High gas prices

[CLOUT1]

Did you see the part where a Goldman Sachs analyst said that it is increasingly likley to hit $150 to $200?!

fanning the flames of the speculative inferno...

Who is, me? I'm neither fanning nor speculating. I do find it worth noting on this thread, however, that a representative from an investment banking firm speculates about even higher prices...hmm....it seems particularly relevant to the discussion of oil prices.

BTW, it appears that that story has been changed since link was first posted.

Goldman long oil........????????? Same guy who said gold is going to $1200!!!!!!!!

[footnlongline]

Interesting group of posts.

Any oil we take from new drilling in Fla or ANWAR etc would immediately assume the global price of oil. It would not lower the price of a barrel of oil on the world market unless world demand remained flat-- not likely. Our domestic increase in production simply will never be great enough to significantly effect the world market.

My reason to prohibit any new domestic drilling is that the oil is safe in the ground and a day will come when it is absolutely vital to our economy. Even with all sorts of alternate energy and new efficiencies there will always be a place for oil in the economy. Presently we can purchase oil at the world price and though we may feel pinched societally we are a long way from dire straights.

The most sessible approach would really be to drill and prepare for the future and then leave the oil in the ground--- politicians and the world press would not however make this a viable alternative. We are best protected for the future if we purchase oil now and leave our own in the ground--- and get serious about conservation.

Pozos

In the real world, it would make a huge difference because we could regulate our own barrels per day/year output, not OPEC.

Please explain how "we" could regulate barrels, etc. Who is we? The American people? Oil Companies? "We" can't regulate anything.

If WE (I mean as Americans) used our own oil reserves in Anwar or FL. our government and not OPEC or OAPEC would have control on production from these wells. Maybe you are too young to remember 1973 when the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) Decided not to ship oil to nations that supported Israel in it's conflict with Syria, simultaneously OPEC members decided to use their leverage on production to raise prices and we had our first gas crisis. WE(America) could affect supply by simply increasing our own production. I am not interested in debating the viability of drilling because there is strong evidence on both sides of the issue. If you would like, I could send you a exhaustive amount of info on both sides for your review, then you may decide for yourself.

[JohnDoe]

Interesting group of posts.

Any oil we take from new drilling in Fla or ANWAR etc would immediately assume the global price of oil. It would not lower the price of a barrel of oil on the world market unless world demand remained flat-- not likely. Our domestic increase in production simply will never be great enough to significantly effect the world market.

My reason to prohibit any new domestic drilling is that the oil is safe in the ground and a day will come when it is absolutely vital to our economy. Even with all sorts of alternate energy and new efficiencies there will always be a place for oil in the economy. Presently we can purchase oil at the world price and though we may feel pinched societally we are a long way from dire straights.

The most sessible approach would really be to drill and prepare for the future and then leave the oil in the ground--- politicians and the world press would not however make this a viable alternative. We are best protected for the future if we purchase oil now and leave our own in the ground--- and get serious about conservation.

Pozos

In the real world, it would make a huge difference because we could regulate our own barrels per day/year output, not OPEC.

Please explain how "we" could regulate barrels, etc. Who is we? The American people? Oil Companies? "We" can't regulate anything.

If WE (I mean as Americans) used our own oil reserves in Anwar or FL. our government and not OPEC or OAPEC would have control on production from these wells. Maybe you are too young to remember 1973 when the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) Decided not to ship oil to nations that supported Israel in it's conflict with Syria, simultaneously OPEC members decided to use their leverage on production to raise prices and we had our first gas crisis. WE(America) could affect supply by simply increasing our own production. I am not interested in debating the viability of drilling because there is strong evidence on both sides of the issue. If you would like, I could send you a exhaustive amount of info on both sides for your review, then you may decide for yourself.

I don't want to discuss the viability of drilling, I responded with a question as to how "we" could regulate output. Oil companies essentially "own" the oil they produce. Oil companies' business model isn't as simple as just drilling and dumping it on the market. It is much more complicated than that, and actually, they have an obligation to their shareholders to maximize profit, which doesn't mean that "our" oil would "stay". It would be sold on the world market which is exactly why, as I have said earlier, increased supply from US waters or lands would be the proverbial crop in the bucket, and would have a much smaller impact on our prices than what people think.

[VinRLX]

It is much more complicated than that, and actually, they have an obligation to their shareholders to maximize profit, which doesn't mean that "our" oil would "stay". It would be sold on the world market which is exactly why, as I have said earlier, increased supply from US waters or lands would be the proverbial crop in the bucket, and would have a much smaller impact on our prices than what people think.

This is why we need the government to create an agency to drill, refine, and distribute only in the USA!

[bigD]

I just heard on the news this morning up to $7 a gallon possible in next couple years ! I'm thinking drilling in some permafrost is a good idea.

[auto]

It is much more complicated than that, and actually, they have an obligation to their shareholders to maximize profit, which doesn't mean that "our" oil would "stay". It would be sold on the world market which is exactly why, as I have said earlier, increased supply from US waters or lands would be the proverbial crop in the bucket, and would have a much smaller impact on our prices than what people think.

This is why we need the government to create an agency to drill, refine, and distribute only in the USA!

That's not what i was thinking.

Anybody been loading up on XLE, XOM, CHK, APC?

[JohnDoe]

It is much more complicated than that, and actually, they have an obligation to their shareholders to maximize profit, which doesn't mean that "our" oil would "stay". It would be sold on the world market which is exactly why, as I have said earlier, increased supply from US waters or lands would be the proverbial crop in the bucket, and would have a much smaller impact on our prices than what people think.

This is why we need the government to create an agency to drill, refine, and distribute only in the USA!

So now we're isolationists? Hmm..abc oil company makes (whatever) $.25/gal selling domestically when the same gallon would fetch $ .35 on the world market. Sounds like more government and less efficient markets to me.

[hrybls]

It is much more complicated than that, and actually, they have an obligation to their shareholders to maximize profit, which doesn't mean that "our" oil would "stay". It would be sold on the world market which is exactly why, as I have said earlier, increased supply from US waters or lands would be the proverbial crop in the bucket, and would have a much smaller impact on our prices than what people think.

This is why we need the government to create an agency to drill, refine, and distribute only in the USA!

That's not what i was thinking.

Anybody been loading up on XLE, XOM, CHK, APC?

Be carefull on XOM, Big oil can not repalace their cheap reserves. It's really a declining business. You want companies with increasing reserves......smaller companies.

Oh By the way you might want a company with the most reserves of a product that has bigger demand than oil - (POT-US)

[auto]

Be carefull on XOM, Big oil can not repalace their cheap reserves. It's really a declining business. You want companies with increasing reserves......smaller companies.

Oh By the way you might want a company with the most reserves of a product that has bigger demand than oil - (POT-US)

Missed out on POT AAPL has been nice seen FEB

[stewart]

Anybody been loading up on XLE, XOM, CHK, APC?

RIG, XTO, COP, NOV, UNG, BP and PBR.

Also, have POT (ag play) and FWLT (infrastructure play)

[JohnDoe]

It is much more complicated than that, and actually, they have an obligation to their shareholders to maximize profit, which doesn't mean that "our" oil would "stay". It would be sold on the world market which is exactly why, as I have said earlier, increased supply from US waters or lands would be the proverbial crop in the bucket, and would have a much smaller impact on our prices than what people think.

This is why we need the government to create an agency to drill, refine, and distribute only in the USA!

That's not what i was thinking.

Anybody been loading up on XLE, XOM, CHK, APC?

Be carefull on XOM, Big oil can not repalace their cheap reserves. It's really a declining business. You want companies with increasing reserves......smaller companies.

Oh By the way you might want a company with the most reserves of a product that has bigger demand than oil - (POT-US)

Interesting on Potash, but as for Exxon, I don't know,but their accounting methods may allow plenty of profit to be made off cheap reserves and not "restocking" oil at its increased price, all depending on what they need balance sheet to look like. Not saying they're doing anything wrong, but it's not like they can't now make plenty of money if market value of oil drops.

[Guest J-Ro]

Potash pure play that IPOd not too long ago. Intrepid Potash IPI

[footnlongline]

Interesting group of posts.

Any oil we take from new drilling in Fla or ANWAR etc would immediately assume the global price of oil. It would not lower the price of a barrel of oil on the world market unless world demand remained flat-- not likely. Our domestic increase in production simply will never be great enough to significantly effect the world market.

My reason to prohibit any new domestic drilling is that the oil is safe in the ground and a day will come when it is absolutely vital to our economy. Even with all sorts of alternate energy and new efficiencies there will always be a place for oil in the economy. Presently we can purchase oil at the world price and though we may feel pinched societally we are a long way from dire straights.

The most sessible approach would really be to drill and prepare for the future and then leave the oil in the ground--- politicians and the world press would not however make this a viable alternative. We are best protected for the future if we purchase oil now and leave our own in the ground--- and get serious about conservation.

Pozos

In the real world, it would make a huge difference because we could regulate our own barrels per day/year output, not OPEC.

Please explain how "we" could regulate barrels, etc. Who is we? The American people? Oil Companies? "We" can't regulate anything.

If WE (I mean as Americans) used our own oil reserves in Anwar or FL. our government and not OPEC or OAPEC would have control on production from these wells. Maybe you are too young to remember 1973 when the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) Decided not to ship oil to nations that supported Israel in it's conflict with Syria, simultaneously OPEC members decided to use their leverage on production to raise prices and we had our first gas crisis. WE(America) could affect supply by simply increasing our own production. I am not interested in debating the viability of drilling because there is strong evidence on both sides of the issue. If you would like, I could send you a exhaustive amount of info on both sides for your review, then you may decide for yourself.

I don't want to discuss the viability of drilling, I responded with a question as to how "we" could regulate output. Oil companies essentially "own" the oil they produce. Oil companies' business model isn't as simple as just drilling and dumping it on the market. It is much more complicated than that, and actually, they have an obligation to their shareholders to maximize profit, which doesn't mean that "our" oil would "stay". It would be sold on the world market which is exactly why, as I have said earlier, increased supply from US waters or lands would be the proverbial crop in the bucket, and would have a much smaller impact on our prices than what people think.

Really. So what you are saying is that the Arab countries had nothing to do with the embargo in 1973 which greatly influenced our economy and gave the Japanese automakers a foothold in our auto markets, it was the oil companies doing it to please their shareholders. What a interesting revision on history. I guess this hullabaloo on becoming less dependent on foreign oil is just a bunch of hogwash. thanks for clearing this up for me.

[bigD]

This picture was in 2004, I remember taking it because I was pist at paying around $2 a gallon. I probably spent around $80 that day in the truck and boat.

This year I'll be doing the same thing at around $200+

[JasonK]

Favorite bumber sticker:

When George Bush took office gas was $1.46.

[auto]

Favorite bumber sticker:

When George Bush took office gas was $1.46.

yep the president, any president has so much affect on worldwide demand for gas. of course wouldn't expect anything else from someone from AA.

Edited May 8, 2008 by auto

[JasonK]

ha ha

I think Bush has a lot to do with how our economy and the what the value of a dollar is.

Has Canada seen the same increase in gas prices (at the pump) as we have since Bush took office? I've been wanting to research that.

What about the UK?

[REW]

The commodities market is global. If we start drilling ANWR (which doesn't even have all that much oil) that oil will be sold on the world market and China has the same opportunity to buy it as domestic refiners. It would be the proverbial drop in the bucket to our gas prices. And don't argue that we should make the producers just sell crude domestically, they owe a fiduciary duty to their shareholders, which means selling to the highest bidder. The only way to break our dependence on fossil fuels, or at least become more efficient, is to have a situation like we are in, which will spur more development because the demand for energy and transportation, instead of being demonstrated by buying expensive oil, will spur new technology, which will be the better long-term solution anyway. The biggest impact right now is the value of the dollar, the economic explanation for which is for another day.

A substantial portion of the increase in oil prices in the last year is from speculators in the comodities markets. Any increase in supply will get some if not all of the speculatros to stop running up the price of crude. This will allow the prices to at least stabilize if not fall. To do this we need ot open up all known fields of oil and add a few refineries. While ANWR is a "drop in the bucket" it is still a drop that needs to be taped. Just like you cannot spend your way out of debt we cannot conserve our way out af an energy hole.

Conservation can help but we also need an increase in supply, demand has increased world wide it is time for the supply to be increased. We should also be looking for a real altrunitive to oil for fuel. I dont like the idea of piutting food (corn) into our gas tanks as this only makes the farm lobby in Washington happy and not the consumer. We need to stop playing the blame game and get a real energy policy that includes supply increases for fossil fuels and real alternitives. Stop listning to all the green groups and start listning to real Americans that want a real energy policy.

[hrybls]

ha ha

I think Bush has a lot to do with how our economy and the what the value of a dollar is.

Has Canada seen the same increase in gas prices (at the pump) as we have since Bush took office? I've been wanting to research that.

What about the UK?

Canada's gas prices are higher dispite the Strong CAD Dollar.

A more accurate blame on the economy would be on Greenspan And Banks for making money almost free and allowing millions of people to leverage up homes 100%+ they did not own or could not afford.

Blame emerging countries for High gas.

Futures Oil is cheaper than Current spot price. If this changes can we say "hello inflation"

[stewart]

Favorite bumber sticker:

When George Bush took office gas was $1.46.

yep the president, any president has so much affect on worldwide demand for gas. of course wouldn't expect anything else from someone from AA.

I guess we can blame Bush that China uses so much energy as well..... Or, should we blame Bill Clinton, didn't he open the door to China and now its massive craving for energy, commodities, etc. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/s...0/clinton.pntr/

How soon the liberals forget.

[Molarbu]

This picture was in 2004, I remember taking it because I was pist at paying around $2 a gallon. I probably spent around $80 that day in the truck and boat.

This year I'll be doing the same thing at around $200+

Yeah, I call that the Debit Card Square Dance because if I have to fill them both, I have to restart the pump after it cuts out at $100 on boat machines during the course of filling the 47 gal malibu and the 40 gal suburban. It's good exercise, and if the fuel spills out the vent on the boat, it is even a higher degree of difficulty including the dosey-doe's back and forth to get napkins!

[Guest J-Ro]

Yeah blame Greenspan. How soon we forget the tech collapse and 9/11. We needed to make those adjustments in order for consumers and corporations to invest. The only issue was how soon rates should have been raised. Besides housing rates don't follow Fed funds, they follow treasurys + spread. There is a small correlation in the Fed Funds to Treasuries but not what people think. Blame the banks going after easy sales when the quality borrowers were gone for the housing problem. That and people who obviously don't know how to add (If they did, they would know that if income - expenses = a negative number....you're screwed) Changes to commodities trading would change everything. Change margin requirements and require delivery of a certain percentage of the underlying asset.

[txwakejunkie]

Yeah blame Greenspan. How soon we forget the tech collapse and 9/11. We needed to make those adjustments in order for consumers and corporations to invest. The only issue was how soon rates should have been raised. Besides housing rates don't follow Fed funds, they follow treasurys + spread. There is a small correlation in the Fed Funds to Treasuries but not what people think. Blame the banks going after easy sales when the quality borrowers were gone for the housing problem. That and people who obviously don't know how to add (If they did, they would know that if income - expenses = a negative number....you're screwed) Changes to commodities trading would change everything. Change margin requirements and require delivery of a certain percentage of the underlying asset.

but thats the american way!

Edited May 8, 2008 by txwakejunkie

[ilovetrains]

ha ha

I think Bush has a lot to do with how our economy and the what the value of a dollar is.

Has Canada seen the same increase in gas prices (at the pump) as we have since Bush took office? I've been wanting to research that.

What about the UK?

You have to kidding me right?? You have never been outside the US, but take my word for it, we pay less per gallon for gas than any other nation in the world.

[Guest J-Ro]

Actually i think we are 7th on that list. Venezuala is numero uno since their gas is subsidized (97¢ a gallon)

Sierra Leone is the highest at around $18 per gallon.

Edited May 9, 2008 by J-Ro