The TRUTH About Oil And Gas Prices!

[SallyRand]

OK, I'll do all the whining for you in order to get it over with!

"Lies!"

"Spin!"

"I don't beleive ANYTHING from FOXNEWS!"

"More Repug LIES!"

There.

Feel better?

Now, read it and weep as some of your most cherished half-witted "truths" get staked to anthills!

I challenge any of you to prove anything in this editorial to be incorrect, falsified or just plain wrong!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...-gas-industry/

3 Myths About the Oil and Gas Industry

By Bob Beauprez

Published May 12, 2011 | FoxNews.com

As voters around the country wince at rising gas prices, panicked Democrats, in a rush to cover the failure of their all-or-nothing bet on the alternative energy industry have started singing a familiar tune ? blame the oil and gas industry. Instead of facing the reality of his owned failed policies, President Obama is calling for an end to the "tax giveaways" he claims amount to $4 billion in ?subsidies? to the energy industry.

This tactic isn?t surprising given the effect that rising gas prices have on the president?s approval ratings and his obsession with re-election. But, less-than-truthful innuendos and political spin hardly helps America's working families who are getting hammered at the pump.

If our leaders are going to have an honest discussion about energy, it's important to clear up a few rumors, misconceptions and outright falsehoods being perpetrated about the oil and gas industry. Let's begin with three of the more common ones:

1. The industry doesn?t receive any taxpayer funded subsides. None.
2. Rampant speculation and Wall Street tricks aren?t driving up gas prices.
3. The oil and gas industry is not dodging the taxes they owe and withholding ?their fair share.?

I'll say it again; contrary to popular opinion and the president's spin, the oil and gas industries do not receive any taxpayer funded subsidies. The tax code does allow them to claim certain tax credits and deductions to encourage continued investment in an industry that is heavily front-end loaded with capital expense.

These are the same kind of incentives available to Coca-Cola, General Electric, Ford, and Microsoft and other companies doing business in the U.S. Or, for that matter, like the deduction for mortgage interest payments enjoyed by homeowners. But, importantly these are tax credits, and markedly different from direct taxpayer cash subsidies like the 45 cent per gallon payment blenders get to put ethanol in fuel mixes.

When businesses invest in America, we all benefit. The oil and gas industry plows about $300 billion into domestic projects per year ? that's 75 times more than Obama's phantom "taxpayer giveaways" amount -- and employees over 9 million people. Those are real numbers; not Washington spin, and if government would allow and encourage even more domestic production there would be more jobs and more investment ? and more total taxes paid, too.

Another argument that often circulates when gas prices go up is that a phantom class of ?Wall Street speculators? is to blame for the increase of prices. In 2008 this school of thought was so persuasive that President Bush commissioned an exhaustive review, via the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, looking into the effect that speculators had on market prices. Their conclusion was surprising, according to The Wall Street Journal, ?The agency concluded that speculators?otherwise known as traders?were putting downward pressure on prices. The liquidity they provide helps to smooth volatility.?

Not satisfied with the 2008 study, President Obama recently resurrected this school of thought, even tapping Attorney General Eric Holder to police perceived illegal activity and price gouging. Yet within the presidents? own administration, the Federal Trade Commission found that the recent spike in oil prices is due primarily to normal market forces, including booming demand from developing economies in India and China and not because of any questionable behavior from Wall Street.

The third popular attack is that somehow oil and gas industry isn?t paying its fair share in taxes. Democratic Party mythology aside, the oil and gas industry pays a much heftier percentage of net income in taxes (41.1%) than the average of all other S&P Industrials (26.5%). Every single day, the industry is sending more than $85 million to the U.S. Treasury for taxes and royalty payments.

Yes, the energy companies are profitable, but their profit margins are right in line with manufacturing, aerospace, and the food industries, while computer, pharmaceutical, and the beverage companies have triple the net income margins of traditional energy.

I don't like subsidies and I don't like Congress or the IRS deciding what is good economic behavior and what is bad. But, I do understand that you get more of what gets incentivized, and less of what is penalized. And, there is a huge difference in "redistributing the wealth" through direct subsidy payments, and a tax credit that encourages investment in much needed production that creates jobs and taxable income.

If congress is serious about creating jobs and jump starting the economy, they should lower the corporate tax rate, which is the highest among the 34 OECD nations, rather than increase the tax burden on energy or any industry.

Capital is fungible, and energy production is the prototypical global industry. Plenty of nations around the world are providing a far more welcoming business environment for energy production than the U.S. already with a less onerous tax code and far less regulatory burden.

If increasing our domestic supply is really a national objective, then this might not be the best time to send exactly the opposite message to the people that provide the capital to drill the wells.

Bob Beauprez is a former member of Congress from Colorado with successful careers as a dairy farmer, community banker, and real estate development. He has published his first book, publishes a public policy website, A Line of Sight.com, and operates a buffalo breeding ranch in the Colorado mountains.

[TheDoc]

Well it is from fox....

1. The industry doesn’t receive any taxpayer funded subsides. None.

That's true, we do not fund an "industry" our taxpayer funded subsides go to "companies" directly.

2. Rampant speculation and Wall Street tricks aren’t driving up gas prices.

But they are responsible for the big fluctuation in prices we have, like right now they're going up on speculation that Mississippi wont be able to refine it - however they will go down, so clearly they aren't "tricks driving up gas prices" if they also go down.

