Pennock's Fiero Forum
  Totally O/T - Archive
  Mad at gas prices? (Page 4)

T H I S   I S   A N   A R C H I V E D   T O P I C
  

Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version

This topic is 4 pages long:  1   2   3   4 
Previous Page | Next Page
Mad at gas prices? by Spektrum-87GT
Started on: 06-10-2008 09:26 PM
Replies: 129
Last post by: D B Cooper on 06-24-2008 05:42 PM
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27106
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 382
Rate this member

Report this Post06-19-2008 01:37 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Fastback 86:


Nope.


It might have been in a different thread. I think there are three threads running right now with similar subjects. If I find it, I'll post it.
IP: Logged
fierobear
Member
Posts: 27106
From: Safe in the Carolinas
Registered: Aug 2000


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 382
Rate this member

Report this Post06-19-2008 01:42 PM Click Here to See the Profile for fierobearSend a Private Message to fierobearDirect Link to This Post

fierobear

27106 posts
Member since Aug 2000
 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:


Because of how much transportation fuel is burned in this country whatever source is used for making ethanol won't have to be used for other purposes, it'll all go toward ethanol production. In fact, that will free up oil for use in polymer manufacturing. The reason ethanol isn't moved by pipelines is because current production and usage quantities aren't enough to justify building pipelines (yet). Oil used to be transported by rail and truck also back when it wasn't used as much as it is now. Separating water is an exercise in engineering, nothing more, so water is not a meaningful issue. Besides, you're more likely to get water in ethanol using trucks and rail cars to move it than a pipeline.

The whole point of my comment was to point out that if we're going to use ethanol for transportation fuel we need to make it using common-sense efficient methods instead of the horribly wasteful and expensive to taxpayer methods used now. Essentially, ethanol is being used now by the current administration as a way to subsidize megacorporations using taxpayer dollars instead of as a real means to reduce our dependence on foreign oil imports. That is unsustainable in the short and long term and has to stop now. It is hurting America, my country.

Besides, there cannot be "the solution" to our energy security crisis. There is no single means to solve this multi-headed hydra of a problem. If we are to succeed we will have to move away from trying to find a one-size-fits-all solution and start implementing a wide array of inter-related solutions. It's complicated, but we're smart people, I think we can do it if only we would try.

JazzMan


Hmmm...is it ONLY "the current administration" (I assume you mean Bush and Republicans) who are pushing Ethanol? Better check your facts, Jazz...

From House Democrats at Odds Over Energy Bill Provisions

Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, is also in an awkward position. His committee cannot draw up legislation so he needs Dingell's cooperation for a climate change bill. But he is also a strong backer of tougher fuel efficiency standards. At yesterday's markup at the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Markey lamented "what's not in this bill." He said "the country has been waiting 20 years to address the issue" of fuel efficiency. He called it "our duty."

Markey has sponsored a fuel efficiency measure that includes a dozen co-sponsors who have voted against raising mileage requirements in the past. Aides to Democratic leaders said they hoped to win over 30 Democrats who opposed stiffer mileage requirements in the past, in part by wooing farm state lawmakers with generous tax credits, loans and mandates for more ethanol production.

IP: Logged
Toddster
Member
Posts: 20871
From: Roswell, Georgia
Registered: May 2001


Feedback score:    (41)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 504
Rate this member

Report this Post06-19-2008 03:52 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:


The whole point of my comment was to point out that if we're going to use ethanol for transportation fuel we need to make it using common-sense efficient methods instead of the horribly wasteful and expensive to taxpayer methods used now.


I understand your point Jazz. And I agree with it...to an extent. And that extent is that currently the technology and the infrastructure do not exist to make those "efficient methonds" a reality. The cost of establishing them would be even more expensive than just drilling for more oil. That is all I am saying.

