Geenies to blame fdor high gas prices

202typical

Long Time Member
Messages
3,123
Blame Clinton And The Greens For Gas Prices
By Henry Lamb
April 28, 2008

With gas prices now yon-side of $3.50 per gallon, wouldn't it be great to have an extra million barrels of domestic oil flowing daily into the American pipeline? Blame William Jefferson Clinton, who vetoed a bill in 1995 that would have opened the Alaska reserves that could have been producing much needed domestic energy today.

Blame the green environmental extremists who block every effort to expand domestic energy supply, whether in off-shore oil reserves, expansion of clean coal production, or the construction of new nuclear energy facilities. It's just plain dumb to allow the shortage of readily available energy to drive prices so high that the entire economy and food supply are in jeopardy.

The fear-mongering extremists bring up the "global warming" hobgoblin every time a new initiative is introduced to increase the energy supply. Atmospheric carbon dioxide from human activity makes little or no difference to the climate.

The one thing on which scientists agree is that atmospheric carbon dioxide is currently about 375 parts-per-million. Eighty percent of this carbon is naturally occurring, and would be in the atmosphere had oil never been discovered. The remaining 20 percent, or about 75ppm, is generally attributed to all the smoke-stacks and automobiles and lawn mowers that humans have created.

Could all man-made carbon dioxide produced by humans be eliminated from the atmosphere, the difference would be undetectable. Visualize an Olympic-size swimming pool containing the standard 660,253.9 gallons of water. (web site) The average depth would be 7.480 feet. Remove the percentage of water equal to man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the new average depth of the pool would be 7.452 feet. Undetectable!

A reduction of 75ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would make no difference on any thermometer. And it would take total elimination of all man-made carbon dioxide to achieve this number. The Kyoto Protocol, had it been fully implemented, would have reduced carbon dioxide by only about 1ppm.

These results are simply not worth banning the use of fossil fuels.

Environmental extremists prefer to mandate the expanded use of ethanol, rather than using abundant oil supplies. This alternative produces less energy per gallon of fuel than gasoline, while driving the price of food upward, causing riots, (web site) and forcing the cultivation of more land where wildlife can no longer flourish.

Environmental extremists wring their hands and cry crocodile tears at the thought of "ruining" the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge by using only 2000 of the 18 million acres for oil production. But they seem to have no problems with the idea of covering millions of acres in the southwest with solar panels.

Environmental extremists celebrate their victory in banning DDT to save birds. But they have no problem with miles and miles of wind turbines that slaughter millions of birds every year. Nor do they seem to have any sympathy for the millions of people who have died from malaria as a direct result of the ban on DDT.

Big oil is not to blame for the high price of gasoline; the blame must fall squarely in the lap of the environmental extremists who use propaganda and fear-mongering to block the increases in the production of readily available fossil fuels. There are sufficient reserves of coal to last about 200 years. Despite Jimmy Carter's 1970s declaration that the world would be out of oil by 2000, and considering the anticipated increase in demand, there are enough known oil reserves to last at least 60 years. This energy should be available now.

Of course, research should continue to find abundant, affordable energy supplies for the future. But forcing technology to advance by arbitrarily and unnecessarily prohibiting the use of currently-available energy supplies makes no sense. The price of both existing supplies and alternative technology is artificially increased. To write this foolishness into law is even worse.

Every time government sticks its nose into the market place and attempts to manage it, government makes a mess. The ethanol mandate, for example, inevitably results in price increases for food - for everyone. The arbitrary increase in fuel efficiency standards inevitably results in smaller, lighter automobiles - and more crash-related deaths. The much touted cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions will inevitably result in taking money out of the pockets of wage-earners, and transfer it to the pockets of people like Al Gore, who created the "hot-air" store, and sells his goods only because government forces people to buy them.

Every time a person fills up at the pump, he should visualize the billions of barrels of oil that are waiting in Alaska, and the billions of barrels of oil that are waiting in the Dakotas and Montana, and the billions of barrels of oil that are waiting just off shore - and curse the environmental extremists who are forcing him to pay far more for his transportation than is necessary.




"Thanks climate PhD 202" - TFinalshot Feb-05-08, 02:16 PM (MST)
 
Liberals are the ones who started the Iraq war and they're responsible for inflation, the national debt,9/11,the death of Elvis and the fall of the Roman empire. holy crap they're responsible for everything, if we could just get a republican president at the same time as a republican controled congress for let's say about 6 years we could prove it to the American people and get rid of liberal democrats forever!
 
This guys is right on the money. You libs all want to blame buch for the price of gas but it was the libs who shut down his energy bill which would have put us in a much better position than we are in today.
 
Since you read the entire article Dude just what part of this do you disagree with?
Bring it!



"Thanks climate PhD 202" - TFinalshot Feb-05-08, 02:16 PM (MST)
 
>This guys is right on the
>money. You libs all want
>to blame buch for the
>price of gas but it
>was the libs who shut
>down his energy bill which
>would have put us in
>a much better position than
>we are in today.


BINGO!!!
 
The only thing he knows is that it is Bush's falt. He could read the whole article and no matter what it said it would still be Bush's fault. Lets not blame this do nothing congress just blame Bush it is his fault.
 
I agree with some of it and some of it is hypothetical not factual, wasn't Bush president for 6 years after Clinton left office with majority of congress as well? what did he do to head off this situation in thos 6 years post Clinton a pre loss of control of congress? I'm not saying the greenies and Clinton aren't part of the problem but to say they put us in a situation that was out of the republicans ability to have some effect on in those six years is laughable. all your experts aren't as smart as they say they are or they'd be flat rich off their oil investments.most of them have lots of hind sight and little foresight, it appears Clinton and Bush suffer the same short comings there.
 
Aren't you guys getting tired of the liberal vs conservative, Democrat vs. Republican thing?

Look back at how long Republicans controlled congress during Clinton's administration. If congress was so inclined they could have done more to push through a conservative agenda of more energy development, more conservation, more everything but the Republican Congress did not do any of them. The Presidnt does set policy but not one dollar can be spent without congressional approval.

It is idiotic to blame anyone person for the price of gas or any one party. Remember Nixson response to high gas prices? A more socialist move was never made by an American President. Why not blame him or Jimmy Carter or Dwight Eisenhower. What frigging good is it going to do to blame anybody. Playing the blame game simply prolongs problems

Nemont
 
Nemont;
You are right about the GOP being the majority in congress under Clinton. But it was not a 2/3 majority where they would have been able to override any Clinton veto. The same for the democrat majority today.
I do agree that this is more of both parties forgetting who put them in office then it is Clinton or Bush's fault. Hopefully this is coming to a head now and to protect their seats more congressmen will go forward with opening those oil fields and at the same time looking for viable aternatives for our engery problems. I remember in the 60's when electric power was cheap and everyone was building homes with all electric kitchens here in CA. then we got shut down on building dams with hydro power plants and nuke plants and electric power soared to high prices.

RELH
 
Nemont I couldn't agree more, both parties are to blame and in some cases both are innocent. there is plenty of blame to go around but in the end it doesn't matter, the American people elect these morons so they have to live with what they asked for.

It's fruitless to waste time trying to decide which party has the most morons, if it wasn't a tie one side would eliminate the other.
 
Dude I am referring to the energy bill which would have opened up drilling for oil off our shores as well as Alaska. The one that would have allowed more refineries to be built to turn that oil into gas. The one that was revised several times trying to get the left wing democrats and a few lefty republicans to support it so that we could head off this crisis and significantly ease our support for foriegn oil.

The one Bush and the republican majority tried so hard to pass but could not due to the democrats fighting it every step of the way.


Go ahead, try to spin the facts!
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-29-08 AT 00:03AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-28-08 AT 11:36?PM (MST)

If the republican majority and the republican president couldn't make it happen maybe it wasn't as good of idea as your selective memory recalls?


Oil pumped from Alaska ( ANRW ) is what you're talking about I think, isn't " our oil " anyway it's the oil companies oil, since oil is a commodity traded on the world market how much of a difference would that oil make anyway? sure some but how much? also while you're thinking on that what percentage of Alaskan oil is burned by Americans? if that wasn't your silver bullet the dems took away then do tell.


The dems are to blame as well as the republicans for this mess, but most of all supply and demand with China and India demanding more than anyone could have guessed. if it makes you feel better to blame the dems for all your problems knock yourself out, you've got at least 4 years of hyper whining ahead of you so save a few of those tears.
 
> The dems are to blame
>as well as the republicans
>for this mess, but most
>of all supply and demand


How much difference would it make? There is said to be 30 years worth of saudi imports in anwr alone. Not to mention the oil off shore.

You are right about supply and demand.

If we were to increase the supply of oil on the market the price of oil would come down.

Now if we could build the additional refineries then we would have more gas on the market as well.
 
Sure it would help a little but that amount of oil on the world market wouldn't solve anything just help a little. chances are other producing nations would cut production enough to keep the prices where they are anyway, they have gotten used to $100 + oil and they've already said they'll keep it there.

Shell just posted a 25% increase in their record profits, a few more barrels of crude aren't going to change the way they do business given the demand in the world today . we'll never see cheap oil again until we find an alternative to it.
 
The alternatives are nuke, coal, our own oil and grain based fuels.
1. Nukes. I think they are great. Environuts have blocked production of plants.
2. Coal. We are the coal capitol of the world. Enviro nuts hate coal as it causes co2 to be put in the air when it is burned.
3. Grain. Takes greater toll on the enviroment and man than does oil or coal. Takes gobs of freaking energy and gobs of freaking water to develop a gallon of grain based fuel. Sounds good but does not work.
4. Our own oil. The best option. There is enough in ANWR and in the rockies that we could go it alone. No forign oil needed. Also couple that with new refineries, since we have not built one in 30 years, and viola. We have solved the problem for 50 years or more, which is plenty of time to come up with better alternatives.




"Thanks climate PhD 202" - TFinalshot Feb-05-08, 02:16 PM (MST)
 
>4. Our own oil. The best
>option. There is enough in
>ANWR and in the rockies
>that we could go it
>alone. No forign oil needed.
>Also couple that with new
>refineries, since we have not
>built one in 30 years,
>and viola. We have solved
>the problem for 50 years
>or more, which is plenty
>of time to come up
>with better alternatives.

Exactly!

But according to dude 30 years worth of imports from suadi arabia is just a "few" barrels.

The libs would rather send our money to the middle east rather than drill at home and support the american economy.
 
>4. Our own oil. The best
>option. There is enough in
>ANWR and in the rockies
>that we could go it
>alone. No forign oil needed.
>Also couple that with new
>refineries, since we have not
>built one in 30 years,
>and viola. We have solved
>the problem for 50 years
>or more, which is plenty
>of time to come up
>with better alternatives.
>
>

This is the true alternative that weans the US of its dependence on foreign oil.....WE SIMPLY USE OUR OWN!!
 
You guys don't get it, Alaskan oil or any other oil for that matter is not " ours " , it's BP or what ever company's oil. it's put on the world market and is no different than Suadi oil, the only impact it would have is what the extra barrels added to the market would cause. you really think a few more barrels on the world market will cause a price reduction that's going to make a big difference? if OPEC cuts their production to hold prices up as they say they will then not likely.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-01-08 AT 07:11AM (MST)[p]Well it appears that at least some of you understand the basic concept of supply and demand but what you are not taking into account is that a monopoly does not fit the model.

OPEC is a monopoly. By adding another supplier to the market place the monopoly will be weakened even if the quantity is relatively small in relation to overall demand.


Take a kid hunting. You will enjoy it more than they do!
 
saudi arabia is a relatively small importer of oil to the US. most all of that oil in the rockies is oil shale, very expensive to get out, we will pay much more than we are now for that oil and tear up a lot of nice wildlife habitat besides, all oil is not the same, I believe its been said many times that america has about 5% of the worlds known reserves of crude oil [the light sweet kind] and we burn about 25%. most of you right wingers talk is circles. and why does the government have to build refineries, is that what your saying?
 
Who said anything about the rockies? ANWR duh

Take a kid hunting. You will enjoy it more than they do!
 
Are you saying the Saudies are not a memeber of OPEC?

Take a kid hunting. You will enjoy it more than they do!
 
How many barrels a day would you expect out of ANWR? Bush says the 63,000 barrels a day we're buying to put in the strategic reserve is having no effect at all on the oil market and he's probably right, so how many barrels would it take from ANWR to matter?

I'm not against drilling for more oil just about anywhere and we need more oil just to maintain the prices we have today but this notion you throw a few million barrels a day into the market and fix everything is nonsense.

Even if that oil hits the maket and some of it doesn't go to Asia but actually stays here who's going to refine it? new record high profits are being posted by oil companies every quarter and how much of it is being spent to even enlarge their existing refineries? I agree the enviro's are making it hard to build new ones but why not expand the existing ones? I question for that matter how hard they're pushing to get permits for new refineries anyway, in today's energy situation they might get what they don't want. if it ain't broke don't fix it, if oil demand slows they'll use refinery capacity to limit the supply and hold prices up.
 
piper wrote: "most of you right wingers talk is circles. and why does the government have to build refineries, is that what your saying?"

I haven't heard anyone ask for the government to build refineries, but I would like the government to ALLOW corps to build them. All the regualtions and EPA nonsense pushed by the greens has hampered the ability to refine more oil and to do it cheaper and cleaner.

PRO

Define, develop, and sustain BOTH trophy and opportunity hunts throughout the state of Utah.
 
* Here is one opinion.

R.J. Samuelson: U.S. driving toward gap between oil supply, demand
By R.J. SAMUELSON
Of the Washington Post

WASHINGTON - What to do about oil? First it went from $60 to $80 a barrel, then from $80 to $100 and now to $120. Perhaps we can persuade OPEC to raise production, as some senators suggest; but this seems unlikely. The truth is that we're almost powerless to influence today's prices. We are because we didn't take sensible actions 10 or 20 years ago. If we persist, we will be even worse off in a decade or two. The first thing to do: Start drilling.

It may surprise Americans to discover that the United States is the third-largest oil producer, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. We could be producing more, but Congress has put large areas of potential supply off-limits. These include the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and parts of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. By government estimates, these areas may contain 25-30 billion barrels of oil (against about 30 billion of proven U.S. reserves today) and 80 trillion cubic feet or more of natural gas (compared with about 200 tcf of proven reserves).


Environmental fears
What keeps these areas closed are exaggerated environmental fears, strong prejudice against oil companies and sheer stupidity. Americans favor both "energy independence" and cheap fuel. They deplore imports - who wants to pay foreigners? - but oppose more production in the United States. Got it? The result is a "no-pain energy agenda that sounds appealing but has no basis in reality," writes Robert Bryce in "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence.' "

Unsurprisingly, all three major presidential candidates tout "energy independence." This reflects either ignorance (unlikely) or pandering (probable).

The United States now imports about 60 percent of its oil, up from 42 percent in 1990. We'll import lots more for the foreseeable future. The world uses 86 million barrels of oil a day, up from 67 mbd in 1990. The basic cause of exploding prices is that advancing demand has virtually exhausted the world's surplus production capacity, says analyst Douglas MacIntyre of the Energy Information Administration. The result: Any unexpected rise in demand or threat to supply triggers higher prices.

The best we can do is to try to influence the global balance of supply and demand. Increase our supply. Restrain our demand. With luck, this might widen the worldwide surplus of production capacity. Producers would have less power to exact ever-higher prices, because there would be more competition among them to sell. OPEC loses some leverage; its members cheat. Congress took a small step last year by increasing fuel economy standards for new cars and light trucks from 25 to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. (And, yes, we need a gradually rising fuel tax to create a strong market for more-efficient vehicles.)

Increasing production also is important. Output from older fields, including Alaska's North Slope, is declining. Although production from restricted areas won't make the U.S. self-sufficient, it might stabilize output or even reduce imports.

Members of Congress complain loudly about high oil profits ($40.6 billion for ExxonMobil last year) but frustrate those companies from using those profits to explore and produce in the United States. Getting access to oil elsewhere is increasingly difficult. Governments own three-quarters or more of proven reserves.

But it's hard for the United States to complain that other countries limit access to their reserves when we're doing the same. If higher U.S. production reduced world prices, other countries might expand production. What they couldn't get from prices they'd try to get from greater sales.


Worse alternatives
On environmental grounds, the alternatives to more drilling are usually worse. Subsidies to ethanol made from corn have increased food prices and used scarce water - with few benefits. If oil is imported, it's vulnerable to tanker spills. By contrast, local production is probably safer. There were 4,000 platforms operating in the Gulf of Mexico when hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit. Despite extensive damage, there were no major spills, says Robbie Diamond of Securing America's Future Energy, an advocacy group.

Perhaps oil prices will drop when some long-delayed projects begin production or if demand slackens. But the basic problem will remain. Though dependent on foreign oil, we might conceivably curb the power of foreign producers. But this is not a task of a month or a year. It is a task of decades; new production projects take that long. If we don't start now, our future dependence and its dangers will grow. Count on it.

Robert J. Samuelson writes for Newsweek and the Washington Post Writers Group.
 
as you drill deeper, in more remote places and use more invironmental protections it costs more. it takes about 17 barrels of fuel to obtain 100 barrels nowdays at one time it took only about 3 barrels per 100, and its only going one way
 
In all honesty, this is so far out of our control there is no REAL argument. There is plenty of oil to sustain the planet for many years. It will make no difference which political party is in power nor has it made any difference in the past. There is one motive and one motive only for the run up in fuel prices and that is GREED. The only way we as consumers can make any difference at all is to refuse to buy the product and that isn't going to happen because it really isn't hurting the average consumer that much. Think about it .... how much are you willing to pay for a gallon of fuel before you just say no more and start walking or riding a bike. I bet your just like me ... it will be alot more than $4.00 a gallon.

RUS

Oil Price May Go Up to $250, Warn Experts
Syed Rashid Husain

Crude prices continue to baffle analysts and pundits. With the $100-era a well established fact in our daily life, there is now a growing chatter within the energy fraternity that $200 a barrel may not be a far fetched idea altogether. Is another global oil shock now gathering pace?

With limited additional supplies, alternative fuel still some decades away and demand far from collapsing, Deutsche Bank is pointing to a ?huge risk? that oil prices would continue to rise in the near to mid-term.

?There is a huge risk that the oil price simply continues to escalate until it gets to some level (possibly $250) when demand finally collapses because ordinary people can no longer afford to burn as much energy as they are burning now,? Adam Sieminski, Deutsche Bank?s chief energy economist, wrote in a report last Friday.

Pointing to the reasons behind the analysis, Sieminski underlines, ?Oil supply growth in non-OPEC countries is struggling at a time when OPEC has been cautious with its production policies.?

In order to analyze the situation further, we need to look at historical facts too. In the early 1980s, oil demand collapsed only after nominal oil prices rose by a factor of 10 between 1970 to 1973 and 1980 to 1983, from about $3.50 a barrel to $35. Based on the empirical example of factor of 10, Sieminski deduces that since oil averaged about $25 a barrel from 2000 to 2003, prices would have to increase to $250 a barrel in 2010 to 2013 to have the same effect on oil users this time around.

Sieminski continues to argue that strengthening of the dollar would take time to stem the flow of investment into commodities, and alternative energies, such as solar power or biofuels, are at least a decade away from contributing to energy supply.

A Bloomberg report also quoted information provider Global Insight as projecting that crude oil could peak in the US at $135 a barrel in the next two months. Oil might rise to $135 as the declining dollar draws investors seeking a currency hedge, before new supplies see prices fall, Global Insight's Simon Wardell was quoted as saying.

And in the meantime, OPEC president Chekib Khelil too has joined the chorus, hinting at significantly firmer crude markets in the near term. Projecting that oil prices could even hit $200 a barrel, Khelil blamed weakness in the dollar and global political insecurity for the current market woes. Establishing a direct relationship between the sinking dollar and the ascending crude prices, Khelil claimed that with the dollar losing one percent of its value, oil prices rise by $4 a barrel and vice versa.

Talking to Algeria?s El Moudjahid newspaper he argued, ?I don't think that any increase in production could help lower (crude) prices, because there is a balance between supply and demand and the stocks of gasoline in the United States have recorded a surplus and are at their highest level for five years.?

And OPEC has a point. Energy futures fell sharply last Wednesday after surprising jump in the US crude oil and distillate fuel inventories last week. In its weekly inventory report, the US Energy Department's Energy Information Administration said crude oil inventories rose by 3.8 million barrels, more than double the increase that analysts surveyed by energy research firm Platts had expected.

Meanwhile, inventories of distillates, which include heating oil and diesel fuel, rose by 1.1 million barrels, more than seven times the expected increase.

Some analysts now believe record gas prices are depressing demand for gasoline. ?The demand just isn't there, and there's plenty of supply,? admits Phil Flynn of Alaron Trading Corp. in Chicago.

On the other hand, despite the official OPEC insistence on not raising the output any further, most Gulf Arab states have been producing at higher levels recently. As per the Joint Oil Data Initiative (JODI), compiled by the Riyadh based International Energy Forum, Saudi Arabia lifted its rude oil supply in January and February to one of its highest levels in many years, while the UAE, Kuwait and Iran also pumped at near capacity. Qatar, a relatively smaller oil producer but a major gas power, also boosted its crude output to record levels in February.

Saudi Arabia?s output climbed to 9.216 million barrels per day (bpd) in February and an average of 9.205 million bpd in January and December. The February level was the Kingdom?s highest production in more than two years and one of the highest in a decade. And despite this high output over the last few months, Saudi Arabia maintained a spare capacity of 1-1.5 million bpd - as per its commitment as a responsible oil producer. Indeed being at the top position also brings in a number of responsibilities too. And Saudi Arabia seems fully aware of it.

Although March figures were not available yet, independent estimates showed Saudi and the Gulf output remaining almost at the February levels, if not higher.

The UAE also pumped 2.716 million bpd in February, up from around 2.700 million bpd in January. The output is close to the country?s sustainable output capacity and is the highest since the Emirates began commercial crude exports in the early 1960s.

Kuwait said it boosted its production, including output from the Neutral Zone, which it shares with Saudi Arabia, by nearly 200,000 bpd to a record high of 2.797 million bpd in February. Iran also pumped at maximum capacity of around 4.120 million bpd while Qatar raised production to its highest ever level of 862,000 bpd in February.

And the above figures once again brings under focus that the real issue afflicting the crude markets is not the output factor, as claimed by some in the industrialized world. Output may be one of the many important factors but indeed not the main factor. Other factors, much beyond the control of the OPEC seem to be equally responsible for the woes of the market, if not more, one has to concede.
 
Good read, I agree.

Oil isn't priced on supply and demand right now, it's priced on what can I charge before you say no. more than we're paying now it would seem.

Never the less it is going to screw up the economy, Warren Buffett says we're in a recession that's going to be far worse and last longer than we think. oil is costing us a whole lot more than just what we pay at the pump, tough times ahead and it's all because of good old greed.
 
I am wondering how many of you guys complaining about greed have quit paying the price the gas suppliers are asking for their product?

I also wonder how many of you in business are charging below what the market will bear because you just don't like that much profit.

Since when is it greed for a willing buyer to pay the market price from a willing seller. If the average person is willing to keep forking over their money in order to continue to drive what does that tell about the cost and the priority people place on buying gas?

Funny to hear farmers griping about commodity markets. How much speculation investment has there been in the grain markets? Who is profiting from that speculation. Must make farmers all a bunch of greedy rotten guys for accepting that money because their product has risen to higher prices because of speculation.

How come speculating in the grain markets is okay but not in the oil market?

Nemont
 
Who said it was wrong? I said it's killing the economy.

SWW prices are down 50% from what they were 4 months ago, are oil prices? other grains have dropped or at best held close to what they were at the first of the year. that's the thing, now that we've figured out there is enough wheat to go around grain prices have dropped, the oil inventory is up from a month ago and the price is still rising. have you seen a gas station anywhere say they're out of fuel? are they in danger of not getting their next load? the price increase we've seen should require an actual shortage to justify the supply and demand excuse. oil companies are doing as they please and we can't stop them I get that, but it's killing our economy we don't have to like it.

The main reason all commodities are up are oil prices and increased production and transportation cost , it's all about the oil.
 
HD,

Can you explain how it is ruining the economy? Also oil invetory may be up but gasoline supplies ahead of the summer driving season took a dip.

I hate having to pay for the cost of filling up my vehicles as much as the next. If it was really hurting I would drive less. Look out on the highway and count how many recreational vehicles are still out there driving around and how many SUV's and P/U trucks people are driving to commute to work. People vote with their wallets and if gas prices were pinching them so badly that they couldn't pay the price they would find alternatives to burning expensive fuel.

Grain prices have come down and if it was just due to fuel prices and input costs they would have continued to be higher. Once we figure out we have enough oil, and IF the dollar rebounds the price of oil will come down also.

The commodity markets exists because they are still the most efficient way to allocate resources whether oil, barley or pork bellies. Speculators have always been around and will always be around.

Nemont
 
You don't think oil prices are hurting the economy? are you for real?

The price of oil effects almost everything, it's come up so fast that many things havn't shown the price increases we will see yet. have you priced tires lately? fertilizer? truck rates? grain prices are going to stay higher in large part to energy prices and their effect on fertilizer prices. no the total run up in commodities was not due to energy prices but the fact is no longer can producers procuce for what was near free, even when the farmer is losing money again it will be at double the price it was a few years ago. we'll never see food prices down where they were again and it will be mostly due to inputs, not to farmer profit margins I'll bet you on that one.

Oil prices will have a severe negative impact of our ecomomy it's just common sense, driving less won't protect you from energy prices anywhere but at the pump and that's just a part of the big picture.
 
I am for real and find it intersting that our economy survived that last run up in oil. The economy is dynamic and corrections are required by the laws of economics. One of two things will happen. Either the demand will collapse, as it did in the early 80's, or the supply will increase or a combination of both. The market will find the equillibrium between those two curves, it always has and it always will.

If high priced oil is bad then high priced wheat, corn, soybeans etc. must also be bad, right?

How many people do you know who have quit driving, heating their homes, turning on the lights, running their air conditioners, parking their boats, SUV's, Motorhomes, Campers, turning off their freezers, stopped going out to eat, stopped shopping for Ipods, Big Screen TV, SLR digital cameras, pick something that the price of fuel and/or food has stopped Americans from doing.

There is alot of expendable income that is still being spent despite high fuel prices.

High oil prices lead to more efficient uses of energy, look at the airlines, they are flying slower and saving fuel. High oil prices also spur on development of different energy sources, innovation and reinvestment into energy producing industries. Do you think the record profits of oil companies are just going into their savings accounts and not into finding more sources of energy?

Show some proof that high oil prices are hurting the economy as a whole.

Tire are high just not because of the cost of oil but also because so much demand going to the war also. Parts are scarce because companies can ship their parts overseas and make 30% more just on the currency conversion. It is not just high oil driving things.



Nemont
 
>Blame Clinton And The Greens For
>Gas Prices
>By Henry Lamb
>April 28, 2008
>
>With gas prices now yon-side of
>$3.50 per gallon, wouldn't it
>be great to have an
>extra million barrels of domestic
>oil flowing daily into the
>American pipeline? Blame William Jefferson
>Clinton, who vetoed a bill
>in 1995 that would have
>opened the Alaska reserves that
>could have been producing much
>needed domestic energy today.
>
>Blame the green environmental extremists who
>block every effort to expand
>domestic energy supply, whether in
>off-shore oil reserves, expansion of
>clean coal production, or the
>construction of new nuclear energy
>facilities. It's just plain dumb
>to allow the shortage of
>readily available energy to drive
>prices so high that the
>entire economy and food supply
>are in jeopardy.
>
>The fear-mongering extremists bring up the
>"global warming" hobgoblin every time
>a new initiative is introduced
>to increase the energy supply.
>Atmospheric carbon dioxide from human
>activity makes little or no
>difference to the climate.
>
>The one thing on which scientists
>agree is that atmospheric carbon
>dioxide is currently about 375
>parts-per-million. Eighty percent of this
>carbon is naturally occurring, and
>would be in the atmosphere
>had oil never been discovered.
>The remaining 20 percent, or
>about 75ppm, is generally attributed
>to all the smoke-stacks and
>automobiles and lawn mowers that
>humans have created.
>
>Could all man-made carbon dioxide produced
>by humans be eliminated from
>the atmosphere, the difference would
>be undetectable. Visualize an Olympic-size
>swimming pool containing the standard
>660,253.9 gallons of water. (web
>site) The average depth would
>be 7.480 feet. Remove the
>percentage of water equal to
>man-made carbon dioxide in the
>atmosphere, and the new average
>depth of the pool would
>be 7.452 feet. Undetectable!
>
>A reduction of 75ppm of carbon
>dioxide in the atmosphere would
>make no difference on any
>thermometer. And it would take
>total elimination of all man-made
>carbon dioxide to achieve this
>number. The Kyoto Protocol, had
>it been fully implemented, would
>have reduced carbon dioxide by
>only about 1ppm.
>
>These results are simply not worth
>banning the use of fossil
>fuels.
>
>Environmental extremists prefer to mandate the
>expanded use of ethanol, rather
>than using abundant oil supplies.
>This alternative produces less energy
>per gallon of fuel than
>gasoline, while driving the price
>of food upward, causing riots,
>(web site) and forcing the
>cultivation of more land where
>wildlife can no longer flourish.
>
>
>Environmental extremists wring their hands and
>cry crocodile tears at the
>thought of "ruining" the Alaska
>National Wildlife Refuge by using
>only 2000 of the 18
>million acres for oil production.
>But they seem to have
>no problems with the idea
>of covering millions of acres
>in the southwest with solar
>panels.
>
>Environmental extremists celebrate their victory in
>banning DDT to save birds.
>But they have no problem
>with miles and miles of
>wind turbines that slaughter millions
>of birds every year. Nor
>do they seem to have
>any sympathy for the millions
>of people who have died
>from malaria as a direct
>result of the ban on
>DDT.
>
>Big oil is not to blame
>for the high price of
>gasoline; the blame must fall
>squarely in the lap of
>the environmental extremists who use
>propaganda and fear-mongering to block
>the increases in the production
>of readily available fossil fuels.
>There are sufficient reserves of
>coal to last about 200
>years. Despite Jimmy Carter's 1970s
>declaration that the world would
>be out of oil by
>2000, and considering the anticipated
>increase in demand, there are
>enough known oil reserves to
>last at least 60 years.
>This energy should be available
>now.
>
>Of course, research should continue to
>find abundant, affordable energy supplies
>for the future. But forcing
>technology to advance by arbitrarily
>and unnecessarily prohibiting the use
>of currently-available energy supplies makes
>no sense. The price of
>both existing supplies and alternative
>technology is artificially increased. To
>write this foolishness into law
>is even worse.
>
>Every time government sticks its nose
>into the market place and
>attempts to manage it, government
>makes a mess. The ethanol
>mandate, for example, inevitably results
>in price increases for food
>- for everyone. The arbitrary
>increase in fuel efficiency standards
>inevitably results in smaller, lighter
>automobiles - and more crash-related
>deaths. The much touted cap-and-trade
>program for carbon emissions will
>inevitably result in taking money
>out of the pockets of
>wage-earners, and transfer it to
>the pockets of people like
>Al Gore, who created the
>"hot-air" store, and sells his
>goods only because government forces
>people to buy them.
>
>Every time a person fills up
>at the pump, he should
>visualize the billions of barrels
>of oil that are waiting
>in Alaska, and the billions
>of barrels of oil that
>are waiting in the Dakotas
>and Montana, and the billions
>of barrels of oil that
>are waiting just off shore
>- and curse the environmental
>extremists who are forcing him
>to pay far more for
>his transportation than is necessary.
>
>
>
>
>
>"Thanks climate PhD 202" - TFinalshot
> Feb-05-08, 02:16 PM (MST)
>


Fact is, it used to be illegal "price fixing" until the early 80's to export oil out of country while still importing non domestic oil. Most of Alaskan oil is Exported to China and Japan. Any increase to Alaskan exploration would fall to the same fate because thats what big oil wants. If 1% of oil can make a difference in oil production 10% plus from Alaska would be significant. Also, ethanol production is suppose to use 50% crude
in it's mix. That in itself would mean 50% less oil imports from
foreign oil that happen to be blasting our troops to pieces. It is not making a difference because our leaders are failing our Country and our sons and daughters in the military. China and India are growing their economies because of lack of import tariffs. We are cutting our own throats. We lower trade tariffs which expand foreign economies that compete for the same foreign oil and raise prices and we lose our middle class who pay taxes because of manufacturing job losses. We cannot compete because of their favorable domestic economic conditions and our negative economic incentives. Also, Clinton let several oil company mergers of exxon/mobil etc. in the mid 90's which have consolidated the oil companies allowing more collusion to exist.
They are able to explore, pump, refine and market their product( price fix) with the help of their colluded partners. Don't worry though, we had the internet bubble, housing bubble and now the fuel bubble that is overpriced over 100%. It will pop when our country sputters into an economic collapse like we witnessed when Korea tanked and brought fuel prices down 50 cents / gallon. The U.S economy would affect it to a much greater extent especially with the price differential we have now.
 
We're being fukked, point blank. environmentalist whackos, greedy oil companies/oil producing nations are bending us all right over. Meanwhile we have a military presence in one of the richest oil producing regions in the world and they owe us big time. Time for extraordinary action on the part of the government (demand the ##### from Iraq or cap the fat pig oil mafia's profiteering ways) but our leaders are spineless and weak or in bed with the mutherfukkers who are screwing us. Just like someone else stated-the price will continue to rise till the party being bent over says NO! I'm ready......how bout you guys?????? There's a cheveron right down the street......how does free gas sound???????? Let's go get it.....
 
Well George, or Maybe it is #####. You have a ....lot of posts on this sore subject. I don't think you are making any believers yet. You may need to change your handle to
"Need Money" instead of "NeMont" if things don't stabilize soon
and that's for real.
 
MUST YOU ALL BE REMINDED OF JUST WHERE IN ALASKA THEY WOULD DRILL FOR OIL... RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF CARIBOU HABITAT! NO TO DRILLING IN ALASKA!!!!!! AT LEAST CLINTON DIDN'T WANT TO DISPERSE ALL THE CARIBOU.
 
Hello McFly, they said the exact same thing about the Alaska pipeline. Now it is a perfect example of how man and bou can co-exist!!!!




"Thanks climate PhD 202" - TFinalshot Feb-05-08, 02:16 PM (MST)
 
Nice try, its a pipe line running from one end of alaska to the other, not a huge dig into the ground like people are discusing. We are talking a major dig throughout alaska, not just a pipe line Mcfly. That could in itself alter the route of which the caribou take on migration and limit there food resources.
 
One more time for those of you that missed it the first time.

The nay sayers like bigmuleyman said the EXACT same thing about the Alaska Pipeline.

Despite the nay sayers the Bou love the friggin pipeline.

Now bigmuleyman if you want to argue that drilling can not be done without endangering the 50 quadzillion Bou in ANWAR. Fine. What I then would tell you is it can be done. Just like it could be done with the pipeline, it could be done with drilling.

Obviously you think it can not so we will have to agree to disagree.




"Thanks climate PhD 202" - TFinalshot Feb-05-08, 02:16 PM (MST)
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom