New Republican coordinated plan to blame Democrats for high oil prices - Page 6

Tell ya what: Why don't you summarize Obama's plan to aid the economy. I can't wait.

Go to his website and read his proposals yourself.

Yes SDW! Why don't you do as Northgate has suggested?

Could it be that you don't want to?

If you can't keep up with general information it's not our job to do that for you.

All it does is waste time. We've already decided we like Obama.

I'll even give you a link.

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

An interesting thing to note. NBC Nightly News quoted OSBL from 1999 as saying that " When oil is $144.00 a barrel that will punish the United States ".

Oil was breifly trading today at $144.00 a barrel.

just in...Scientists and researchers confirm what I was telling you last week!

http://www.physorg.com/news134646313.html


And of interest. Republican manipulation - ie lets make our friends happy and screw everyone else in the world.


Its time to take to the streets and have a revolution. Speculators, Republicans and the federal reserve. Scum

Libya, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia - telling the truth. It makes you wonder who is the real enemy.

Yup! It's things like this that make you question the whole thing!

On what basis do you make this claim? That speculators are republicans? That the minority party in the US Congress is making all the policy in the past two years of oil-run up? Huh?

Didn't George recently almost beg the Saudis to increase production? Hmmm. The said no. Why?

Hmmm.. George is a Republican. Hmmm....

Gotta hurt.

Honestly. I agree. They are all involved and are all in denial. Why not? When the main flow of money, profit and power is either drying up or that the straw in the milkshake is changing hands?

Oil = Old and Busted
??? = New Hotness

I seriously have not seen this kind of misguided ignorance and stupidity in a long time.

were the Democrats the majority party in congress when the oil futures market was deregulated in early 2006?

As you seem to have 'passed' on the rest of my analysis, I guess we can take it to mean that you conceed that the majority of the oil price spike is the result of speculation, just like I have been saying for weeks.

Also, I recall that you said somewhere that speculators cushion the market price fluctuations from the consumer - could you explain exactly how that works? I'm having trouble seeing how the world is being cushioned from the recession that has being caused by the raw price of crude oil quadrupling over the last few years.

The sky is blue. Obama's logo is blue. Shazzam!

You're looking at a very narrow, simplistic, partisan explanation. That's your prerogative. I think it's funny considering we've heard for years and years about how the houses of Bush and Saud are one in the same. Doesn't quite seem so in this case, now does it?

Meanwhile, a good number of us are looking at a complex market. The Saudis are not receiving the full value benefit of the high oil prices. The dollar has lost 30-40% of its value, so in terms of real value, the Saudis are receiving far less than the full increase in the price of oil. If you are buying a barrel of oil, and your currencies are worth less, then it takes more to buy it. It's that simple. THIS is what fiat currencies across the globe deliver. But it's election season, so... BUSHco!

The Saudis have already increased production, against the wishes of OPEC. It is not their job to bail us out of every sling we find ourselves in WRT energy. The problem has been brought about by the bad bipartisan energy policies of 20 years. I know it doesn't fit your "Grand Oil Party" narrative, but it is the honest state of affairs.

While we're at it... does this mean you'll join me in the call for domestic production, such that people like the Saudis and OPEC do not have such leverage? Didn't think so. \

But what is the point? I begrudgingly would not resist the domestic drilling for oil, but until the powers that be confess up to the real nature of the beast and the problem, there is no point.

Yes it makes sense to be energy independant of the ME, but in reality, drilling domestically does nothing to stem the problem, its a very small drop in a very large ocean, and the only solution is to address the problem directly, not to stick a temporary bandage over a very large wound.

Domestic drilling is akin to using tissue paper to stem the flow of blood after your leg has been cut off - Why are the most powerful people in the world suggesting this as a solution?

Please, Marc, tell me what you know about deregulation of the energy markets. Probably about as much regarding the reasons and successes as you do about the role of commodities trading in the economy. You do know that energy deregulation has been a smashing success in most areas of the US, and has held prices down through increased competition.


Here's a read for you.
... and another.

Also, I can tell you exactly what would happen in todays economic climate if plans for domestic drilling were announced tomorrow for development as soon as...

The price of oil would drop for a few days by about $3 a barrel - only to rise next week by $10 a barrel as speculator spin announced that it would do nothing to impact oil supply and demand.

That is exactly what has happened on every news announcement over the last year, speculators spin it into negative news to justify another rise in oil prices...

Inventory stocks go down - speculator spin - oil $ goes up
Inventory stocks go up - speculator spin - oil $ goes up
Oil production decreases - - speculator spin - oil $ goes up
Oil production increases - - speculator spin - oil $goes up
China subsidises domestic oil prices - - speculator spin - oil $ goes up
China desubsidises domestic oil prices - speculator spin - oil $ goes up
India/Asia subsidises .......- speculator spin - oil $ goes up
India/Asia desubsideses......- speculator spin - oil $ goes up
Iran threatens Isreal.........- speculator spin - oil $ goes up
Iran says no threat to Israel......- speculator spin - oil $ goes up
Nigerian rebels attacks on pipelines......- speculator spin - oil $ goes up
Nigerians fix said oil pipelines.....- speculator spin - oil $ goes up
Libya threatens to reduce oversupply to market.......- speculator spin - oil $ goes up

and so on, and so on.

You and the pathetic western leaders need to get a grip before its too late. Its not supply and demand that is causing this, its speculators.

BTW, what is happening to all this oversupply of oil? It couldn't be that it is sitting in tanker ships somewhere, just waiting for the speculators to drive up the price so that oil companies make more $ per delivery could it?

Which is why there is no simplistic solution.. like "fuck the speculators" or "conserve more" or "drill more" as standalone fixes. It's going to take quite a few things to help all this get better.

First, we've passed the point of no return on the value of the dollar and other currencies. That has to be dealt with.

Second, we cannot conserve our way out of this and grow our economy.

Third, if you think regulation is the answer, then get those Congressional democrats out there loud and proud with a solution that is good for the country, and have them explain what they've done in two years of power to avert this.

Fourth, we need to start now to avoid the political and strategic problems of the future by producing oil from ground not owned by sheiks and dictators. This is common sense.

Fifth, we need nuclear power in the French mould. They can do it. We can too.

Sixth, a "carbon tax" will do one basic thing- blow up the US economy.

Ommmm... the mantra continues.

Did you read those articles I posted?

give me a chance FFS, but yes I have just read them. Both.

So explain how this system is cushioning the world from the effects of market fluctuations.

Answer, it isn't, it doesn't work, it isn't working, their is only so much potential for cushioning, and when things go out of control, there is no mechanism to reign them in.

Would this explanation help?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=8878

Don't want to post the whole article, so the article should be read to understand this part.


Supply and Demand.

I agree there is not a solution - but as im just an armchair spectator, tell me why it is that our glorious leaders have only managed to come up with solutions, that even by my scale of understanding (apparently) are a pile of shit.

Even I can see that begging SA to increase production...drilling ANWR...is a complete joke, that demonstrates that either the policy makers have (a) no fucking clue, or (b) are content - for their own self interest - to let things carry on as they are.


Bull. Raise your interest rate to 5%, take the pain, and watch things sort themselves out.


Well you're going to have to aren't you. You can kick and scream all you like, but soon the oil prices really will be rising to astronomical levels because of supply and demand and what are you going to do then?


The solution that is good for the country is to raise interest rates. Given where we are today, there is pain to be had regardless - the US is screwed, Personally, i'd like the US to experience deep depression and vanish into obscurity, but for the interests of this conversation of doing what is best for repairing the economy, a raise in rates, appreciation of the dollar, investors/speculators divering oil money back into currencies - suffering the financial pain of recession and getting it over with as quickly as possible is the best solution.


Yes it is apparent common sense, but when its such a small % of US consumption, what IS the point.? They are not going to sell that oil to domestic markets cheaper than the going international rate are they? Until the cause of the problem is addressed, everything else is utter moot.


I wont argue with that. IMO environmentalist objecting to nuclear power are the biggest bunch of fuckwits on the planet, after the admin of course


Its already blowing up! Havn't you noticed?

Now is the time to get to the root cause and build the infrastructure for the next era of the 21st/22nd century economy. No-one has the balls to do it, neither 'scums or Dems.

China & Asia, Europe and the middle east will be/have started doing it, but just like the devastation that has ripped through Detroits motor industry in the last 30 years - because of management and leadership 'fossils' living in the past, the US will be left behind - which is fine IMO, but for the sake of discussion.....

So. In summary.

We all agree that supply and demand is part of the problem. We all agree that market speculation and deregulation is part of the problem. We all agree that no one can agree on a solution.

So. Based on the name of the thread I conclude that only Democrats can be blamed for this mess. Why? Because.

Just clarify something....

Does withholding 'supply' to manipulate the markets - fall under the traditional scope of 'supply and demand' economics or not?

I would have thought that is illegal, and if it isn't, it bloody well should be.

I hint sarcasm there...but..oil hasn't only run our vehicles, it has run our wars, our government system, economic system and our own mindsets too long. Time for a major overhaul, or honestly the world is fucked.

A small anecdote. There is a very well known company in Hollywood called Moviola. They invented the editing machine and produced thousands of Moviola's for over 60 years. Moviola is still thriving to this day.

But guess what? They don't produce editing machines anymore. In fact, they don't manufacture anything. But they have an amazing brand identity. Moviola is synonymous with editing.

What does Moviola do now? They're a school. What? Yes, they are in the business of teaching editors how to use Final Cut Pro, Avid, Sony Vegas and Premiere. They teach editors how to use ProTools, Motion and After Effects.

So what the hell is your point North?

My point is that companies like Exxon Mobile and Chevron could very easily pivot the focus of their business away from oil and into alternative fuel sources like hydrogen. While the traditional oil based infrastructure slowly dies a new business will blossom.

Rather than let Adobe, Apple and Avid steal Moviola's antiquated business out from underneath them, they adjusted and learned there was just as viable a business in teaching the craft of editing as there was in building the hardware needed do so.

which is what is so frustrating about the whole situation.

The private sector could have long started creating the infrastructure for the hydrogen economy, people would pay for it. Toyota have sold over a million prius' (regardless of whether they actually save energy or not) so there is a demand for a premium product. Honda is ready to release a purely hydrogen powered car, which costs megabucks - but there will be demand for it and it will sell.

All the prius' and Honda's in the world will make no dent in oil consumption to start with - so there is still money for profits from oil - and additionally, there is profit to be made from these new premium products.

If all that has to happen is that over the next 50 years, whatever money is lost through slowing oil sales is recouped through growing hydrogen sales then how have Exxon lost out?

At the end of the day, there is 'x' amount of dollars to be made in supplying energy. Who gives a 'financial' toss if that energy and its profit comes from a growing new technology?

Its absolutely insane not to pursue the new technology, when we know full well that the old technology is reaching the end of its useful cycle and is increasingly being bought to market with ever increasing physical and political difficulty.

That is why we need young, forward looking leaders and politicians. Not geriatric old time fossils like McCain.

I already mentioned most of the above from more recent congressional hearings in a previous post.

Don't know what you meant by your last statement though?

The alternative fuels market needs a massive shot in the arm similar to the space race of the 1960's. Without it the development of these technologies will take much longer.

The only way for battery technology to make quick breakthroughs the United States will have to invest in the R&D through direct funding and tax breaks. The only to learn how to refine hydrogen efficiently is through the same types of massive funding.

If you do not have the political will in this country to do this then it's not going to happen. Look around here. Folks don't want to talk about the future, they'd rather derail every single discussion about whether or not we've achieved peak oil or whether Anwar should be exploited.

Hence we never really create a plan.

We just argue and argue.

The hindcast POV is dig and drill, dig and drill, dig and drill, ..., ad infinitum.

The forecast POV is dig less and drill less and diversify more.

It's like we're on this global treadmill of stupidity, can't stop, must keep up, no matter what.

Planet Earth has something to say in all this, and that is, natural ecology trumps human economics.

Planet Earth is under siege, it is undergoing a form of pollution, the likes of which have never been seen before from a single species, it's called human population pollution.

The solution to pollution is dilution. An old dictum. The solution to pollution is distribution. A new dictum.

Pollution

yes we are, but who is maintaining this?

If it was put to vote to every single person in the world.

1) Spend war budgets, defence budgets, a proportion of tax revenue...on R&D into creating and developing a sustainable world hydrogen economy, its infrastructure, and machines

2) Carry on as we are

What is the result? 90% to 10% in favour of option 1

Who are the ignorant 10%? Why are they in power?

The meek shall inherit the Earth. Meek != Humans

Except that conserve more has a track record of working. We were able to reduce oil usage 15% between 1979 and 1983. That's about a decade faster than trying to increase oil supply by drilling new fields and we wont increase world oil production by 15% any ime soon.


While we had a recession during this period recovery began in 1983 (with a continued reduction) with very little increase in oil use during the period of recovery (83-85) and growth. Therefore we certainly can grow our economy with flat oil growth since we did so in the past.

Arguably the reduction in oil use helped recovery since oil prices fell due to reduced demand. Which certainly WOULD help the economy...about a decade faster than drilling.


Which we continue to do. In any case, MOST of our oil comes from nearby "non shiek" sources anyway. And a 15% reduction in oil use will further reduce dependence on shiek/dictator oil.


Following France's footsteps has not historically been a great idea. I'm thinking the same level of investment is not likely the best course of action. Trying to get to 75%-80% of electricity supplied by nuclear plants in the US will far require more than the 56 plants that France has.

We have 104 nuclear plants providing 20% of our power. We'd have to build roughly an additional 300 plants to get to the desired 75-80% goal. A new unit at Calvert Cliffs is estimated to cost $4B. Uh, $1.2T is talking real money here.

I think I'll be happy to simply increase what we have by 50-100% and not quadupling them.

But you stated,

and I was pointing out that they had no regulatory power because,

So the CFTC has no regulatory power because, why?
In any case, if I missed what you posted, my bad, just countering Jubelum's defense of speculators.
Had to laugh when the author of the NYSun article did an SDW, "Even if true"

Should have inserted the appropriate emoticon at the end of my previous post.
Nothing for sarcasm?

OK. In my previous post I indicated that the CFTC had regulatory discretion, had used it four times, between 1976 and 1980 (Carter administration), and had not used their regulatory authority since then.

However, you did mention the usual suspects, the un-regulators, the Bush administration, which appoints the CFTC commissioners via Senate approval. The "open up our free markets and do us all in the backside at the same time folks."

so today I was thinking about this thread at work, and the hydrogen economy - and I thought to myself - "the problem with hydrogen is that it is hard to distribute".

Then I thought - well, "what molecule contains a lot of hydrogen"

After some time remembering some basic chemistry, I thought to myself, "Ammonia, isn't that NH3 or NH4 or something, - I'll google it when I get home"

So the results of my google.

Ammonia, NH3 - gas or liquid. Good start

Then i thought, how would you liberate the hydrogen from the Nitrogen, is this like Water hydrolysis?

Cue Wikipedia..so, ammonia was already used as a fuel, bet ya didn't know that!

I googled some more, and found this, A zero emission car running on Ammonia

http://nh3car.com/index.htm

Then I thought, well wouldn't that be better if the hydrogen was liberated from the Nitrogen...Yup its possible. Enter the Ammonia cracker

http://pesn.com/2005/05/24/6900101_ZAP_ammonia_cracker/

There you go, one hours googling, all the pieces are in place for saving-the-world™

Ammonia - second most produced chemical in the world by quantity, can be made from renewable sources or Nuclear power, is not possible to really run out of it - existing infrastructure already exists for large and massive distribution, is liquid - reasonably safe to handle, stored in tanks, easy to distrubute.

Im not claiming this is the answer to the problems, but it could be that it is a reasonable next step technology or a stop-gap solution until better hydrogen distribution becomes available.

It already exists in quantity, and people are demonstrating it as a clean fuel source. But as always, I bet no-one knew anything about it.


[edit]oh, so nearly nearly forgot. If you get stuck out in the outback - all you have to do is piss in your car tank and wait!

I'm investing in cat farms.

I thought the real problem is the source. Where ya going to get it all from?

I think the idea is getting it from animal and human waste.

Tchaikovsky is raining in my ears now...

---
Sounds cool.

I was thinking last night, if the US spent 20 billion dollars in today's money to develop the atomic bomb and employed 130,000 people, then spent 135 billion in today's money to "send a man to the moon" (ie, develop intercontinental ballistic missile technology), why can we not do the same now regarding the energy crisis and the environment? Perhaps because it's not for war but rather a cause of war? We are willing to spend billions of dollars and countless man hours to prepare and fight wars, but can't seem to find a worthwhile reason to fix the energy crisis.

The silence is telling.

The premise of this article is flawed. Oil futures can be bid up without physical transfer of said oil. Where is all this futures oil? In the ground. So someone can always buy that stored oil at a higher price than the last person. With the oil in the ground being the bank.

In fact the premise is downright ludicrous, you buy land, you sell land. Does one put that land in a bank for safe deposit? Absolutely not. The land doesn't move, and neither does the oil, but if you bet on higher oil prices, and sell that oil in the ground to someone else (at a higher price), and they in turn sell it to someone else (at a higher price), and they in turn sell it to someone else (at a higher price). ..., ad infinitum, guess what happens when that oil actually does come out of the ground? It gets physically transfered at ~2X of it's original market value.

I'll take what the WSJ. or Fortune Magazine. or whatever financial periodical you care to mention with a grain of salt.