High Gas Prices: Obama's Half-Truths vs. Reality

[spursncowboys]

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/gas-prices-5-half-truths-about-rising-gasoline-prices


Half-truth #2: Increasing oil production takes too long and would not impact the market for at least a decade.
This has been the mantra of the anti-drilling crowd for years, and the longer politicians listen to the message, the longer the nation’s oil resources will remain undeveloped. If access to areas that are currently off limits is increased, it will take time to explore and extract that oil. But that does not change the fact that the nation needs it today and also in the future. Furthermore, some of this oil can reach the market in much less than a decade if the permitting process is streamlined and the Keystone XL pipeline—which could bring up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada to the Gulf Coast refineries—is built.

[spursncowboys]

Half-truth #3: Oil is not enough. America has only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves.
President Obama frequently uses this number to push federal investments in alternative sources of energy that cannot stand the test of the market. The reality is that he uses this number deceptively. According to the Institute for Energy Research:
[A]lthough the U.S. is said to have only 20 billion barrels of oil in reserves, the amount of oil that is technically recoverable in the U.S. is more than 1.4 trillion barrels, with the largest deposits located offshore, in portions of Alaska, and in shale in the Rocky Mountain West. When combined with resources from Canada and Mexico, total recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels, or more than the world has used since the first oil well was drilled over 150 years ago in Titusville, Pennsylvania. To put this in context, Saudi Arabia has about 260 billion barrels of oil in proved reserves.
One reason to view “reserves” estimates with caution is the fact that they are constantly in flux. In 1980, the U.S. had oil reserves of roughly 30 billion barrels. Yet from 1980 through 2010, it produced over 77 billion barrels of oil. In other words, over the last 30 years, the U.S. produced over 150 percent of the proved reserves that it had in 1980. If the massive quantities of U.S. oil are made available to explore and produce, the current estimated reserves of 20 billion barrels would certainly increase, providing much more production over decades to come. In other words, reserves are not a stagnant number.[4]

[spursncowboys]

Five Actions for Congress and the Administration
Congress and the Administration should:
Get moving on permits. As the only country in the world that places a majority of its territorial waters off-limits to oil and gas exploration, the U.S. should at the very least be drilling in the areas where access is permitted. Removing the de facto moratorium on drilling would immediately increase supply, create jobs, and bring in royalty revenue to federal and state governments.
Require lease sales when ready. Congress should open areas that are off-limits: the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, Alaska’s offshore, the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, and lands out West. Congress should require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct lease sales if a commercial interest exists to explore and drill. Congress should also provide the funding necessary to lease new onshore and offshore areas to oil and gas companies. Although it would take time for the federal government to lease these areas and for the energy companies to develop them, at least the process could begin.
Create a sensible review processes. Placing a 270-day time limit on environmental reviews would ensure a quick review process for energy projects on federal lands. Construction projects on federal lands take an average of 4.4 years. The 270 days would allow for a thorough environmental review process but would not prevent investments from moving forward.[7]
Remove regulatory delays and limit litigation. Environmental activists delay new energy projects by filing endless administrative appeals and lawsuits. Creating a manageable time frame for permitting and for groups or individuals to contest energy plans would keep potentially cost-effective ventures from being tied up for years in litigation while allowing the public and interested parties to voice opposition or support for these projects.
Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. Congress should use its authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations to accept the State Department’s conclusion that construction of the pipeline would pose minimal environmental risk.[8] Approving the pipeline would create jobs and increase energy production—both of which the nation desperately needs—from a friendly supplier and ally.

[ElNono]

Stopped reading at heritage.org

[ElNono]

U.S. Nears Milestone: Net Fuel Exporter (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203441704577068670488306242.html)

[spursncowboys]

Stopped reading at heritage.org

I knew that was coming. Thought the idiots like chump or goran would have said it though. If you agree or disagree they usually do pretty good research.

[Winehole23]

Think tanks used to be idea workshops, now they mostly tow the party line. Heritage and AEI are pioneering the trend, not bucking it. Just ask David Frum.

CATO might be next to be suborned by the categorical imperative of electing Republicans.

[spursncowboys]

Are either of yall saying their data is wrong?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Could you give us another take than straight from the oil lobby?

Seriously dude, i understand why politicians and members of bureaucratic entities would like them as they give them money and whatnot but you are just a citizen and if i am not mistaken a soldier.

why do you want to listen to an obviously nonsubjective source that has no interest in anything other than promoting their business? Do you pay attention to TV advertising too? is that how you decide what you are going to buy?

show some initiative for goodness sake.

[spursncowboys]

Could you give us another take than straight from the oil lobby?

Seriously dude, i understand why politicians and members of bureaucratic entities would like them as they give them money and whatnot but you are just a citizen and if i am not mistaken a soldier.

why do you want to listen to an obviously nonsubjective source that has no interest in anything other than promoting their business? Do you pay attention to TV advertising too? is that how you decide what you are going to buy?

show some initiative for goodness sake.

Why not talk about the op?

Dude, this isn't anything new. Politicians bullshit and then get called out on it. Why not talk about what they called obama out on instead of why I want someone to question the chosen one?

[Wild Cobra]

Are either of yall saying their data is wrong?
I doubt they will say that. I just think they don't want us to see data that they can't spin.

[Jacob1983]

Obama has to go down as one of the biggest flip floppers in presidential history. How many policies that Bush supported as president has Obama supported as president? It's fuckin' ridiculous that no one ever calls Obama out on this.
You've got talking heads on both sides saying that he is a Muslim, a socialist, pussy, or he has done a good job considering he got this mess from evil Bush.

Obama is Bush. You're a fuckin dumbass if you can't see that.

This guy has expanded the so-called war on terror more than dummy Bush ever dreamed of. Obama has given himself and his administration so much power on so many things that it's hilarious how so many people are in denial about it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why not talk about the op?

Dude, this isn't anything new. Politicians bullshit and then get called out on it. Why not talk about what they called obama out on instead of why I want someone to question the chosen one?

your presenting us with XL pipeline propaganda. you know that right? you are essentially asking us to read an advertisement for their pipeline. you're as bad as wc and his gas boiler brochures.

the price of a liter of unleaded in Covington, England is 1.48 pounds. In terms of dollars at a 1.58 exchange rate thats $8.60 a gallon. it is more profitable for the gulf coast refiners to sell it to Europe or other similar disgustingly priced location than it would be for them to sell it here.

thats why you see the phenomenon that elnono talks about. lets also not forget about the massive 1000 mile tract of imminent domain this will require for the 'public good.'

further i do not like that we are net exporting our natural resources.

its like darrin and the guardian. i just don't get that. i think of you guys as rubes or shills and i don't want to think that. i just cannot help it.

[Winehole23]

Are either of yall saying their data is wrong?The Cornell study I posted awhile back had a different interpretation of the data.

[ChumpDumper]

I knew that was coming. Thought the idiots like chump or goran would have said it though. If you agree or disagree they usually do pretty good research.They did come up with Obamacare before it was called Obamacare, after all. I'm sure you feel that was very well researched.

[ChumpDumper]

Let the Market Work :lol

It already is.

[JoeChalupa]

Obama has to go down as one of the biggest flip floppers in presidential history. How many policies that Bush supported as president has Obama supported as president? It's fuckin' ridiculous that no one ever calls Obama out on this.
You've got talking heads on both sides saying that he is a Muslim, a socialist, pussy, or he has done a good job considering he got this mess from evil Bush.

Obama is Bush. You're a fuckin dumbass if you can't see that.

This guy has expanded the so-called war on terror more than dummy Bush ever dreamed of. Obama has given himself and his administration so much power on so many things that it's hilarious how so many people are in denial about it.

If anyone really believed Obama would be soft on terrorism then they were duped from the start. Obama said during the campaign that he'd take Bin Laden out....and he did. ALL candidates are farther right or left than they will be in office. That has been the truth for decades.
That is exactly why so many on the GOP don't believe Romney is a true conservative because he is not and they know that as POTUS, Romney would be a moderate.
You are a dumbass if you ever thought Obama wasn't going to continue the war on terrorism.

[mercos]

Stopped reading at heritage.org

:lol I nearly did the same.


But seriously, you are posting info from a right wing organisation. Any liberal could counter with info from a left wing source that states we DO only have 2 or 3% of the world's oil reserves. That number was out there long before Obama started using it. You've got to know that no one will take you seriously if you use a biased source in a partisan debate. Sources like the Heritage Foundation, Fox News, and MSNBC will only get you laughed out of the room.


As for the topic at hand, if it could be proven that we have enough oil to support ourselves and get off foreign oil completely, I would be for it. I believe our reliance on foreign oil is our biggest national security problem. I do not believe we can drill our way out of this problem, or the many Republican presidents before Barrack Obama would have done so by now. George W. Bush had six years of total control of Washington.

Our oil production is currently at multi-year highs. Despite this, gas prices are at seasonal highs. We are a net exporter of gasoline now. We are in a global economy. Whatever oil we add to the market will probably be negated by growing demand from developing countries. More drilling or refining will just lead to more money for big oil companies.

I am not opposed to oil companies making money. I am opposed to them doing it if they have to destroy the environment to do so. I live on the Gulf Coast and saw the damaging effects of the BP oil spill. It is not worth the risk to open up more sensitive lands for drilling when the price will not be affected and we are just further lining the pockets of big oil companies.

I think Obama is taking the right approach to the problem. The fuel economy of our cars is going up, so we consume less oil now. The government is investing in electric cars, which like it or not are the future. The government is also investing in alternative energy like solar. This is the kind of long term planning that will help get us off dirty energy like oil.

[hitmanyr2k]

your presenting us with XL pipeline propaganda. you know that right? you are essentially asking us to read an advertisement for their pipeline. you're as bad as wc and his gas boiler brochures.

the price of a liter of unleaded in Covington, England is 1.48 pounds. In terms of dollars at a 1.58 exchange rate thats $8.60 a gallon. it is more profitable for the gulf coast refiners to sell it to Europe or other similar disgustingly priced location than it would be for them to sell it here.

thats why you see the phenomenon that elnono talks about. lets also not forget about the massive 1000 mile tract of imminent domain this will require for the 'public good.'

further i do not like that we are net exporting our natural resources.

its like darrin and the guardian. i just don't get that. i think of you guys as rubes or shills and i don't want to think that. i just cannot help it.

I don't think they'll understand that. Anyone who's dumb enough to post an article like this probably believes the oil we drill from U.S. territories is automatically "ours". They think pipelines and drilling in wildlife reserves are going to result in lower oil prices for us. Those kind of people are also probably dumb enough to believe that oil companies have the US citizen's best interest at heart and will sell oil to America below market price because they care that the average American is struggling with high gas prices. Newsflash shills, oil companies could give two shits about you, your family, or your financial troubles. Their loyalty is to their bottom line and their shareholders. If they're permitted to drill on more U.S. territories they're going to take that oil, sell it overseas, celebrate those profits while :lmao at Joe Bob and the rest of his clan who actually thought would actually make a difference when it comes to the price of gas. Like that stupid article said...that's the free market. Let it work :lol

[spursncowboys]

:lol I nearly did the same.


But seriously, you are posting info from a right wing organisation. Any liberal could counter with info from a left wing source that states we DO only have 2 or 3% of the world's oil reserves. That number was out there long before Obama started using it. You've got to know that no one will take you seriously if you use a biased source in a partisan debate. Sources like the Heritage Foundation, Fox News, and MSNBC will only get you laughed out of the room.


As for the topic at hand, if it could be proven that we have enough oil to support ourselves and get off foreign oil completely, I would be for it. I believe our reliance on foreign oil is our biggest national security problem. I do not believe we can drill our way out of this problem, or the many Republican presidents before Barrack Obama would have done so by now. George W. Bush had six years of total control of Washington.

Our oil production is currently at multi-year highs. Despite this, gas prices are at seasonal highs. We are a net exporter of gasoline now. We are in a global economy. Whatever oil we add to the market will probably be negated by growing demand from developing countries. More drilling or refining will just lead to more money for big oil companies.

I am not opposed to oil companies making money. I am opposed to them doing it if they have to destroy the environment to do so. I live on the Gulf Coast and saw the damaging effects of the BP oil spill. It is not worth the risk to open up more sensitive lands for drilling when the price will not be affected and we are just further lining the pockets of big oil companies.

I think Obama is taking the right approach to the problem. The fuel economy of our cars is going up, so we consume less oil now. The government is investing in electric cars, which like it or not are the future. The government is also investing in alternative energy like solar. This is the kind of long term planning that will help get us off dirty energy like oil.
Then focus on the data and not the source. Or don't. I don't care.
What exactly is Obama doing that you think is the right approach?
The 2% is not accurate. There was a study that said there was more oil in the Rocky's alone than any other country. That is my point. You are commenting without even reading the OP. If you want to be a troll then go ahead but you seem to actually want a discussion about this. You just rather assume the info is innacurate because of where it comes from.

[spursncowboys]

I don't think they'll understand that. Anyone who's dumb enough to post an article like this probably believes the oil we drill from U.S. territories is automatically "ours". They think pipelines and drilling in wildlife reserves are going to result in lower oil prices for us. Those kind of people are also probably dumb enough to believe that oil companies have the US citizen's best interest at heart and will sell oil to America below market price because they care that the average American is struggling with high gas prices. Newsflash shills, oil companies could give two shits about you, your family, or your financial troubles. Their loyalty is to their bottom line and their shareholders. If they're permitted to drill on more U.S. territories they're going to take that oil, sell it overseas, celebrate those profits while :lmao at Joe Bob and the rest of his clan who actually thought would actually make a difference when it comes to the price of gas. Like that stupid article said...that's the free market. Let it work :lol

Who are you talking about? You created some artificial person and then started putting them down for not being as intelligent of you. good burn on who ever that was meant for. But this is your jerry springer huh so good soap box stance. Now get to work so my friends can get food to have a bar-b-q today (food stamps)

[spursncowboys]

so once again what part of the op is wrong???

WH: can you give me the link to that. I wouldn't mind seeing it. The OP was a pretty big overall. Is the link the same or is it specific?

[ChumpDumper]

Eh, the oil companies closed a bunch of refineries and exports gasoline to other countries.

All for profit.

The market is working!

[ChumpDumper]

so once again what part of the op is wrong???

WH: can you give me the link to that. I wouldn't mind seeing it. The OP was a pretty big overall. Is the link the same or is it specific?Question: What is the motivation for oil companies to drive down the price of their products?

[Fabbs]

It's not a strictly Demon or Repug issue.
They both suck the oil company ass.

Repugs moreso, but both still....
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-296584.html

[ElNono]

I knew that was coming. Thought the idiots like chump or goran would have said it though. If you agree or disagree they usually do pretty good research.


Are either of yall saying their data is wrong?

The data is obviously cherry-picked... Apparently there's enough oil to go around to be a net-exporter of it. He conveniently missed mentioning that.

[boutons_deux]

heritage.org, oilco whore!! :lol

so US can export oil and refined products because the gas/oil prices are so low and supply is so high? :lol

[RandomGuy]

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/gas-prices-5-half-truths-about-rising-gasoline-prices

Heritage foundation is lying to you. Do you want me to tell you how?

Not that I think you will listen or care, sadly.

(edit)

The ironic thing is that they are, in essence using half-truths themselves to do it.

[RandomGuy]

This shit has been done to death, so I am going to go off my memory as much as possible.

Datapoints and given important principles, numbered for quick reference.:
1)Oil is fungible, and a global market. All inputs get dumped into the same tub, and taken out by buyers, who don't care where it comes from. PRICES ARE GLOBAL.
2) US produces 10% of global supply
3) US consumes 25% of global supply
4) In 1993, China was an exporter of oil. In 2009, it passed Japan as the #2 importer. It is projected to surpass the US within 10 years if current trends continue. Combine these two datapoints, and 100% of Chinese imports represent completely new demand that was not there 20 years ago.



Half-truth #2: Increasing oil production takes too long and would not impact the market for at least a decade.
This has been the mantra of the anti-drilling crowd for years, and the longer politicians listen to the message, the longer the nation’s oil resources will remain undeveloped. If access to areas that are currently off limits is increased, it will take time to explore and extract that oil. But that does not change the fact that the nation needs it today and also in the future. Furthermore, some of this oil can reach the market in much less than a decade if the permitting process is streamlined and the Keystone XL pipeline—which could bring up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada to the Gulf Coast refineries—is built.

This is a lie because it omits the small detail that this oil will get to market somewhere, somehow. Keystone or not. THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE WILL HAVE NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER ON THE GLOBAL PRICE OF OIL.

Added to this is that the oil that is "off limits", usually a code word for offshore, require billion-dollar ships and platforms to get to. There is a huge backlog in building the ships. The bottleneck is not having enough area to drill in, it is getting the ships online. Oil companies are hesitant to spend too much on these things, because they got burned in the 1990's by low oil prices and are leery of large capital expenditures.

"off limits" also generally refers to ANWAR, another tried and true vacuous talking point. ANWAR, if extracted would supply the US with less than four months supply of oil. Then it would be gone. It is simply not large enough to make a difference in the long run.

It mixes in some truth, but omits some key points. Either the author doesn't know how the market works, or is leaving it out.

[RandomGuy]

Half-truth #3: Oil is not enough. America has only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves.
President Obama frequently uses this number to push federal investments in alternative sources of energy that cannot stand the test of the market. The reality is that he uses this number deceptively. According to the Institute for Energy Research:
[A]lthough the U.S. is said to have only 20 billion barrels of oil in reserves, the amount of oil that is technically recoverable in the U.S. is more than 1.4 trillion barrels, with the largest deposits located offshore, in portions of Alaska, and in shale in the Rocky Mountain West. When combined with resources from Canada and Mexico, total recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels, or more than the world has used since the first oil well was drilled over 150 years ago in Titusville, Pennsylvania. To put this in context, Saudi Arabia has about 260 billion barrels of oil in proved reserves.
One reason to view “reserves” estimates with caution is the fact that they are constantly in flux. In 1980, the U.S. had oil reserves of roughly 30 billion barrels. Yet from 1980 through 2010, it produced over 77 billion barrels of oil. In other words, over the last 30 years, the U.S. produced over 150 percent of the proved reserves that it had in 1980. If the massive quantities of U.S. oil are made available to explore and produce, the current estimated reserves of 20 billion barrels would certainly increase, providing much more production over decades to come. In other words, reserves are not a stagnant number.[4]

This is another collection of lies by omission.

Technically recoverable = possible
Technically recoverable does not equal economically recoverable.

You can get all the oil you want to get at $1000 bbl, but no one will buy it.

If the massive quantities of U.S. oil are made available to explore and produce, the current estimated reserves of 20 billion barrels would certainly increase,

Yes it would. The big question is whether those reserves will increase faster than they are drilled out of the ground. Globally, we have pumped oil out of the ground faster than we have discovered it since 1984.

The really big, easy to drill formations were sucked dry of oil a long time ago. What is left requires more effort, more drills and more money to get at, even with all the fracking you want. As the size of the deposits goes down, you have to find more and more at faster rates to maintain production rates.


In 1980, the U.S. had oil reserves of roughly 30 billion barrels. Yet from 1980 through 2010, it produced over 77 billion barrels of oil.

Again, leaving out a few things. Sonic imaging vastly improved in the time, as has drilling technology. We have reached the diminishing returns portion of the production curve. Sorry. There will be no magic to save oil production going forward.

The other portion left out is that the reserves they are pumping up and cherry-picking data to make their case with tend to be locked up on oil sands. Oil sands have gotten a lot more economical because of gas prices (the oil must be heated by burning natgas), but getting that full "technically recoverable" figure means strip mining HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES. Possible yes, but at a huge cost, even if one incorrectly ignores the environmental costs.

[RandomGuy]

If one assumes that the US doubles production TOMORROW, we would still produce only 19% of global supply, and still have to import oil.

All the permits in the world aren't going to magic up the drilling rigs and trained operators to run them.

All the reserves in the world don't mean anything if they cost more to get out of the ground than you can sell it for. "Techincially recoverable" includes the subset of oil that will, quite literally, require $1,000 per barrel OR MORE to get out of the ground.

If you don't have data on what is economically recoverable in the next 5 to 10 years at roughly the same oil prices we have now, you do not have the data you need to view the topic with any degree of clarity.

[RandomGuy]

I knew that was coming. Thought the idiots like chump or goran would have said it though. If you agree or disagree they usually do pretty good research.

Doing good research is not incompatible with cherry picking data.

They do this, because they know people suck it up and then turn around and present it to the uninformed, who usually know even less then the people who sucked it up in the first place.

A few minutes of critical thinking, and realizing that heritage is promoting a definite narrative would provide someone with a good reason to be somewhat skeptical and wonder what was being left out.

If this sounds like I'm bustin' yer balls, I am. You let yourself get suckered.

[RandomGuy]

Then focus on the data and not the source. Or don't. I don't care.
What exactly is Obama doing that you think is the right approach?
The 2% is not accurate. There was a study that said there was more oil in the Rocky's alone than any other country. That is my point. You are commenting without even reading the OP. If you want to be a troll then go ahead but you seem to actually want a discussion about this. You just rather assume the info is innacurate because of where it comes from.

Obama's "all of the above" approach is about right.

You can't assume Heritage is inaccurate. You can assume they aren't telling you the full truth.

[spursncowboys]

Obama's "all of the above" approach is about right.

You can't assume Heritage is inaccurate. You can assume they aren't telling you the full truth.

Not what he says at election time. What has he done? What exactly has he done to be an "all of the above"?

[spursncowboys]

Fuck it. Since SNC has doubled down on this tired bullshit, from what I see and challenged anyone to pick apart the OP, he now gets what he asked for.

This shit has been done to death, so I am going to go off my memory as much as possible.

Datapoints and given important principles, numbered for quick reference.:
1)Oil is fungible, and a global market. All inputs get dumped into the same tub, and taken out by buyers, who don't care where it comes from. PRICES ARE GLOBAL.
2) US produces 10% of global supply
3) US consumes 25% of global supply
4) In 1993, China was an exporter of oil. In 2009, it passed Japan as the #2 importer. It is projected to surpass the US within 10 years if current trends continue. Combine these two datapoints, and 100% of Chinese imports represent completely new demand that was not there 20 years ago.




This is a lie because it omits the small detail that this oil will get to market somewhere, somehow. Keystone or not. THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE WILL HAVE NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER ON THE GLOBAL PRICE OF OIL.

Added to this is that the oil that is "off limits", usually a code word for offshore, require billion-dollar ships and platforms to get to. There is a huge backlog in building the ships. The bottleneck is not having enough area to drill in, it is getting the ships online. Oil companies are hesitant to spend too much on these things, because they got burned in the 1990's by low oil prices and are leery of large capital expenditures.

"off limits" also generally refers to ANWAR, another tried and true vacuous talking point. ANWAR, if extracted would supply the US with less than four months supply of oil. Then it would be gone. It is simply not large enough to make a difference in the long run.

I mixes in some truth, but omits some key points. Either the author doesn't know how the market works, or is leaving it out.

Your own opinion, which is all you have stated, says that obama is fudging numbers with how much we produce/consume. Congrats.
Also you are acting as if the oil is dictated by the free market and not by a cartel. But so far all your gotcha seemed to fall short.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

snc, who or what do you think that heritage represents?

[ChumpDumper]

Your own opinion, which is all you have stated, says that obama is fudging numbers with how much we produce/consume. Congrats.
Also you are acting as if the oil is dictated by the free market and not by a cartel. But so far all your gotcha seemed to fall short.You don't seem to get there's not just one cartel in the oil business.

And hand waving is not arguing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You don't seem to get there's not just one cartel in the oil business.

And hand waving is not arguing.

but firms do collude through fronts like the heritage foundation. thats why i ask snc why he thinks that they should dictate policy like this. they are political leaders for him. why does he look to them for leadership?

[spursncowboys]

but firms do collude through fronts like the heritage foundation. thats why i ask snc why he thinks that they should dictate policy like this. they are political leaders for him. why does he look to them for leadership?

You are making alot of assumptions. What does leadership have to do with this? What firm exactly are you presuming is funding heritage to come up with there fact checking of bho. Why do you keep trying to make this about me?

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe you missed this earlier.
Question: What is the motivation for oil companies to drive down the price of their products?

[spursncowboys]

http://www.heritage.org/about

Here is the about page of heritage. They maintain their conservative principals pretty consistently. I guess if companies who agree with them want to contribute to get higher profits (without govt. intervention) they can go to this page:
http://www.heritage.org/about/heritage-membership/membership

[spursncowboys]

And yes I agree with 95% of their stands and am a member. However I know what I believe and don't wait for them to make a stance on an issue for me to figure mine out.

[ChumpDumper]

What firm exactly are you presuming is funding heritage to come up with there fact checking of bho.Exxon/Mobil and Chevron are substantial donors. There could certainly be others that remain anonymous.

You'd already know this if you had an ounce of intellectual curiosity, but you enjoy being spoon fed by folks you prefer to tell you what to believe.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.heritage.org/about

Here is the about page of heritage. They maintain their conservative principals pretty consistently. I guess if companies who agree with them want to contribute to get higher profits (without govt. intervention) they can go to this page:
http://www.heritage.org/about/heritage-membership/membershipAs mentioned above, they already have.

Looks like they are getting their money's worth.

[Wild Cobra]

Obama's "all of the above" approach is about right.

You can't assume Heritage is inaccurate. You can assume they aren't telling you the full truth.
I think it's safe to say both sides have an agenda.

Believe Obama if you will. I will not.

That said, I do agree with most of your arguments this time... How often does that happen?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.heritage.org/about

Here is the about page of heritage. They maintain their conservative principals pretty consistently. I guess if companies who agree with them want to contribute to get higher profits (without govt. intervention) they can go to this page:
http://www.heritage.org/about/heritage-membership/membership

Why do you go only to them to get who and what they are? They get most of there money from anonymous donors. ther corporate donors are a whos who of american and foreign industrialists.

whats awesome is that you say that you agree with 95% of what they say and still think that you think for yourself.

[Wild Cobra]

Why do you go only to them to get who and what they are? They get most of there money from anonymous donors. ther corporate donors are a whos who of american and foreign industrialists.

whats awesome is that you say that you agree with 95% of what they say and still think that you think for yourself.

Just because the donors are from certain types of industry, class, etc. doesn't mean they are to be ignored. You have to look deeper, into if their reasons are legitimate or not. they often are.

[ChumpDumper]

WC, maybe you could take a stab at this one.
Question: What is the motivation for oil companies to drive down the price of their products?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Just because the donors are from certain types of industry, class, etc. doesn't mean they are to be ignored. You have to look deeper, into if their reasons are legitimate or not. they often are.

Sorry but i do not take advice on ethics or philosophy from fools.

The OP is a sales brochure for the pipeline that is funded in no small part by the firms that own the gulf coast refineries that never once talks about the trade surplus for petrol.

Naivete of this nature is justified in children after a certain point it becomes willful ignorance and stupidity.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, maybe you could take a stab at this one.
Question: What is the motivation for oil companies to drive down the price of their products?

I'll take it on poor judgement on my part that you are actually asking a serious question.

They have a balance to find for maximum profit. They will desire the highest price they can get, but they have competition as well.

Leo Yau (Yau Leopoldo) taught me how Intel maximizes profits. It's an interesting game of cat and mouse between you and your competition. It often occurs by finding a cheaper way of doing things, but keeping your retail price in line with the competition until you have extra production capacity and want to increase market share. Then you drop your price, but you pick a strategic time. I'm not going to bother making a proper graph to illustrate the Intel process, and it probably doesn't work in the oil industry the same way.

I honestly don't know what works best for the oil industry, except for one thing. Supply and demand rules in the free market. You lower your price vs. the competition to gain market share, but if they can match you, you lose profits. Therefore, it requires a development in new technology, or a way of getting your base materials (resources) for less money. Just getting your resources for less alone will increase profits, and if you can reduce your sales price more than your competition, then it's a win in volume.

[RandomGuy]

Your own opinion, which is all you have stated, says that obama is fudging numbers with how much we produce/consume. Congrats.
Also you are acting as if the oil is dictated by the free market and not by a cartel. But so far all your gotcha seemed to fall short.

That isn't my opinion.

Basic economics and the data I posted are all readily findable.

Find anything factually incorrect. Go on.

[RandomGuy]

You don't seem to get there's not just one cartel in the oil business.

And hand waving is not arguing.

The percentage of global oil production represented by OPEC has fallen over the long term, and will likely continue to fall over th next 20 years.

A good primer can be had here.

http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/as-markets-oil.html

[ChumpDumper]

I honestly don't know what works best for the oil industry, except for one thing. Supply and demand rules in the free market. You lower your price vs. the competition to gain market share, but if they can match you, you lose profits. Therefore, it requires a development in new technology, or a way of getting your base materials (resources) for less money. Just getting your resources for less alone will increase profits, and if you can reduce your sales price more than your competition, then it's a win in volume.And if you lower the supply of say, refined gasoline by shutting down less profitable refineries -- prices and profits can go up.

Also profits can be maximized by shipping prodict to the market that pays the most.

This certainly seems to be the easier route for the oil companies, since that's what they have actually done.

If you can prove to me that several oil companies would actively seek an oil and gas glut in this country in an attempt to undercut competition, I would accept every argument the Heritage Foundation vomits up.

[CosmicCowboy]

And if you lower the supply of say, refined gasoline by shutting down less profitable refineries -- prices and profits can go up.

Also profits can be maximized by shipping prodict to the market that pays the most.

This certainly seems to be the easier route for the oil companies, since that's what they have actually done.

If you can prove to me that several oil companies would actively seek an oil and gas glut in this country in an attempt to undercut competition, I would accept every argument the Heritage Foundation vomits up.

The problem with your theory is that one company shutting a refinery just reduces that one company's market share and profit by the output of that refinery. There are a lot of refineries owned by a lot of different companies.

Are you claiming some kind of conspiracy where certain companies "take one for team" and close refineries (losing money in the process) to keep retail prices up for all the companies?

[boutons_deux]

Closing (gasoline) refineries ups the "team" profits since intentional supply restriction ups the revenues for the team, including for the player whose other refineries now sell at higher prices.

[CosmicCowboy]

I get it. Boutons is in the "oil company conspiracy" camp. Chump? You too? Your previous post certainly seemed to suggest that.

Oh, and just to confuse the issue with facts, here is a list of all the refineries/refiners in the US.

http://www.eia.gov/neic/rankings/refineries.htm

[ChumpDumper]

The problem with your theory is that one company shutting a refinery just reduces that one company's market share and profit by the output of that refinery. There are a lot of refineries owned by a lot of different companies.

Are you claiming some kind of conspiracy where certain companies "take one for team" and close refineries (losing money in the process) to keep retail prices up for all the companies?Who said they lose money by shutting down those refineries?

The companies claimed the exact opposite.

[ChumpDumper]

From New York to Philadelphia, refineries that turn oil into gasoline have been idled or shut permanently because their owners are losing money on them. Sunoco Inc. is expected to close the region's largest refinery in July, taking another 335,000 barrels per day in production capacity off the market.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304459804577285741977434570.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

[CosmicCowboy]

So they DIDN'T close the refineries in order to drive up the price of gasoline for everyone.

Thank you.

[ChumpDumper]

So they DIDN'T close the refineries in order to drive up the price of gasoline for everyone.

Thank you.So you're going to pretend that shutting down refineries doesn't drive up the price of gasoline for everyone now?

That's fucking pathetic, CC. You've been a pussy before, but this is a new low.

Thank you for showing your true colors and agreeing that the oil companies have no incentive to drive their prices down.

[CosmicCowboy]

Do your homework Chump. There is a glut of worldwide refining capacity. The problem with these Northeast refineries is that they aren't set up to use the cheaper dirty crude and they can't meet impending EPA regulations. We aren't building new refineries in the US. The older US refineries can't compete with the new refineries being built in India, China, and the Middle East.

So you actually believe in Boutons conspiracy theory? :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Do your homework Chump. There is a glut of worldwide refining capacity. The problem with these Northeast refineries is that they aren't set up to use the cheaper dirty crude and they can't meet impending EPA regulations. We aren't building new refineries in the US. The older US refineries can't compete with the new refineries being built in India, China, and the Middle East.

So you actually believe in Boutons conspiracy theory? :lolDo your homework, CC. There are no new refineries being built here because they simply aren't needed for the purposes of the oil companies -- unless they are exporting the refined products to other markets outside the US.

[CosmicCowboy]

lol Chump and Boutons conspiracy theories.

[ChumpDumper]

lol Chump and Boutons conspiracy theories.Who said it had to be a conspiracy? It's a simple business plan.

lol CC and his attempted complete denial of supply and demand.

[CosmicCowboy]

I totally get supply and demand. It was YOURS and BOUTONS claim they shut refineries to drive up prices.

You totally ignored the fact that the old refineries weren't competitive, couldn't use cheaper and dirtier oil, and couldn't meet impending EPA regulations.

[ChumpDumper]

I totally get supply and demand. It was YOURS and BOUTONS claim they shut refineries to drive up prices.Ah, so you can't read what I wrote either.

Are you playing stupid because you realized you're wrong or are you just really stupid?

[CosmicCowboy]

Ah, so you can't read what I wrote either.

Are you playing stupid because you realized you're wrong or are you just really stupid?



So you're going to pretend that shutting down refineries doesn't drive up the price of gasoline for everyone now?



Looks pretty clear to me, Boutons.

[ChumpDumper]

Looks pretty clear to me, Boutons.Yes, it's clear that you didn't think refineries were shutting down or their effect on prices so you made the conspiracy straw man because you're embarrassed by your own ignorance.

Sorry I made you look bad, but you should really read at least one article on the topic being discussed before you make an idiot of yourself again.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao @ chump and boutons conspiracy theory and chumps backup beeper going off.

If you honestly think that the evil oil companies are shutting down refineries to drive up the price of gasoline don't you think that the Justice Department would be looking into it? You do know that the price of gas is a real problem for Obama politically right? You do know he's flying all over the country for the next three days doing photo ops at oil and gas installations trying to show how concerned he is with gas prices and how he's pro oil/gas production, right?

:lmao at Bouchump...

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao @ chump and boutons conspiracy theory and chumps backup beeper going off.

If you honestly think that the evil oil companies are shutting down refineries to drive up the price of gasoline don't you think that the Justice Department would be looking into it? You do know that the price of gas is a real problem for Obama politically right? You do know he's flying all over the country for the next three days doing photo ops at oil and gas installations trying to show how concerned he is with gas prices and how he's pro oil/gas production, right?

:lmao at Bouchump...

[ChumpDumper]

:lol doubling down on the conspiracy straw man isn't going to distract from your initial ignorance here.

No conspiracy necessary. It's a simple business move.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol doubling down on the conspiracy straw man isn't going to distract from your initial ignorance here.

No conspiracy necessary. It's a simple business move.

It was your original claim Bouchump...



And if you lower the supply of say, refined gasoline by shutting down less profitable refineries -- prices and profits can go up.

Also profits can be maximized by shipping prodict to the market that pays the most.

This certainly seems to be the easier route for the oil companies, since that's what they have actually done.

.

And BTW "less profitable" means they were profitable. Your specific claim was they were shutting down money making refineries to drive up the price of product and make MORE money.

It's right there in black and white.

[RandomGuy]

The problem with your theory is that one company shutting a refinery just reduces that one company's market share and profit by the output of that refinery. There are a lot of refineries owned by a lot of different companies.

Are you claiming some kind of conspiracy where certain companies "take one for team" and close refineries (losing money in the process) to keep retail prices up for all the companies?

If I may jump in here:

Yes refineries are being closed down that are unprofitable. Smaller facilities and so forth.

The US has actually overall ADDED capacity, because of new technology and expansions at existing facilities.

The shut downs of unprofitable refineries are no different than a retailer shutting down unprofitable stores. In this, it does limit capacity somewhat.

I get this from a read of Exxon's annual statement a while back as they are talking about adding the equivalent of one new refinery per year by simply making existing facilities better, and what I remember of readings since then.

They aren't doing this in a concerted effort to keep prices higher, and this actually keeps prices lower, because loss-leaders get taken off the books.

Hope this helps.

Also respectfully:

Go back an re-read a bit I think you both are missing what the other says to some degree.

[ChumpDumper]

It was your original claim Bouchump...




And BTW "less profitable" means they were profitable. Your specific claim was they were shutting down money making refineries to drive up the price of product and make MORE money.

It's right there in black and white.That's the oil companies' claim, dumbass. Some that are shut down are unprofitable, some are simply less profitable. Strangely enough, each refinery is different. You didn't think any refinery was being shut down for any reason.

My specific claim was that shutting down refineries for any reason drives the price of gas up. Profitability is the reason oil companies are using now.

Take it up with them.

It was right there in black and white.

[CosmicCowboy]

That's the oil companies' claim, dumbass.

My specific claim was that shutting down refineries for any reason drives the price up. Profitability is the reason oil companies are using now.

Take it up with them.

It was right there in black and white.


*beep*beep*beep*beep* goes the backup buzzer

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

*beep*beep*beep*beep* goes the backup buzzer

:lmaoEh, you're still angry about being so wrong in the first place.

You can play stupid all you want, we know you're just being a pussy. You have a very fragile ego, CC.

[CosmicCowboy]

Eh, you're still angry about being so wrong in the first place.

You can play stupid all you want, we know you're just being a pussy. You have a very fragile ego, CC.

:lol


Yes, it's clear that you didn't think refineries were shutting down or their effect on prices so you made the conspiracy straw man because you're embarrassed by your own ignorance.


Care to showe me the quote where I said refineries weren't being shut down?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

*beep*beep*beep* goes Bouchump.

[ChumpDumper]

So you're backing up now? :lmao

lol losing market share

*beep*beep*beep* goes CC

[RandomGuy]

Your own opinion, which is all you have stated, says that obama is fudging numbers with how much we produce/consume. Congrats.
Also you are acting as if the oil is dictated by the free market and not by a cartel. But so far all your gotcha seemed to fall short.

1) If Obama is fudging, it would be productive for you to tell us what and how, if you know.

2) What I gave wasn't my opinion.

US oil reserves represent 1.3% of world total. (page 22)
US oil production represents 7% of world total. I was wrong tho. It used to be 10%. My bad. (pg 30)
OPEC represents 44% of world production of oil.
http://www.opec.org/opec_web/static_files_project/media/downloads/publications/ASB2010_2011.pdf

OPECs ability to set prices is severely limited by the fact that the cartel does not represent even 50% of the world's oil production.

United States has added refinery capacity in each of the last five years, BTW.
(page 38 of the statistical extract for 2010)

That is why I "act" as if oil prices are set by market forces.


My "gotcha" has relevant data, backed up by sound economics. I am going to bookmark/save this thread.

You can try to back up heritages' bullshit if you want. You will fail, because you let yourself get lied to, as I have pointed out. I hope you will try, maybe then you can see for yourself, instead of making me do the work you should have done in the first place.

That is not a nice thing to say, and I realize you are at heart a decent person, but if you suck this stuff up without a modicum of understanding or fact checking, solely because you *want* to believe it, I'm sorry.

[RandomGuy]

United States
17,272.6 ---2006
17,447.2
17,379.7 ---2008
17,763.5
17,869.2 ---2010
% change0.6

My bad, it went down a little in 2008, during the crisis.

[RandomGuy]

THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE WILL HAVE NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER ON THE GLOBAL PRICE OF OIL.

--This is not my opinion.

They have several other proposed pipelines besides the Keystone pipeline.

Global prices are just that, global.

If Canada sells that oil to China from its west coast ports, then China buys less from the rest of the world, and the rest of the world then charges the US a bit less for its imports.

Fun.
Gi.
Ble.

Even if the US completely met its oil needs by domestic production, we would still be vulnerable to oil supply shocks in the middle east.

Middle east oil withdraws--> world consumers bid up prices--> US producers then can export oil more profibably--> domestic supplies go down-->US prices then go up.

This is how drilling all the oil we consume still exposes us to middle east /Africa instability.

The ONLY way to reduce your dependence on this area of the world, aside from government directives to private companies about who they can sell for, and for how much, is to use less oil.

QED. Basic economics.

[CosmicCowboy]

So you're backing up now? :lmao

lol losing market share

*beep*beep*beep* goes CC

What the fuck are you talking about?

[ChumpDumper]

1) If Obama is fudging, it would be productive for you to tell us what and how, if you know.Heritage says so! They tell me to believe what I already believe without their telling me what to believe!

[CosmicCowboy]

THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE WILL HAVE NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER ON THE GLOBAL PRICE OF OIL.

--This is not my opinion.

They have several other proposed pipelines besides the Keystone pipeline.

Global prices are just that, global.

If Canada sells that oil to China from its west coast ports, then China buys less from the rest of the world, and the rest of the world then charges the US a bit less for its imports.

Fun.
Gi.
Ble.

Even if the US completely met its oil needs by domestic production, we would still be vulnerable to oil supply shocks in the middle east.

Middle east oil withdraws--> world consumers bid up prices--> US producers then can export oil more profibably--> domestic supplies go down-->US prices then go up.

This is how drilling all the oil we consume still exposes us to middle east /Africa instability.

The ONLY way to reduce your dependence on this area of the world, aside from government directives to private companies about who they can sell for, and for how much, is to use less oil.

QED. Basic economics.

Agreed

[ChumpDumper]

What the fuck are you talking about?I can believe you don't even understand your own "argument" at this point.

[CosmicCowboy]

I can believe you don't even understand your own "argument" at this point.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

If you are going to claim I backed up then post the original quote you are claiming I backed up from.

Yeah.

I didn't think you could.

[ChumpDumper]

Saying it doesn't make it so.

If you are going to claim I backed up then post the original quote you are claiming I backed up from.

Yeah.

I didn't think you could.lol market share again

You might want to go back and read what you said.

You didn't back up your claim I said there was a conspiracy at all -- because there is no conspiracy. Just a series of business decisions based on the weakening of demand in the US.


Over the past few years, integrated oil companies have sought to rationalize their downstream (i.e., refining and marketing) operations, divesting less profitable refineries in the US in favor of facilities in the Middle East and Asian emerging markets, two regions that offer superior margins and growth prospects. The list below provides an overview of what some of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies have in store for their downstream operations.

BP (LSE: BP, NYSE: BP) in early 2011 announced plans to roughly halve its US refining capacity and has placed its Texas City and Carson, Calif. on the sales block.

Chevron Corp (NYSE: CVX) is in the midst of a three-year plan to rationalize its downstream operations. At the end of 2010, the company had exited seven countries and most markets on the US East Coast. In the first quarter, Chevron announced the sale of its Pembroke refinery and associated marketing assets in the UK and Ireland. Meanwhile, the company completed the sale of its downstream operations in the eastern Caribbean and several African nations. Management also announced a deal to divest its downstream operations in Spain.

ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) has established a goal of reducing its downstream exposure to 15 to 20 percent of overall revenue from 20 to 25 percent of revenue. In 2011 management plans to sell $1 billion worth of downstream assets.

Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE: RDS.A) has been restructuring its downstream operations since 2009 to divest smaller facilities and focus on Asia-Pacific and other markets with high growth potential. By 2012, management expects to reduce its downstream portfolio by a further 700,000 barrels per day.

Total (France: FP, NYSE: TOT) plans to lower its gasoline output by 60 percent and has placed its UK Lindsey refinery, which accounts for 20 percent of its overall capacity, on the sales block.

Independent US refiners have also moved to reduce capacity, selling or closing smaller (and therefore less-efficient) plants on the East Coast–a highly competitive region that lacks access to cheaper domestically produced crude oil. The majority of oil refined at East Coast facilities arrives via tanker from Nigeria, the North Sea and other international locations.

Valero Energy Corp (NYSE: VLO), the largest US independent, sold its Delaware City and Paulsboro, N.J. refineries.

Sunoco (NYSE: SUN) in 2009 shuttered its Eagle Point refinery in Westville, N.J.

These efforts to reduce US refining capacity–primarily by closing smaller, less-efficient facilities–have improved the industry’s profit margins, while a recovery in US oil demand has also contributed to refiners’ newfound profitability.http://www.investingdaily.com/13541/bull-market-for-refining-stocks

The simple fact is that refining is one of the least profitable components of the oil industry. One the big oil companies have moved away from (market share!). Ultimately the shutting down of less or non-profitable refineries increases the profitability of the remaining ones in no small part due to the resulting higher gas prices.

If you think that's a conspiracy, that's your business.

If you think the oil companies are motivated to lower the price of gas at this point, you're simply an idiot.

[CosmicCowboy]

Glad you did some homework and finally realized that there is a difference between oil producers and oil refiners. The driving force of higher gas prices is the increased cost of oil feed stocks for the refineries. Refiners can actually make LESS with high gas prices because their profits are based on a set margin per gallon and when demand drops because of higher prices then profit drops too.

[ChumpDumper]

Glad you did some homework and finally realized that there is a difference between oil producers and oil refiners. The driving force of higher gas prices is the increased cost of oil feed stocks for the refineries. Refiners can actually make LESS with high gas prices because their profits are based on a set margin per gallon and when demand drops because of higher prices then profit drops too.Thanks for agreeing with what I was saying all along.

You believe in the "conspiracy"!

[CosmicCowboy]

Damn Chump...you are such a tool...That's not what you said at all and you know it. You and Boutons said they shut refineries in order increase the price of gas and increase their profits.

[ChumpDumper]

Damn Chump...you are such a tool...That's not what you said at all and you know it. You and Boutons said they shut refineries in order increase the price of gas and increase their profits.I definitely claimed the latter because that is their stated goal. The former is a very convenient and not at all accidental byproduct for the oil companies who are still in refining and also helps overall profitability.

No need for a conspiracy, though.

[CosmicCowboy]

I definitely claimed the latter because that is their stated goal. The former is a very convenient and not at all accidental byproduct for the oil companies who are still in refining and also helps overall profitability.

No need for a conspiracy, though.

The oil companies stated goal was to increase the cost of gasoline at the pump?

Care to provide a link to this stated goal?

[ChumpDumper]

The oil companies stated goal was to increase the cost of gasoline at the pump?

Care to provide a link to this stated goal?So now you don't know the difference between former and latter?

You really are stupid.

[CosmicCowboy]

So now you don't know the difference between former and latter?

You really are stupid.

Your words earlier in the thread:


And if you lower the supply of say, refined gasoline by shutting down less profitable refineries -- prices and profits can go up.



You really are inconsistent.

[ChumpDumper]

They can go up. They have gone up. They are going up. Without a conspiracy.

What is your problem with that?

[CosmicCowboy]

They can go up. They have gone up. They are going up. Without a conspiracy.

What is your problem with that?

So you do maintain that "they" (the group of refinery owners as a whole) shut refineries in order to reduce supply and drive up the cost of gasoline and make higher profits.

Is this correct?

[ChumpDumper]

So you do maintain that "they" (the group of refinery owners as a whole) shut refineries in order to drive up the cost of gasoline and make higher profits.

Is this correct?Incorrect.

You're still stuck on stupid.

Look up former and latter and tell me what they mean.

[CosmicCowboy]

You're still stuck on stupid.

Look up former and latter and tell me what they mean.

Why don't you just answer the question? Is that your claim or not?

[ChumpDumper]

Why don't you just answer the question?I knew you were too stupid to infer, so I edited above to include the answer.

[CosmicCowboy]

So you do maintain that "they" (the group of refinery owners as a whole) shut refineries in order to reduce supply and drive up the cost of gasoline and make higher profits.

Is this correct?

So you now say that statement is incorrect and these aren't saying the same thing? :lol



And if you lower the supply of say, refined gasoline by shutting down less profitable refineries -- prices and profits can go up.



*beep*beep*beep*beep*

[ChumpDumper]

So you now say that statement is incorrect and these aren't saying the same thing? :lol




*beep*beep*beep*beep*It's not the same.

Now answer my question:

Do you know the meaning and usage of the words former and latter?

[CosmicCowboy]

It's not the same.

Now answer my question:

Do you know the meaning and usage of the words former and latter?

Of course it's saying exactly the same thing and you know it. You just refuse to admit the inconsistency in your posts. You and Boutons clearly claimed "they" (the oil refiners as a group) shut less profitable refineries in order to reduce supply and increase the price of gas and increase profits.

And yes, I know the difference between the former and the latter.

You believe the former but can't provide a link to prove it.

Thanks for playing.

[ChumpDumper]

Of course it's saying exactly the same thing and you know it. You just refuse to admit the inconsistency in your posts. You and Boutons clearly claimed "they" (the oil refiners as a group) shut less profitable refineries in order to reduce supply and increase the price of gas and increase profits.Can't speak for boutons. I know I didn't.


And yes, I know the difference between the former and the latter.Then tell us what the former and latter are in this case:

You and Boutons said they shut refineries in order increase the price of gas and increase their profits.

[CosmicCowboy]

Sure...you said you believed "they" shut refineries in order to increase the price of gasoline (the former) but then couldn't prove it.

[CosmicCowboy]

(double post)

[CosmicCowboy]

Can't speak for boutons. I know I didn't.



Did you not say this?


And if you lower the supply of say, refined gasoline by shutting down less profitable refineries -- prices and profits can go up.

Also profits can be maximized by shipping prodict to the market that pays the most.

This certainly seems to be the easier route for the oil companies, since that's what they have actually done.

[ChumpDumper]

Sure...you said you believed "they" shut refineries in order to increase the price of gasoline (the former) but then couldn't prove it.I never said they shut down refineries in order to increase the price of oil, just that it can happen as a result of the shutdowns.

It can happen because it did happen.

Thanks for repeating what I said several times so everyone can see your error. I don't know why your ego would allow it; I guess you really were stuck on stupid.

[Winehole23]

the leap from possibility ("can go up") to instrumentality ("in order to raise prices") is reasonable, but ChumpDumper did not make it -- as usual, CC puts words in another poster's mouth and runs him down for that, instead of for what he actually said.

[ChumpDumper]

lol conspiracy

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RwdH5DTKRas/Syt39DIXN-I/AAAAAAAACVE/HpOd4vti5x4/s400/strawman.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Can you both agree the OP is full of shit?

[ChumpDumper]

Can you both agree the OP is full of shit?Pretty much what I was trying to do before CC rolled up.

http://danny.oz.au/travel/scotland/p/4743-hay-bales.jpg

[CosmicCowboy]

I never said they shut down refineries in order to increase the price of oil, just that it can happen as a result of the shutdowns.

It can happen because it did happen.

Thanks for repeating what I said several times so everyone can see your error. I don't know why your ego would allow it; I guess you really were stuck on stupid.

No, you said that shutting down the refineries increases the price of GAS and increases their profits. Nice try, though.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.profimedia.si/photo/hay-bales-and-cowboy-boots-kamloops-british/profimedia-0052332923.jpgAfter all that spoon feeding?

You're an idiot.

[CosmicCowboy]

Cute picture. I feel exactly the same about you.

[ChumpDumper]

I can't make you less stupid, CC.

Sorry.

[CosmicCowboy]

the leap from possibility ("can go up") to instrumentality ("in order to raise prices") is reasonable, but ChumpDumper did not make it -- as usual, CC puts words in another poster's mouth and runs him down for that, instead of for what he actually said.

Did you miss this one Winehole?


So you're going to pretend that shutting down refineries doesn't drive up the price of gasoline for everyone now?



Chumps cute straw pictures aren't changing the fact that he is trying to desperately backtrack from his original claim.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao OMG you still don't get it!

You reposted it and you still don't understand!

[jack sommerset]

CC understands perfectly, it is chump that doesn't seem to get it. I will pray for Chump tonight. God bless.

[ChumpDumper]

CC understands perfectly, it is chump that doesn't seem to get it. I will pray for Chump tonight. God bless.No you won't.

You didn't even read this thread.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao OMG you still don't get it!

You reposted it and you still don't understand!

Yes, I understand that you stated that they (the oil companies) closed down refineries in order to drive up the price of gasoline and increase profits.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, I understand that you stated that they (the oil companies) closed down refineries in order to drive up the price of gasoline and increase profits.Nope.

I expected you could understand plain English. I was wrong.

You're an idiot.

[CosmicCowboy]

And now you say you didn't say it even though it's right there in black and white.

make up your mind.

[Winehole23]

Seems like Chump is trying to guess at your opinion in the quoted. Does he reveal his own? I feel less certain than you that Chump is making the claim you keep trying impute to him.

(RG's point about refining capacity steadily climbing showed your flame war with ChumpDumper as being totally beside the point wrt to the OP, imho, but I understand there's a history there...

[ChumpDumper]

And now you say you didn't say it even though it's right there in black and white.

make up your mind.I've been quite consistent.

It's right there in black and white.

-- as is your complete stupidity. Repeated by you in black and white.

[ChumpDumper]

RG's point about refining capacity steadily climbing showed your flame war with ChumpDumper as being totally beside the point wrt to the OP, imho, but I understand there's a history there...Actually it fits in with the point I made about foreign markets for refined products. I'm sure CC doesn't understand that either.

[CosmicCowboy]

Seems like Chump is trying to guess at your opinion in the quoted. Does he reveal his own? I feel less certain than you that Chump is making the claim you keep trying impute to him.

(RG's point about refining capacity steadily climbing showed your flame war with ChumpDumper as being totally beside the point wrt to the OP, imho, but I understand there's a history there...

I'm quite aware that there is a glut of worldwide refining capacity making some older plants uncompetitive with the newer plants being built in India, China, and the Middle East.

[CosmicCowboy]

Actually it fits in with the point I made about foreign markets for refined products. I'm sure CC doesn't understand that either.

You certainly are sure about a lot of things that turn out to be dead wrong.

[ChumpDumper]

You certainly are sure about a lot of things that turn out to be dead wrong.The US exported 19,103,000 barrels of gasoline in December alone.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mgfexus1&f=m

Tell me what I got wrong there.

[Winehole23]

Actually it fits in with the point I made about foreign markets for refined products.fair enough. it does fit.
CC doesn't understand that either.looks like he acknowledges the point, but wants to spin it differently

[ChumpDumper]

fair enough. it does fit.When you read it without a hostile bias born from butthurt, it's quite easy to understand.
looks like he acknowledges the point, but wants to spin it differentlyHis ego won't allow anything else.

[CosmicCowboy]

The US exported 19,103,000 barrels of gasoline in December alone.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mgfexus1&f=m

Tell me what I got wrong there.

Nothing, but as usual that wasn't what I was talking about and you just tried to change the subject. I'm actually fairly knowledgeable about refining and our export capability. I'm not the one talking about cause/effect from closing some obsolete refineries with higher gasoline prices at the pump.

And calling me ignorant or stupid doesn't make THAT true either.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not the one talking about cause/effect from closing some obsolete refineries with higher gasoline prices at the pump.Um, that's all you've been talking about today.

Man, you are in some serious denial, CC. Or is something really wrong with you?

[CosmicCowboy]

Um, that's all you've been talking about today.

Man, you are in some serious denial, CC. Or is something really wrong with you?

What am I supposedly in denial of Bouchump?

[ChumpDumper]

What am I supposedly in denial of Bouchump?Of talking about what we have been talking about all day; even if most of it concerned you complete misreading of the actual sentences in the discussion.

[CosmicCowboy]

Of talking about what we have been talking about all day; even if most of it concerned you complete misreading of the actual sentences in the discussion.

Sorry, your backup beeper distracted me...

[ChumpDumper]

Sorry, your backup beeper distracted me...Didn't back up once.

You failed.

[CosmicCowboy]

Didn't back up once.

You failed.

So in your opinion is there, or is there not a supply/demand cause/effect relationship between random oil companies closing obsolete refineries and gas prices going up at the pump?

Simple yes/no question.

I'll give you ANOTHER chance to dodge it and create another argument totally unrelated to the simple question.

[ChumpDumper]

So in your opinion is there, or is there not a supply/demand cause/effect relationship between random oil companies closing obsolete refineries and gas prices going up at the pump?

Simple yes/no question.

I'll give you ANOTHER chance to dodge it and create another argument totally unrelated to the simple question.No need to dodge anything. I have already answered this several times. My thoughts on this are very clear.

You still don't understand after all these hours?

Simple yes or no question.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

And another Chump duck/dodge...

How predictable

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

And another Chump duck/dodge...

How predictableSorry, CC. I don't feel the need to repeat myself again as charity for you.

What I said at 10 this morning still stands. No backtracking.

I can't make you understand it. I can't make you less stupid. I can't make you less butthurt.

Quit asking me for handouts.

[CosmicCowboy]

My specific claim was that shutting down refineries for any reason drives the price of gas up.



Oh OK...:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

And that's funny because?

BTW that was 11:21.

You're too stupid to even read time stamps now. Congratulations.

[CosmicCowboy]

And that's funny because?

BTW that was 11:21.

You're too stupid to even read time stamps now. Congratulations.


The US exported 19,103,000 barrels of gasoline in December alone.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mgfexus1&f=m

Tell me what I got wrong there.

Well, does closing obsolete refineries drive up the price of gas at the pump?

Make up your mind!

[CosmicCowboy]

You make a supply/demand argument for the US market and then refute it two pages later.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, does closing obsolete refineries drive up the price of gas at the pump?

Make up your mind!Hey, I can't make you read the entire 10 AM post either, idiot.

[ChumpDumper]

You make a supply/demand argument for the US market and then refute it two pages later.I can't make you read the entire 10 AM post, idiot.

[ChumpDumper]

And if you lower the supply of say, refined gasoline by shutting down less profitable refineries -- prices and profits can go up.

Also profits can be maximized by shipping prodict to the market that pays the most.

This certainly seems to be the easier route for the oil companies, since that's what they have actually done.

If you can prove to me that several oil companies would actively seek an oil and gas glut in this country in an attempt to undercut competition, I would accept every argument the Heritage Foundation vomits up.

[CosmicCowboy]

So did we have a gasoline shortage and I somehow missed it? I haven't seen any lines at the gas stations and I haven't read or heard of any supply disruptions...

[ChumpDumper]

So you want to make another straw man now?

I don't blame you.

[CosmicCowboy]

If you want to make a supply/demand argument for high gas prices at the pump you might at least want to back it up with SOMETHING besides calling me an idiot for calling you out.

[ChumpDumper]

I understand you're upset and emotional right now, but you deserved it.

[Wild Cobra]

And if you lower the supply of say, refined gasoline by shutting down less profitable refineries -- prices and profits can go up.

That has drawbacks too. If you reduce your own supply capability, you lose market share to your competition.

[Winehole23]

market share!

[ChumpDumper]

That has drawbacks too. If you reduce your own supply capability, you lose market share to your competition.Well, the larger oil companies were selling off or shutting down their refineries for years, so it must not have been that bad an option.

[CosmicCowboy]

I understand you're upset and emotional right now, but you deserved it.

I understand you don't want to acknowledge that your supply/demand argument about the refineries is totally lame and the real reason for the high cost of gas is the high cost of crude.

US refineries on average get 19.5 gallons of gas from a barrel of oil. Do the math with WTI oil at $108. THERE'S your high cost of gas at the pump.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, the larger oil companies were selling off or shutting down their refineries for years, so it must not have been that bad an option.

They have been shutting down some facilities while upgrading and expanding others.

[ChumpDumper]

I understand you don't want to acknowledge that your supply/demand argument about the refineries is totally lame and the real reason for the high cost of gas is the high cost of crude.It's not lame at all. It's all there in that first post I reposted because you didn't know how to read a time stamp.

Sorry if you still don't get it after a full day of posting from work.

[ChumpDumper]

They have been shutting down some facilities while upgrading and expanding others.And reducing the portion of their business that is refining overall.

[Wild Cobra]

And reducing the portion of their business that is refining overall.
Yet they keep up with the demands. how is that possible?

You cannot prove capacity is decreased for raising price. I see their consolidation of operations simple the same as what some other corporations do over time. I wonder how many facilities might have been pushed out by the people of the region and environmentalists. Then with tighter and tighter regulations over time, it is cheaper to build a new facility than retrofit an old one sometimes. Now combine that with the difficulty of approval for a new site. It only makes sense that they expand on existing sites, and they do.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's not lame at all. It's all there in that first post I reposted because you didn't know how to read a time stamp.

Sorry if you still don't get it after a full day of posting from work.

Well, I'm self employed and can post guilt free if I want to. Can you say the same?

And your original post that you reposted sure seemed to blame the oil companies closing refineries and exporting gas for creating a supply/demand imbalance in the US causing high prices at the gas pumps...I didn't see a single word about the high cost of crude.

[RandomGuy]

:corn:

[ChumpDumper]

Yet they keep up with the demands. how is that possible?Demand went down. Now it's coming back up.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, I'm self employed and can post guilt free if I want to. Can you say the same?Yes actually -- though I never post from work, braggart. Not productive.


And your original post that you reposted sure seemed to blame the oil companies closing refineries and exporting gas for creating a supply/demand imbalance in the US causing high prices at the gas pumps...I didn't see a single word about the high cost of crude.Nor did you see me exclude them as a factor.

[ElNono]

Half truths!

[CosmicCowboy]

Demand went down. Now it's coming back up.

Is it? Are the 2012 numbers really up?

http://marginalevolution.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/gasoline-demand.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

Is it? Are the 2012 numbers really up?

http://marginalevolution.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/gasoline-demand.jpgWell, you've certainly proved me wrong with numbers that stop at mid-2011. :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

Well, you've certainly proved me wrong with numbers that stop at mid-2011. :lol

I asked in the post if you had more recent numbers. Do you have reading comprehension problems?

http://205.254.135.7/oog/info/twip/gtpsusm.gif

[ChumpDumper]

I asked in the post if you had more recent numbers. Do you have reading comprehension problems?

http://205.254.135.7/oog/info/twip/gtpsusm.gifThanks, was just about to post that. If we expect it to stay low during the purported recovery, I haven't seen that prediction.

[CosmicCowboy]

Nor did you see me exclude them as a factor.

:lmao

way to duck and dodge...

[ElNono]

Why would US demand be the sole factor? Oil is a global market. If Chinese demand increases, we'll take a hit here at the pump in the US...

Oh, and:

China’s surging oil demand could pump up prices (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73689.html)

[Winehole23]

ditto war with Iran

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

way to duck and dodge...You'll notice I was talking with WC. I didn't realize I needed to anticipate your butthurt ankle biting in advance.

Besides, you're whole schtick today was that I claimed an industrywide conspiracy to shut down refineries to increase gas prices. Glad to see you have realized your stupid mistake and have moved on.

[CosmicCowboy]

You guys quit confusing Bouchump with facts. It's those evil oil companies closing refineries...

[ChumpDumper]

You guys quit confusing Bouchump with facts. It's those evil oil companies closing refineries...Sorry you can't focus on the effects of two factors -- but you've proved yourself to be wholly incapable of understanding much of anything today.

Good "work"!

[Wild Cobra]

Demand went down. Now it's coming back up.
Yes, normal seasonal fluctuations.

Did they repair the damaged refinery in Anacortes yet?

[ChumpDumper]

Why would US demand be the sole factor? Oil is a global market. If Chinese demand increases, we'll take a hit here at the pump in the US...

Oh, and:

China’s surging oil demand could pump up prices (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73689.html)


ditto war with IranAbsolutely. No argument about their influence.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't even know what the fuck you guys are arguing.

I need to get Scott to explain the world oil/gas markets to me in detail in under 5 minutes.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, normal seasonal fluctuations.Ah, no. Read the charts. I'm probably premature in stating there will be an increase in US demand this year, but I haven't seen anyone predicting otherwise.


Did they repair the damaged refinery in Anacortes yet?Would that matter to your argument?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't even know what the fuck you guys are arguing.CC said I claimed there was a conspiracy to drive up gas prices and profits. He was wrong, so he's making other straw men as quickly as possible.


I need to get Scott to explain the world oil/gas markets to me in detail in under 5 minutes.Please do.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't even know what the fuck you guys are arguing.

I need to get Scott to explain the world oil/gas markets to me in detail in under 5 minutes.

there was a strawman earlier but thats been dropped for the most part and now they just bicker. wait nm the strawman is back.

[RandomGuy]

I don't even know what the fuck you guys are arguing.

I need to get Scott to explain the world oil/gas markets to me in detail in under 5 minutes.

Start at post 28, in page two. (edit) #78 is also good. (/edit) Look for the picture of the wookie in orange on the side, ignore the stuff with Hasselhof's pic next to it. It's not very helpful.

I might not have scott's expertise, but I try.

[boutons_deux]

Why Republicans Aren't Mentioning the Real Cause of Rising Prices at the Gas Pump

Gas prices continue to rise, which is finally giving Republicans an issue. Mitt Romney is demanding the President open up more domestic drilling; the super PAC behind Rick Santorum just released a new ad in Louisiana blasting the President on gas prices; and the GOP is attacking the White House on the Keystone XL Pipeline.

But the rise in gas prices has almost nothing to do with energy policy. It has everything to do with America's continuing failure to adequately regulate Wall Street. But don't hold your breath waiting for Republicans to tell the truth.

As I've noted before, oil supplies aren't being squeezed. Over 80 percent of America's energy needs are now being satisfied by domestic supplies. In fact, we're starting to become an energy exporter. Demand for oil isn't rising in any event. Demand is down in the U.S. compared to last year at this time, and global demand is still moderate given the economic slowdowns in Europe and China.

But Wall Street is betting on higher oil prices in the future -- and that betting is causing prices to rise. The Street is laying odds that unrest in Syria will spill over into other countries or that tensions with Iran will affect the Persian Gulf, and that global demand will pick up as American consumers bounce back to life.

These bets are pushing up oil prices because Wall Street firms and other big financial players now dominate oil trading.

Financial speculators historically accounted for about 30 percent of oil contracts, producers and end users for about 70 percent. But today speculators account for 64 percent of all contracts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/obama-gas-prices_b_1350358.html?view=print

And of course "how convenient" is it that Wall St is pushing up gas prices, with the deluded, ignorant sheeple's blame going to Hussein, while Wall St is pouring $100Ms into their boy Willard Gecko's campaign, knowing full well Willard Gecko will do everything possible to deregulate/not investigate/not prosecute Wall St while cutting taxes on the Wall St's hyper-wealthy.

[Wild Cobra]

All I see is a leftist biased piece of propaganda.

[Winehole23]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/02/27/140158/federal-judge-weighs-whether-to.html

[RandomGuy]

All I see is a leftist biased piece of propaganda.

Is the OP a rightist biased piece of propaganda?

[RandomGuy]

Well, I'm self employed and can post guilt free if I want to. Can you say the same?

And your original post that you reposted sure seemed to blame the oil companies closing refineries and exporting gas for creating a supply/demand imbalance in the US causing high prices at the gas pumps...I didn't see a single word about the high cost of crude.

If I can interrupt for second here, you never did give an opinion on the OP.

Do you think it is full of shit? Why/not?

[CosmicCowboy]

If I can interrupt for second here, you never did give an opinion on the OP.

Do you think it is full of shit? Why/not?

Almost as full of shit as Bouchump.

Like any agenda media (on the left or right) they tend to cherry pick the facts that fit their premise and ignore the ones that don't.

[boutons_deux]

" speculators account for 64 percent of all (oil) contracts"

got any evidence that isn't a fact?

any evidence that supply is not meeting demand?

[RandomGuy]

Almost as full of shit as Bouchump.

Like any agenda media (on the left or right) they tend to cherry pick the facts that fit their premise and ignore the ones that don't.

Agreed. Thank you.

[ChumpDumper]

Almost as full of shit as Bouchump.

Like any agenda media (on the left or right) they tend to cherry pick the facts that fit their premise and ignore the ones that don't.Thanks for agreeing with us.

Again.

[CosmicCowboy]

Thanks for agreeing with us.

Again.

At least I am open minded enough to see the bullshit coming from BOTH sides.

[ChumpDumper]

At least I am open minded enough to see the bullshit coming from BOTH sides.Amazing.

[RandomGuy]

I see spursandcowboys has abandoned this thread too.

[RandomGuy]

THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE WILL HAVE NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER ON THE GLOBAL PRICE OF OIL.

--This is not my opinion.

They have several other proposed pipelines besides the Keystone pipeline.

Global prices are just that, global.

If Canada sells that oil to China from its west coast ports, then China buys less from the rest of the world, and the rest of the world then charges the US a bit less for its imports.

Fun.
Gi.
Ble.

Even if the US completely met its oil needs by domestic production, we would still be vulnerable to oil supply shocks in the middle east.

Middle east oil withdraws--> world consumers bid up prices--> US producers then can export oil more profibably--> domestic supplies go down-->US prices then go up.

This is how drilling all the oil we consume still exposes us to middle east /Africa instability.

The ONLY way to reduce your dependence on this area of the world, aside from government directives to private companies about who they can sell for, and for how much, is to use less oil.

QED. Basic economics.

Bump

[RandomGuy]

1) If Obama is fudging, it would be productive for you to tell us what and how, if you know.

2) What I gave wasn't my opinion.

US oil reserves represent 1.3% of world total. (page 22)
US oil production represents 7% of world total. I was wrong tho. It used to be 10%. My bad. (pg 30)
OPEC represents 44% of world production of oil.
http://www.opec.org/opec_web/static_files_project/media/downloads/publications/ASB2010_2011.pdf

OPECs ability to set prices is severely limited by the fact that the cartel does not represent even 50% of the world's oil production.

United States has added refinery capacity in each of the last five years, BTW.
(page 38 of the statistical extract for 2010)

That is why I "act" as if oil prices are set by market forces.


My "gotcha" has relevant data, backed up by sound economics. I am going to bookmark/save this thread.

You can try to back up heritages' bullshit if you want. You will fail, because you let yourself get lied to, as I have pointed out. I hope you will try, maybe then you can see for yourself, instead of making me do the work you should have done in the first place.

That is not a nice thing to say, and I realize you are at heart a decent person, but if you suck this stuff up without a modicum of understanding or fact checking, solely because you *want* to believe it, I'm sorry.

[Facts]

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/gas-prices-5-half-truths-about-rising-gasoline-prices

Presidents of the United States have had little to do with gas prices since Jimmy Carter abolished the price controls imposed by Richard Nixon.

The author of that article sold the cherries he picked for it to the highest bidder.

[Th'Pusher]

Presidents of the United States have had little to do with gas prices since Jimmy Carter abolished the price controls imposed by Richard Nixon.

The author of that article sold the cherries he picked for it to the highest bidder.

I gotta say this troll has me laughing...

[JoeChalupa]

Sanders tells it like it is and oil/gas speculation on Wall St is the real issue that needs to be dealt with.

[JoeChalupa]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iLwl5cLvCy3ocY8Lj-ArMIURwvHw?docId=fe4e5ced613e4e908cf16637eb7f16ea

FACT CHECK: More US drilling didn't drop gas price.

WASHINGTON (AP) — It's the political cure-all for high gas prices: Drill here, drill now. But more U.S. drilling has not changed how deeply the gas pump drills into your wallet, math and history show.

A statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production by The Associated Press shows no statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump.

If more domestic oil drilling worked as politicians say, you'd now be paying about $2 a gallon for gasoline. Instead, you're paying the highest prices ever for March.

Political rhetoric about the blame over gas prices and the power to change them — whether Republican claims now or Democrats' charges four years ago — is not supported by cold, hard figures. And that's especially true about oil drilling in the U.S. More oil production in the United States does not mean consistently lower prices at the pump.

Sometimes prices increase as American drilling ramps up. That's what has happened in the past three years. Since February 2009, U.S. oil production has increased 15 percent when seasonally adjusted. Prices in those three years went from $2.07 per gallon to $3.58. It was a case of drilling more and paying much more.

U.S. oil production is back to the same level it was in March 2003, when gas cost $2.10 per gallon when adjusted for inflation. But that's not what prices are now.

That's because oil is a global commodity and U.S. production has only a tiny influence on supply. Factors far beyond the control of a nation or a president dictate the price of gasoline.

When you put the inflation-adjusted price of gas on the same chart as U.S. oil production since 1976, the numbers sometimes go in the same direction, sometimes in opposite directions. If drilling for more oil meant lower prices, the lines on the chart would consistently go in opposite directions. A basic statistical measure of correlation found no link between the two, and outside statistical experts confirmed those calculations.

"Drill, baby, drill has nothing to do with it," said Judith Dwarkin, chief energy economist at ITG investment research. Two other energy economists said the same thing and experts in the field have been making that observation for decades.

The statistics directly contradict the title of GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich's 2008 book "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less," as well as the campaign-trail claims from the GOP presidential candidates.

Earlier this month, GOP front-runner Mitt Romney said of his solution to higher gas prices: "I can cut through the baloney ... and just tell him, 'Mr. President, open up drilling in the Gulf, open up drilling in ANWR (the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge). Open up drilling in continental shelf, drill in North Dakota, drill in Oklahoma and Texas.'"

On Wednesday, with President Barack Obama traveling to oil and gas production fields on federal lands, Crossroads GPS, a nonprofit arm of a super PAC supporting GOP candidates, released a new ad to air in the same states that Obama was visiting. It accused Obama of restricting oil development in America and concludes "bad energy policies mean energy prices we can't afford."

The late 1980s and 1990s show exactly how domestic drilling is not related to gas prices.

Seasonally adjusted U.S. oil production dropped steadily from February 1986 until three years ago. But starting in March 1986, inflation-adjusted gas prices fell below the $2-a-gallon mark and stayed there for most of the rest of the 1980s and 1990s. Production between 1986 and 1999 dropped by nearly one-third. If the drill-now theory were correct, prices should have soared. Instead they went down by nearly a dollar.

The AP analysis used Energy Department figures for regular unleaded gas prices adjusted for inflation to 2012 dollars, oil production and oil demand. The figures go back to January 1976, the earliest the Energy Department keeps figures on unleaded gas prices. Phil Hanser, an economist and statistician at the energy consulting firm The Brattle Group; University of South Carolina statistics professor John Grego; New York University statistics professor Edward Melnick and David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor, looked at the analysis, ran their own calculations, including several complicated formulas, and came to the same conclusion.

When U.S. production goes up, the price of gas "is certainly not going down," Melnick said. "The data does not suggest that whatsoever."

The calculations "help make the point that U.S. production and demand have little to do with the price of gasoline in the U.S., and lend support to the notion that there is not a great deal we in the U.S., acting alone, can do to affect the price of gasoline," Peterson wrote in an email. He pointed out that Energy Department figures show that gas prices in the U.S. seem to rise and fall similarly to gas prices in Europe, showing that it has little to do with American drilling.

And that's the key. It's a world market, economists say.

Unlike natural gas or electricity, the United States alone does not have the power to change the supply-and-demand equation in the world oil market, said Christopher Knittel, a professor of energy economics at MIT. American oil production is about 11 percent of the world's output, so even if the U.S. were to increase its oil production by 50 percent — that is more than drilling in the Arctic, increased public-lands and offshore drilling, and the Canadian pipeline would provide — it would at most cut gas prices by 10 percent.

"There are not many markets where the United States can't impose its will on market outcomes," Knittel said. "This is one we can't, and it's hard for the average American to understand that and it's easy for politicians to feed off that."

If drilling activity rises around the globe for a sustained period of time, gasoline prices can fall as that new supply eventually finds its way to market, but the U.S. can't do it alone, oil analysts say.

Politicians — especially those in the party that's not occupying the White House — have long harped on high gas prices when expedient. Then-Sen. Barack Obama said in 2008, when he was running for president, that "here in Ohio, you're paying nearly $3.70 a gallon for gas, 2-1/2 times what it cost when George Bush took office."

But Obama, who has seen gas prices go up 73 percent since he took office, was singing a different tune last week in his weekly radio address: "The truth is: The price of gas depends on a lot of factors that are often beyond our control. Unrest in the Middle East can tighten global oil supply. Growing nations like China or India adding cars to the road increases demand. But one thing we should control is fraud and manipulation that can cause prices to spike even further."

The political party of the president doesn't seem to matter to the price at the pump either. Since 1976, the average monthly gas price, adjusted for inflation, during Democratic presidencies has been $2.25; under Republicans it's been $2.34. Obama had the steepest monthly average at $3.05 and Bill Clinton the cheapest at $1.68.

When Bush and running mate Dick Cheney campaigned in 2000, they argued that as oil executives they could get oil prices down, with Bush saying, "I would work with our friends in OPEC to convince them to open up the spigot, to increase the supply."

Yet it was during the last few months of Bush's term in 2008 that gas prices hit their highest: $4.27 when adjusted for inflation.

Associated Press writers Dina Cappiello and Matthew Daly in Washington and Jonathan Fahey in New York contributed to this report.

[CosmicCowboy]

It sure as hell dropped natural gas prices.

[ChumpDumper]

It sure as hell dropped natural gas prices.
Unlike natural gas or electricity, the United States alone does not have the power to change the supply-and-demand equation in the world oil market, said Christopher Knittel, a professor of energy economics at MIT.

[boutons_deux]

What's Making Americans Less Thirsty For Gasoline?

The price of gasoline keeps rising for Americans, but it's not because of rising demand from consumers.

Since the first Arab oil embargo of the 1970s, the U.S. has struggled to quench a growing appetite for oil and gasoline. Now, that trend is changing.

"When you look at the U.S. oil market, you see that there's actually no growth," says Daniel Yergin, chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates.

He says gasoline demand peaked in 2007 and has fallen each year since, even though the economy has begun to recover.

"The U.S. has already reached what we can call 'peak demand.' Because of increased efficiency, because of biofuels, we're not going to see growth in our oil consumption," Yergin says.

That view is shared by the government's official source of energy data, the Energy Information Administration. Its long-term projection is that gasoline consumption will steadily decline by around 7 percent over the next 25 years.

Howard Gruenspecht, the EIA's acting administrator, says the projection does not take into account the latest proposal on automotive fuel efficiency, likely to be approved later this year. It requires fleet averages of 54.5 miles per gallon.

"If you put those into the mix, we would expect a somewhat steeper decline in overall liquid fuels demand, and gasoline demand in particular," Gruenspecht says.

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/22/149061105/whats-making-americans-less-hungry-for-gasoline?sc=17&f=1001

========

Maybe that's why Fox Repug network, and similar ilk here, are politicizing electric/hybrid cars, trying paint them so black that consumers will not try them out, so that consumers will have fabricated negative image/memory of electric/hybrids even as they increase in efficiency.

And of course, closing gasoline refineries is great way to restrict supply and prop up/inflate the price of (less) gasoline.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, even if the refineries were reopened the gas probably wouldn't stay in this market.

[RandomGuy]

I see another day of spursandcowboys running away from this turd.

Bwaawck bwaawck bwaawck...

[Winehole23]

after buffing them to a high polish, what need is there to return? at any rate, new ones can be obtained at a moment's notice.

[boutons_deux]

20 Experts Who Say Drilling Won’t Lower Gas Prices

In a pretty impressive act of journalism, the Associated Press recently conducted a “statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production.” The result: “No statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump.” It’s neat to see math cut through the talking points and get straight to the truth of the matter — which is that expanding drilling is a fundamentally ineffectual response to gas price spikes.

Given that changes in U.S. oil production don’t move gasoline prices, it should be clear that U.S. government policies related to drilling are of even smaller consequence. Indeed, 92 percent of economists surveyed by the Chicago Booth School of Business agreed this week that “changes in U.S. gasoline prices over the past 10 years have predominantly been due to market factors rather than U.S. federal economic or energy policies.”

Still not convinced? How about another 20 economists and analysts from across the political spectrum who will tell you the same thing:


http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/22/450136/20-experts-who-say-drilling-wont-lower-gas-prices/

[boutons_deux]

Why Keystone XL, War With Iran, and "Drill Baby Drill" Will Actually Raise Gas Prices

As noted, the above are only four examples. While we're at it, we might ask about the Republican attacks on efforts to explore the potential of low-cost, low-pollution biomass fuels (such as algae) that may lower liquid fuel prices in the mid-to-long-term. Or, for that matter: their resistance to improved rail transit, bicycling, electric vehicles, household energy efficiency programs (which would reduce demands for home heating oil), and a whole host of other paths to reduce U.S. liquid fuel requirements that could also help drive down U.S. prices at the pump over the mid-long term.

There are so many other viable paths to improving the economy, squeezing energy costs, and reducing the external costs (health, environment, and so on) of our energy system. But if you look at the reasoning behind Republican political rhetoric and policy priorities, there's only one possible, inescapable conclusion: The Republican agenda is to increase oil company profitability while increasing gasoline prices at the pump.

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/154626

[Facts]

after buffing them to a high polish, what need is there to return? at any rate, new ones can be obtained at a moment's notice.


Turds can indeed be polished.

This thread, however, is beyond redemption.

[spursncowboys]

I see another day of spursandcowboys running away from this turd.

Bwaawck bwaawck bwaawck...

running from what?

Obama lied again...and again...and again....

[Winehole23]

This thread, however, is beyond redemption.I was totally unaware "politics" posts were eligible for redemption.

[Winehole23]

running from what? some taunt you did not respond to perhaps. there might be clews in the thread. have you reread it?

[spursncowboys]

No when I see pages of back and forth with no merit, or if I see a whole page of people I blocked, I don't really read. That is usually past the point of reason.

[Winehole23]

how can you know politics posters fell short of rationality again, if whole pages are blocked?

I will say I admire your confidence. :toast

[spursncowboys]

how can you know politics posters fell short of rationality again, if whole pages are blocked?

I will say, I do envy your confidence. :toast

Hopefully the reason why you misunderstood is because I didn't explain it well but it would be safe for me to assume you are just being wh 2.0. Those were the two reasons why I wouldn't read entire pages.

FWIW I usually only block people if they never add anything to the conversation. Everytime I get curious to see what they put, I am always encouraged that I made the right decision.

[Winehole23]

checking confirms how right you were to ignore them in the first place

[Winehole23]

I know the feeling, but about as often (maybe a little more, sometimes) checking proves me partially correct, partially mistaken or dead wrong. I'm frankly envious of your results...

[Winehole23]

Of course, I have no ignore list. I'll talk to any random jackass. I hope to develop it into a minor superpower someday...

[Drachen]

Of course, I have no ignore list. I'll talk to any random jackass. I hope to develop it into a minor superpower someday...

Winehole bravely speaking to jackasses to save the rest of us from having to.
A Hero among legends.

[Th'Pusher]

how can you know politics posters fell short of rationality again, if whole pages are blocked?

I will say I admire your confidence. :toast

Spursncowboys isn't lacking in anonymous Internet confidence. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the mental chops to back it up.

[Winehole23]

I basically enjoy and/or am entertained here. I don't see what's so brave about that, but thanks just the same...

[Drachen]

I basically enjoy and/or am entertained here. I don't see what's so brave about that, but thanks just the same...

Was in response to your super power comment.

[clambake]

Hopefully the reason why you misunderstood is because I didn't explain it well but it would be safe for me to assume you are just being wh 2.0. Those were the two reasons why I wouldn't read entire pages.

FWIW I usually only block people if they never add anything to the conversation. Everytime I get curious to see what they put, I am always encouraged that I made the right decision.

cowards only rationalize their own voice.

[ElNono]

I wonder why bother posting in a public discussion forum if you're going to "block" differing opinions...

BTW, the problem with the OP isn't that Barry says half-truths. He does. But so does heritage. You're basically using Stalin to bitch about Mussolini...

[ChumpDumper]

It's OK, snc could never discuss anything even if he tried.

[RandomGuy]

running from what?

Obama lied again...and again...and again....


THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE WILL HAVE NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER ON THE GLOBAL PRICE OF OIL.

--This is not my opinion.

They have several other proposed pipelines besides the Keystone pipeline.

Global prices are just that, global.

If Canada sells that oil to China from its west coast ports, then China buys less from the rest of the world, and the rest of the world then charges the US a bit less for its imports.

Fun.
Gi.
Ble.

Even if the US completely met its oil needs by domestic production, we would still be vulnerable to oil supply shocks in the middle east.

Middle east oil withdraws--> world consumers bid up prices--> US producers then can export oil more profibably--> domestic supplies go down-->US prices then go up.

This is how drilling all the oil we consume still exposes us to middle east /Africa instability.

The ONLY way to reduce your dependence on this area of the world, aside from government directives to private companies about who they can sell for, and for how much, is to use less oil.

QED. Basic economics.

[RandomGuy]

running from what?

Obama lied again...and again...and again....


1) If Obama is fudging, it would be productive for you to tell us what and how, if you know.

2) What I gave wasn't my opinion.

US oil reserves represent 1.3% of world total. (page 22)
US oil production represents 7% of world total. I was wrong tho. It used to be 10%. My bad. (pg 30)
OPEC represents 44% of world production of oil.
http://www.opec.org/opec_web/static_files_project/media/downloads/publications/ASB2010_2011.pdf

OPECs ability to set prices is severely limited by the fact that the cartel does not represent even 50% of the world's oil production.

United States has added refinery capacity in each of the last five years, BTW.
(page 38 of the statistical extract for 2010)

That is why I "act" as if oil prices are set by market forces.


My "gotcha" has relevant data, backed up by sound economics. I am going to bookmark/save this thread.

You can try to back up heritages' bullshit if you want. You will fail, because you let yourself get lied to, as I have pointed out. I hope you will try, maybe then you can see for yourself, instead of making me do the work you should have done in the first place.

That is not a nice thing to say, and I realize you are at heart a decent person, but if you suck this stuff up without a modicum of understanding or fact checking, solely because you *want* to believe it, I'm sorry.

[RandomGuy]

Half-truth #3: Oil is not enough. America has only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves.
President Obama frequently uses this number to push federal investments in alternative sources of energy that cannot stand the test of the market. The reality is that he uses this number deceptively. According to the Institute for Energy Research:
[A]lthough the U.S. is said to have only 20 billion barrels of oil in reserves, the amount of oil that is technically recoverable in the U.S. is more than 1.4 trillion barrels, with the largest deposits located offshore, in portions of Alaska, and in shale in the Rocky Mountain West. When combined with resources from Canada and Mexico, total recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels, or more than the world has used since the first oil well was drilled over 150 years ago in Titusville, Pennsylvania. To put this in context, Saudi Arabia has about 260 billion barrels of oil in proved reserves.
One reason to view “reserves” estimates with caution is the fact that they are constantly in flux. In 1980, the U.S. had oil reserves of roughly 30 billion barrels. Yet from 1980 through 2010, it produced over 77 billion barrels of oil. In other words, over the last 30 years, the U.S. produced over 150 percent of the proved reserves that it had in 1980. If the massive quantities of U.S. oil are made available to explore and produce, the current estimated reserves of 20 billion barrels would certainly increase, providing much more production over decades to come. In other words, reserves are not a stagnant number.[4]

This is another collection of lies by omission.

Technically recoverable = possible
Technically recoverable does not equal economically recoverable.

You can get all the oil you want to get at $1000 bbl, but no one will buy it.


If the massive quantities of U.S. oil are made available to explore and produce, the current estimated reserves of 20 billion barrels would certainly increase,

Yes it would. The big question is whether those reserves will increase faster than they are drilled out of the ground. Globally, we have pumped oil out of the ground faster than we have discovered it since 1984.

The really big, easy to drill formations were sucked dry of oil a long time ago. What is left requires more effort, more drills and more money to get at, even with all the fracking you want. As the size of the deposits goes down, you have to find more and more at faster rates to maintain production rates.


In 1980, the U.S. had oil reserves of roughly 30 billion barrels. Yet from 1980 through 2010, it produced over 77 billion barrels of oil.

Again, leaving out a few things. Sonic imaging vastly improved in the time, as has drilling technology. We have reached the diminishing returns portion of the production curve. Sorry. There will be no magic to save oil production going forward.

The other portion left out is that the reserves they are pumping up and cherry-picking data to make their case with tend to be locked up on oil sands. Oil sands have gotten a lot more economical because of gas prices (the oil must be heated by burning natgas), but getting that full "technically recoverable" figure means strip mining HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES. Possible yes, but at a huge cost, even if one incorrectly ignores the environmental costs.

[RandomGuy]

This shit has been done to death, so I am going to go off my memory as much as possible.

Datapoints and given important principles, numbered for quick reference.:
1)Oil is fungible, and a global market. All inputs get dumped into the same tub, and taken out by buyers, who don't care where it comes from. PRICES ARE GLOBAL.
2) US produces 10% of global supply
3) US consumes 25% of global supply
4) In 1993, China was an exporter of oil. In 2009, it passed Japan as the #2 importer. It is projected to surpass the US within 10 years if current trends continue. Combine these two datapoints, and 100% of Chinese imports represent completely new demand that was not there 20 years ago.



Half-truth #2: Increasing oil production takes too long and would not impact the market for at least a decade.
This has been the mantra of the anti-drilling crowd for years, and the longer politicians listen to the message, the longer the nation’s oil resources will remain undeveloped. If access to areas that are currently off limits is increased, it will take time to explore and extract that oil. But that does not change the fact that the nation needs it today and also in the future. Furthermore, some of this oil can reach the market in much less than a decade if the permitting process is streamlined and the Keystone XL pipeline—which could bring up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada to the Gulf Coast refineries—is built.

This is a lie because it omits the small detail that this oil will get to market somewhere, somehow. Keystone or not. THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE WILL HAVE NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER ON THE GLOBAL PRICE OF OIL.

Added to this is that the oil that is "off limits", usually a code word for offshore, require billion-dollar ships and platforms to get to. There is a huge backlog in building the ships. The bottleneck is not having enough area to drill in, it is getting the ships online. Oil companies are hesitant to spend too much on these things, because they got burned in the 1990's by low oil prices and are leery of large capital expenditures.

"off limits" also generally refers to ANWAR, another tried and true vacuous talking point. ANWAR, if extracted would supply the US with less than four months supply of oil. Then it would be gone. It is simply not large enough to make a difference in the long run.

It mixes in some truth, but omits some key points. Either the author doesn't know how the market works, or is leaving it out.

[RandomGuy]

Bottom line:

Unless you want to impose goverment restrictions on domestic oil producers forbidding them to sell on a global market, you will ALWAYS be vulnerable to oil supply shocks in the Middle East or elsewhere.

Further, if we drilled enough oil to actually put a dent in global prices, all that does is increase our vulnerability to those shocks, as it makes our economy more dependent on oil itself.

[RandomGuy]

Hopefully the reason why you misunderstood is because I didn't explain it well but it would be safe for me to assume you are just being wh 2.0. Those were the two reasons why I wouldn't read entire pages.

FWIW I usually only block people if they never add anything to the conversation. Everytime I get curious to see what they put, I am always encouraged that I made the right decision.

I added some very tangible things to the conversation, and directly refuted your entire OP. I was even fairly nice and respectful about it.

If you want to lie about why you won't respond, don't ask me to buy it.

You have neither data, nor market priciples that can support the OP.

Hand waving, i.e., "its just your opinion, RandomGuy" is akin to waving the white flag.

If that's all you got, go sit in the corner with Cosmored.

[CosmicCowboy]

This is another collection of lies by omission.

Technically recoverable = possible
Technically recoverable does not equal economically recoverable.

You can get all the oil you want to get at $1000 bbl, but no one will buy it.



:lol

The exact same argument can be made against solar, wind, and biofuels.

At least be intellectually consistent.

[boutons_deux]

a silly point

solar, wind prices are dropping, and dropping indefinitely while post-peak oil's price is trending up indefinitely, and probably dramatically, thanks to market manipulators and increasing demand.

[RandomGuy]

:lol

The exact same argument can be made against solar, wind, and biofuels.

At least be intellectually consistent.

To some extent you bump up against production curves for any good, yes.

The "exact same argument" does NOT hold for goods that are produced other than in the Middle East and imported for energy.

Increasing the supply of solar or wind means that we are less subject to oil supply shocks.

You aren't saying that we import solar panels or wind turbines from Saudi Arabia or Venezuala, are you?

[RandomGuy]

a silly point

solar, wind prices are dropping, and dropping indefinitely while post-peak oil's price is trending up indefinitely, and probably dramatically, thanks to market manipulators and increasing demand.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY TRENDS

China’s auto sales exceeded 15 million units in 2010, with passenger vehicle growth and sales the highest among major global markets.

# of cars per 1,000 people, China = 37 (as of 2008)
# of cars per 1,000 people, US = 808 (as of 2009)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita

While the level of growth is falling somewhat, demand for new cars will only go up.


For all of 2011, analysts said the industry sold about 12.8 million cars and trucks,

Even at a slower growth rate, the Chinese will have more than twice as many cars as we do within a decade or so.

That is a lot of gasoline and a lot of oil.

[CosmicCowboy]

To some extent you bump up against production curves for any good, yes.


You aren't saying that we import solar panels or wind turbines from Saudi Arabia or Venezuala, are you?

No, we get those from China.

And again, your argument concerned the cost of DOMESTIC production, not imported oil.

[Koolaid_Man]

When I'm surfing the net and posting on ST I let this play in the background...

Y2mjvFNOwmc

[RandomGuy]

No, we get those from China.

And again, your argument concerned the cost of DOMESTIC production, not imported oil.

We don't entirely get them from China. That said, once the initial capital cost is done, then we are independent from other inputs, other than the kinds of maintenance that CAN'T be out-sourced.


My statement had to do with the interplay of domestic production in conjunction with external prices.

The OP seemed to imply that there is this huge amount of oil out there, if we just tap into it. While that is correct, the cost of getting 100% of that oil is prohibitively expensive.

You rightly point out that solar and wind have supply curves, just as oil does.

The piece of the puzzle you are missing was that which boutons supplied.

Solar and wind are both manufactured goods, and this makes them MUCH different than natural resources.

Technology to improve solar and wind will bring down costs of production, and, even if this was not the case, increasing capacity will gain more efficiencies of scale, not to mention learning curve gains in the manufacturing processes.

Oil to some extent can get some gains from technological advances, but physics is physics. The technology does not currently exist to extract all oil locked in the shale profitably. You can only do so much with fracking.

You can't make the exact same argument, because they are not the exact same sources of energy, and have some very crucial differentiating charactoristics.

The primary difference is that oil is a globally traded commodity. Solar and wind collection systems are manufactured goods, and once installed have little to no ongoing costs.

Oil will ALWAYS be vulnerable to supply shocks.

Solar and wind will not.

[boutons_deux]

Europe, with much less solar energy that USA, is way ahead, per capita, with solar than USA. Big payoffs:

German Solar Bringing Down Price of Afternoon Electricity, Big Time! (More Charts & Facts)


http://cleantechnica.com/2012/03/23/german-solar-bringing-down-price-of-afternoon-electricity-big-time-more-charts-facts/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

==========

SA govt should direct CPS to setup time-of-day pricing and residential/commercial feed-in tariffs for solar and wind rather than screwing around trying to new nuke plants and more coal to handle peak afternoon loads.

[DMX7]

Boutons - solar is for pussies. You've discounted that fact.

[RandomGuy]

Europe, with much less solar energy that USA, is way ahead, per capita, with solar than USA. Big payoffs:

German Solar Bringing Down Price of Afternoon Electricity, Big Time! (More Charts & Facts)


http://cleantechnica.com/2012/03/23/german-solar-bringing-down-price-of-afternoon-electricity-big-time-more-charts-facts/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

==========

SA govt should direct CPS to setup time-of-day pricing and residential/commercial feed-in tariffs for solar and wind rather than screwing around trying to new nuke plants and more coal to handle peak afternoon loads.

That is what happens when you let cool-aid drinkers run energy companies.

[RandomGuy]

SNC has abandoned his own thread.

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/birdcrappedonkid2.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Exxon Mobil’s Tax Rate Drops To 13 Percent, After Making 35 Percent More Profits On Rising Gas Prices In 2011

Exxon Mobil, the most profitable of the big five oil companies, made $41.1 billion in profits last year. Although Exxon made 35 percent more profits since 2010, its estimated effective tax rate actually dropped. Citizens for Tax Justice reported Exxon paid only 17.6 percent taxes in 2010, lower than the average American, and a Reuters analysis using the same criteria estimates that Exxon will pay only 13 percent in effective taxes for 2011. Exxon paid zero taxes to the federal government in 2009.

Reuters compares the 45 percent tax rate Exxon claims it pays to the effective rate estimated by Citizens for Tax Justice — a rate that’s even lower than Mitt Romney’s tax rate. Chevron, which made $26.9 billion profit in 2011, paid 19 percent:

Citizens for Tax Justice considers U.S. profits and U.S. taxes paid only. By that measure, Exxon Mobil paid 13 percent of its U.S. income in taxes after deductions and benefits in 2011, according to a Reuters calculation of securities filings.

It is a far cry from the 35 percent top corporate tax rate.

Still, the three-year average for telecom companies is 8 percent; for information technology services companies, it is 2.5 percent, according to CTJ.

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/26/452213/exxon-mobils-tax-rate-drops-to-13-percent-after-making-35-percent-more-profits-in-2011/

[boutons_deux]

Sen. Rand Paul: When Big Oil Screws Americans At The Gas Pump, ‘You Should Want To Encourage Them’

Instead of punishing them, you should want to encourage them. I would think you would want to say to the oil companies, “What obstacles are there to you making more money?” And hiring more people. Instead they say, “No, we must punish them. We must tax them more to make things fair.” This whole thing about fairness is so misguided and gotten out of hand.

“We as a society need to glorify those who make a profit,” Paul concluded.

In his floor speech, Kyl claimed that ending the tax breaks would be “discriminatory.”

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/27/452825/sen-rand-paul-when-big-oil-screws-americans-at-the-gas-pump-you-should-want-to-encourage-them/

=========

Damn, these libertarians are truly nothing but shills for the 1% to fuck the 99%.

[Wild Cobra]

Bouton's, I don't know what you think you have here, but I agree with Rand...

Ask them what the obstacles are.

[Winehole23]

lets stick to holding him accountable for real issues like the constant erosion of civil liberties under his watch, adding more to the debt in 3 years than bush did in 8, and setting the precedent that its cool to attack other countries without congressional approval all while technically not even being eligible to be present. cmon guys, focus you can do it!We have; you weren't paying attention. We didn't miss you.

[ChumpDumper]

all while technically not even being eligible to be presentI will pretentiously ask what this means.

[Drachen]

They are making solar cells that look like pulled out accordians which can get more energy out of the waning hours of sunlight which is leading to increases in production of up to 20 times! Pretty darn cool.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/28/mits-3d-solar-cells-take-cubism-to-new-energy-efficient-heights/

[RandomGuy]

while technically not even being eligible to be present.

I assume you meant "president". oh gawd, you're one of "those people".


You do realize, regarding the deficit, that a lot of that was structural right?

Economy slows = less taxes coming in
Unemployment = more demand for social programs, i.e. higher costs


While I do agree we need to get deficit spending under control, let's be a bit more realistic about how much any president has control over this kind of stuff.

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a good start. Cutting defense and getting out of Afghanistan is another.

I will more than willing to cut back on entitlements in return.

[RandomGuy]

They are making solar cells that look like pulled out accordians which can get more energy out of the waning hours of sunlight which is leading to increases in production of up to 20 times! Pretty darn cool.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/28/mits-3d-solar-cells-take-cubism-to-new-energy-efficient-heights/


This capacity gain, made possible by an efficient harvesting of sunlight during less optimal hours of the day, could be especially helpful in powering regions prone to overcast or wintry climates.

Useful for New Yorkers. Not so much Texans.

Still, as the tech progresses and costs come down, it will shift the economic viability of solar northwards.

[Drachen]

Useful for New Yorkers. Not so much Texans.

Still, as the tech progresses and costs come down, it will shift the economic viability of solar northwards.

Understood, and I feel like the 20x's increase in efficiency would be up north, which doesn't mean that we won't receive some increase in efficiency (say 5x??) either way improving the efficacy of solar in the north will bring down the costs for us in the south due to higher adoption rates, economies of scale, etc.

(and imagine what it will do for a country like Germany who is actually being responsible and showing a great commitment to it)