Oil prices

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by moreluck, Jun 9, 2008.

  1. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Supposedly, the Saudis are meeting today. Let's hope they are discussing lowering oil prices.

    I do not see drilling equipment being hauled to Alaska or Montana right now, so I hope they are going to give the world a break.

    I sure would like to see oil prices return to $90-something a barrel (never thought I would be saying that!)
  2. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    I think the damage has already been done. As prices rise people begin to find ways to use less. I know that both Toyota and GM are developing plug in hybrid vehicles that won't require a drop of gasoline for the first 40 miles of driving. Rumor has it GM already has plans to build 100,000 of those vehicles a year. Depending on the price I hope to pick one up myself so unless I am going on a long trip I can stick it to the Saudis and the rest of OPEC during my weekly commute. It wasn't that long ago President Bush made a trip to Saudi Arabia to try to convince them to increase production, but the Saudi Prince responded by saying "supply and demand are at equilibrium." and that was back when oil broke $120/barrel. We should use these times of high energy prices to look to ways to ween ourselves off of middle east oil. Minus oil the GDP of all the middle eastern countries combined would not equal that of Romania, and the Saudi's arrogance regarding oil will be the start of their decline.
  3. UPS Lifer

    UPS Lifer Well-Known Member

    OPEC is trying to gouge us while they can. Prices will continue to rise and the sleeping giant (USA) will finally wake up and re-tool for alternative fuel sources.

    The oil companies do not realize that once Americans get pinched hard enough they will fight back and will start pinching back!

    One thing I believe in is the good ole USA! Anything we put our minds to and work collectively for we accomplish. This may be the one thing that can polarize our nation in to action!
  4. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Agreed. Anyone see the sixty minutes piece on how brazil completely converted to ethanol? We need to stop making excuses and do the same thing. Put the oil barons on food stamps.
  5. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    This is one subject no matter where people stand on other issues that there is literally unnamimous agreement on.

    Your post was dead on my man.

    Awaking a sleeping giant is correct.

    Oil barons on food stamps is an excellent idea.

    You got the ball rolling. :wink2:

    I saw this the other day and it shows at least IMO that this country has options.


    As for ANWR, a real hot potatoe politically but let me throw out a different thought to consider. From the Alaska History and Studies website:


    Another source is the University of NC where we find this:


    Did any of us ever consider that forces within our gov't who are thinking strategically longterm are blocking public oil consumption to ANWR and letting the enviro-wackos, who are more than willing to do the deed obviously take the fall? Here's another thought for ya. Back in the late 70's when the Alaska Wildererness Act (ANWR) was being pushed by the Carter Adminstration, on the front lines were organizations like the Sierra Club, etc. advocating for this huge federal gov't landgrab, let's call it what it really is with no judgement as to whether it's needed or not. But here's what I found of interest back in the day and I've never forgotten it and it was Congressman Larry McDonald who showed me the data. At the time, many of the leading adovates for shelfing ANWR away from public access if you will were also being fed large contributions to advance their political campaign from a rather odd source. Those sources were the likes of Exxon Mobile, BP, get the picture folks?

    Enviro-wackos, I'm talking the extreme tree hugger types and not good reasonable folks like Dr. Patrick Moore, are on the frontline of blocking access to ANWR or we/they think that is the case but I believe it to be a rouse of sorts. Why take the blame when you have a scapegoat willing to take it for you? There is a whole lot to this issue and a whole lot that we don't know and quite frankly I think a bit of that is intentional. I found doing a good search and reading of a lot of gov't websites like the Dept. of Energy and US Fish and Wildlife a very eye opening experience when it comes to ANWR.

    I'm truly of the opinion that the real roadblock to ANWR is the US Gov't, the oil companies and the US Military for which this whole thing was originally put aside for anyway and in the interest especially of the coldwar at the time, this did make some sense when you consider we'd just experienced a oil shortage from the Arabs bck in the mid-70's. Come forward to today and what if the entire region erupted into flames and we could get oil from that area, how important to the US national interest would ANWR be then? What would it mean if we tapped it now and started using it up? Double edge sword? I think so!


    BTW: Dr. Patrick Moore who helped found Greenpeace but has since went on to work with various business interest in finding solutions that would both advance business and protect the environment at the same time.
  6. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Here's the tip of the iceberg to consider. Standard Oil literally created an American monopoly regarding oil and the many "do-gooders" in the world who advocate all things gov't, are of course thinking, all things good but consider this point.

    Standard Oil was broken up from it's evil monopoly but how was it broken up? Ever heard the term Seven Sisters outside of astronomy? For your viewing pleasure!

    The successor companies from Standard Oil's breakup form the core of today's US oil industry. (Several of these companies were considered among the Seven Sisters who dominated the industry worldwide for much of the twentieth century.) They include:

    Does Sweet Pea feel better now knowing that the Good Fairy of the DC has protected us from the evil witch? BTW: They called it anti-trust breakup back in the day but we call it "Spin-Off" and "Subsidary" today.
    :surprised: Understand now what they really did? Need a hint.

    Think UPS and OPL and you'll get the picture although UPS wasn't as good as Standard Oil proved to be!

    But here's another tip of the iceberg for ya.

    Here's the annual report to the Alaska Conservation Foundation 2001' and go to page 24 and look at the contributors list and see if you can find a number of family members associated with a specific bidness interest in a product associated with Alaska itself!

    Oh, that's nothing at all. They are just being good citizens and doing the right thing! The Lord's work if you will. OK, maybe so but is this only a small, small, small tip of the iceberg that is driving that question you keep hearing right now in your gut? Or did you miss breakfast? :happy-very:

    Do we dare have the guts to venture and look even further? It is not for the faint of heart or those quick to getting really :censored2: off at being HAD!
  7. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  8. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    The more research I do the more I ask why we haven't invested more into electric cars up to this point. For commuting to and from work an electric car that I can plug in my garage each night is all I need. The following video is about the tesla roadster, and I would gladly pick one up if it weren't for the $100,000 price tag. :(

    Tesla Roadster

    BROWN DRIVER New Member

    perhaps it's money manipulation:

  10. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member


    Your idea (a good one I might add) is discussed here along with other factors as well by former Reagan Treasury Sec, Craig Roberts.


    Also BD, many advocates for hard asset currency (gold/silver) argue that the amount of gold needed to buy oil today is the same weight that was needed 10, 20, 30, 40 (you get the idea) years ago to buy the same amount of oil then. In other words, with gold/silver there is no inflation and that if true hard asset markets were in place where speculation wasn't run amuck, producution efficencies in oil may in fact have the amount of gold/silver less to buy the same amount of oil. Problem is, nobody in Washington wants to have that honest and open discussion even though Art. 1 Sec. 10 ofthe US Constitution stipulates that only gold and silver per standard measure be the accepted form of payments for debt. Congress is also given authority to coin money as one of it's constitutional duties which it panders off to the quasi-private Federal Reserve.

    This past weekend a speech was given entitled "War and Inflation" and although the War part may be a difference of opinion you could take the word War and replace it somewhat with the word Oil because the basic premise or point made about central banking and fiat currency would still hold true so I'd invite you to read the speech and consider the larger point from a much broader spectrum rather than from war itself as IMO it would still hold true and support your overall suggestion.



    I saw something the other week on electric cars where a company in Washington State had used a capacitor that increased the driving range between charges to about 700 miles which is huge. Capacitor for those that don;t know is easily expalined as an energy storage device that can charge and discharge quickly.

    I apologize that when I saw this on the net I immediately thought of you and the previous discussion on this subject and what I learned from you about that VW diesel not sold here in the US. My intent was to send you the link and I forgot, my bad! If I can find it, I'll post it up because it goes right to the heart of your point that you made. I'm passing on in case you can find it before I do. Again, sorry I dropped the ball.
  11. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    That is intriguing using a capacitor instead of a battery. Charging would be much faster, and if we could really get 700 miles a charge that would be more than sufficient for 99% of drivers. Neil Cavuto on fox news just did a story on plug hybrids like the ones I described in my initial post in this thread. They are talking equivalent mpg around the 100 mpg range.

    What I find really exciting about all these ideas is that we are seeing the free market at work. I know some people on here hate this idea, but as oil gets more expensive people start looking towards more efficient energy sources to get around. A few years ago I would have scoffed at the idea of using a pure electric vehicle, but gas was cheap and I didn't have the economic need for a vehicle that didn't use gasoline. I want to see the reaction of our middle eastern friends when these technologies start to come online in a big way and they see our country consume fewer and fewer barrels of their oil. We don't need to nuke them to the stone age as oil makes up most of their economies and getting ourselves off of their product will certainly put a dent into their overall GDP.
  12. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    OK Brett, I found it. It's not electric but rather a hybrid (gas/electric) and get's 150 mpg using gov't measuring standards and the range is not 700 but 400.

    Company website:

    Oh I couldn't agree more!
  13. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Many of the oil producing countries live on sand. they manufacture nothing. the rely on the west for their goods. So we should index the cost of their goods to the price of a barrel of oil. If oil goes up twenty percent then your goods now cost twenty percent more.

    Politicians are running these little dog and pony shows to buy time. They expect us to complain a little and then to go away quietly. We will have keep persistant pressure on our leaders if we actually expect them to do something about the price of oil.
  14. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    $4.47 for regular at my local Valero station.

    $55 a gallon at Starbucks !!:wink2: (and I still go there)
  15. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member


    I understand your point and most Americans seem to be sharing the same thoughts but are we inviting a double edged swoard? What I mean, are we playing Russian Roulette with 5 loaded chambers on a 6 chamber wheel gun? Wheel gun is old school for revolver BTW and yes I love wheel guns.:wink2:

    IMHO there is much outside the US to point at but you could equally point to Washington DC as having also equal if not greater hand in this cause. Monetary policy being I would think at the top of the list.

    As much as it hurts, as loud as I said OUCH! when I read Moreluck's post about gas prices in her woods, I'm with Brett here and let's just take the medicine and let the market respond to this situation and believe me it does hurt. We have a huge Suburban to haul music gear to gigs and with a 42 gal. tank at $4 a gal, I can relate. Trust me!
  16. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Well this gives new meaning to the old saying, "my car runs like :censored2:!"


    I guess if they can ever make the bug eat regular garbage, our country would be floating in oil with the amount of stuff we throw away!

    "where you going?"

    "I'm taking my car down the street to :censored2: er up!"
  17. cheryl

    cheryl I started this. Staff Member

    Soros Tells Congress To Pop An Oil Bubble


    While admitting he's not a specialist in energy, he said commodity markets bear unmistakable signs of speculative "froth." While much of the run-up in the price of oil is driven by tightening supply and growing demand, especially in the developing world, the entrance of new investors into the energy markets--from hedge funds to university endowments--has flooded the markets with money and caused the price of oil to diverge from fundamentals.

    I'm not a fan of government regulation, but in this case you may be able to talk me into it...
  18. tieguy

    tieguy Banned


    I don't disagree . I like the concept of a free market. I'm concerned about the abuses of the free market. I will grant you that these prices will start another fuel saving kick that will result in improved usage and the pursuit of alternative fuel sources.

    What bothers me is we are controlled by a foriegn monopoly. Many of those countries have oil and nothing else. They rely on our dollars. I do think our government should be a little more aggressive in putting the squeeze on them for the goods they buy from us. Let them pay 100 bucks for a roll of toilet paper and see how they enjoy getting squeezed back.

    How about a US led cartel that sets supply limits and prices on every roll of toilet paper saudi arabia buys. OOPS sorry Saudia Arabia we are going to have to tighen the supply of Water this month your price will now be 3000$ a pint.

    There are things we can do to muscle those countries that affect us. Lybia announced that they may tighten the supply. Lybia never had the gonads to make such an announcement 5 years ago.

    We have had the shortage of refineries as another cause of higher oil prices. Time to squeeze the oild companies to build more.

    Lets open the books on the oil companies and find out why Exxon thinks they need to make 10 billion dollars a quarter. Adding a tax to exxon will only get passed on to the consumer. Lets handle Exxon like the government handled UPS during the strike. Offer them all kinds of increased regulatory action until they realize they need to do more to drop the prices. Schedule an IRS audit of Exxon every month. Okay lets check your hiring practices next. Okay here comes OSHA. Audit them to death until they get the message.

    There are things the government can do to ensure the free market plays fair. In a free society you still lock up the muggers and thieves. This is where the government needs to step in.
  19. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    Things aren't so simple as the oil companies gouging us. I agree that they are making insane profits, but really all they are doing is charging the market rate. They could certainly charge less, but in a free market why should they?

    It's India and China who are driving the world oil market, not the U.S., and they can (and do) easily supply any consumer goods to the Saudi's for a lot cheaper than we can. The main leverage we have with Saudi Arabia is the sweetheart deals that we give them on military hardware. We could cut them off I suppose, but they would just get their planes 'n guns somewhere else, in addition to raising oil prices even further to pay for them.

    Oil is a non-renewable resource, there's less of it left every day while world demand is increasing every day and consequently the prices are going to continue to go up. All these schemes to lower the prices (offshore drilling, windfall profits tax, price regulation, etc) are really just the rantings of an oil addict in denial. Someday the oil is going to be all gone, and the sooner we get serious about alternative energy sources the better off we will be. In that sense the recent price spike should serve as a wake up call.
  20. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Tie and Jones,

    Nice posts by you both.

    I understand your frustration and there's no effort to hide the market manipulation going on with oil futures. Everyone seems openly acceptable to that fact and it lends credit to what you say about regulation. As a free market guy I'd be the first to contend of un-intended consequences as a result of market interference but at the same time I'll admit there is just a good a chance of un-intended consequences if we do nothing. Like I said, this thing in reality may be a double edge sword and I'm inclined to think it is.

    Even with that sword and even though it hurts (and most likely will get worse) I'm with Brett in letting the market settle this thing out. We are a country of innovation and when people see opportunity, someone steps up to try and fill that need. Jones very nicely pointed out the known future with oil and as countries like China and India become more market driven along with other so-called 3rd world economies, this thrist for oil will only increase. If we manipulate the market now and as much as I'd love $2 a gal. gas again, we may only go back to sleep and as Jones said, have this problem again but next time be much worse. Let's just face it head on now and solve it.

    I don't believe there is one single solution in the final answer. Our energy needs have been filled the last 100 years by 2 sources. Central grid electrical power even though privatized and central distribution fuel network and again under the banner of privatization. From those 2 centralized systems we have built a social and economic society and political order. Many pundits have said for example that our nations energy needs can't be met by solar, wind or other alternative means and they are right. If you accept the central grid formula, they are correct. But on an individual or small scale, the whole equation completely changes and solar, wind or micro hydro does in fact work.

    On a large scale, some form of centralization is most likely the answer but what if technology is allowed to grow and what's to say that at some point a small car or similar mode of transport is developed that is perfect for the workday commute and is recharged from a electrical generation source that is from the individual and not from a centralized grid powered by some means of fossile fuels?

    When oil was first pumped in the mid 1800's, it's by product Kerosene was a godsend as whale oil, the energy source of the day was running out. For a time kerosene ruled the day but then this guy Edison and his electric light bulb came along and Kerosene lost it's standing. Now not to get beat, this fella John D. had to figure out something and during the making of kerosene there was a waste product called gasoline that John D. thought might have some merit. It was this waste product in a sense that made the internal combusiton engine a thing of work to which another man by the name of Henry who took that engine and used it to replace the horse on a wagon and as they say, the rest is history. Now in any of that process, had gov't gotten involved (I know, I know John D. and Henry Ford but humor me a minute) what would our society be like today? Would you be willing to go back in time and have gov't monkey in that whole process? The theory of the time travel paradox comes to mind about now!

    As much as I love free market economics and as much as I hate dishonest people who abuse it, I still say Brett was dead on with his answer. Gov't intervention always seems to lead to market consolidation and ultimately a type of protected monopoly that at some point seems to harm us much worse that the freedom of an open and competitive market. That's JMO anyway.

    If there was a quote of the day award on BC this would get my vote: