have a cleaner environment. If economic and environmental prosperity is a leftist plot, then please, by all means, label me a "leftist".
But alas, the powers-that-be (and they control both Dems and Repubs) won't hear of it. They'd rather watch their and their children's country go down the tubes sucking on the teat of foreign oil producers. So what is an U.S. investor to do? I would suggest buying big oil: Chevron (CVX), Conoco Phillips (COP), Exxon Mobil (XOM), and smaller companies such as Marathon (MRO), Murphy Oil (MUR), and Occidental (OXY). These companies are going to thrive as failed U.S. economic policy, combined with emerging market demand, provide a strong tailwind for oil prices to climb higher and higher over the coming years. In fact, the Federal Reserve and Ben Bernanke are the best friends an oil executive could have.
Disclosure: Long COP
BOOM!
-
Notice the date of the article!
Blacken and Option F will not respond of course.
-
Petro usage dropped in Q2-Q4? Really? Couldn't have had anything to do with gas hitting $4.50/gal.......
You do realize that the drop in demand is what drove the price back down, right? Or are you actually arguing that the drop in demand was what drove prices up in the first place?
yes..and usage went down...meaning less people went to buy gas but the profits were still record...how is that?
-
It's sad that both 'sides' in this argument are somewhat right, yet they argue on as if one specific reason is behind this. It's a combination of many things not least of which is fear of dwindling supply, more expensive methods of extraction and increased demand in developing countries.
-
Gasoline cost to jump $700 for average household
4:18pm EST
By Tom Doggett
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. drivers will pay another 10 cents a gallon for gasoline before the latest jump in wholesale costs is fully passed on at the pump, and yearly motor fuel costs will rise 28 percent from last year, the Energy Department said on Wednesday.
The average U.S. household will spend about $700 more for gasoline in 2011 than it spent last year, bringing total motor fuel expenses up 28 percent to $3,235, based on an annual pump price of $3.61 a gallon, the department's Energy Information Administration said.
Retail gasoline prices soared by 38 cents over the last three weeks to $3.52 per gallon, according to the EIA, because of high crude oil costs due to unrest in the Middle East.
"Because the pass-through of changes in wholesale gasoline prices to the retail level is lagged, pump prices would be expected to rise a further 10 cents per gallon to fully reflect the current wholesale price level even without considering any future wholesale price movements," the EIA said in its weekly review of the oil market.
Higher gasoline prices will give consumers less money to spend on other goods and services, which many economists fear could slow the U.S. economy.
The EIA said it expects drivers will pay an average $3.71 a gallon during the summer peak driving season from June through August, about 98 cents more than last year.
There is a 25 percent chance the pump price will exceed $4 a gallon from June through August, the agency said, compared with a 10 percent probability gasoline could fall below $3 during the same period.
(Reporting by Tom Doggett; Editing by David Gregorio)
http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USTRE7286IO20110309