3. The oil and gas industry is not dodging the taxes they owe and withholding “their fair share.”

That depends on how you look at it... Under IRS Code Section 199, Oil Companies pay 3% less tax compared to other companies paying on tax on those same royalties to other Countries. While they aren't "dodging" what is legally in the tax code, it's really not something you would call fair in the idea of the free market.

[96ukssob]

shutup

[DateDoc]

If there were no speculators affecting the price of oil the price would be between $60-$70 right now.

[Rochard]

What I fail to understand is.. OPEC. Why the fuck does a Middle East organization control the world wide price of oil when the bulk of the oil imported from the US comes from Canada and Mexico?

[TheDoc]

Another fox twist in that article... That our Companies pay the highest tax rates, which if you look at the irs code is true, but if you look at the percentage they actually pay, it's not.

And if the oil industry paid 41% it's because of capital gains tax... which explains why it's higher than any other corporations actual net income business tax or what the tax code actually has written in it, for real net income business tax.

Overall, that article is nothing more than your every day fox twisted pile of poo.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Rochard

What I fail to understand is.. OPEC. Why the fuck does a Middle East organization control the world wide price of oil when the bulk of the oil imported from the US comes from Canada and Mexico?

Word wide demand, America is just one part of the pie of many slices, and speculation across all markets.

[Phoenix]

[DateDoc]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Another fox twist in that article... That our Companies pay the highest tax rates, which if you look at the irs code is true, but if you look at the percentage they actually pay, it's not.

And if the oil industry paid 41% it's because of capital gains tax... which explains why it's higher than any other corporations actual net income business tax or what the tax code actually has written in it, for real net income business tax.

Overall, that article is nothing more than your every day fox twisted pile of poo.

Over the past 6 years Exxon-Mobil has paid a tax rate of about 29%. This is inline with other companies when you figure in tax deductions. Other companies, such as GE, pay a lot less as a percentage of income.

[scuba steve]

Originally Posted by Rochard

What I fail to understand is.. OPEC. Why the fuck does a Middle East organization control the world wide price of oil when the bulk of the oil imported from the US comes from Canada and Mexico?

we receive a decent amount from venezuela too, its not direct from them. we "purchase" it in the middle east, but its shipped from there. less shipping cost

[ottopottomouse]

Originally Posted by Rochard

What I fail to understand is.. OPEC. Why the fuck does a Middle East organization control the world wide price of oil when the bulk of the oil imported from the US comes from Canada and Mexico?

Because the US isn't the world and the rest of us use the other 80%

[Wizzo]

If you really want to know why Oil and thus Gas Prices are high, look at QE2 and how its driving the dollar down...

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by DateDoc

Over the past 6 years Exxon-Mobil has paid a tax rate of about 29%. This is inline with other companies when you figure in tax deductions. Other companies, such as GE, pay a lot less as a percentage of income.

Aye, it's not 41% but it is lower than the 35% in the tax code and it includes capital gains tax, which is huge.

I don't care that a Company can pay no taxes or has to pay a ton... point was that none of us pay what the tax code says, as the article suggests.

[wig]

Originally Posted by Rochard

What I fail to understand is.. OPEC. Why the fuck does a Middle East organization control the world wide price of oil when the bulk of the oil imported from the US comes from Canada and Mexico?

It doesn't. It controls its' output, which may affect the price of oil, but it would never be the only factor.

Oil is a fungible commodity and the open market sets the price.

[wig]

Originally Posted by Wizzo

If you really want to know why Oil and thus Gas Prices are high, look at QE2 and how its driving the dollar down...

If that was true, you would have to explain why Oil was at $40 in 2009 when the dollar was not much higher than it is today.

[wehateporn]

It's Goldman Sachs telling traders that oil prices are still low, even now

[SallyRand]

The 6 Myths About Oil

By Alex Epstein

Published December 29, 2010 | FoxNews.com

Every American consumes an average of three gallons of oil a day. Republicans and Democrats call this reliance on oil an ?addiction??an irrational, self-destructive habit that must be broken as soon as possible. This year's BP oil spill disaster is only making the chorus to ?end our addiction to oil? louder. But if we examine the most common arguments for this idea, we see that they are myths. Oil is a vital, viable, and desirable part of our energy future.

Myth #1: America?s reliance on oil is an ?addiction??an irrational, self-destructive habit.

?America is addicted to oil.? ?George W. Bush, 2006

The Reality: America?s use of oil brings indispensible value to our lives.

?Addiction? implies an intense desire for something harmful, such as heroin. But we do not desire oil irrationally; we consume it because it is a beneficial, life-sustaining product. Oil is unmatched as a concentrated, safe, and affordable source of portable energy. And our lives depend on such a source of energy.

- Oil powers the industrial farm equipment that brings us abundant food; oil powers the mobile machinery that we need to extract the raw materials like iron, lumber, uranium, or natural gas from the earth.

- Oil powers the construction equipment we need to build new buildings, dams, levees, factories, and homes.

- Oil powers the hundreds of millions of vehicles that move people, materials, and products around the world to make possible the efficiency of our integrated, global economy.

- Oil is also the vital raw material for thousands of different petroleum products: from the carpet on your floor to the insulation inside your walls; from the synthetic rubber of your tires to the asphalt of the roads; from the pesticides and fertilizers that magnify crop yields and make food affordable to billions, to the pharmaceuticals that save millions of lives.

We are not "addicted" to oil any more than we are addicted to the myriad values it makes possible, like fresh food, imported electronics, going to work, or visiting loved ones.

Without oil, or something just as potent, abundant, and affordable, life as we know it would be impossible.

Myth #2: There are ?green? technologies that are just as good, or better, than oil.
?The way to bring gas prices down is to end our dependence on oil and use the renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1 per gallon gasoline.?
??we can start right now using solar power, wind power ??
? Al Gore, 2008

The Reality: There is zero evidence that any ?renewable? can replace oil in any foreseeable future.

For decades, the Al Gores of the world have claimed to know how to supplant oil. In 1977, Jimmy Carter proclaimed that in order to combat ?too much demand for fuel that keeps going up too quickly,? America would ?develop permanent and reliable new energy sources. The most promising, of course, is solar energy, for which most of the technology is already available.?

Since then, solar, wind, as well as biofuels?fuels derived from vegetable and animal sources?have received extravagant subsidies in America and throughout the world. And yet America uses more oil than ever, while Americans get less than 2% of their energy from solar solar and wind combined, and less than 4% of their energy, including transportation fuel, from biofuels and other plant and animal sources.

Why? Because solar, wind, and biofuels have proven utterly incapable of matching two of oil?s key virtues: low price and enormous abundance. They are expensive and nearly impossible to scale?largely because they all use highly diluted sources of energy that take far more land and equipment to process and transport than does oil (or other fossil fuels).

To attempt to implement these on a large scale would bankrupt Americans through home and business electricity costs alone?to attempt add a new generation of electric cars to the mix would make the costs and scarcity that much greater.

To make matters worse, solar and wind cannot even provide reliable, expensive electricity, because they use inherently intermittent sources of power--sunshine and wind gusts. Whereas coal, natural gas, and nuclear can generate the massive, precise, and reliable flows of power a modern economy require, wind and solar cannot?which is why they are always used as auxiliary, not primary, sources of power on electric grids. Think about it: Would you want your parent?s hospital room powered by the wind?

As for biofuels?fuels generated from crops or animal waste?they are generally very expensive because it costs a lot of money to extract diffuse energy from piles of manure or ears of corn, vs. the highly concentrated energy in a barrel of oil.

Biofuels typically require hundreds of gallons of water per gallon of output produced, while a gallon of oil requires five gallons of water. Further, they are very difficult to scale because they require massive amounts of expensive land, and the best ones require the best cropland. This is why Brazil, home of the most efficient and in-demand biofuel production (sugar-cane ethanol), produces the oil equivalent of less than 1.5% of the US?s consumption.

By far the most viable, large-scale non-CO2-emitting energy source is nuclear power, which environmentalists have set back decades and kept expensive through scare-mongering and a nearly insurmountable approval process. Thus, while dependence on nuclear power will likely grow in the coming decades?right now it supplies only 20% of U.S. electricity?it would take decades before it could economically replace a large percentage of the energy now supplied by coal and natural gas plants, let alone the 40% of U.S. energy supplied by oil.

Calls to cap 80% of oil (let alone all fossil fuels) and replace it with sunshine, wind gusts, vegetables, and manure piles are tantamount to economic suicide. This would drain the lifeblood of our civilization without offering a transfusion.

Myth #3: Because oil is finite, it will inevitably run out.

?The amazing exhibition of oil is a temporary and vanishing phenomenon, one which young men will live to see come to its natural end.? ?State Geologist of Pennsylvania, 1885.

Reality: There?s a lot more oil than you think?and if we have a free market in energy we will ensure that we find superior substitutes long before we run out.

Since the beginning of the oil industry, oil doomsayers, including prominent geologists, have been claiming that oil was running out, and would soon would run out or go scarce; in every case, oil supplies in general have increased.

A typical example: in 1939 the Department of the Interior forecast that U.S. oil supplies would be exhausted by 1952; 30 years later, not only had oil production not run out, it had tripled.

The year 2009 was one full of talk of ?peak oil,? and yet some of the most momentous, unexpected oil finds in history, especially in Brazil, followed each announcement.

Why are the ?experts,? so often wrong, and what can be expected for the future?

One reason is that the ?experts? routinely neglect or underestimate the capacity of the human mind to discover better methods of locating and extracting oil. In industry parlance, they falsely equate ?proven reserves??the amount of oil that is known to exist and be extractable in the present?with future production: the amount of oil that will be known and be extractable in the future.

This is a fallacious tactic. As a rule, in the future companies will have the knowledge and economic incentive to discover and harness oil that they do not have the knowledge and incentive to discover today. Oil companies locate new oil supplies as and when it makes sense to do so given their production projections and given market supply and demand. They have no way of knowing the total amount of oil that exists in the earth, and no need go to the expense of finding and validating any given new deposit until it is profitable to do so.

Over time, as demand increases and/or previous reservoirs becoming exhausted, the industry locates new oil and discovers new and better ways to extract it. For example, oil companies can now discover deposits thousands of feet below the ocean floor using 3-D magnetic imaging; they can extract many times the oil from a reservoir that they once could, using methods such as horizontal drilling or high-pressure gas and water injection; today?s ?easy oil? was yesterday?s ?impossible? oil.

End Part One.

[SallyRand]

Part Two:

The upshot? Despite decades of doomsaying, and even despite major restrictions on drilling in the U.S. and in other countries, the state of affairs is still one of growing production and ample supplies for decades to come. As oil economist Michael Lynch explained, as of 2009
?the consensus among geologists is that there are some 10 trillion barrels out there. A century ago, only 10 percent of it was considered recoverable, but improvements in technology should allow us to recover some 35 percent -- another 2.5 trillion barrels -- in an economically viable way. And this doesn?t even include such potential sources as tar sands, which in time we may be able to efficiently tap.

But surely oil supplies will run out or go scarce at some point? No?because at the same time that entrepreneurs have every incentive to develop more oil, they have every incentive to develop substitutes for oil (especially as oil prices rise). Oil itself was originally a substitute lamp oil for whale oil and animal oil, and then was replaced by the superior electric light-bulb. Oil was once a major source of electricity; it was superseded by coal and natural gas, which were better sources for fixed power generation.

To the extent it becomes expensive to extract oil from the earth in sufficient quantities, we can be sure that entrepreneurs will work to make substitute sources of fuel based on legitimately promising technologies, such as natural gas or coal, or that they will seek to create battery-powered vehicles charged with nuclear power or some yet undeveloped technology?to the extent that the government refrains from its policy of heavily restrict mining, drilling, and nuclear technology. It is government policy, not the finite quantity of any given raw material, that is the real threat to future energy supplies.

The upshot: we will never run out the energy we get from oil--unless we run out of freedom.

Myth #4: Because oil is mostly in other countries, they can cut us off at will and create an economic catastrophe.
??think of the instability and the impotence you feel knowing that every day we have to have a lifeline from places half a world away that could cut us off in a minute.? ?Bill Clinton, 2006.

Reality: International trade makes our energy supply more secure?and far more affordable.

Two-thirds of the oil Americans use is imported from other countries. This state of affairs is often derided as America?s ?dependence on foreign oil,? conjuring up thoughts of being helplessly at the mercy of Saudi Arabia. But our relationship with foreign companies is not some helpless dependence?it is trade that is vital to the interest of all involved. Canada, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico do not sell oil to the U.S. and other countries as an act of charity that they can effortlessly revoke; they do it because it is economically vital to their survival.

The idea that we are perpetually at the mercy of Saudi Arabia simply shutting off its spigots, which would be complete suicide for a country whose whole economy relies on oil, is absurd.

By the same token, it?s crucial to realize that we buy oil because it provides the value it does cheaper and better than anything else?and we buy oil from foreign countries because given present knowledge and technology, it is far, far cheaper to do that than to try to produce all of Americans? oil consumption domestically. (However, this is no way justifies America?s anti-development drilling restrictions in Alaska and on the Outer Continental Shelf, which should be lifted.)

To be sure, temporary supply disruptions are possible, whether due to political machinations or natural disasters?but in such cases free, international trade is the solution, not the problem. Higher oil prices resulting from decreased supply would spur new production (of oil or viable substitutes) among trading partners worldwide and limit consumption to its most valued uses.

In general, trade with other countries vastly increases our economic well-being and security. It affords us access to the cheapest oil sources in the world, and offers us more options in the event that some production is stopped. During Hurricane Katrina, our ?dependence on foreign oil? was vital to getting much-needed supplies of gasoline to the Gulf Coast when U.S. refineries shut down.

This is not to say that the current possession of oil by unfriendly or outright militant dictatorships is an ideal state of affairs--but the foreign policy mistakes that brought it are not solved by withdrawing from international trade.

Myth #5: Because oil money funds hostile dictatorships (Iran, Saudi Arabia) by using less oil we can make them poorer and make ourselves more secure.

?If President Bush made energy independence his moon shot, he would dry up revenue for terrorism [and] force Iran, Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to take the path of reform?? --Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, 2004

Reality: Direct threats to America must be fought through direct and decisive military action?not through multi-decade, sacrificial schemes to lower oil prices.

Iran and Saudi Arabia use ill-gotten profits to spread totalitarian Islamic ideology around the world and terrorize us with their minions. This, however, in no way justifies any attempt at ?energy independence??that is, renouncing international trade in energy, including the two-thirds of our oil we buy on the international market.

If, say, Iran's money is the problem, then the solution is to cut off Iran's money directly--for example, by organizing a global economic boycott against Iranian oil (not "foreign oil"). Why on earth should we give up two-thirds of the oil we need, an incalculable economic sacrifice? It is self-sacrificial and xenophobic to try to end our reliance on foreign oil as such and retreat into some kind of oil subsistence farm, in the hopes that this would someday lower Iran?s oil revenues. (This is especially dubious given skyrocketing oil demand from India and China.) It is an undeniable fact that Iran was an active, blossoming sponsor of terrorism when oil was at $10 and $20 a barrel (as was Saudi Arabia)?can anyone possibly believe that focusing on lowering oil prices over a period of decades would accomplish anything besides giving Iran more time to develop nukes, while undermining America?s economy and military?

Myth #6: Because the burning of oil produces CO2, oil is a deadly pollutant that must be severely capped.

?As President, I will set a hard cap on all carbon emissions at a level that scientists say is necessary to curb global warming-- an 80% reduction by 2050.? --Barack Obama, 2007

Reality: Carbon-caps, not carbon emissions, are the real deadly threat to human life.

It is taken for granted that any negative impact that results as a byproduct of burning oil and fossil fuels is a justification for limiting fossil fuels?even by the U.N.?s widely-accepted figure of 80%.

But this utterly evades the benefits we get from oil and fossil fuels that cannot be substituted for on any foreseeable timetables by the ?green? technologies favored by environmentalists. (See Myth #2.)

Fossil fuels supply 85% of our energy?the energy that makes the difference between a 40-year life expectancy and an 80-year life-expectancy, the energy that protects men from thunderstorms, rising sea levels, temperature extremes, drought, etc. Whether or not global warming proves substantial, these are problems that confront any society, and only industrial-scale energy is capable of solving. Thus, we need to factor into our thinking the benefits of increased CO2 energy and the harms of slashing oil and fossil fuel use by 80%. And, as we have seen, there is no evidence of any viable ?green? substitute for oil.

Loose talk of a ?climate change catastrophe? evades the fact that industrial energy makes catastrophes non-catastrophic. In Africa, a drought can wipe out hundreds of thousands of lives thanks to that continent?s rejection of capitalism and resultant lack of industrial energy.

In America, we irrigate so well that deserts have become the most desirable places to live (think Southern California and Las Vegas).

Economic freedom, not climate, is the fundamental determiner of human well-being. Left free to discover and harness energy, human beings can adapt to any change in weather. But there is no adapting to a mass, government-created drought of energy. There are already 1.5 billion people in the world who live without electricity. What they need is not a stagnant average global temperature; they need capitalism, including cheap, affordable fossil fuels.

The 6 myths about oil all count on the fact that we have not been taught to truly value or understand oil, the oil industry, and the capitalist system that have made them so prominent.

How often do we hear that oil is a source of incredible value to human life, past, present, and future? How often do we hear about of the forward-looking ingenuity of the oil industry and other energy industries to keep finding new and better ways to harness raw materials from the earth. How often do we hear about the great benefits of international trade in energy? Almost never.

It?s time to start talking about these positives and talk about liberating, not restricting, oil production. Otherwise, in the name of being ?clean? and ?green? we will adopt policies that will sentence ourselves and our children to energy poverty.

Alex Epstein is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, focusing on business issues. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of ?Atlas Shrugged? and ?The Fountainhead.?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/12/29/myths-oil/

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by ottopottomouse

Because the US isn't the world and the rest of us use the other 80%

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Word wide demand, America is just one part of the pie of many slices, and speculation across all markets.

Don't give me any bullshit about "world markets". Why is oil the only resource who's price is decided by "world demand"? Do we sell coal, natural gas, and timber by "worldwide supply and demand"? No, of course not. What the fuck does oil from Canada and sold in the US have to do with OPEC?

The top three oil producers - in order - are... Russia, Saudi Arabia, and in third the United States. So why does OPEC decide the worldwide price of oil? Canada is the largest importer of oil to the US - do you think Canada wants to sell it's oil to China, or the US? Clearly it's going to be cheaper for them to sell to the US because it's costly for them to ship oil half way around the world.

OPEC can bring us to our knees instantly - they've done it before. In 1973 they did an oil embargo because of US support for Israel during the the Yom Kippur war. You don't think they can do it again?

[suesheboy]

gas consumption in the US has been falling for years.

India and China are demanding more raising the prices.

Shove that up Foxes ass

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Don't give me any bullshit about "world markets". Why is oil the only resource who's price is decided by "world demand"? Do we sell coal, natural gas, and timber by "worldwide supply and demand"? No, of course not. What the fuck does oil from Canada and sold in the US have to do with OPEC?

The top three oil producers - in order - are... Russia, Saudi Arabia, and in third the United States. So why does OPEC decide the worldwide price of oil? Canada is the largest importer of oil to the US - do you think Canada wants to sell it's oil to China, or the US? Clearly it's going to be cheaper for them to sell to the US because it's costly for them to ship oil half way around the world.

OPEC can bring us to our knees instantly - they've done it before. In 1973 they did an oil embargo because of US support for Israel during the the Yom Kippur war. You don't think they can do it again?

Well the demand for oil and use of it throughout the world is growing while it is shrinking in the States. That alone gives us less bargaining power, if another Country is willing to buy more and pays more, it's business we have to fight for, and that's more reasons to speculate on future costs.

Then just look at how we buy/sell it, we speculate on the value of our own supply based on the demands within our own country and around the world. If the supply slips in the States or in another Country, and demand holds or grows, the costs go up. That happens in natural business, then add in speculation and a few other reasons (one prob being opec) and we have the huge explosion in costs today.

[wig]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Don't give me any bullshit about "world markets". Why is oil the only resource who's price is decided by "world demand"? Do we sell coal, natural gas, and timber by "worldwide supply and demand"? No, of course not. What the fuck does oil from Canada and sold in the US have to do with OPEC?

The top three oil producers - in order - are... Russia, Saudi Arabia, and in third the United States. So why does OPEC decide the worldwide price of oil? Canada is the largest importer of oil to the US - do you think Canada wants to sell it's oil to China, or the US? Clearly it's going to be cheaper for them to sell to the US because it's costly for them to ship oil half way around the world.

OPEC can bring us to our knees instantly - they've done it before. In 1973 they did an oil embargo because of US support for Israel during the the Yom Kippur war. You don't think they can do it again?

Already been answered.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by Rochard

What I fail to understand is.. OPEC. Why the fuck does a Middle East organization control the world wide price of oil when the bulk of the oil imported from the US comes from Canada and Mexico?

so what's your theory then? why does OPEC exert such control?

we've heard your US/Canada/Mexico argument before. yet, for some reason, US, Canadian, and Mexican oil isn't cheaper in the two commodities markets which determine it's price.

and what then do you want to do about OPEC?

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by DateDoc

If there were no speculators affecting the price of oil the price would be between $60-$70 right now.

if true, what are you allowed to do about that?

why should it stop?

what forces could stop it?

[papill0n]

lol @ any fucking idiot playing games with this tool

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by papill0n

lol @ any fucking idiot playing games with this tool

i figure most people are ignoring the OP, and just idly discussing the topic of oil and gasoline prices.

we can summarize teh OP's argument as "oil companies deserve every gov benefit they can get, socialism is good for oil multinationals" - basically straight republican party line.

personally I doubt our pro-multinational congress will touch oil welfare. they'll yak yak yak and do something symbolic maybe, but write in loopholes that takes any oversight and muscle out of the final bill.

[SallyRand]

Originally Posted by Bill8

i figure most people are ignoring the OP, and just idly discussing the topic of oil and gasoline prices.

we can summarize teh OP's argument as "oil companies deserve every gov benefit they can get, socialism is good for oil multinationals" - basically straight republican party line.

personally I doubt our pro-multinational congress will touch oil welfare. they'll yak yak yak and do something symbolic maybe, but write in loopholes that takes any oversight and muscle out of the final bill.

I think you need to cite examples of "oil welfare" as well as "loopholes" such that you may add to your credibility account which is now seriously in arrears.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by SallyRand

I think you need to cite examples of "oil welfare" as well as "loopholes" such that you may add to your credibility account which is now seriously in arrears.

you're a twit and a joke. we all know your story.

however, the oil welfare comment has some validity - in this case, I am using that phrase to indicate how people perceive it and how it has been described.

is it oil "welfare", as welfare is commonly understood, direct payments from the government, like farm subsidies? no.

is it a special priviledge from the government that is commonly perceived by a majority of citizens as a form of corporate welfare? the answer to that is probably yes.

tax policy has it's uses. personally I don't care if you republicans are successful in keeping that tax priviledge in place. it will just be used against you in future elections, as evidence of your hypocrisy.

so you go for it girl.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by Bill8

. it will just be used against you in future elections, as evidence of your hypocrisy.

so you go for it girl.

the good thing is, you republicans will get more campaign money from the oil multinationals.

so there's that.

it probably evens out.

hey, maybe you can even use that campaign money to defeat obama. that'd be cool.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Well the demand for oil and use of it throughout the world is growing while it is shrinking in the States. That alone gives us less bargaining power, if another Country is willing to buy more and pays more, it's business we have to fight for, and that's more reasons to speculate on future costs.

Then just look at how we buy/sell it, we speculate on the value of our own supply based on the demands within our own country and around the world. If the supply slips in the States or in another Country, and demand holds or grows, the costs go up. That happens in natural business, then add in speculation and a few other reasons (one prob being opec) and we have the huge explosion in costs today.

But why do we base it on supply and demand? The more they charge us, the less the demand, and the more supply. Do they charge me more for a bottle of water in Phoenix where it's hotter because of more demand? I think not.

If demand grows, costs go up? Why? It costs less to produce more in bulk. If I buy ten million barrels the price is set at once price, but if I buy fifteen million barrels it should be cheaper, right?

Why is the price of oil going up? Because of Libya? They produce two percent of the world's oil, nearly all of which goes to Europe? Libya can stop producing oil in the morning and it shouldn't have any affect on the price of oil in the US...

[SallyRand]

Originally Posted by Bill8

you're a twit and a joke. we all know your story.

however, the oil welfare comment has some validity - in this case, I am using that phrase to indicate how people perceive it and how it has been described.

is it oil "welfare", as welfare is commonly understood, direct payments from the government, like farm subsidies? no.

is it a special priviledge from the government that is commonly perceived by a majority of citizens as a form of corporate welfare? the answer to that is probably yes.

tax policy has it's uses. personally I don't care if you republicans are successful in keeping that tax priviledge in place. it will just be used against you in future elections, as evidence of your hypocrisy.

so you go for it girl.

Specific examples please.

Citations are usually pretty good for the purpose.

Al Gore is not a citation!

LOL!

Your rhetoric is not, shall we say, "Responsive"?

And remember, you should capitalize the first letter of the first word with which a sentence begins. I mean, Jesus Christ on a raft! How do expect to convince anyone that your views are correct if you can't even express them properly?

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Bill8

so what's your theory then? why does OPEC exert such control?

we've heard your US/Canada/Mexico argument before. yet, for some reason, US, Canadian, and Mexican oil isn't cheaper in the two commodities markets which determine it's price.

and what then do you want to do about OPEC?

I have no idea how OPEC came into being. If I was forced to guess, I would say it had something to do with the close of WWII, in which oil played a huge part - Countries couldn't fight if they didn't have oil.

In 1973 they brought us to our knees with their gas embargo because of our support of Israel. I don't remember this, I was too young; But I know about it because of the history of the automotive industry and how cars changed drastically over night. They can do it again too.

What to do about it? Simple. Go to Mexico and Canada and tell them they need to leave OPEC or we won't buy any oil from them. I'm guessing Mexico and Canada would rather deal with us directly. Venezuela? They'll fold too. Why? Simple. If oil is $100 a barrel but they have to ship it to Europe it's going to cost them four times as much to get it there.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

The 1 Myth about Silly Rant is:

Sidney is a woman...





ADG

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by Rochard

What to do about it? Simple. Go to Mexico and Canada and tell them they need to leave OPEC or we won't buy any oil from them. I'm guessing Mexico and Canada would rather deal with us directly. Venezuela? They'll fold too. Why? Simple. If oil is $100 a barrel but they have to ship it to Europe it's going to cost them four times as much to get it there.

ahhhhh. well, you may recall, the iraq invasion was touted as an opec killer by it's supporters. I often wondered why the opec killer angle was dropped once we were enmired.

sounds like a great plan - one hitch tho - the 'we won't buy from them" part.

"we won't buy from them" requires us to first be able to do without oil, or it's an empty threat.

I like the idea of us being able to produce more of our energy needs intranationally, so I would support anything that furthers that end.

one hears that the big mexican fields are depleting even faster then predicted, but venezuala has a lot of that really tarry brown oil. we could make special deals with either venezuala or canada, deals good enough to perhaps entice them out of opec.

but, unless we can actually "not buy oil", it's hard to see why they would be induced to lower prices.

we could always hold a gun to their head. that worked so well in iraq.

[SallyRand]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

The 1 Myth about Silly Rant is:

Sidney is a woman...





ADG

Of course ADG, the Red Herring is the last resort of those who cannot intelligently reply in any meaningful manner to the matter under discussion.

Your simplistic Photoshop has been noted, graded (A D-minus, by the way) and although mildly amusing, relegated to the round file.

Why don't you come back to the thread when you have something to post that indicates even a modicum of sentience?

[papill0n]

rochard has no concept of peak oil, the actual amount of oil the us consumes, middle east relations or how to pick a ripe papaya

[papill0n]

Originally Posted by SallyRand

Of course ADG, the Red Herring is the last resort of those who cannot intelligently reply in any meaningful manner to the matter under discussion.

Your simplistic Photoshop has been noted, graded (A D-minus, by the way) and although mildly amusing, relegated to the round file.

Why don't you come back to the thread when you have something to post that indicates even a modicum of sentience?

yeah because it makes a lot of sense to discuss oil and gas prices with a guy who in all probability looks exactly like that one in the pink number

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by SallyRand

Specific examples please.

Your rhetoric is not, shall we say, "Responsive"?

And remember, you should capitalize the first letter of the first word with which a sentence begins. I mean, Jesus Christ on a raft! How do expect to convince anyone that your views are correct if you can't even express them properly?

the lower case is an affectation. I use it when I am arguing politics or policy, to indicate that all this stuff is bullshit, no matter who's doing the argument.

technically, my rhetoric IS responsive, it is however not supported by demonstrations or examples.

since my claim is that the majority of the citizenry "probably" supports the language of "oil welfare", lets see what google says.

17,300,000 results. 17+ mil results could be said to imply that it is a commonly used phrase.

http://www.google.com/search?q=oil+c...ddress&ie=&oe=

this is not a proof of course, but is an example and a demonstration.

[Joshua G]

Originally Posted by SallyRand

I challenge any of you to prove anything in this editorial to be incorrect, falsified or just plain wrong!

Another argument that often circulates when gas prices go up is that a phantom class of ?Wall Street speculators? is to blame for the increase of prices. In 2008 this school of thought was so persuasive that President Bush commissioned an exhaustive review, via the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, looking into the effect that speculators had on market prices. Their conclusion was surprising, according to The Wall Street Journal, ?The agency concluded that speculators?otherwise known as traders?were putting downward pressure on prices. The liquidity they provide helps to smooth volatility.?

Not satisfied with the 2008 study, President Obama recently resurrected this school of thought, even tapping Attorney General Eric Holder to police perceived illegal activity and price gouging. Yet within the presidents? own administration, the Federal Trade Commission found that the recent spike in oil prices is due primarily to normal market forces, including booming demand from developing economies in India and China and not because of any questionable behavior from Wall Street.

I think this passage is nonsense in light of the oil price crash of last week. There was nothing in the "fundamentals" that caused the biggest one week selloff ever in the oil market.

[SallyRand]

Originally Posted by Bill8

the lower case is an affectation. I use it when I am arguing politics or policy, to indicate that all this stuff is bullshit, no matter who's doing the argument.

technically, my rhetoric IS responsive, it is however not supported by demonstrations or examples.

since my claim is that the majority of the citizenry "probably" supports the language of "oil welfare", lets see what google says.

17,300,000 results. 17+ mil results could be said to imply that it is a commonly used phrase.

http://www.google.com/search?q=oil+c...ddress&ie=&oe=

this is not a proof of course, but is an example and a demonstration.

I call "Shenanigans!"

You have failed in evry respect to support your insane claims with specific references, choosing instead to provide links to the same sort of excrement which you are spouting on this forum.

Doesn't count.

"technically, my rhetoric IS responsive, it is however not supported by demonstrations or examples."

In simple terms, you cannot in any manner support your absurd, misleading and quite possibly dangerous claims.

Got it.

Thank you for outing yourself as the fool and tool that you are.

[Bill8]

"oil welfare" gets 27 million results.

[papill0n]

Originally Posted by SallyRand

I call "Shenanigans!"

You have failed in evry respect to support your insane claims with specific references, choosing instead to provide links to the same sort of excrement which you are spouting on this forum.

Doesn't count.

"technically, my rhetoric IS responsive, it is however not supported by demonstrations or examples."

In simple terms, you cannot in any manner support your absurd, misleading and quite possibly dangerous claims.

Got it.

Thank you for outing yourself as the fool and tool that you are.

lol listen to this guy

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by SallyRand

Thank you for outing yourself as the fool and tool that you are.

I am always intrigued by valid rhetorical challenges to my presentation.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Rochard

But why do we base it on supply and demand? The more they charge us, the less the demand, and the more supply. Do they charge me more for a bottle of water in Phoenix where it's hotter because of more demand? I think not.

If demand grows, costs go up? Why? It costs less to produce more in bulk. If I buy ten million barrels the price is set at once price, but if I buy fifteen million barrels it should be cheaper, right?

Why is the price of oil going up? Because of Libya? They produce two percent of the world's oil, nearly all of which goes to Europe? Libya can stop producing oil in the morning and it shouldn't have any affect on the price of oil in the US...

Water is not in short supply in Phoenix.

Because they speculate.

When you have demand and no supply, you charge more.... a rare mustang sales more than a more common one, because it's rare.

World demand shifts costs, if one country stops buying or starts over buying, it hits everyone across the world.

Same with all things pulled from earth... China did buy a ton of rare earth metals and over night the price doubled. Higher demand, same supply = higher prices.

It's natural business, and add in speculation that increases/decreases based on what 'people' think, you get the big fluctuation we have.

[SallyRand]

Originally Posted by Bill8

"oil welfare" gets 27 million results.

So?

I asked for one valid, non-rhetorical citation.

Can't seem to get one.

"Crazy Liberal" gets: About 20,100,000 results (0.19 seconds)

I think maybe you have been watching and listening to this fat fuck far too much:

[ThatOtherGuy - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Fox news is a total spin though. Obama's Energy Policies have largely succeeded.

"To make matters worse, solar and wind cannot even provide reliable, expensive electricity, because they use inherently intermittent sources of power--sunshine and wind gusts. Whereas coal, natural gas, and nuclear can generate the massive, precise, and reliable flows of power a modern economy require, wind and solar cannot—which is why they are always used as auxiliary, not primary, sources of power on electric grids. Think about it: Would you want your parent’s hospital room powered by the wind?"

Because the sun is going to explode and the wind will stop? What sort of logic is this?

I got a small story about Solar Power.
My families house is 100% powered by Solar on the roof and an Omni that tracks the sun. They are off grid they pay no electricity. Zero none nada. If the sun were to just mysteriously stop shinning they would have enough electricty to run for 4 days.
Many people are mislead to believe that Solar is all based on Sunlight, and for the most part it is but the real deal is in the battery storage. The sun is not going away anytime soon.

If Wind Power is such a joke not so far from my house on the way to Sacramento there is an incredible field of Wind Power Mill's they run 24-7 and the little known secret is the Power company that runs them is often asked by PG&E to shut down because they generate to much power.

I know most people will fall for the lies and spoon fed information on the news thats how things are but just a little education on things can be a real eye opener. Alternative Energy is the real deal, special interest's donot want people putting Solar Panels on there homes it is an direct afront to interest groups and think tanks that want Americans paying alot in energy. The technology of Solar has increased incredibly as of late and it is mind blowing. If even 30% of homes across the USA were Solar the Power companies would shit bricks trying to cover up the loss in revenue. Some solar panels today resemble the normal looking tiles that are on roof's it takes a closer look to realise what they are and hardly an eye sore if one wanted to blend in with the neighborhood's rooves. California State has mandated all Public Building have Solar Power by some certain date I forget when. So Renewable energies are here to stay.

Fox news really caters to the lowest denominator of people so stories such as the above is no surprise.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by SallyRand

So?

I asked for one valid, non-rhetorical citation.

Can't seem to get one.

"Crazy Liberal" gets: About 20,100,000 results (0.19 seconds)

I think maybe you have been watching and listening to this fat fuck far too much:

Well they get a 3% cut written straight into the tax code. Then many states give oil companies major breaks on land/property, when they already denied others, which would have made the state more tax dollars on that land for the state vs. the fed.

Come on... they get a lot of benefits, tax breaks, subsidies all of which is oil welfare. Some may pay, others get major benefits.

Let's get off the oil welfare which is factual and back onto the real fake crap in this thread.... those fox articles you posted.

[devilspost]

[charlie g]

Originally Posted by SallyRand

I am an old scamming tranny.....blah blah blah

No one takes you seriously sally. You've been "outed".



Rock Cock Jayhawk a c corp will set you free to scam and commit fraud. I am virginia wolf, I cause problems.......... dumbass






.

[moeloubani]

lol sally rand you he she

tell us about how you play with your clit old man lol

what a fucking JOKE