rotanalebor wrote:
New drilling wouldn't actually do much to affect prices oil prices in the short or long term because the amount that could actually be extracted each day would be a tiny fraction of the world market. And since oil is a fungible commodity, if OPEC wants to keep prices high they'll just choke back on their production to counteract whatever additional oil we produce.
To the same point, the Keystone would bring in approximately 800,000 barrels per day. Global oil production consists of 87,500,000 barrels per day. So Keystone would increase global supply by 0.9%. If we assume a proportional reduction in the price of gas, that would be -$0.03 per gallon at $3.50 a gallon.
Better than nothing, sure, but it would come nowhere close to turning the overall tide of rising oil prices.
Assuming the oil refined by Keystone goes into the global market. North Dakota is also producing tons of oil and tons of jobs, but we shouldn't drill here should we? I mean, who wants cheaper fuel and a lot of high paying jobs?
Saddy wrote:
Zaphod_209 wrote:"WAAAHHH............... Gaz iz twoo expensve! I can't afford to fill up my tank."
That's because you bought the wrong car, dumbass!
not everyone can afford to buy a hybrid and not everyone can get by with a tiny little car. so shoosh.
You're right, hybrids aren't an economical vehicle even with gas prices being so high. However, to your other point that not everyone can bet by on a tiny car is bunk. Sure, it may be more spacious and have more amenities that you like, but in the end a four door sedan does the same for you as a Tahoe. Unless you're like the Dougers (oh however you spell it) you don't need that Impala or Escort.
Now I'm not saying you shouldn't have it, but when it comes down to price you don't really get to ####. You chose your automobile knowing it was a gas guzzler, now live with that choice. Me? I'll by getting 42 mpg city in my Corola until they make an economically viable electric car. Deal with it.
Gaius_Sextus wrote:
Astromang wrote:
rotanalebor wrote:
New drilling wouldn't actually do much to affect prices oil prices in the short or long term because the amount that could actually be extracted each day would be a tiny fraction of the world market. And since oil is a fungible commodity, if OPEC wants to keep prices high they'll just choke back on their production to counteract whatever additional oil we produce.
To the same point, the Keystone would bring in approximately 800,000 barrels per day. Global oil production consists of 87,500,000 barrels per day. So Keystone would increase global supply by 0.9%. If we assume a proportional reduction in the price of gas, that would be -$0.03 per gallon at $3.50 a gallon.
Better than nothing, sure, but it would come nowhere close to turning the overall tide of rising oil prices.Assuming the oil refined by Keystone goes into the global market. North Dakota is also producing tons of oil and tons of jobs, but we shouldn't drill here should we? I mean, who wants cheaper fuel and a lot of high paying jobs?
And what about the speculators? What's to keep one from, say, buy up oil cheap, filling up four supertankers and sending them off-shore, and waiting until prices have gone up to bring the tankers back and sell the oil at a profit?
First, I didn't address the topic of speculators. Second, your scenario is not how commodities trading works.
Astromang wrote:
Gaius_Sextus wrote:
Astromang wrote:
rotanalebor wrote:
New drilling wouldn't actually do much to affect prices oil prices in the short or long term because the amount that could actually be extracted each day would be a tiny fraction of the world market. And since oil is a fungible commodity, if OPEC wants to keep prices high they'll just choke back on their production to counteract whatever additional oil we produce.
To the same point, the Keystone would bring in approximately 800,000 barrels per day. Global oil production consists of 87,500,000 barrels per day. So Keystone would increase global supply by 0.9%. If we assume a proportional reduction in the price of gas, that would be -$0.03 per gallon at $3.50 a gallon.
Better than nothing, sure, but it would come nowhere close to turning the overall tide of rising oil prices.Assuming the oil refined by Keystone goes into the global market. North Dakota is also producing tons of oil and tons of jobs, but we shouldn't drill here should we? I mean, who wants cheaper fuel and a lot of high paying jobs?
And what about the speculators? What's to keep one from, say, buy up oil cheap, filling up four supertankers and sending them off-shore, and waiting until prices have gone up to bring the tankers back and sell the oil at a profit?
First, I didn't address the topic of speculators. Second, your scenario is not how commodities trading works.
My scenario?
Oh my dear Astro, that's not anyone's "scenario", it actually happened. Not that you would know, ignoring links the way you do . . . . .
And again, supply and demand isn't what's driving up gas prices. Getting more oil from drilling and oil-sands will not help one whit.
Gaius_Sextus wrote:
Astromang wrote:
Gaius_Sextus wrote:
Astromang wrote:
rotanalebor wrote:
New drilling wouldn't actually do much to affect prices oil prices in the short or long term because the amount that could actually be extracted each day would be a tiny fraction of the world market. And since oil is a fungible commodity, if OPEC wants to keep prices high they'll just choke back on their production to counteract whatever additional oil we produce.
To the same point, the Keystone would bring in approximately 800,000 barrels per day. Global oil production consists of 87,500,000 barrels per day. So Keystone would increase global supply by 0.9%. If we assume a proportional reduction in the price of gas, that would be -$0.03 per gallon at $3.50 a gallon.
Better than nothing, sure, but it would come nowhere close to turning the overall tide of rising oil prices.Assuming the oil refined by Keystone goes into the global market. North Dakota is also producing tons of oil and tons of jobs, but we shouldn't drill here should we? I mean, who wants cheaper fuel and a lot of high paying jobs?
And what about the speculators? What's to keep one from, say, buy up oil cheap, filling up four supertankers and sending them off-shore, and waiting until prices have gone up to bring the tankers back and sell the oil at a profit?
First, I didn't address the topic of speculators. Second, your scenario is not how commodities trading works.
My scenario?
And again, supply and demand isn't what's driving up gas prices. Getting more oil from drilling and oil-sands will not help one whit.
http://www.investorplace.com/2011/01/5-dollar-gas-
l-gasoline/
OPEC Wants Expensive Oil: The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, has made it clear that $100 oil isn’t a sign of alarm but rather a decent equilibrium. The group has gone on the record saying oil prices above $100 a barrel are no reason for an emergency session. “If oil prices increase to $100 or more, it is not worrying and does not justify holding an extraordinary meeting by OPEC,” Iranian oil minister Masoud Mirkazemi was quoted as saying by the ministry’s news agency Shana. Is not worrying to whom, Mr. Mirkazemi? I think motorists and crude-dependent industries would have a different point of view.
Supply Problems Becoming Common: Just this week, we learned the Trans Alaska Pipeline network is suffering continuous pumping and leaking problems, raising concerns about tightening global oil supply. According to reports, owners BP plc (NYSE: BP), ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) and Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM) at one point slashed output by 95% this week. That adds up to 600,000 barrels a day lost – and despite reports of progress, the pipeline is yet to return to full capacity as of this writing. At the same time, U.S. commercial oil supplies fell 1.2% to 335.3 million barrels last week. And as commodity expert George Kleinman wrote recently, the EIA Energy Stocks Report shows a steady downward spiral in the amount of crude oil currently on hand. Coupled with news from OPEC countries like Iran and Kuwait will keep output constant, we are up against a supply shortfall in the months ahead.
A Healthier Economy Means More Demand: The biggest problem with $4 gas in 2008 was that it coincided with the beginnings of a recession in the U.S. as the mortgage crisis took hold. As the American economy shut down, we saw oil peak at a whopping $147.27 before flopping to $40 a barrel in early 2009. The double edged sword of economic recovery this time around is that sustained spending will add up to sustained oil prices. The bottom won’t be as likely to drop out since the economy is in much better share in the first quarter of 2011 (and beyond) than it was in the first quarter of 2009 after the mayhem of the financial crisis and the failure of GM, AIG, Lehman and others. There will of course be a tipping point, but judging from the stock market’s surge alongside oil in the last several months, we are not near that point yet.
Inflation Continues to Rear Ugly Head: Another weak, and another warning of runaway inflation in the works. Leading central bankers warned again Monday of resurgent inflation in fast-growing emerging economies and warned rising food and energy prices could spread to Europe and North America. Euro zone inflation rose above central bank targets in December, and UK inflation unexpectedly hit a 6-month high. If the steady drumbeat of inflation news continues we can expect the recent surge of crude oil prices (15% in 3 months) to continue.
Pretty much everything you know is wrong. Inflation is probably the biggest factor in all of this, but knowing your love of the government and everything it does you probably don't mind falling all over the federal reserve ####.
MackenCheez wrote:
Astromang wrote:
Saddy wrote:
Zaphod_209 wrote:"WAAAHHH............... Gaz iz twoo expensve! I can't afford to fill up my tank."
That's because you bought the wrong car, dumbass!
not everyone can afford to buy a hybrid and not everyone can get by with a tiny little car. so shoosh.You're right, hybrids aren't an economical vehicle even with gas prices being so high. However, to your other point that not everyone can bet by on a tiny car is bunk. Sure, it may be more spacious and have more amenities that you like, but in the end a four door sedan does the same for you as a Tahoe. Unless you're like the Dougers (oh however you spell it) you don't need that Impala or Escort.
Now I'm not saying you shouldn't have it, but when it comes down to price you don't really get to ####. You chose your automobile knowing it was a gas guzzler, now live with that choice. Me? I'll by getting 42 mpg city in my Corola until they make an economically viable electric car. Deal with it.
Just as an experiment, I checked Crraigslist in a random area to see what I could find. Put a max price at a grand because half the country doesn't even make enough to pay taxes and that's about a month's salary. Best I found was an old Acura with a measely 20 highway mpg. This and worse is what a good half of the country is stuck with. Deal with it.
If you want to complain about the lack of used cars on the market talk to Obama and the Democrat congress that passed cash for clunkers. It took thousands of fuel efficient cars off the market thus driving up used car prices.
Gaius_Sextus wrote:
Zaphod_209 wrote:How do you not have enough money to pay taxes? Aren't taxes based on income? I know there's property taxes, but if you can't pay your property tax, it means that you're likely un-employed and you've got bigger problems than taxes.
My point wan't about not being able to buy someing new. My point was that these people created their own problem when they chose a gas-guzzler over something more reasonable.
"When they chose something they could affford instead of something with more reasonable gas mileage" is what you meant, right?
This is a ridiculous claim, more often than not cars with better fuel efficiency cost LESS than those with lower fuel efficiency.
TM & © 2013 Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
AdultSwim.com is part of Turner Entertainment Digital which is part of the Turner Sports & Entertainment Digital Network.
