Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

The high price of gasFollow

#1 Apr 03 2004 at 11:08 PM Rating: Decent
**
405 posts
An article in the business section of the Chicago Tribune a couple of weeks ago reported that gasoline will most likely hit $2.15 by Memorial Day. There are several reasons for the increase:
  • The EPA has mandated that a new gasoline additive be intruduced by this summer, and there currently are shortages of the additive.
  • A major oil refinery is being shut down for standard maintenance and retooling
  • OPEC slash production in order to inflate prices

  • This week OPEC announced a second round of supply cuts, reducing production by 1 million barrels a day. The newest estimates state the gasoline will most likely go up to $2.40-$2.50 by Memorial Day.

    On a interesting side note, today I went to a several car dealerships to lease a new commuter car. At the Honda dealership they said that they have more used V6s on the lot than ever before. People are begining to turn in their high horsepowered engines and opt instead for the smaller cars that get 29-30 MPG.

    Are we begining to see the end of the 15MPG SUV market?

    Edited, Sat Apr 3 23:07:23 2004 by Valzarius

    Edited, Sat Apr 3 23:08:28 2004 by Valzarius
    #2 Apr 03 2004 at 11:59 PM Rating: Default
    doubtful. As long as there is some over grown show off there will be a suv market..
    #3 Apr 04 2004 at 12:49 AM Rating: Decent
    ****
    7,486 posts
    here in Apple Valley, California gas for unleaded (87 octane) are 2.11$ a gallon. i went to an AM pm and not only was it 2.11 but they also didnt have any of that or 89 octane. they were literally out. premium (91) is 2.39!

    so yeah, gas is exspensive.
    #4 Apr 04 2004 at 12:53 AM Rating: Good
    ****
    6,730 posts
    Los Angeles - $2.79 a gallon for Premium. I spent nearly 40 bucks to fill my gas tank yesterday.
    #5 Apr 04 2004 at 12:58 AM Rating: Decent
    Lunatic
    ******
    30,086 posts
    Bush in '00 running for Office "I think the President shuold call up Opec and tell them to open the spigots"

    Bush in '04 begging the Saudi's for more money "Do you put it in first, or use the lube first?"

    Get used to it. Anyone who didn't buy oil futures when Bush took office was an idiot.
    ____________________________
    Disclaimer:

    To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

    #6 Apr 04 2004 at 2:01 AM Rating: Decent
    Prodigal Son
    ******
    20,643 posts


    <mutters something like "peak oil" and runs away>
    ____________________________
    publiusvarus wrote:
    we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
    #7 Apr 04 2004 at 2:35 AM Rating: Default
    $1.67 here Smiley: glare

    Opec needs to press the big red button Smiley: dnp and do the world a favor...
    #8 Apr 04 2004 at 11:50 AM Rating: Good
    *****
    16,160 posts
    $1.67?

    I don't think I've seen that low a price in three years here in Cali. You have it niiiiiiice.

    Totem
    #9 Apr 04 2004 at 2:31 PM Rating: Decent
    **
    405 posts
    $1.89 in Wisconsin and $1.95 in Chicago.

    Interesting enough, it was at the prompting of Saudi Arabia that OPEC did the second reduction of 1 million barrels. What great ally!
    #10 Apr 08 2004 at 9:43 AM Rating: Decent
    Quote:
    Oil Reserves and Politics
    by Alan Reynolds

    Alan Reynolds, a nationally syndicated columnist, is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

    The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) agreed to cut production targets by 4 percent. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "The United States continues to emphasize that oil prices should be determined by market forces."

    But the OPEC oil cartel is one of those "market forces." And so is the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).

    Since November 2001, the U.S. government has been adding about 160,000 barrels a day to the 651 billion barrels already stockpiled in the SPR. During that time, oil prices rose from less than $20 a barrel to as much as $37. The Energy Department can't resist a bad bargain and plans to buy another 202,000 barrels a day in April. Some 55 members of the House of Representatives wrote to the president earlier this month urging the administration to stop adding to reserves.

    Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, also seized this opportunity. "The Bush administration has put [the SPR] program on automatic pilot without regard to the short-term effect on the U.S. market," the Kerry campaign said.

    Mr. McClellan responded by telling reporters selling reserves "would have a negligible impact." But that assumes only negligible amounts would be sold.

    Leaving the impression it is willing only to add to the petroleum reserve and never to sell, the administration created too easy a bet for oil traders. As a reformed currency speculator, I know the allure of options is the leverage: You can quintuple your money if the price goes up, or lose it all if the price goes down. But that lose-everything downside also makes speculators panic if prices even wiggle in the wrong direction.

    Talking to Reuters about the OPEC decision, Gary Ross of PIRA Energy said, "This decision is only going to encourage the speculators to stay long on oil markets." But as President Bush I proved, it isn't hard to make speculators run for the exit.

    On Jan. 17, 1991, the elder President Bush publicly announced he had authorized the Energy Department to sell as much as 2.5 million barrels a day from the strategic stockpile. That would be like adding another Iraq overnight.

    The Washington Post reported what happened next: "Oil prices tumbled in London today, defying nearly unanimous predictions prices would skyrocket once war broke out in the Persian Gulf. After jumping $7 a barrel to nearly $40 in the first hour of the war, prices on world markets began to tumble. By midday, the price of benchmark North Sea Brent crude had dropped to near $21 a barrel." A follow-up story said, "The dramatic sell-off to $21.44 shocked traders and led several oil companies to announce immediate price cuts."

    Cutting oil prices in half was not a negligible effect; nor was it temporary. Oil remained at or below $20 until late 1999. Ironically, the United States did not even have to sell much oil. The announcement alone was enough to shock traders, forcing them to liquidate futures and options for whatever they could get. They never found out if the president was bluffing. But they knew he had a lot more oil than they did.

    Mr. McClellan reiterated the current Bush administration's position that not a drop of reserves should ever be touched except "in the event of a severe disruption of supply." The implication is false that the reserve was designed only for use in a severe national security crisis. After a poisonous brew of price controls, devaluation and inflationary monetary policy exploded the prices of oil and every other commodity in 1973-74, the U.S. public was sold on using tax dollars to build a petroleum reserve.

    The public was told the reason was to prevent another economic disruption from OPEC mischief. This was not to be a military petroleum reserve (which we already had), but an economic reserve. It was intended as a buffer stock -- to counteract the economic damage of periodic surges in the price of oil by buying low and selling high. Yet the administration now insists on buying high and not selling at all.

    This has always been an endemic problem with government-run commodity stockpiles. Politicians and bureaucrats are sure to be deluged with advice from industry-financed experts peddling ingenious reasons to keep buying when prices are very high and to never sell.

    Gasoline prices now appear to be the only political lightning rod, but that is an illusion. The more serious risk for the economy comes from rising energy costs and falling profits for energy-intensive manufacturing, airlines and agriculture. And states most dependent on heavy industry and farming are among the key battleground states.

    We have had enough unpleasant experience with oil price spikes to make us more cautious. Oil was below $15 in January 1979, but reached $35-40 from February 1980 through October 1982 as the economy grappled with severe stagflation. Oil was back down to $17 by the start of 1990, but the economy went into recession when oil topped $27 in August and reached $36 by October.

    Oil was again well below $20 for most of 1997-99, yet back above $30 from June to November 2000, when U.S. industrial production began falling. Oil was again below $20 at the start of 2002, but back above $37 lately.

    The Energy Department Web site says the reserve is to be used for "economically threatening disruption," and the threat of economic disruption can only be gauged by price. I do not think the latest rise of oil prices is nearly enough to tank the economy. But it is not a bit helpful, even if it doesn't last long. Temporary spikes in energy costs can provide an incentive to postpone industrial expansion, or even to cut back and wait.

    With nearly 700 million barrels of oil in its war chest, the United States is quite capable of giving OPEC a bloody nose. Far from being a well-disciplined cartel, most OPEC producers would scramble to "make hay while the sun shines" by maximizing production if they feared the United States might flood the market, even for short while.

    The U.S. government should simply let it be known that significant yet undisclosed sales of petroleum reserves are by no means out of the question. That would scare OPEC a little, and it would scare oil traders a lot.

    This article was published in The Washington Times, April 4, 2004.



    http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-08-04.html
    #11 Apr 08 2004 at 10:45 AM Rating: Decent
    **
    405 posts
    God, not the Cato Institute...

    That aside for the moment, one very major issue neglected by the article is the political turmoil currently going on in Venezuela. Both Venezuela and Russia are huge oil producers and dramatically affect the supply side of the equation. Venezuela has gone through nothing short of civil war, while Russia is in the process of splitting the oil barons into smaller companies. The United States imports over 20% of its oil from these two countries.

    The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created by congress at the start of the cold war, in the eventuality that the United States was faced with a global conflict where supplies lines would be dramatically affected. The original intent was to use the reserves first for military purposes and second for commercial/industry use. At the start of the Iraq invasion congress denied the administration access to the SPR, which forced the administration to purchase oil reserves from neighboring countries (particularly Kuwait). Remember the Halburton overcharge "scandal?"

    Recently congress authorized access to the SPR in order to create a pool of oil, so the United State's military operations were not forced to purchase oil abroad at a premium price. Although using this oil for commercial purposes would increase the supply and lower prices, but we could find ourselves again in short supply for military operations and the tax payers getting hit with a huge bill. Using this supply to give Saudi Arabia a bloody nose is just plain stupid.

    In spite of opinion pro/against the war, America has grown way too greedy in its dependency for foreign oil. The automobile manufacturers have been courting the public with nothing but bigger cars, more horsepower, and tons of cargo capacity for years now. The American public wanted this and fuel economy was of no consideration. I still don’t understand why a family of four needs a minivan, when an economy sedan would do just as well. As a kid our family of five went to church in a hatchback.

    It’s about high time that conservation starts to creep back into our culture. If anything do it for the environment and future generations. Our society needs to change a little and stop driving these vehicles that get 15-20 mpg. Isn’t it about high time we start to affect the demand side of the equation in order to reduce price?
    #12 Apr 08 2004 at 11:02 AM Rating: Good
    Quote:
    Bush in '00 running for Office "I think the President shuold call up Opec and tell them to open the spigots"

    Bush in '04 begging the Saudi's for more money "Do you put it in first, or use the lube first?"

    Get used to it. Anyone who didn't buy oil futures when Bush took office was an idiot.


    As long as we're taking cheap shots here, let's not forget about the all mighty Jimmy Carter.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0516.html

    $3.39 per barrel nominal price for crude in 1972.
    $21.59 per barrel nominal price for crude in 1980.
    #13 Apr 08 2004 at 11:02 AM Rating: Decent
    Personally, I don't mind paying $2.00 a gallon for gas currently. I drive a Jeep Liberty, and in the city I get horse-**** mileage. Do my wife and I need an SUV for the two of us and junior on the way? Not really. Do I need some environmentalist puke telling me I should be kind to the earth and buy an economy sedan? F'uck no. You want to drive an economy car, you go right ahead. Personally, I wouldn't be caught dead in one. Of course, my situation is made easy by the fact that between the two of us we put about 12,000 miles on 2 cars in a year. Our offices are about 4 miles from our house and we ride together a lot.

    I like having the ability to put the entire weeks camping gear inside and still have room for 5 people. I like having the ability to not get stuck in the snow. I like being able to go off-roading. I like being able to tow the boat or the snowmobiles. For that, I pay the price. But I will be god damned if I will listen to some whiney little liberal **** telling me that "SUVs are bad" or some such bullsh1t.
    #14 Apr 08 2004 at 12:04 PM Rating: Decent
    Velzarius said:

    Quote:
    The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created by congress at the start of the cold war, in the eventuality that the United States was faced with a global conflict where supplies lines would be dramatically affected. The original intent was to use the reserves first for military purposes and second for commercial/industry use.


    The Cato Institute said however:

    Quote:
    After a poisonous brew of price controls, devaluation and inflationary monetary policy exploded the prices of oil and every other commodity in 1973-74, the U.S. public was sold on using tax dollars to build a petroleum reserve.

    The public was told the reason was to prevent another economic disruption from OPEC mischief. This was not to be a military petroleum reserve (which we already had), but an economic reserve. It was intended as a buffer stock -- to counteract the economic damage of periodic surges in the price of oil by buying low and selling high. Yet the administration now insists on buying high and not selling at all.


    Guess I have some research to do to find out who is correct. Either that or I can wait for Smash or Gbaji to come here and spin the truth in whichever way will support their position. Smiley: wink
    #15 Apr 08 2004 at 3:16 PM Rating: Decent
    **
    405 posts
    I believe it was Eisenhower that established it (it might have been Truman). Gasoline refining and supply was a huge problem for both sides during WWII, and it was gasoline that helped determined the outcome of many key points of the war. With the threat of the Soviet Union it was imperative to secure a reliable, homeland based, energy resource in the event of a prolonged military conflict. Unless I have my reserves mixed up, it was then that the military oil reserve was created.

    The Cato Institute was never very good on reporting facts. During 1973-1974 the Middle East was preoccupied with the after effects of the Israel-Egypt war. OPEC was instituted but each country of the Arab League was trying to reposition itself after the Israeli occupation of the Sinai. The United States pulled out of Vietnam, and it was the war that was the contributing factor for the rising inflation (which continued its upward climb all the way till 1981).

    It was the Carter administration that attempted to combat the inflation by moving the Federal Reserve from monetary policy to a fiscal policy. This proved to be a disaster, which was reversed by the Reagan administration through the appointment of Allan Greenspan. The price of gasoline reached its highest price in 1978 due to rampant inflation and the Iran revolution. The Camp David accords helped bring some level of peace back to the Middle East, which was reflected by OPEC beginning to act more like an oligopoly. Between 1978-1980 gas shortages reached their peak.


    p.s. An interesting historical fact. Hitler began the Africa campaign largely to control the oil supply in the Middle East (at that time Egypt was the largest producer). Herr Rommel should have brought a geologist with him to Libya, for little did he know he was sitting right on top of a huge oil reserve. While the Germans & Italians (in Libya) and British (in Egypt) were fighting it out in the desert, the ***** were completely unaware that if they started drilling right where they were standing they would have had all the oil they needed. Instead they continued to press into British controlled Egypt, while their U-boats and supply ships got knocked out of the water by the British Royal Fleet. Ooopsie!

    #16 Apr 08 2004 at 4:59 PM Rating: Decent
    Quote:
    The United States started the petroleum reserve in 1975 after oil supplies were cut off during the 1973-74 oil embargo. The embargo was a shock to the U.S. economy, and the government decided that the country should never be caught short again. The United States uses almost 19 million barrels of petroleum every day, and more than half of that oil comes from imports. A reserve of 60 days' worth of petroleum could help keep the oil flowing in case of a cutoff. The last time that the United States used oil from the reserve was during the Persian Gulf War in 1991 to keep oil plentiful and prices stable. That drawdown is different from the exchange authorized recently because the companies who bid for it will return the oil this time.



    http://people.howstuffworks.com/question478.htm

    Quote:
    The need for a national oil storage reserve has been recognized for at least five decades.

    Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes advocated the stockpiling of emergency crude oil in 1944. President Truman's Minerals Policy Commission proposed a strategic oil supply in 1952. President Eisenhower suggested an oil reserve after the 1956 Suez Crisis. The Cabinet Task Force on Oil Import Control recommended a similar reserve in 1970.

    But few events so dramatically underscored the need for a strategic oil reserve as the 1973-74 oil embargo. The cutoff of oil flowing into the United States from many Arab nations sent economic shockwaves throughout the Nation. In the aftermath of the oil crises, the United States established the SPR.

    President Ford set the SPR into motion when he signed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) on December 22, 1975. The legislation declared it to be U.S. policy to establish a reserve of up to 1 billion barrels of petroleum.

    The Gulf of Mexico was a logical choice for oil storage sites. More than 500 salt domes are concentrated along the coast. It is the location of many U.S. refineries and distribution points for tankers, barges and pipelines. In April 1977, the government acquired several existing salt caverns to serve as the first storage sites. Construction of the first surface facilities began in June 1977.



    http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/

    I think that maybe you should check your sources before stating that The Cato Institute might be misreporting the facts.
    #17 Apr 09 2004 at 11:47 AM Rating: Decent
    Quote:
    Gas Panic
    by Jerry Taylor, Peter Van Doren

    Mr. Van Doren is editor of Regulation, a Cato Institute magazine. Mr. Taylor is Cato's director of natural resource studies.

    The hysteria is building. Newspapers and television news broadcasts scream that gasoline prices today are higher than at any other time in recorded history. But so far most Americans aren't buying into the hype -- and they shouldn't.

    While the Sturm und Drang raged over gasoline prices, Gallup released a poll revealing that Americans don't really care all that much about this alleged "terror at the pump." Only 29% of those surveyed believed that the energy situation in America is "very serious" (compared to the 58% who thought so during 2001) and only 35% worry a great deal about energy supply and prices. Moreover, if forced to choose between environmental protection and energy production, a scant plurality of Americans will still choose the former over the latter (48% to 44%).

    Is this evidence that Americans are too complacent and self-absorbed to fully understand what's going on in the world around them? No -- it's evidence that both the media and the public-policy elite are long overdue for a refresher course in Econ 101.

    In short, gasoline prices are relatively normal by historic terms. Sure, people are paying more for gasoline today than ever before. They're also paying more for houses, cars, lettuce, baseball cards and almost everything else than ever before. Historical comparisons of prices over the years mean absolutely nothing unless we adjust for inflation.

    If we adjust gasoline prices for inflation and use 2003 dollars, we find that during the most celebrated days of cheap fuel and gas guzzling cars -- 1955 -- gasoline actually cost $1.66 a gallon on average across the nation. In 1972, the year before OPEC began to flex its muscles, prices were $1.28 a gallon. In 1981, the real record was set -- $2.36 cents a gallon. Heck, prices are only a nickel higher now than at this time last year.

    We should not stop there, however. A better measure of the affordability of gasoline over time is not its inflation-adjusted price alone, but its inflation-adjusted price in comparison with our economic resources (in this case, inflation-adjusted GDP per capita). Even though the real price of gasoline was lower in 1972 ($1.28) than today ($1.73), per capita GDP is now $39,919 whereas it was only $20,667 (measured in 2003 dollars) in 1972. Real incomes have almost doubled since 1972, but real gasoline price have risen only 35%. Real gasoline prices were slightly lower in 1955 than today ($1.66 versus $1.73). But real per-capita GDP is almost $40,000 today and was only $14,094 in 1955. Real gasoline prices at the height of the oil shock in 1981 were higher than today ($2.36 versus $1.73), while real GDP per capita was lower ($24,369 versus almost $40,000) than today.

    By those measures, then, gasoline prices today are only 37% of what they were in 1955, 70% of what they were in 1972, and 45% of what they were relative to income in 1981.

    The idea that politicians haven't the faintest idea what they're talking about when it comes to economics should not surprise us by now. The idea that our nation's top journalists, however, can be so incompetent when it comes to reporting such simple stories as this should give pause. If they bothered to do the math, they'd know there's no reason for panic at the pump. But that's not a very sexy story now is it?


    Reprinted from The Wall Street Journal © Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.


    http://www.cato.org/research/articles/taylor-040406.html
    #18 Apr 09 2004 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good
    ***
    1,817 posts
    Quote:
    I like having the ability to put the entire weeks camping gear inside and still have room for 5 people. I like having the ability to not get stuck in the snow. I like being able to go off-roading. I like being able to tow the boat or the snowmobiles. For that, I pay the price. But I will be *** ****** if I will listen to some whiney little liberal **** telling me that "SUVs are bad" or some such bullsh1t.


    I think your proving his point. we consume using luxury and convenience as standards for practice despite its long-term effects. more power to you, but not everyone can afford to pay high prices for gas. why not just destroy the lower classes of society in one large virtual genocide swing, pack up the SUV and head to the hills for some skiing and celebration? except for the fact that the manual labor of those lower classes built and ran the ski resort.

    I just payed $2.29 this morning for regular gas in Milpitas, CA. I can afford it, but it's insane..I can remember times when I wouldn't have been able to afford it.
    #19 Apr 09 2004 at 12:58 PM Rating: Good
    Quote:
    I think your proving his point.

    I know.
    Quote:
    we consume using luxury and convenience as standards for practice despite its long-term effects.

    Yeah, I know.
    Quote:
    more power to you, but not everyone can afford to pay high prices for gas

    Ride a bus.
    Quote:
    why not just destroy the lower classes of society in one large virtual genocide swing, pack up the SUV and head to the hills for some skiing and celebration? except for the fact that the manual labor of those lower classes built and ran the ski resort.

    I like the lower classes. They take my money when I come to a cash register. If people can't afford to drive, it's simple. Don't. Why should I give a **** if someone is too poor to drive and has to put some effort in to getting to work? I'm paying for them to use a mass transit system. They can quit ******** and get on the f'ucking bus for all I care. (and who needs a ski resort? My friends and I will take turns on the snowmobile ferrying people up the mountain. Smiley: cool )

    The thing about gas prices in the rest of the country (where property doesn't cost $1200/sq. ft.) is that it's not that far out of whack. I filled up for 1.79 this morning. But I am not paying $1800 a month for the privilage of renting a 600 sq. ft. loft in a bad neighborhood. I can remember when I couldn't afford gas and insurance. I rode the bus. Or I rode my bike. Bottom line, people **** and moan too much about stupid ****. F'uck em.
    #20 Apr 09 2004 at 1:08 PM Rating: Good
    ****
    5,492 posts
    im SO glad i take public transpo to work. it costs me 40$+ to fill up my jeep but that lasts me like 2-3 weeks. on the down side i pay 30$ a month for parking at the subway and 60$ every 2 weeks in fare.

    if i didnt take public transpo id be paying like 60$ a week in gas, 14$ a day for parking and the pain in the *** of traffic.

    it balences out and i get to relax on the ride to and from work.
    #21 Apr 09 2004 at 1:59 PM Rating: Good
    ***
    1,817 posts
    Quote:
    The thing about gas prices in the rest of the country (where property doesn't cost $1200/sq. ft.) is that it's not that far out of whack. I filled up for 1.79 this morning. But I am not paying $1800 a month for the privilage of renting a 600 sq. ft. loft in a bad neighborhood.


    I fail to see the connection there, but ok. so you pay less for gas AND live in a cheaper area. noone's arguing you have the option of taking the money you save to burn up fuel to have a good time that I could find 200 feet in any direction..THATS the reason why I pay more for less. but thats off topic. I'm not poor.

    I was talking about the poor. you assume all of them are bottom feeders and people who don't deserve work because they don't use the effort to. I was talking about the ones that are quite the opposite. but once again, even that is off topic.

    i never argued your option to choose options in your life that may or may not have long-term harmful effects was "wrong"..but you agreed to that, so i really don't know why I'm posting this. Smiley: banghead

    Edited, Fri Apr 9 15:01:50 2004 by Empyre
    #22 Apr 09 2004 at 3:06 PM Rating: Decent
    Prodigal Son
    ******
    20,643 posts
    Gas prices don't worry me too much. I've taken to driving Saturns that give me 40MPG. So even though I drive 60 miles every day for work, I can still last all week on a 12-gallon tank. And gas near my office or my folks' house is about a dime cheaper than where I live.


    that peak oil business, that's what scares me!
    #23 Apr 09 2004 at 3:15 PM Rating: Good
    ****
    6,760 posts
    If I could take public transportation to work I would. This is of course assuming the bus isn't filled with dirtbags and it was safe. Unfortunately, I don't have that option.

    Yep, I drive my gas-hog SUV to work. I like having a roomy vehicle. I also like having a vehicle I can drive up into the mountains. I also like the fact that if I do get into an accident I'm not in a lunch-box on wheels that will compress into roughly the size of a sardine can and surely perish. But hey, that's just me.

    And if some tree-huggin bastid wants to give me **** for driving an SUV, they can go to hell. And I'll drive by waving while smoking a cig and throwing my non biodegradable fast food container out the window.
    ____________________________
    Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
    #24 Apr 09 2004 at 3:17 PM Rating: Decent
    **
    405 posts
    I think we're talking about two completely different reserves. The United States government holds mineral rights in both Texas and Alaska for untapped crude. This is oil still in the ground and not the salt caves down in Texas. Very impressive research Dyzalot! I spent my lunch hour going over the DOE's site and came across the following graph. It's always nice being able to put things into historical reference. I only wish the graph went prior to 1970.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chron.html

    Back to the original article:

    Quote:
    After a poisonous brew of price controls, devaluation and inflationary monetary policy exploded the prices of oil and every other commodity in 1973-74, the U.S. public was sold on using tax dollars to build a petroleum reserve.

    The public was told the reason was to prevent another economic disruption from OPEC mischief. This was not to be a military petroleum reserve (which we already had), but an economic reserve. It was intended as a buffer stock -- to counteract the economic damage of periodic surges in the price of oil by buying low and selling high. Yet the administration now insists on buying high and not selling at all.


    I noticed in the article they noted in parentheses...yes there is another reserve for military use. If I'm right and this is the untapped resource, then it would take time to drill, refine and ship this oil (for long-term military purposes). We can see on the graph that at points 3-5 the effect of OPEC beginning to flex it's muscle and the embargo incurred because of the Israeli occupation of the Sinai. The net effect wasn't anywhere nearly significant as between points 13-20, when OPEC really flexed its muscle between 1978-1980. Still the SPR was created in 1975 in response to the 1973 embargo.

    Back to the graph again, another interesting point is #59. An increase in US demand creates a very sharp increase in price (as per my previous post on the American public wanting bigger and more powerful vehicles). Demand continues to remain at record high levels.

    Again to my previous post the unrest in Venezuela was not mentioned in the article, but as we can see at point #63 this has a significant impact on price (along with OPEC doing us no favors again). This is an effect that should not be glossed over or discredited.

    Quote:
    On Jan. 17, 1991, the elder President Bush publicly announced he had authorized the Energy Department to sell as much as 2.5 million barrels a day from the strategic stockpile. That would be like adding another Iraq overnight.


    Points #42 & #43 on the graph. OK, I wasn't in diapers at this stage of the game and I remember this one. Any market hates uncertainty and the Iraq invasion had a huge increase on price. Did the selling of the oil from the SPR have any effect at point #43, or was it the end of the war that actually decreased the price? This is open to debate and it is here I hold exception to the article.

    At point #43 George Bush senior had to deal the reduced production due to the occupation of Kuwait, and released the oil from the SPR two days before the first scud missile hits Israel. This move was a stabilization technique because if the imminent war with Iraq. Click on the hyperlink for 1991 in the graph to see the events that happened during this time period.

    Quote:
    Cutting oil prices in half was not a negligible effect; nor was it temporary. Oil remained at or below $20 until late 1999. Ironically, the United States did not even have to sell much oil. The announcement alone was enough to shock traders, forcing them to liquidate futures and options for whatever they could get. They never found out if the president was bluffing. But they knew he had a lot more oil than they did.


    Unless my eyes are misleading me oil was well over $20 barrel between 1995 and 1999. Saudi Arabia's increasing production is what caused a drop below $20, not the selling of oil from the SPR. Resolution of the Iraq war and returned of Kuwait to the market helped keep prices low in 1992. I would argue the long-term effects of the 1991 SPR oil sale.

    Quote:
    Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, also seized this opportunity. "The Bush administration has put [the SPR] program on automatic pilot without regard to the short-term effect on the U.S. market," the Kerry campaign said.


    Have they? The increase in price is attributed to: 1) continued increase in US demand 2) decrease in supply because of Venezula, Russia, and OPEC 3) changed is EPA mandated additives (we're talking about refined gas...not oil) 4) standard maintenance taking several refineries offline. Selling large quantities of oil from the SPR certainly can lower price (as it did at point #42), but will it mean purchasing additional oil abroad at a premium price with no long term effects. Is the situation as serious as it was in 1991 as to mandate the selling of large reserves?

    IMHO the answer to this is no. Major military operations in Iraq are largely over, hence the military will require less petroleum than it did in 2003. Conservation would be a real good start in lowering the price. The EPA additives and refinery maint is a short term effect that won't last the summer. It is demand that spurred the lastest increase in price. The war has increased some demand and the SPR was used to make sure the military had enough reserves. Conservation and helping Venezuela overcome it's internal problems would have much better long term effects.
    #25 Apr 09 2004 at 3:35 PM Rating: Good
    ***
    1,817 posts
    i think the larger end of the gas consumer population has spoken..and they've said something that was expected:

    conserve this! ,|,,

    so much for putting method to madness.
    #26 Apr 09 2004 at 4:08 PM Rating: Good
    ****
    5,492 posts
    Quote:
    And if some tree-huggin bastid wants to give me **** for driving an SUV, they can go to hell. And I'll drive by waving while smoking a cig and throwing my non biodegradable fast food container out the window.


    ok Dennis Leary....

    allthough you forgot the huge cadilac with the baby seal eyes for headlights......
    « Previous 1 2 3 4
    Reply To Thread

    Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

     

    Recent Visitors: 253 All times are in CST
    Anonymous Guests (253)