We need a basic economics lesson in why oil prices are rising. Let's first talk about speculators since that is the hot topic of the day. Many have blamed the rapid rise in oil prices in 2007 and the first-half of 2008 on speculators. But if we somehow banned speculators from trading oil futures and options, would the price of oil drop back down to pre-2007 levels? Nope. Futures have maturity dates; just like bonds. Speculators hear that China and India, etc. are buying up more of the world's supply so they conclude that supply will be restricted and oil prices will rise. They also beleive all this "peak oil" non sense and come to the same conclusion. As such, the start buying up oil futures and options today, believing they will be worth more in the future. This buying up of oil futures immediately raises their price, due to basic supply and demand. The price of oil should fall once these futures mature because speculators have no need for a physical delivery of oil - where would they store it? However prices, on average, do not fall - in fact they rise. It could be because someone is buying massive amounts of oil and physically storing it somewhere, but this is highly unlikely.

What is more likely is that the price is maintained high because it is being "stored" in the ground rather than making it to market; in other words, some oil companies are cutting production. Now, look at all the oil companies...not just American companies but those all over the world. Most are controled by the governments. And let's look at those governments, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, OPEC producers, etc. See a trend? They aren't terribly friendly to the US. And what else? If they are getting high prices for their oil then where is that money going? It is going to those countries that the US has neutered over the years. Possibly for terrorism but certainly for the propping-up of despotic governments that need cash and can't do business legitimately.

Now, unless the oil is being stored by the speculators (or somebody the speculators are selling their futures to), they cannot permanently drive the price up. All else being equal, oil prices must fall as the speculators sell their futures prior to maturity. But since the price of futures are not going down (on average), then all else must NOT be equal - it must be that production is being cut from what it would have been. We can think of the current situation as being akin to oil companies, or more accurately, the unfreindly governments, buying the futures from the speculators and delivering the oil to themselves.

Hence, the high prices appear to be largely supply-side issue. How much of the lower supply is due to foriegn oil companies cutting production and how much is due to "natural" factors is open to debate.

By letting US oil companies explore and drill more NOW, we increase domestic production which offsets the efforts by unfriendly foreign governments to manipulate oil prices. Speculators are winning, NOT due to their inherent genius or activity, but due to politics. Once US producers are capable of supplying most of our needs such that we are no longer dependant on "overseas" oil then we will see prices fall dramatically.

The advantage here is that not only will it help us, but it will help US OIL COMPANIES! YEP, they will be producing more, employing more Americans, selling more domestic product, and improving their margins over what they are today simply because their costs will be lower (if you can drill of the coast of Florida or Africa, which oil is cheaper to get here and refine?).
IP: Logged
Red88FF
Member
Posts: 7793
From: PNW
Registered: Jan 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 130
Rate this member

Report this Post06-21-2008 01:51 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Red88FFSend a Private Message to Red88FFDirect Link to This Post
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/.../ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
Snip

"One major deposit in the Rocky Mountain West alone would equal current annual oil imports for more than 100 years," Bush said. "Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress are standing in the way of further development."

F'ing dems.

IP: Logged
Fastback 86
Member
Posts: 7849
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Sep 2003


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 231
Rate this member

Report this Post06-21-2008 01:53 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Fastback 86Send a Private Message to Fastback 86Direct Link to This Post
What deposit? How is it nobody else has heard of or mentioned it? Is he talking about the Shale Oil thing? Cause thats a whole other story.
IP: Logged
JazzMan
Member
Posts: 18612
From:
Registered: Mar 2003


Feedback score:    (7)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 653
User Banned

Report this Post06-23-2008 01:55 PM Click Here to See the Profile for JazzManSend a Private Message to JazzManDirect Link to This Post
.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-04-2008).]

IP: Logged
Red88FF
Member
Posts: 7793
From: PNW
Registered: Jan 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 130
Rate this member

Report this Post06-23-2008 02:38 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Red88FFSend a Private Message to Red88FFDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:


He's talking about the oil shale thing, yep, a whole different story. Not to mention it's hyped by media headlines designed to get people suffering under high gas prices to buy newspapers.

JazzMan


Sure, yup, that must be it. Wouldn't make a dam bit of difference, now would it.

Cracks me up that the leftists on this group just can't get there minds around supply and demand and the fear factor in the price of oil. Governments were looking to the Saudis to commit to only 500 to 800 thousand gallons a day increase in production to curb the high price of oil yet when we talk a million gallons a day pumped domestically it somehow won't make a difference, couse gee whizz it's only 1% of world demand.

