| Author | Post |
|---|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23rd, 2008 02:16 am |
|
http://stoptaxing.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/mccain-ad-raps-obama-on-energy/
The new McCain ad is interesting. It is Obama opposes drilling so blame him for higher prices. Don't tell me the polling doesn't give us clarity where this issue is. This may be the issue that loses it for the Democrats. They are losing their generic ballot advantage for Congress. McCain has pulled even on the economy and energy policy and has the momentum. It is a long time until November though.
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23rd, 2008 02:11 am |
|
| The future's price is based upon current and likely future supply. Change the calculus and the price changes. The President lifted the ban and the price of oil fell 12%. We talk with Iran and the price drops. Half of the price of oil has nothing to do with today's supply. 1/4 of it has to do with weakness in the dollar. 1/4 of it has to do with guess about the future.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23rd, 2008 02:04 am |
|
| The same way the probability of a hurricaine wiping out an oil platform sends the price through the roof every time the forecast changes.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23rd, 2008 01:20 am |
|
I'll tell you again...the threat of oil in 10 years has NO effect on 30, 60 , or 90 day future contracts. There are a few reasons why oil has dropped, namely decreased US consumption (imagine that!!!), and an increase in prices China is going to charge it's people.
However, amuse me. Tell me how the price of oil that will be processed in 30 days is affected by the possibility of oil in 10 years.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23rd, 2008 01:03 am |
|
| Another big way having our own resources helps is that it keeps home some of the dollars now flowing overseas. Yes, that means various oil comapnies might make more money but it means OUR pension plans and stockholders get the benefits as does our economy. Until we decide we will live without the big cars and long commutes, throwing our money away on oil is best done with the 'home boys'.
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 548 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23rd, 2008 12:10 am |
|
| Isn't is peachy that just the threat of drilling is one of the factors in the price drop of crude? Tell me again that tapping our own resources doesn't help.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 03:34 am |
|
I believe you are both right to an extent. Fred has given correct information on the consumption and potential additional inputs from ANWR . No , it wouldn't make us energy independent. But that doesn't mean we have exhausted our potential by playing in the sandbox drawn by today's 'leaders' in Washington. Something like 97% of Federal land has been declared off limits for drilling by one sanctimonious administration or another. What potential have we denied ourselves by such rulings?
Even with oil shale and and unfettered onshore and offshore drilling, we'd be hard pressed to [likely unable] to wean ourselves from foreign oil in the next 10-20 years, but when the do-do hits the fan in the Middle East , we'd be in a better position than we are now. The obvious answer is to find alternate fuels for the main use of foreign oil which is gasoline for our gazillion vehicles. Ole Pickens probably has the best idea [ the use of natural gas for such fuel] but it's not going to happen in a time frame that will let us off the hook to come up with more oil supplies. Look around. We have a lot of vehicles that run on gasoline that would have to be replaced or converted to some fuel that doesn't even have a distribution network yet. Drill now.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 03:06 am |
|
| No, I presented math. I've asked, no, begged you to show me where the math is wrong, or my sources were biased. I've given it to you all, and you keep wanting your fix, regardless of the consequences of the future. I want to solve the problem.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 02:38 am |
|
| You have presented what you perceive to be the facts Fred.....................
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 02:36 am |
|
Mantras can be facts, and they are in this case.
I've given you the facts about how much oil might be in all the areas, how much we could possibly pull out at peak production, and what a small percentage of our consumption it is.
If you've got different figures (mine come from the Department of Energy)...show them.
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1027 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 12:28 am |
|
“The current Democratic mantra on energy is: ‘We can’t drill our way out of this problem.’ Apparently their plan is to talk our way out of this problem. Democrats are also alleging that the oil companies are sitting on millions of acres of oil but are refusing to drill—presumably because oil company executives hate the American people and perversely don’t want to make money. Manifestly, those acres are being explored for oil or have already come up dry. If the Democrats really wanted oil companies to find more oil, they’d allow oil companies to drill offshore and to drill in ANWR, which we happen to know is bursting with oil. But they don’t. They don’t want drilling. They don’t want more oil. They want humans to ride bicycles and then to die. We deserve it: We were mean to the polar bears. It’s good to know that in the middle of a crisis, the Democrats are still liars. As long as we’re fantasizing about ‘alternative’ energy sources, what we really need is a car that runs on Democrats’ lies.” —Ann Coulter
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 20th, 2008 01:28 am |
|
Not exactly....
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/19/content_8571179.htm
1. Ease in world tensions (ie, US diplomat being in the meeting with Iran)
2. Drop in US consumption by 3%
This reference, strangely, doesn't mention the increase in the price China was going to charge.
But if there is a financial reference that details how 30 day delivery contracts are affected by 10 year drilling programs, please clue me in.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 20th, 2008 01:12 am |
|
| Old News Fred. If I recall, 2 days after China made that announcement Oil hit a new all time high.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 20th, 2008 01:08 am |
|
Boo...if you honestly think that the world market in short term delivery for oil in the 30, 60, 90 day period was affected IN ANY WAY by a meaningless announcement that might be a small step towards the first drop of oil hitting the market in 10 years...I've got some swamp land in Sussex County AND a bridge over the Inlet I'd like to sell you.
Do you think that perhaps news like this (from the WSJ) might have been a bit more significant?
Crude oil futures fell $4.75 to settle at $131.93 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange after China disclosed plans to raise prices for gasoline by 16 percent and diesel fuel by 18 percent.
See, the market works on FACTS. In this case, the fact that China is increasing the cost of what they would charge means that they expect consumption to go down. Shoot, if you wanted to credit the President, the fact that he has agreed to a very vague arrangement to start the drawdown at some distant point in the future would be a better way to do it.
Or perhaps, here....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,386566,00.html
Where our decreased consumption is believed to have had the affect of falling prices.
But...hey, I could be wrong. Can you provide me a reference of some reputable financial source that believes as you do? I'll help you, even...check Money, Financial Times, WSJ,
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 20th, 2008 12:07 am |
|
| Ah, I do remember you saying we couldn't drill in 'your' national parks or off limits areas and tough nuggies to us right-wingers who wanted to. I also recall my comment was something to the effect that the game will change as the prices continue to go up. No need to acknowledge who was closer to the mark..we'll just agree that your little picture of the pieces of the hose make sense now that 'drill for oil' is one of the segments of the plan. Reality is a bitch , but eventually we settle on the practical path. I just wish it would happen soon on this global warming hype before the governements get their hooks in too deep with their carbon tax schemes and find it is easy money where they don't have to do anything except collect cash for their fairy tale 'solutions'.
|
Boo
Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 19th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 481 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19th, 2008 09:50 pm |
|
Sure is a great big, giant coincidence that after ole' Georgie-boy said he is dropping the executive order banning drilling on the outer continent shelf and anwar that oil bin dippin' three days ion a row. Sixteen US FRN's in 3 days. Hoo boy, I wonder if'n uncle Zeb can begin makin' shine again? How much more kin it drop if'n we done started drillin' now? Sorry, Democruts. If'n ya caint hang with the big dogs, then stay on the porch.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19th, 2008 11:25 am |
|
Show me where I said never drill. What I have said is that drilling is not the answer to our problems. Saying that the relatively small amount of oil we will get will not bring down the price or our dependency on foriegn oil is not the same as being against drilling. I am trying to simply deflate the main arguments FOR it.
I have said time and time again that I would use it as a lever, like methadone to a nation of crack addicts. You want to drilll? Sure, but it is going to cost you in terms of conservation and alternative energy matters...and I would tie the production of the oil to specific measures. Get the CAFE milage up a certain amount, you get a certain amount of oil. You cut greenhouse gases in other ways, you get a bit more.
THAT would be a comprehensive energy policy that addresses our needs, our waste, pollution, AND steps towards cutting greenhouse gases.
To be honest, you are probably right, in that these conditions are ones that Republicans will never agree to, so I am very comfortable in making this offer.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19th, 2008 05:15 am |
|
| Selective memory there, Fred. It is you who have come around to the idea that part of the solution is the additon of supply through [shudder] drilling. Now if you can convince your buddies in Congress to pay attention to your pretty picture maybe we'll get somewhere.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 06:24 pm |
|
Then how come no one here has said so until recently? It is like your brain freezes whenever you don't see the letters "itive" after "conserve".
CR said it best when in a Krystol moment (ie, saying that they are afraid of health care reform because if it works, Dems look good) he stated that it was about getting back at the Libs. That, my friend, is the truest answer you can give.
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 548 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 06:17 pm |
|
No one is denying that we have to all these things but you and the leftist liberal Democrats automatically eliminate oil under the false assumption that "nothing else would be done." We are a petrol-based economy and it will be a hundred years that we get off oil altogether. We can reduce consumption on transportation and energy needs but too much of the USA, and the world, is mired in petro based items.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 04:14 pm |
|
No, I've been saying all along we need a comprehensive energy policy. We may, in the short term, have to do things I would prefer we don't do, but I recognize that there may be a need...but I also know that if the American people and Congress, quote "do something" like pass drilling, nothing else will be done.
This about sums it up.....
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17th, 2008 05:00 pm |
|
PTG, a slight sign of progress. Fred now says 'we might need to drill'. Small step but we'll take it. To give credit to my favorite Lefty, Fred is correct about the need to do other things to get us away from the dependency on oil. His reasons and mine might be different, but the end point is the same as far as energy independence.
The Pickens initiative is widely seen as a 'windpower thing' but if you study his comments carefully you realize he is really about getting us away from using natural gas to generate power and use it for transportation instead, replacing gasoline. The crafty rascal calls himself an 'oil man' but the last time I checked [some years ago] he's pretty heavy into natural gas. That's OK , though, I'd rather we add to his billions than to the coffers of Chavez and the Sheiks and the Mexican elites. Even ole T. Boone says we need to use the total array of assets we have [coal , nuclear, etc.] to address the cash we are hemmoraghing overseas for gasoline while we come up with the magic vehicles that can run on algae and electricity. If you want to become filthy rich come up with a way to run your cars and trucks efficiently on electricity. We already have the power lines [distribution systems] in place which is a stumbling block for most of the other non-gasoline vehicle fuels.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17th, 2008 01:28 pm |
|
Fred wrote: CR is the master of misrepresentation.
I quote myself because it continues to be true. No, I said no such thing that we can regulate away the problem. The problem (and I am glad to see that you at least recognzie that there is one....small progress, but I'll take it) is NOT going to go away, and it certainly isn't going to be regulated away.
What it will take is a massive effort from both the private and public sector. I honestly don't recall which candidate called for an equivalency to the moon landing, but we need something along those lines. We're going to need oil for the foreseeable future, but we don't necessarily need it where we are using the most of it. We may need to go with more nuclear power, and we may well need to streamline some existing processes AND to tack on a requirement that we try to solve the problem if waste. We may need to drill, but it needs to be part of a long term strategic plan. If all of these "billion barrel" oil fields that seem to be keep popping up in Iran and Brazil it may wind up being a moot point....If you can drill and ship the Brasil oil to the US for cheaper then the companies can produce it off shore, that noise will go away pretty quickly.
We need the private sector to develop alternatives, but we need the public sector to support them. Maryland, for instance, is now interested in powering their public builidings with Bluewater's power. This possible partnership would not have been possible without the government encouraging/arm twisting a few companies to get it done. Yeah, maybe it would have been better for DPL to go along with the bigger project that Bluewater wanted ,but the fact that an agreement was signed to get it started is a good thing, and is a start. We need more hybrids, maybe some hydrogen vehicles. The first couple of generations of them may well be crappy or present their own problems, but supporting of them and trying to solve these problems does a whole lot more then pretending the problem is that we need a minscule amount more oil.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17th, 2008 11:53 am |
|
So Fred - What you are saying is that Congress is just going to regulate away the problem. No thanks
"However, these things still avoid the big issue of 70% of oil going into transportation. THAT has to be resolved by conservation, increased milage standards, and more support of public transportation".
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17th, 2008 03:23 am |
|
| No one in Congress advocates doing nothing about supply? Are you referring to the US Congress, by any chance? That wasn't really a serious statement, was it?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17th, 2008 03:08 am |
|
CR is the master of misrepresentation. I have said time and time and time again, we need a comprehensive policy to solve the problem instead of pretending we are solving something. I'm willing to consider drilling, but only after we address the other issues. I KNOW that our Congress, especially those who seem to get a woodie at the thought of oil derricks, would quickly claim victory and not do anything else. Think of it as dessert after you eat your vegetables....
Nuclear? Probably, but let's devote some money dervived from the sale of it to resolve the problem of it's waste. Wind? Sure.....I'm all for that, and solar, as well.
However, these things still avoid the big issue of 70% of oil going into transportation. THAT has to be resolved by conservation, increased milage standards, and more support of public transportation.
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 331 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17th, 2008 02:55 am |
|
p.t.g. - it is not ignoring or avoiding the issue. Avoiding the issue is pretending that only increasing the supply of oil will solve the market problem. There are two sides to the market for energy - supply and demand. The difference between McCain and Obama is very little on this issue. Both argue that demand needs to be reduced. Both agree that this will not make the supply problem go away. Both argue that energy supply needs to be increased. Both agree that this will not make the demand problem go away.
The only substantive difference is on the issue of how to actually increase supply and decrease demand. Neither says we should not increase supply. Neither says we should not decrease demand.
This same series of statements applies to nearly every member of Congress - from either political persuasion, and even the independents. I know of No One in Congress that advocates doing nothing about supply. I know of No One in Congress that advocates doing nothing about demand. Assertions to the contrary are not accurate.
Now, where do we cut demand? If the price keeps going up, we won't need an increase in car fuel efficiency requirements from the government, people will stop buying gas-hogs unless they have lots of money to burn. We can encourage energy star appliances - but this takes time. We can increase insulation in buildings - but this takes time. We can lower the speed limit - but this takes no time....hmmm... perhaps we are onto something here?
Where do we increase energy supply? If we simply jack up oil production - great! - it will reduce the price on a temporary basis until foreign demand jacks the price up again. Does this solve the problem? No. It gets us through an election cycle. Then the next time prices rise again everyone will scream how much it is the other party's fault that we are still addicted to oil. Increasing oil coming out of the ground is not going to decrease demand, but rather it does the opposite. We have done this repeatedly since the 70s. Perhaps we could use nuclear? Perhaps we could use solar? Perhaps wind? Perhaps hydroelectric? So far, both major party candidates support all of these. Obama - more toward solar, wind, geothermal, biomass. McCain, more toward nuclear, solar, wind, biomass. Neither rules out nuclear, hydroelectric, or even tidal systems - they just have their preferences.
This debate is a non-debate. If you read only their statements about energy policy with buzzwords eliminated, most of the public could probably not tell which is which. Are there members of congress that oppose nuclear? Of course. Are there members of congress that oppose lowering the speed limit even if it would immediately reduce our demand for oil by nearly 6% (more than we import from Saudi Arabia and Iran combined)? Of course. Just as I find the latter list in congress to be offensive, there are other people that find the anti-nuclear members equally offensive. Aren't elections great? I am willing to put up with some more nuclear if we simultaneously reduce our oil usage by lowering the speed limits. Isn't compromise great? If we compromise, we both get exactly what we want - more energy supply and less energy demand - resulting in cheaper energy. If we continue to argue to gridlock, neither gets anything they want - less domestic energy supply and more energy demand - resulting in more expensive energy.
So where's the compromise going to come from?
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17th, 2008 01:22 am |
|
So like Chamberlain and the Nazis, you suggest we just do nothing and make plans for what we might be able to accomplish in 20 years if this flea called oil will just go away.
If we reduce our consumption, the price will go up anyway because China and India will suck it up like Gatorade. Meanwhile we will still be dependent on Middle East Oil instead of our own dwindling supply.
Fred wrote:
Then spend the time doing something meaningful, like trying to come up with an energy plan that addresses the underlying issue.
The 800 pound gorrilla is gas. 66-70% of our oil consumption is tied to vehicle use, which is why conservationists harp on it so much....it is the biggest target to go after because a 10% reduction there would have far reaching effects on the entire energy market.
Last edited on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 01:22 am by Playing the Game
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 07:28 pm |
|
Then spend the time doing something meaningful, like trying to come up with an energy plan that addresses the underlying issue.
The 800 pound gorrilla is gas. 66-70% of our oil consumption is tied to vehicle use, which is why conservationists harp on it so much....it is the biggest target to go after because a 10% reduction there would have far reaching effects on the entire energy market.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 07:13 pm |
|
Well, even looking like we are doing something beats the current state where it looks like we aren't doing anything but throwing partisan zingers at each other down there in D.C. The current way hasn't worked , at least for most of us, so why not try something different?
Hey, just being Obama like here....
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 06:46 pm |
|
What Dems are arguing is that the problems we have right now will not be solved by drilling. Neither our dependence on foreign oil nor the cost at the pump will be affected much.
What Republicans want is the cheap, easy, "feel good" measure of drilling that does not solve our problems, but makes them LOOK like they are doing something.
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1027 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 06:34 pm |
|
Dems argue against drilling
Gas prices are soaring, pocketbooks are suffering---yet Democrats are still finding excuses not to drill for more oil. Nancy Pelosi called the Bush plan to drill a 'hoax' and tells the oil companies to drill on the land they are leasing from the government. Seemingly content with waiting for magical new energy sources, Democrats would like you to believe that the oil companies are just leaving money out there on the table. Here's the rest of the story on why the evil big oil companies aren't drilling on these leased properties from the government. Read the transcript.
|
Current time is 02:34 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 |
|