For the jokers who think US supply has no impact on oil/nat. gas prices [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : For the jokers who think US supply has no impact on oil/nat. gas prices


.264 magnum
10-25-2012, 08:24
This article has almost zero "oil speak" so it's a good start for anyone open minded enough to question the notion of local supply not making much difference in US prices. That said o&g is a very complex topic and to be sure less driving and better aggregate fuel economy in autos has helped significantly.

Scatter-shooting:
1. The .gov (The US Geological Survey and others) have been completely wrong about o&g gathering and reserve metrics for decades - banks and accounting practices are absurdly lame as well.

2. Liberals, political greens, and some conservatives are FOS vis a vis this topic too. We have lots of BTU value in the ground and we can get much if it.

3. If we really went at the notion of internalizing as much of our energy need as possible we would more or less fix our current economic malaise. Internalizing much of our current money sent overseas for oil would make any peace dividend from Iraq/Afghanistan drawdowns look like small potatoes for many reasons.



ETA - the link might help LOL!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/opinion/sunday/the-new-politics-of-energy.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all&

Little Joe
10-25-2012, 09:03
Somebody needs to get this article into the hands of Mitt Romney if he wins.

JW1178
10-25-2012, 09:29
Exactly. The left wants us to just accept that energy prices are going to be high and the only thing we can do is to try to conserve energy and use less. They want us to believe that we are just going to have to accept the lower standard of living and higher cost of living as seen in many other places in the world. They want us to believe that those days of cheap fuel and energy and low taxes are just a thing of the past. Little do they know, we can have all that again.

I think another thing they fear is that for many 3rd world nations, the only thing they have are things like natural gas and oil, and the high cost and our dependence has been those nations only hope out of poverty. However, what's funny about that are those nations only the very rich there make any money off of those resources. The poor stay poor in those countries.

G36's Rule
10-25-2012, 09:50
Exactly. The left wants us to just accept that energy prices are going to be high and the only thing we can do is to try to conserve energy and use less. They want us to believe that we are just going to have to accept the lower standard of living and higher cost of living as seen in many other places in the world. They want us to believe that those days of cheap fuel and energy and low taxes are just a thing of the past. Little do they know, we can have all that again.

That is the problem with articles like this, too simple. No, we can not have all that again. Not if you define cheap fuel the way most Americans do.

The cost to get recovery of Shale Oil is much higher than regular drilling and recovery. So the price of crude has to be high to make it worth going after.

devildog2067
10-25-2012, 10:00
Exactly. The left wants us to just accept that energy prices are going to be high

Worldwide demand has been going up steadily, especially in the last few decades. There are 2+ billion Indians and Chinese who want to drive their own cars.

That kind of demand-side pressure will drive up oil prices. I'm not saying that there isn't anything that the US can do to control prices, we do have many levers we can pull, but the days of $0.99 gas are gone forever.

.264 magnum
10-25-2012, 10:17
That is the problem with articles like this, too simple. No, we can not have all that again. Not if you define cheap fuel the way most Americans do.

The cost to get recovery of Shale Oil is much higher than regular drilling and recovery. So the price of crude has to be high to make it worth going after.

The article mentioned that.

.264 magnum
10-25-2012, 10:18
Worldwide demand has been going up steadily, especially in the last few decades. There are 2+ billion Indians and Chinese who want to drive their own cars.

That kind of demand-side pressure will drive up oil prices. I'm not saying that there isn't anything that the US can do to control prices, we do have many levers we can pull, but the days of $0.99 gas are gone forever.

I'd settle for $2.99 LOL!

kensb2
10-25-2012, 10:25
I'll start a new thread if the OP would like, but I've noticed that gas has dropped drastically here in OK in the last week or so. It's about 3.29ish/gal for 87 in the Lawton/Ft. Sill area. Saw it as low as $3.19 in S. OKC. What's it like everywhere else? I'd assume the same trend. What's the cause in sudden drop? Did demand taper (or production rise) enough in the last week for a $10 per barrell price drop?

.264 magnum
10-25-2012, 10:30
I'll start a new thread if the OP would like, but I've noticed that gas has dropped drastically here in OK in the last week or so. It's about 3.29ish/gal for 87 in the Lawton/Ft. Sill area. Saw it as low as $3.19 in S. OKC. What's it like everywhere else? I'd assume the same trend. What's the cause in sudden drop? Did demand taper (or production rise) enough in the last week for a $10 per barrell price drop?

~$3.59 here in Dallas right now.

Oil is down quite a bit over the last little while. I also believe there was a sympathetic run up around here due to the problems in Calif. a few weeks ago that has eased.

Also, one of the guys who watches gasoline/diesel closely will know better, but it seems there is a price bump in October every year - summer to winter gas changeover maybe?

JW1178
10-25-2012, 10:32
I know world demand is on a high, and will continue to rise. However, allowing amost all of the worlds supply to come from OPEC nations is a big problem. The US becoming energy independent is an absolute nightmare for OPEC countries, and if we started exporting, well, I doubt they would even want to talk about it.

In the old days, big nations would not allow little nations to have a hold on a market. The little nations would find themselves "colonized".

Chiefret
10-25-2012, 10:37
What's the cause in sudden drop? Did demand taper (or production rise) enough in the last week for a $10 per barrell price drop?

Part of it is because of the switch over to the winter blend.

http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_21834536

fnfalman
10-25-2012, 10:37
It ain't the freakin' crude oil supply that's the problem. It's the end result that we don't get enough of. Pretty damn hard to have enough gasoline/diesel/kerosene and other combustible petroleums if we don't have enough stinking REFINERIES.

When was the last time a refinery was built in the USA? Answer that question and you'll know why gasoline and diesel prices are sky high.

devildog2067
10-25-2012, 10:39
However, allowing amost all of the worlds supply to come from OPEC nations is a big problem.
"Allowing" has almost nothing to do with it. The oil is where it is.

The US becoming energy independent

It's not like we haven't tried. Yes, we could try harder, but we're not even close to being able to do it. The US isn't sitting on a giant reservoir of oil (as far as the best petroleum geologists have been able to determine).

is an absolute nightmare for OPEC countries

We import twice as much oil from non-OPEC nations than we do from OPEC. We import more oil from Canada than we do from all of the Persian Gulf nations combined.

, and if we started exporting, well, I doubt they would even want to talk about it.

How could we possibly export when we can't even begin to meet domestic demand?

In the old days, big nations would not allow little nations to have a hold on a market. The little nations would find themselves "colonized".

And hopefully, those days are behind the entire human race. Colonization spawned evils that can scarcely be believed.

Little Joe
10-25-2012, 10:41
I know world demand is on a high, and will continue to rise. However, allowing amost all of the worlds supply to come from OPEC nations is a big problem. The US becoming energy independent is an absolute nightmare for OPEC countries, and if we started exporting, well, I doubt they would even want to talk about it.

In the old days, big nations would not allow little nations to have a hold on a market. The little nations would find themselves "colonized".

I'm not so sure our politicians want to be energy independent. It gives us a pretext to have an interest in the Middle East for geopolitical reasons.

fnfalman
10-25-2012, 10:43
I'm not so sure our politicians want to be energy independent. It gives us a pretext to have an interest in the Middle East for geopolitical reasons.

The US doesn't need oil as a reason to be meddling in the Middle-East Asia. "No Blood for Oil", remember? We're there to protect the rights and freedom of the people of the world.

Chiefret
10-25-2012, 10:47
When was the last time a refinery was built in the USA? Answer that question and you'll know why gasoline and diesel prices are sky high.


According to this site, 2008. However in the article it states that a new sophisticated refinery has not been built since 1977.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=29&t=6

This article states what seems to be going on with many refineries and that is expanding capacity. My guess is it is probably easier to expand an existing refinery than get EPA approval for a new one.

http://blog.gasbuddy.com/posts/First-new-refinery-in-decades-opening-soon/1715-489654-910.aspx

.264 magnum
10-25-2012, 11:00
And hopefully, those days are behind the entire human race. Colonization spawned evils that can scarcely be believed.

Playing Devil's Advocate but with sincerity as well, is the average indigenous Joe in Stanleyville Congo better off than his forefathers were under Belgian rule? That same general picture applies itself well all across Africa and some of Asia.

devildog2067
10-25-2012, 11:12
Playing Devil's Advocate but with sincerity as well, is the average indigenous Joe in Stanleyville Congo better off than his forefathers were under Belgian rule?

Absolutely, yes.

As messed up as the Congo is today--and it's one of the world's most messed up countries, no argument there--it was worse under Belgian rule.

At least he has a chance of being free and making a better life for himself. Better to die free than live a slave.

That same general picture applies itself well all across Africa and some of Asia.

Recognizing that history happened, and that the countries are where they are now, is not the same as saying "well the evils of colonization were ok because look where people ended up." Evil is still evil, and there's nothing wrong with hoping that a dark chapter of human history is behind us.

.264 magnum
10-25-2012, 11:27
Absolutely, yes.

As messed up as the Congo is today--and it's one of the world's most messed up countries, no argument there--it was worse under Belgian rule.

At least he has a chance of being free and making a better life for himself. Better to die free than live a slave.



Recognizing that history happened, and that the countries are where they are now, is not the same as saying "well the evils of colonization were ok because look where people ended up." Evil is still evil, and there's nothing wrong with hoping that a dark chapter of human history is behind us.


That's an excellent and very conventional argument.

Another is that should Euro colonists have passed on taking over what is now The USA? That one is easy IMO.

I've read and read and read for decades about colonization and I'm not sure it was as bad as history and historians would like for us to believe.

Dennis in MA
10-25-2012, 11:50
Exactly. The left wants us to just accept that energy prices are going to be high and the only thing we can do is to try to conserve energy and use less.

Hmmm. We must have a lot of liberals here - the Peak Oil thread last week was FULL of people claiming we have been there for a while. :rofl:


From the first article - bears repeating:

In 2008, the rise in oil prices was accompanied and partly fueled by a belief that an era of permanent scarcity. . .

I hate to tell you all that I was right. For the cheap seats - YOU WERE WRONG! WE DID NOT HAVE SCARCITY! STILL DON'T!

From the second article:

Refineries on the East Coast were operating at nearly 90 percent of their capacity over the past week, compared to 87.4 percent. . .


I know it's JUST East Coast, but we are happy when they run at 90%??? I thought they were already too few refineries for the energy needs we had. :rofl:



Never let a good crisis go to waste. :upeyes:

devildog2067
10-25-2012, 11:54
Another is that should Euro colonists have passed on taking over what is now The USA? That one is easy IMO.

Easy for us to answer--but what about all of the people who lived here when the European colonists got here? They might have a different point of view.

In some sense, it doesn't matter. Like I said, what happened happened. I'm glad to live in the United States and I'm glad that it is the country that it is.

You can feel that way, and still recognize that colonization spawned great evil.

I've read and read and read for decades about colonization and I'm not sure it was as bad as history and historians would like for us to believe.

I really, really hope you are joking.

The Spanish literally wiped out millions of people when they started colonizing South America. They destroyed entire cultures, uprooted entire villages, and forced the people that they found to mine for silver or work in sugarcane fields until they died.

That's just one example. There are countless others.

Again, regardless of whether any particular country is better off now than it might have hypothetically been without the influence of culture and technology that the colonizers brought with them, the fact remains that in almost every instance the colonizing power--be it Western or Eastern--behaved with incomprehensible brutality against the people they found in the lands they claimed (be they white, yellow, red or brown or black).

fnfalman
10-25-2012, 11:59
According to this site, 2008. However in the article it states that a new sophisticated refinery has not been built since 1977.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=29&t=6

This article states what seems to be going on with many refineries and that is expanding capacity. My guess is it is probably easier to expand an existing refinery than get EPA approval for a new one.

http://blog.gasbuddy.com/posts/First-new-refinery-in-decades-opening-soon/1715-489654-910.aspx

It's not that easy to expand a refinery. You still need room, and expansion is but a stop gap practice. We need more refineries, period.