IP: Logged
NEPTUNE
Member
Posts: 10199
From: Ticlaw FL, and some other places.
Registered: Aug 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 288
Rate this member

Report this Post06-23-2008 03:09 PM Click Here to See the Profile for NEPTUNESend a Private Message to NEPTUNEDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Red88FF:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/.../ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
Snip

"One major deposit in the Rocky Mountain West alone would equal current annual oil imports for more than 100 years," Bush said. "Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress are standing in the way of further development."

F'ing dems.


 
quote
Underneath the high, scrub-covered rangeland of northwest Colorado is the world's biggest oil field. Getting the oil out of the ground, however, is one of the world's biggest headaches.

The area's deposits of oil shale are believed to be larger than all the oil reserves of the Middle East. But past attempts to get at this oil locked in tarry rock have cost billions of dollars and raised the prospect of strip-mining large areas of the Rocky Mountain West.

Shell's new project is stunningly complex. Instead of strip-mining the rock and then processing it, Shell plans to superheat huge underground areas for several years, gradually percolating oil out of the stone and pumping it to the surface.
At each production site, the powerful electric heaters extend down hundreds of feet, stretching vertically through a cylindrical area of shale about 100 feet in diameter. They then heat the area to about 700 degrees Fahrenheit -- for two to three years.


Unlike conventional deposits of petroleum, found in a liquid form that can be pumped to the surface, oil shale doesn't even contain oil. Instead, the rock is impregnated with kerogen, a chemically immature hydrocarbon -- essentially, oil's geological ancestor.

"If society wanted, it could wait 100 million years for this kerogen to mature into oil, then drill down and pump it out normally," said Terry O'Connor, Shell's vice president of external affairs. "We're just speeding up the process."

Though often compared to the oil sands being mined in the Canadian province of Alberta, oil shale is much more difficult to extract and to transform into crude.

To coax the oil out of the rock, it must be heated to high temperatures. In the 1970s and early 1980s, companies including Exxon, Atlantic Richfield, Unocal, Shell and Chevron spent billions on strip-mining large volumes of oil shale and then cooking it in huge retorts, or kilns.
The process disfigured the landscape, spewed out vast heaps of slag and sucked up tens of millions of dollars in federal synthetic fuels subsidies -- but produced only a poor-quality crude that required costly refining.

When Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, he eliminated the subsidy. And when global oil prices collapsed in 1982, the bottom fell out.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-b...9/04/MNGIEKV0D41.DTL




F'ing Reagan.

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 06-23-2008).]

IP: Logged
Toddster
Member
Posts: 20871
From: Roswell, Georgia
Registered: May 2001


Feedback score:    (41)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 504
Rate this member

Report this Post06-23-2008 08:18 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post
Current world oil consumption = 87 million barrels per day

Current world oil production = 85 million barrels per day

Prices are on the rise...go figure.
IP: Logged
D B Cooper
Member
Posts: 3152
From: East Detroit, MI
Registered: Jul 2005


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 54
Rate this member

Report this Post06-24-2008 05:42 PM Click Here to See the Profile for D B CooperSend a Private Message to D B CooperDirect Link to This Post
Speculators currently control 71% of the crude supply though... more than twice as much as the refineries, plastics outfits, etc that actually take delivery of the product and use it. I have a tough time accepting the idea that that isn't significantly affecting the supply and demand situation. In that regard I feel the Dems do have a valid point. At the same time, it's obviously just plain stupid not to develop our own resources. That point obviously goes to the Reps.

And allowing the value of the dollar to keep falling is not helping things any either... and now congress passes a bill to the tune of $300 billion to provide home loans to people who are too much of a credit risk to get a bank loan ?? What's wrong with this picture ? I've said it before and I'll say it again... I want my tax money back. I can piss it away myself; and I bet I'll have a lot more fun doing it
IP: Logged
Previous Page | Next Page

This topic is 4 pages long:  1   2   3   4 


All times are ET (US)

T H I S   I S   A N   A R C H I V E D   T O P I C
  

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock