PDA

View Full Version : need explanation from "no drillers" on gas prices



sack316
09-12-2008, 03:19 PM
So today I'm riding to my parents house to cut their grass, as my Dad recently had a fairly invasive surgery to get some biopsies (everythings OK, thanks goodness) and he can't ride a mower for a few weeks. As I ride through town, both there and back, I'm steadily watching the gas prices go up. Thus far about fifty cents today, on average. Some places are worse than others. But I'm fairly certain in daying fifty cents is a solid number for today, and think perhaps another fifty cent increase by the end of this weekend as everyone and their momma are filling up right now.

Now, as far as I can tell, this jump that has been happening over the last few days as these hurricane threats could do damage to our stuff in the gulf. Over the course of the week some 8 and 10 cent jumps came along as things kept happening. etc. etc. , you get the idea to now. And this seems to be based on the threat of what could happen to our drilling and refineries down there, and it's possible effect on our supply. This, again, based on the THREAT that bad could happen... and I can just imagine if the worst does happen in that regard.

And that makes sense to me. It is logical.

So then, why couldn't the inverse be true? Why wouldn't more drilling, more refineries make a significant impact? That is a major part of the argument against it, right? That it would take some time for it to make an impact, and even then it would be so insignificant that it hardly seems worth it. Well this week there is significant impact on the plus side based on possibilities and threats of a possible output reduction... why then couldn't an output increase within this nation make a significant impact on making it cheaper? Not looking for arguments here, just logical explanations.

Sack

wolfdancer
09-12-2008, 04:23 PM
I think drilling would help, but not solve our dependency on foreign oil. But in the long run...we are using up a depletable resource (the dreaded "Mother Hubbard" scenario)....thar ain't no dinosaurs left to keep up with production by donating their bodies to oil production, and there ain't enough fat-assed pols, with the exception of Ted K to help out after they begin decomposing.
The real answer is to cut back on our oil usage. Under my plan, anyone caught driving alone during commute hours would be fined...and for a third strike offense, their car would be crushed in the junkyard.(If they were a Republican, they would
have to remain in the car during the process)
Singapore has different permit levels for driving, with electronic chips in the cars for compliance. Commute driving, highway driving, zone driving, etc.....
A chip in the car....A Republican dream...but only in the vehicles of the under achievers.
Gas rationing?...limited mileage? I could also see economic chaos, as like it or not, in addition to us having to fuel our cars, the autos fuel the economy.
I think down the road there will be a mass migration back into the major cities as gasoline becomes even more expensive.

LWW
09-12-2008, 05:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think drilling would help, but not solve our dependency on foreign oil. But in the long run...we are using up a depletable resource (the dreaded "Mother Hubbard" scenario)....thar ain't no dinosaurs left to keep up with production by donating their bodies to oil production, and there ain't enough fat-assed pols, with the exception of Ted K to help out after they begin decomposing.
The real answer is to cut back on our oil usage. Under my plan, anyone caught driving alone during commute hours would be fined...and for a third strike offense, their car would be crushed in the junkyard.(If they were a Republican, they would
have to remain in the car during the process)
Singapore has different permit levels for driving, with electronic chips in the cars for compliance. Commute driving, highway driving, zone driving, etc.....
A chip in the car....A Republican dream...but only in the vehicles of the under achievers.
Gas rationing?...limited mileage? I could also see economic chaos, as like it or not, in addition to us having to fuel our cars, the autos fuel the economy.
I think down the road there will be a mass migration back into the major cities as gasoline becomes even more expensive. </div></div>
If that isn't a call for fascism I don't know what is.

LWW

LWW
09-12-2008, 05:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So then, why couldn't the inverse be true? Why wouldn't more drilling, more refineries make a significant impact?

Sack </div></div>
It would, and the anti argument requires a complete suspension of all known laws of economics.

My favorite was Pelosi's claim ... with the obligatory parroting by Gayle ... that a 1 time release of 70K barrels would bring down high prices but an increase in supply of 1.5M per day for 60 years wouldn't.

LWW

pooltchr
09-12-2008, 06:57 PM
Actually, the price increase today, which in our area has been as much as $1.50 per gallon, really doesn't make sense. It is pure speculation on the part of the retailers, and in many cases, could end up in some serious fines for price gouging. The wholesale price of crude was actually the lowest it has been since April today. And the gas they are selling today was already bought and paid for. Now, if the wholesale price goes up in the next couple of weeks based on reduced supply, then a retail price increase would make sense.
What happened today is based purely on speculation and fear.
Steve

sack316
09-13-2008, 01:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, the price increase today, which in our area has been as much as $1.50 per gallon, really doesn't make sense. It is pure speculation on the part of the retailers, and in many cases, could end up in some serious fines for price gouging. The wholesale price of crude was actually the lowest it has been since April today. And the gas they are selling today was already bought and paid for. Now, if the wholesale price goes up in the next couple of weeks based on reduced supply, then a retail price increase would make sense.
What happened today is based purely on speculation and fear.
Steve </div></div>

Exactly Steve! thanks for seeing my point, even if you didn't quite see it (I'm not sure). Like I said in my OP, price increase or gouges as it were, is based on speculation, on threats, on possibilities. And believe it or not, it does make sense in the grand scheme of things. I.E. Say I'm selling widgets and I have a 2 week supply, and I get my widgets from you. I find you are having issues, and there is a possibility you may not be able to ship me any more for a month. The result of this possiblity will be what? Simple supply and demand.

The inverse I speak of earlier, is the "what if" we had more of our own supply. More potential to gain more (which coincedentally would provide less need for the panic we've had this week). So supply is more, price should be less. Also, as we are dependent on other nations for part of that supply, and they are also dependent on our purchasing power, the threat of us needing less from them should also cause lower prices (just as the threat of losing some supply this weekend has caused such an increase). Add these factors together, and it is logical that a significant impact would be made on the price... and not necessarily need to wait until the physical supply is there and rearing to go (just as an impactful increase happened based on speculation before any actual supply decrease). It just makes sense.

Now think about this weekend, and what panic has occured due to the hurricanes because output may be slowed, refineries may be temporarily shut down. Then think about this same situation, only with the option of increasing capacity and output from location X during these last days and perhaps weeks to balance the decrease from within the Gulf. Things would be very different at the pump in that scenario.


And wolfie, I'm not selling this point as a solution to our dependency on foreign oil... or oil period for that matter. Afterall, as you said this is a nonrenewable resourse. But no matter what, it is a resourse we will have a high requirement for in many years to come as alternatives are developed, and any action that can be taken to maintain it's cost as being reasonable to the consumer should be done, IMO. Which obviously includes attempts to control the price, of which I think more drilling is a big part of. But don't mistake that for ol' Sacky boy saying "just drill and all will be well". Part of that ideal also includes a conservationist approach. While I don't think we should be required to carpool, I think it should be encouraged. As should any means of using less overall and using what we do use more responsibly. And ALSO work on any and all alternatives we can... which also falls right in line with my threat to demand principles outlined earlier. Just as saying us getting more of our own oil should lower outside prices due to the threat of decreased demand on speculation... developing alternative means accomplishes this same thing.

Like it or not, oil will still have to be a bridge we use as we get to the next big thing or things. I just happen to think we need to do all we can to keep the toll for that bridge to be as low as possible as we continue to cross it

Sack

pooltchr
09-13-2008, 05:49 AM
Very well stated. When McCain and Palin are in office, they should consider you to head up their energy policy department!
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
Steve

Qtec
09-13-2008, 10:55 AM
the truth (http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/09/11/big-oil-lie/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Even as the sordid details of the Drill, Baby, Drill sex, drugs, and oil scandal in the Minerals Management Service are revealed, conservatives continue to press their drill-drill-drill agenda in Congress. They continue to repeat the Big Oil lie that opening America’s coasts to further drilling would lower gas prices, despite the clear finding by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) that lifting the offshore drilling moratorium would not affect oil prices.

The Center for Economic and Policy Research found that the news media has mindlessly amplified that lie. The hundreds of broadcasts on “proposed drilling for oil in environmentally sensitive zones in the United States” almost completely ignored the EIA report: </div></div>

the truth (http://newsproject.org/node/109)

Q

sack316
09-13-2008, 11:35 AM
thanks Q. for the same stuff over and over again. Now care to venture an original thought based on real life cause and effect? I get your post, don't get me wrong. We've been having these discussions for some time here now. You or someone else will post data on how insignificant the impact will likely be. Me or someone else will post equivalent data on what a good impact it may have. And we will each continue down the line on either side of the battle lines.

But if you could, please look at what happened this weekend, and the last two weeks for that matter. Then explain to me the impact that it has had... and then explain to me how more capacity wouldn't have an impact. I mean, precautionary measures taken in the gulf in recent days would account for the proverbial drop in the bucket we hear so much about in decreased output. Prices jumped on "what ifs". Why, as I asked earlier, wouldn't the inverse be true?

Sack

wolfdancer
09-13-2008, 03:28 PM
maybe you should F88king understand what fascism is, "sweetheart", before you try to engage your twit like brain,, and reply with some of your banal insults.
But see if you can understand this, Maggot....
I think we have to cut back on our oil consumption, as we can't "drill" enough to keep up with the increasing demand. And since self important a'holes like you, will not take any steps to willingly help...there may come a time when the use is regulated.
We had rationing in effect during WWII when we fought the fascist f**ks like yourself. You know the ones that put on their brown shirt uniforms and paraded their a** down at the local Hof Brau, and impressed the locals with their "I serve my country" claims.

LWW
09-14-2008, 04:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">maybe you should F88king understand what fascism is, "sweetheart", before you try to engage your twit like brain,, and reply with some of your banal insults.
But see if you can understand this, Maggot....
I think we have to cut back on our oil consumption, as we can't "drill" enough to keep up with the increasing demand. And since self important a'holes like you, will not take any steps to willingly help...there may come a time when the use is regulated.
We had rationing in effect during WWII when we fought the fascist f**ks like yourself. You know the ones that put on their brown shirt uniforms and paraded their a** down at the local Hof Brau, and impressed the locals with their "I serve my country" claims. </div></div>
I do.

You are it.

They want the govt controlling the economy while feigning it's still capitalism simply because it's privately owned with the govt bayonet at the back of the owners, the free press stifled, and opposition jailed and executed.

That's your philosophy fascist boy.

Deal with it.

LWW

pooltchr
09-14-2008, 07:06 AM
Wolf,
You are correct that we can't drill enough to meet the demands of our country. But consider this. For the forseeable future, we are still going to need gasoline to keep this country going. Hydrogen and natural gas stations aren't going to pop up on every street corner next week. Car makers aren't going to fill their dealerships with natural gas cars next year. And even if they did, how many people are going to run out and buy a brand new car? (Hell, I don't buy new cars at all...Car Max is my FRIEND for purely economic reasons. I refuse to take the equity hit you get when you title a new car.)

So if we are going to need gasoline for the next several years, do you think we are better off getting all of it from OPEC, or would we be better off if we were able to produce a greater portion of what we need ourselves?

I agree, we need to conserve, we need to develop alternatives (although I don't think food based fuels are the answer), but alternatives are going to take time. The arguement against drilling is that it's going to take too long. My arguement is that all of our options are going to take time. And the longer we wait to move forward on any of them, including drilling for our own oil, the longer it will be before we see the results.

We don't get anywhere unless we are willing to take the first step.

Steve

LWW
09-14-2008, 09:00 AM
You are debating a dembot.

We WILL drill no matter who wins.

If Obama wins we will drill and Wolf in Md will tote his water as having made prices go down even before the election as "BIG OIL" shook in it's boots ... because the NYT told them it was the truth.

If McCain wins they will lament the further destruction of the ecosystem causing global warming ... even if it gets colder because global warming causes global cooling which cause global warming which causes global cooling ... and that $2.50 a gallon gas is a gift from the DemGods. And the reason will be the same, the NYT will tell them that is what they think.

LWW

Gayle in MD
09-15-2008, 06:45 AM
Incredible. The Reaganite, REpublicanite, no regulation, let the market take care of it, supply and demand, right wingbats, pi**ing off about price gouging!

BWA HA HA HA...that's a good one!

We're watching a Republican financial, corporate fascist, earth quake, and you still don't get it!

Drilling off our coastlines won't change a thing, if the oil companies refuse to take their profits and build or increase output faster from refineries, so that we can get more oil on the market faster, when the Saudis and others screw over us.

Getting more oil out faster where they are already drilling, is the only fat way to deal with this oil crises. Ten years up the road isn't going to make a bit of difference.

Your boy Bush has already wasted eight years dealing with our energy crises. Your Republican Fed, already wasted ten years when he could have averted this mortgage crises. Change means no more stupid Republican policies that are set up to avert attention away from critical issues like energy, for the financial benefit of the rich, at the eexpense of the middle class, and resulting negative impacts our safety here at home.

Eight years, huge debts, a war without end, a failed economic system, an oil crises, a government that has expanded, but doesn't work, and the worst financial crises since the crash, and you guys want to yap about lipstick!

McCain's a liar. What more do you need to know. He lies, and then swears to his lies. Just another Republican liar, with low grade averages, and with no experience in economics, in bed with the biggest lobbyists in Washington D.C.! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

sack316
09-15-2008, 09:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Drilling off our coastlines won't change a thing, if the oil companies refuse to take their profits and build or increase output faster from refineries, so that we can get more oil on the market faster, when the Saudis and others screw over us.

Getting more oil out faster where they are already drilling, is the only fat way to deal with this oil crises. Ten years up the road isn't going to make a bit of difference.

</div></div>

So what you're saying is that yes, it could make an impact (having more that is)--- just not in agreement with the idea of that theory in different locations. (?)

Sack

Gayle in MD
09-15-2008, 09:55 AM
We should make the most of what is already available to increase output at times when other countries, and hedge funders, mess with us on the global market.

It is incredibly stupid to state that new oil leases will do a damned thing to improve the predicament we are in at the present time.

Drilling off our coastlines at a time when hurricanes are increasing in strength and frequency, for oil that we won't see for seven or more years, and which will not affect the prices and problems we face with energy, both economically, and in national security issues, is stupid, just plain stupid.

We must finally bite the bullet, and go all out for clean, safe energy, which we can have control over, and which cannot hold our contry hostage to the Middle East, or to corporate fascists who care only about stuffing their own pockets, and to hell with what is best for the country.

Government must direct taxes, and policy, in ways that protect all of the people in our country from corporate thieves, both here and abroad. That requires sticks and carrots used in ways that promote what is good for America and the common good, instead of rewarding those who fail to care about it.

Look at what the oil companies used to hold of their profits back in the sixties, without re-investment, and compare it to today!

There is your answer.

Deeman3
09-15-2008, 09:56 AM
While Obama's plan of having us pay even more for gas has some merit in that it will certainly make alternatives more appealing, I am not sure the economy will hold up to it for long particularily in light of the increased taxes we will pay. On the other hand, beyond drill more and building reactors, McCain has not stepped up with a good plan either.

Maybe as this banking junk shakes out, we will begin to understand that the strategy of letting all manufacturing go off shore (Bush, Clinton,Bush) we may find that lending in itself is not a business that produces a real product and all the Harvard graduates that thought we could thrive in a service based economy may have had it wrong as we line up to cut each other's hair. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif