[smacintush]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

The oil companies are going to drill, and, in 17-20 years, maybe get some oil

These numbers you guys keep using are complete BS, quit drinking the kool-aid. It's more like 5-10.

Besides that, what the hell kind of stupid argument is that anyway? It's a dumb idea because it will take a long time to see a result? Why go to school? Why invest for retirement? Why research new forms of "green" energy? Why research anything?

That argument is straight out of the Democrat talking points and it makes NO SENSE at all.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Let's be clear - energy independence is that we can produce as much energy as we consume. Period. We will not achieve that with oil as our main source of energy.

We could achieve energy independence in 5-10 years if our government really cared to.

Not from drilling alone, you are right, but there are other things we could do that we have the technology to accomplish right now that only need to be implemented.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That's what all the experts just about everywhere said. Economists. Oil Men. OPEC. I was the saying if XYZ happens, prices will go down. Prices didn't start to drop quickly until all of XYZ happened, just as I said it would. You can point to "supply and demand" all you want, but the supply and demand isn't all that much different right now as it was right before the President's speech. For some reason, around the time he decided to act, prices started dropping dramatically.

OK - I just skimmed the rest of this thread to refresh my memory. Some entertaining stuff! I haven't seen anywhere that states that there's no way prices will ever go down, and no predictions with a timeline of this summer. In fact, I posted a couple of links on the last page talking about the possibility of price falling if there was a drop in demand, and graphs showing peaks and valleys in prices inside a longer-term upward trend.

So - in the timeframe we're talking about, I can say the same thing: the price went up, possibly even with a bit of a bubble, the price came down some, but we're still in an overall upward trend. Just like I said it would! See - I can make 'supply and demand' sound pretty good too!

It's only been that long since the criteria I laid out has been met. The experts are saying prices will continue to get lower at least for the summer. Are you saying they are wrong NOW TOO? I wouldn't be surprised if they were, to tell the truth, based on past precedent. Do you know what I"m not buying? The assurances from the economic experts and their analysis. If this is simply a supply and demand issue and they didn't see it coming, then they aren't worth much when I SAW what was going to happen coming.

Quite frankly, I don't know enough about predicting short-term supply and demand to make any kind of assessment. If I did, I'd be a speculator and I'd be very good at it. It's like predicting the stock market - no one really knows what's going to happen in the short term. Smart investors put their money and resources into companies and business plans they believe in and think will be successful. The same applies here, and I believe the same applies to you. Otherwise - I really hope you shorted oil futures when you saw Bush was going to make his speech.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

No, my laptop screen is bright enough.
...
Yes. My energy consumption is still very low compared to Al Gore and Leonardo Di Caprio or MOST people who would call themselves an environmentalist. It's low, not because of any moral or political position, but because I am naturally hermetic and simple without wanting to impose my lifestyle upon anyone else. If someone wants to rip down the street in a Dodge Challenger R/T then all power to them. I might even ask them for a go.
...
I have, but you had nothing to say except being annoying and self-important with your accusations that I, SOMEONE YOU DO NOT KNOW, should examine how much energy I consume because the price of oil is MY fault somehow. Bollocks to that. Point at your holy self instead of pointing at others.

Wow, I must have really touched a nerve. What happened in your past that gives you such a complex about your energy consumption? So - we know you use energy to power a laptop. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you have some appliances in your hope that use energy - maybe a refrigerator, oven? Possibly heating and cooling? Anyway - let's say it's a small amount. Smaller than most, even. That's great! Your mother must be so proud of you.

Do you have solar panels or windmills in your yard to produce all the energy you consume? If so, great! Bully for you! But I'm going to guess probably not. If not, you consume more energy than you produce. I'll repeat: look in the mirror.

Quite frankly, I don't care how much energy you use or don't use. And I never said I was better than you or vice versa - you seem to have made that assumption out of your own insecurities. I'm simply saying that if you consume more energy than you produce, you are contributing to the problem, just as are me, Al Gore, and our friend Leo DiCaprio.

Unless you have been on Mars for the last year, it has been the subject of many news articles and forum debates that there are up to 15 billion barrels of oil waiting to be drilled in US territorial waters of the Gulf of Mexico ALONE.

OK, let's assume for a moment that we can get at all that oil at costs similar to levels for drilling from current sources. Assume we can make up that 15,500,000 barrels/day shortfall we currently have. 15 billion barrels will last for 2-1/2 years. Then what? Oh, then we have to import 90% of our oil!

I never stated oil should be the only or main source of energy. To the contrary I said we should exploit it as much as possible to lower or stabilise prices, fuel economy and pay for R+D into the real deal that will replace oil with the same or better levels of efficiency.

Once again, read the thread. What makes you think there will be R&D into alternatives when we have cheap oil?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

These numbers you guys keep using are complete BS, quit drinking the kool-aid. It's more like 5-10.

Link? Evidence?

Besides that, what the hell kind of stupid argument is that anyway? It's a dumb idea because it will take a long time to see a result? Why go to school? Why invest for retirement? Why research new forms of "green" energy? Why research anything?

It's a dumb idea to invest in something without having a good expectation on the return. By all accounts, the return on this investment will be negative. You invest for retirement, go to school, etc. because you expect a return. What's the return here?

That argument is straight out of the Democrat talking points and it makes NO SENSE at all.

Well, I'm not a Democrat, just someone who understands economics. If that happens to be one of their talking points, they have some smart economists.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Oil companies "sell" the oil they drill to their own refineries for market price. You think it makes sense for them to drill for oil, sell it to China for $124 a barrel (or whatever the price du jour is), then import oil from Saudi Arabia for $124 a barrel to to refine?

They will sell it to themselves first and import whatever they need to make-up for their shortfall.

Let's take a look at where some of the big US-based oil companies have refineries:

ConocoPhillips:
- United States
- Germany
- UK
- Ireland
- Malaysia
- Czech Republic
- Venezuela (in joint ventures)

ExxonMobil:
- Australia
- Thailand
- Japan
- Singapore
- South Africa
- Qutar (joint venture)
- Saudi Arabia (yes)
- Argentina
- El Salvador
- Nicaragua
- Venezuela (in joint ventures)
- United States
- Belgium
- France
- Germany
- Italy
- Norway
- The Netherlands
- UK

Chevron:
- Philippines
- South Africa
- Venezuela (joint venture)
- Canada (wholly-owned and joint venture)
- United States
- UK

Still think it would all stay in the US?

[smacintush]

So then what you are saying is that it makes economic sense for them to sell the oil they drill here to another country for market price, then buy more oil from someone else to refine here.

I think they will do what they always have done. Use the oil they get here to feed the refineries to their capacities here and get more from somewhere else to make-up for the shortfall.

The combination of poor demand/crappy profits and increasing regulations and costs caused the oil companies to shut down refineries here. There is no reason why with the massive increase in profitability and government getting out of the way they couldn't start increasing refining capacity here, if they were getting their oil here.

270 billion barrels of oil in Bakkan, 800 billion recoverable barrels in oil shale, Shells new find in the gulf may be around 100 billion (to name a few)…To say that our trillion barrels will have no effect on our independence is just silly. (note that I am using independence to denote independence from ME oil)

Of course if I were emperor we would use our tremendous natural gas reserves for something useful like powering automobiles, rather than wasting it on crap like electricity generation. We could damn near stop using oil for autos altogether. It's cheap, you can fill up at home, it's very low emission and they exist now in a viable form. Better than plug-in electrics, for now anyway.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Oil companies "sell" the oil they drill to their own refineries for market price. You think it makes sense for them to drill for oil, sell it to China for $124 a barrel (or whatever the price du jour is), then import oil from Saudi Arabia for $124 a barrel to to refine?

Yes, of course they will sell some to foreign countries. It all depends on how much the others want to pay.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

OK, let's assume for a moment that we can get at all that oil at costs similar to levels for drilling from current sources. Assume we can make up that 15,500,000 barrels/day shortfall we currently have. 15 billion barrels will last for 2-1/2 years.

You previously stated about drilling in the Gulf

"The US Department of Energy has estimated that drilling will produce another 800,000-900,000 barrels/day."

At those numbers the 15 billion barrels that the Gulf has been estimated to have would supply oil for 45 years. That's the Gulf alone. Then there are still untapped reserves on the Atlantic coast, Alaska and Arctic regions.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

So then what you are saying is that it makes economic sense for them to sell the oil they drill here to another country for market price, then buy more oil from someone else to refine here.

No, I think he's saying that the US will not even see part of the additional supply so that some of the oil that is exported isn't matched by an import or -- more indirectly -- that oil imports are simply lowered.

[stupendousman]

At the mere mention that the executive branch was going to do what was previously unthinkable (the Democrats in Congress even dared Bush to do it, they were so confident he wouldn’t) and officially rescinded it’s order not to drill offshore, prices dropped dramatically and are still dropping weeks later. The benefit of a THREAT of drilling didn’t wait until 2026 to benefit us only a tiny bit - IT HAPPENED NOW and did so with much more of a drop than it was suggested it would do 20 years from now (just as I said it would).

If a small decrease in demand and small increase in production and a threat by the US government that makes it look more likely that the US will compete for added supply in the future can drop the price dramatically, we know that the claims that prices will go up and up no matter what we do in regards to increasing supply are likely bogus and based on a clear misunderstanding of how markets (especially speculation) works. I stated this before prices dropped, every other economics expert here assured everyone else that it was impossible for such a threat, no less actual INCREASED production by the US would have much effect on the price of oil.

AGAIN....if supply is pretty much stable, and demand just decreased a little , how can you argue that an increase in supply in addition to a decrease in demand will not have as much effect in the future as it has just this past month?

Originally Posted by tie 

A lot of people are predicting oil will be over $150 a barrel this summer.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

People can continue to drive their SUVs, they're just going to have to pay $5 and maybe $6/gallon for the gasoline. Plain and simple.

Unless they change their driving habits, it's not going to get any cheaper even with drilling.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I'm not opposed to domestic drilling, but please try not to be so deluded as to believe that it would have any impact on prices.

(these quotes where just from the first page. I didn't even bother to start Googling the experts quoted in the MSM who assured us $4 gas was her to stay for the near future)

PRICES HAVE DROPPED. GAS IS ESTIMATED TO DROP ABOUT 60 CENTS PER GALLON and did so via the METHOD I SAID WOULD WORK. The media is saying this is a “correction”. A correction to what? There is nothing to “correct” if the price of oil was simply a direct reflection of true supply/demand as some have erroneously claimed, since the numbers have not changed very drastically.

PUHLEEEZE quit pretending that you understand the dynamics of speculative investing. I really thought my comparison to the tech bust in the nineties would have made everything clear. Again, I’ve got results on my side. I don’t need experts who were wrong to assure me that their masters degrees in economics and their formulas, curves and analysis (which couldn't predict the drop in price) are preferable to a method which actually results in an accurate prediction of how the market will react based on past precedent. Sorry. DOES NOT COMPUTE.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

You previously stated about drilling in the Gulf

"The US Department of Energy has estimated that drilling will produce another 800,000-900,000 barrels/day."

At those numbers the 15 billion barrels that the Gulf has been estimated to have would supply oil for 45 years. That's the Gulf alone. Then there are still untapped reserves on the Atlantic coast, Alaska and Arctic regions.

And how does that achieve energy independence? In the ideal scenario, our choice is 800,000-900,000 barrels/day for 45 years, and still importing 68% of our oil, or energy independence for 2-1/2 years, importing no oil (again assuming we could even get at it that fast). I'll say it more clearly:

The US cannot produce as much oil as it currently consumes. Period.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

So then what you are saying is that it makes economic sense for them to sell the oil they drill here to another country for market price, then buy more oil from someone else to refine here.

I think they will do what they always have done. Use the oil they get here to feed the refineries to their capacities here and get more from somewhere else to make-up for the shortfall.

The combination of poor demand/crappy profits and increasing regulations and costs caused the oil companies to shut down refineries here. There is no reason why with the massive increase in profitability and government getting out of the way they couldn't start increasing refining capacity here, if they were getting their oil here.

270 billion barrels of oil in Bakkan, 800 billion recoverable barrels in oil shale, Shells new find in the gulf may be around 100 billion (to name a few)…To say that our trillion barrels will have no effect on our independence is just silly. (note that I am using independence to denote independence from ME oil)

Of course if I were emperor we would use our tremendous natural gas reserves for something useful like powering automobiles, rather than wasting it on crap like electricity generation. We could damn near stop using oil for autos altogether. It's cheap, you can fill up at home, it's very low emission and they exist now in a viable form. Better than plug-in electrics, for now anyway.

No. I'm saying they will drill for crude and then send it to their refineries in portions according to how they can produce it and consistent with demand. Since they are large multinational corporations, they have refineries all over the world. US oil companies have operations outside the US, and non-US oil companies (big ones like BP and Royal Dutch Shell) have operations in the US. In the hands of the oil companies, it's a global market. Yes - they will sell what they drill on the global market. You're damn right if a company in China offers to pay more than they could fetch in the US, they'll sell it to China. Does that make 'economic sense'?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

At the mere mention that the executive branch was going to do what was previously unthinkable (the Democrats in Congress even dared Bush to do it, they were so confident he wouldn’t) and officially rescinded it’s order not to drill offshore, prices dropped dramatically and are still dropping weeks later. The benefit of a THREAT of drilling didn’t wait until 2026 to benefit us only a tiny bit - IT HAPPENED NOW and did so with much more of a drop than it was suggested it would do 20 years from now (just as I said it would).

If a small decrease in demand and small increase in production and a threat by the US government that makes it look more likely that the US will compete for added supply in the future can drop the price dramatically, we know that the claims that prices will go up and up no matter what we do in regards to increasing supply are likely bogus and based on a clear misunderstanding of how markets (especially speculation) works. I stated this before prices dropped, every other economics expert here assured everyone else that it was impossible for such a threat, no less actual INCREASED production by the US would have much effect on the price of oil.

AGAIN....if supply is pretty much stable, and demand just decreased a little , how can you argue that an increase in supply in addition to a decrease in demand will not have as much effect in the future as it has just this past month?






(these quotes where just from the first page. I didn't even bother to start Googling the experts quoted in the MSM who assured us $4 gas was her to stay for the near future)

PRICES HAVE DROPPED. GAS IS ESTIMATED TO DROP ABOUT 60 CENTS PER GALLON and did so via the METHOD I SAID WOULD WORK. The media is saying this is a “correction”. A correction to what? There is nothing to “correct” if the price of oil was simply a direct reflection of true supply/demand as some have erroneously claimed, since the numbers have not changed very drastically.

PUHLEEEZE quit pretending that you understand the dynamics of speculative investing. I really thought my comparison to the tech bust in the nineties would have made everything clear. Again, I’ve got results on my side. I don’t need experts who were wrong to assure me that their masters degrees in economics and their formulas, curves and analysis (which couldn't predict the drop in price) are preferable to a method which actually results in an accurate prediction of how the market will react based on past precedent. Sorry. DOES NOT COMPUTE.

You can thump your chest all you like. Prices are still 70% higher than they were a year ago, and even with a 60 cent drop would still be on a long-term upward trend. You have no evidence to suggest these actions have turned prices on a long-term downward trend.

I've repeatedly agreed with you that speculation can have an impact on prices, just in a way that follows and exaggerates the market. This would readily allow for peaks and valleys in prices - just as has happened.

Tell me, swami, what will happen to the price of oil this week? Which way are you placing your speculation dollars?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

You can thump your chest all you like. Prices are still 70% higher than they were a year ago, and even with a 60 cent drop would still be on a long-term upward trend.

Now YOU are SPECULATING.

You have no evidence to suggest these actions have turned prices on a long-term downward trend.

I've already gone on record as saying that what's happened the past month WILL NOT support a long-term downward trend. If the government fails to act further, then speculators will go back to assuming the worse and ignore any positive supply/demand changes as they have in the past, assuming long-term that all the power is in the hands of OPEC. If on the other hand the government continues to take steps to start increasing production then we probably won't be back to $4 a gallon gas anytime soon.

Tell me, swami, what will happen to the price of oil this week? Which way are you placing your speculation dollars?

Don't know. Unlike the experts who falsely claim to be able to forecast future prices via math and analysis, I can only tell you what will move the markets. If the government continues to make efforts to increase production, the price will continue to go down long-term. How much? Don't know. At a certain point it will get back to regular supply/demand values. At this point, I don't think that they are there yet. I still think there's room for more correcting from the over-speculation. Apparently most analysts agree, as they say that gas should be down to $3.50 very soon.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Now YOU are SPECULATING.

How so? Average US price today, July 27, 2008: $3.957/gal
Let's say it gets to $3.50. OK, great!

Average US price one year ago today, July 27, 2007: $2.885 / gal

$3.50 still looks higher to me. Still higher than points in the last several years before that. That would be an 'upward trend'.

I've already gone on record as saying that what's happened the past month WILL NOT support a long-term downward trend. If the government fails to act further, then speculators will go back to assuming the worse and ignore any positive supply/demand changes as they have in the past, assuming long-term that all the power is in the hands of OPEC. If on the other hand the government continues to take steps to start increasing production then we probably won't be back to $4 a gallon gas anytime soon.

Shocking. So if the government takes actions to subsidize oil, the price will go down. Who'd have guessed? What will happen when speculators discover that those subsidies won't kick in for 10-20 years? How do you know what externalities will be present that speculators and the market will react to in that timeframe?

The original estimates of $0.75/barrel that you so readily dismiss are of course based on assumptions. Assumptions that worldwide demand will increase according to projections. If that holds true, then the marginal supply we can provide would likely be insignificant in reducing OPEC's control. If China and others stop subsidizing and worldwide demand drops (or does not grow at the expected pace), then prices will drop on their own accord and we'd be selling away that resource at a relative discount.

I'll ask the question again because I still haven't seen an answer: How is this a good deal for Americans?

[tie]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

These numbers you guys keep using are complete BS, quit drinking the kool-aid. It's more like 5-10.

The numbers are from the Department of Energy. These are Republican talking points, not Democratic ones. You seem to be very confused. I have no idea where you are getting your numbers.

Besides that, what the hell kind of stupid argument is that anyway? It's a dumb idea because it will take a long time to see a result?

Because we have better things that will do more faster? But for some odd reason, you don't support any of these ideas.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Of course if I were emperor we would use our tremendous natural gas reserves for something useful like powering automobiles, rather than wasting it on crap like electricity generation. We could damn near stop using oil for autos altogether. It's cheap, you can fill up at home, it's very low emission and they exist now in a viable form. Better than plug-in electrics, for now anyway.

Forgot to respond to this part. You should make friends with this guy:

T. Boone Pickens Plan

I agree it'd be a step in the right direction. I wouldn't forget, though, that natural gas is also a finite resource and so would want to recognize that any economy based on it is ultimately not sustainable. But yeah, a big improvement over where we are now...

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

How so? Average US price today, July 27, 2008: $3.957/gal
Let's say it gets to $3.50. OK, great!

That could be the start of a downward-trend. I'm not sure how falling prices could be a part of a upward-trend unless prices starting going back up again. Prices have went up, but when prices stop going up and start going down, that logically can't be a "trend" for rising prices.

Shocking. So if the government takes actions to subsidize oil, the price will go down.

The government has taken no actions to subsidize oil. Again, how much has the government said it's asking for leasing land for offshore drilling...land that is used for NOTHING right now?

The original estimates of $0.75/barrel that you so readily dismiss are of course based on assumptions. Assumptions that worldwide demand will increase according to projections.

They can't predict what demand will be month to month to the point where there are huge flucuations in price, yet their assumptions about 26 years later are credible? As I've shown, we need to compete for added supply for more reasons than just adding supply to the market. Those doing the estimates are leaving a lot of variables out of the equation that they likely don't even understand.

Lower prices are good for Americans. If we reduce demand (which happens naturally with artificially high prices as they are now), invest in alternatives for the future, and increase supply to the best of our ability, prices will remain relatively stabile until the alternatives are available long-term. The events of the last month or so points to that being a credible strategy.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That could be the start of a downward-trend. I'm not sure how falling prices could be a part of a upward-trend unless prices starting going back up again. Prices have went up, but when prices stop going up and start going down, that logically can't be a "trend" for rising prices.

Nice try. Why did you leave out the part about prices still being considerably higher than a year ago. Yes - I can logically state that year-over-year prices are on an upward trend. Should prices get below $2.80, that is no longer valid.

The government has taken no actions to subsidize oil. Again, how much has the government said it's asking for leasing land for offshore drilling...land that is used for NOTHING right now?

Wasn't that what Bush's big speech was about? We're going to give the oil companies land to drill on. As we talked about earlier in this thread, the figure being tossed around for ANWR was $2.5B, or $21 per US household. Haven't seen figures for the offshore stuff. Google it if you like.

They can't predict what demand will be month to month to the point where there are huge flucuations in price, yet their assumptions about 26 years later are credible? As I've shown, we need to compete for added supply for more reasons than just adding supply to the market. Those doing the estimates are leaving a lot of variables out of the equation that they likely don't even understand.

Right. Assumptions may or may not hold. If they're right, even with our marginal supply, the market will not be able to keep up with demand. Prices will be high. If they're wrong, decreased demand will lower prices on its own accord. Why do we need artificial price controls to do that?

What if we largely solve the demand issue, we're driving electric cars, have lots of solar and wind and maybe some nuclear energy mixed in, but we still need oil (or have an advantage using it) to power strategic assets like fighter jets, aircraft carriers, tanks, etc? Wouldn't it be better to conserve our FINITE natural resources for something like that, rather than to give it to the world market for the sake of price controls? The opportunity cost of doing that is just too high.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Nice try. Why did you leave out the part about prices still being considerably higher than a year ago.

Because we are talking about trends. Yes, prices are higher than last year, yet they are not as high as they were because prices ARE GOING DOWN. Will that be a long-term trend? No one knows. Speculating that it won't is...SPECULATION. You can speculate equally the opposite. The trend NOW though seems to be prices going down. That's the case regardless of what the price WAS. My grandpa tells me of the time when a gallon of milk was 25 cents a gallon. If milk would drop 25 cents a gallon today does that make it part of a trend of increasing prices over a 50 year period? I guess you could argue it using your logic, but I don't think most people would argue that way. I think most would argue that the price of milk seems to be going down.

Wasn't that what Bush's big speech was about? We're going to give the oil companies land to drill on.

I don't remember anything about "giving" it to them. Allowing them to, yes.

What if we largely solve the demand issue, we're driving electric cars, have lots of solar and wind and maybe some nuclear energy mixed in, but we still need oil (or have an advantage using it) to power strategic assets like fighter jets, aircraft carriers, tanks, etc?

That's part of the plan I support. Though, we really do not have the technology yet to replace oil as the primary energy source for everything but the things you mention. We are almost there are far as cars as stuff, but not yet. It's going to take years before we're able to do what you suggest and only then with technology that we HOPE will be developed. We need a "Plan B", which is what increasing supply provides. If we end up not needing increased supply, we can stop drilling. Doing what I suggest will keep prices reasonable and still allow for helping to reduce demand.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Because we are talking about trends. Yes, prices are higher than last year, yet they are not as high as they were because prices ARE GOING DOWN. Will that be a long-term trend? No one knows. Speculating that it won't is...SPECULATION. You can speculate equally the opposite. The trend NOW though seems to be prices going down. That's the case regardless of what the price WAS. My grandpa tells me of the time when a gallon of milk was 25 cents a gallon. If milk would drop 25 cents a gallon today does that make it part of a trend of increasing prices over a 50 year period? I guess you could argue it using your logic, but I don't think most people would argue that way. I think most would argue that the price of milk seems to be going down.

Right. So if there's a dip in the price of milk, people will assume it's going back to the prices your grandpa remembers. The price of milk has been going up for 50 years, with some peaks and valleys along the way. What reasonable person would expect your scenario to be so very different?

I don't remember anything about "giving" it to them. Allowing them to, yes.

What's the difference? Are they going to put it back exactly how it was when they're done?

That's part of the plan I support. Though, we really do not have the technology yet to replace oil as the primary energy source for everything but the things you mention. We are almost there are far as cars as stuff, but not yet. It's going to take years before we're able to do what you suggest and only then with technology that we HOPE will be developed. We need a "Plan B", which is what increasing supply provides. If we end up not needing increased supply, we can stop drilling. Doing what I suggest will keep prices reasonable and still allow for helping to reduce demand.

Faulty economics. The two statements in bold above are contradictory.

You're exactly right - there are strategic items for which replacing oil will take a longer time. Is that the point where we want to be in a situation where we need to import it? That's what will happen if we let the oil companies drill and sell what they get on the market.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Because we are talking about trends. Yes, prices are higher than last year, yet they are not as high as they were because prices ARE GOING DOWN. Will that be a long-term trend? No one knows.

Sure we know: we can have a look at the data. With that data set, we can average out short-term fluctuations and see that for anyone to claim that there is a trend reversal, we will have to wait several months at least. As you can see from the small dents and dimples, there are small fluctuations (e. g. caused by seasonal fluctuations).

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Speculating that it won't is...SPECULATION. You can speculate equally the opposite.

Well, you can, but your speculations are not informed estimates which you can base on facts and data. This is what companies, governments and OPEC do, they take global factors and everything into account. They don't just produce oil as they like.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The trend NOW though seems to be prices going down.

You can't speak of a trend unless you wait for several months and see what happens to the gas prices. You mistake short-term developments for trends.

[stupendousman]

[QUOTE=CreepDogg;3699157]Right. So if there's a dip in the price of milk, people will assume it's going back to the prices your grandpa remembers. The price of milk has been going up for 50 years, with some peaks and valleys along the way. What

reasonable person would expect your scenario to be so very different?

You don't have to take the price of milk back to what it was 50 years ago in order for their to be a "downward trend" in it's price, nor do you have to take the price of gas back to what it was one, two or three years ago to show a downward trend. I said that it was speculation to say it was either part of a downward or upward trend. It's too soon to say. What we do now is that once the criteria I suggested was put into place, that prices dropped despite being told by all the experts that there was likely going to be no relief and that prices would continue to skyrocket.

What's the difference? Are they going to put it back exactly how it was when they're done?

What's the difference between being given something and simply being allowed the right unused property with leases and money changing hands? I guess the whole "money" part.

Faulty economics. The two statements in bold above are contradictory.

If there are alternatives and increased competition, demand can go down and prices not skyrocket. Low prices do not automatically equal increased demand.

You're exactly right - there are strategic items for which replacing oil will take a longer time. Is that the point where we want to be in a situation where we need to import it? That's what will happen if we let the oil companies drill and sell what they get on the market.

Once economically attractive alternatives are viable, demand will be low and price will be low.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You don't have to take the price of milk back to what it was 50 years ago in order for their to be a "downward trend" in it's price, nor do you have to take the price of gas back to what it was one, two or three years ago to show a downward trend. I said that it was speculation to say it was either part of a downward or upward trend. It's too soon to say. What we do now is that once the criteria I suggested was put into place, that prices dropped despite being told by all the experts that there was likely going to be no relief and that prices would continue to skyrocket.

Semantics. Look at the graph above. Looks like an upward trend to me. Yes - if you look ONLY at the last two data points, the most recent one is downward. But hey - the price is up this morning, so I guess we're back on an upward trend! See the folly in trying to predict trends based on short-term data?

What's the difference between being given something and simply being allowed the right unused property with leases and money changing hands? I guess the whole "money" part.

They're taking something of value from the land that we all own, and are not paying fair market value for it. They will significantly decrease the value of the land for other uses, and will obviously destroy the future value of the oil there. If you get something you're not paying for (even if some money changes hands), that would qualify a being 'given' something.

If there are alternatives and increased competition, demand can go down and prices not skyrocket. Low prices do not automatically equal increased demand.

Once economically attractive alternatives are viable, demand will be low and price will be low.

BZZZZT. Wrong again. Google 'demand curve'. Just try it. It's discussed in all Economics 101 classes you claim to have taken.

[OldManMac]

Arguing back and forth about temporary oil prices misses the bigger picture. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...?nav=rss_print

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Semantics.

Add "speculation" and you pretty much have summarized the extent of your own argument.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Add "speculation" and you pretty much have summarized the extent of your own argument.

Right. Just ignore economics textbooks and legions of facts brought into this thread. I was really just guessing at all of that.

[stupendousman]

Double post

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

BZZZZT. Wrong again. Google 'demand curve'. Just try it. It's discussed in all Economics 101 classes you claim to have taken.

So if the cost of spoiled meat is $1 a lb., and you lower it to 50¢ a pound, demand will go up? Surely it will based on your "demand curve"?

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Right. Just ignore economics textbooks and legions of facts brought into this thread. I was really just guessing at all of that.

"Economics textbooks" and "legions of facts" didn't help the experts who all assured us that there was no end in sight in regards to soaring oil prices before they dropped drastically. Your short-sightedness isn't much different.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Arguing back and forth about temporary oil prices misses the bigger picture. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...?nav=rss_print

That doesn't mean anything. Everyone knows that the USA is the source of all the worlds woes.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So if the cost of spoiled meat is $1 a lb., and you lower it to 50¢ a pound, demand will go up? Surely it will based on your "demand curve"?

Yes. If x number of people were paying $1/lb for spoiled meat, x+y would pay $0.50.

I understand what you're getting at - and yes, it's possible to have an item for which there's zero demand. Think that's the case with oil?

"Economics textbooks" and "legions of facts" didn't help the experts who all assured us that there was no end in sight in regards to soaring oil prices before they dropped drastically. Your short-sightedness isn't much different.

Hey, I was just pointing out where your argument was based on faulty economics. You know very well the basis of my argument is on economic theory, and the fact that the forces of supply and demand are at work here. So don't tell me my argument is based on speculation. YOURS is. You're speculating on the behavior of speculators.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

That doesn't mean anything. Everyone knows that the USA is the source of all the worlds woes.

Obviously, you didn't even look at the article, let alone read it. You do have a point, however; the U. S. is the source of much of the world's woes.

[OldManMac]

Arguing about who's right and who's wrong misses the bigger picture. (Stupendousman, you're wrong).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...?nav=rss_print

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

understand what you're getting at - and yes, it's possible to have an item for which there's zero demand. Think that's the case with oil?

No. I was just trying to get you to concede that decreased price doesn't always equal an increase in demand. Thanks.

There are other factors at play that you have to take into consideration in these matters and It's clear that by your analysis that you aren't capable of taking these "other factors" into consideration when they don't fit your neat "textbook" examples.

Hey, I was just pointing out where your argument was based on faulty economics..

I'll sleep good at night knowing that my "faulty economics" allows me to be right while your rigid insistence on requiring textbook examples that follow tradition curves and formulas in situations where other factors are in play, leaves you and the "experts" wrong.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No. I was just trying to get you to concede that decreased price doesn't always equal an increase in demand. Thanks.

Well done, then. It was clearly relevant to the discussion. And that's not exactly the case. If there's no demand for a product, there's no market and price is irrelevant. Pretty much like dividing by zero.

I'll sleep good at night knowing that my "faulty economics" allows me to be right while your rigid insistence on requiring textbook examples that follow tradition curves and formulas in situations where other factors are in play, leaves you and the "experts" wrong.

I'm glad you sleep well. Everyone benefits from a good night's rest. I always sleep well after thumping my chest and proclaiming "I'm right and you're wrong, nyah nyah nyah!" Especially when I have very little to back it up.

Oil went down another $3 today, after rising yesterday. I didn't see any other little speeches. It was due to a continued drop in demand and a strengthening dollar. Hmmmmmmmmm.

So once again, swami, give us the insight of your 'faulty economics' and let us all know what the market will do tomorrow!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I always sleep well after thumping my chest and proclaiming "I'm right and you're wrong, nyah nyah nyah!" Especially when I have very little to back it up.

You must be very well rested of late.

I know that when I can do it and show results, I get some refreshing shut-eye myself. Not being able to show results that match my predictions doesn't have the same satisfying feeling in the gut. One day I'm sure you'll get to feel it yourself!

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You must be very well rested of late.

I know that when I can do it and show results, I get some refreshing shut-eye myself. Not being able to show results that match my predictions doesn't have the same satisfying feeling in the gut. One day I'm sure you'll get to feel it yourself!

I feel exactly the same way! The results that have come about fit my model very well - especially considering the most recent drop with no other meddling intervention in the market.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I feel exactly the same way! The results that have come about fit my model very well - especially considering the most recent drop with no other meddling intervention in the market.

It's part of a downward trend, put in motion by having the 3 pieces of the puzzle I pointed out in the beginning put into place. It doesn't require any additional "meddling" at this point, though if nothing further is done in the near future to assure people that the US is going to be competing for additional supply, I predict it will not last.

Again, all the experts (and you didn't disagree - until after it happened) assured us that prices were going up and up.

[OreoCookie]

Again, it's way too early to speak of a trend, stup.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Again, it's way too early to speak of a trend, stup.

Actually, I agree. It's way too early to speak of the low prices the past several weeks or so as either a downward trend, or simply a blip as part of a larger upward trend. My point was simply that you could explain it another way and that based on my theory, I believe that it COULD be part of a downward trend if the criteria I named would continue to exist to some extent.

[OreoCookie]

What you were saying did not contradict the experts at all: there is no sign of a trend reversal yet, because we cannot even say if there is a `new trend' downwards. The predictions they make are about trends and averaged quantities, not short-term fluctuations. So your arguments are a bit empty, because you're speculating on something that hasn't even happened yet.

You can simulate these things quite well, much better actually than short-term fluctuations (it's literally similar to prediction of weather patterns: it's much simpler to predict `average' weather than this week's actual weather).

If you have a look at the graph I've posted (taken from the Department of Energy), you can see that there are similar bumps in the graphs where prices go down temporarily, but overall, they still climb.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's part of a downward trend, put in motion by having the 3 pieces of the puzzle I pointed out in the beginning put into place. It doesn't require any additional "meddling" at this point, though if nothing further is done in the near future to assure people that the US is going to be competing for additional supply, I predict it will not last.

This guy, credible as he is , doesn't agree. He thinks we're on our way down to $70. There are lots of opinions out there, and you know what they say about opinions...

Again, all the experts (and you didn't disagree - until after it happened) assured us that prices were going up and up.

I'm wrong because I didn't disagree with something that wasn't the topic? Not to mention...

Originally Posted by me, several pages ago

Yes. I think we can have a much greater impact on the demand side of the equation than on the supply side.

and

So let's review this scenario: demand is down due to high prices, so prices are headed down...

Where did I say prices couldn't go down if demand dropped? Please stop lumping me in with your unreferenced 'experts'.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's way too early to speak of the low prices the past several weeks or so as either a downward trend, or simply a blip as part of a larger upward trend.

So we all agree, then!

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

These numbers you guys keep using are complete BS, quit drinking the kool-aid. It's more like 5-10.

Besides that, what the hell kind of stupid argument is that anyway? It's a dumb idea because it will take a long time to see a result? Why go to school? Why invest for retirement? Why research new forms of "green" energy? Why research anything?

That argument is straight out of the Democrat talking points and it makes NO SENSE at all.

It makes perfect sense. What they're saying is obvious. If drilling is not going to produce results for five to ten years then why not invest that time, money and energy into more forward-thinking solutions to our energy problems. We know that eventually we have to get off oil. We should've and could've done it after the first gas crisis in the 70's but we didn't. What we're saying is, Let's not repeat that mistake.

[Chongo]

I know, right wing rag
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13573

There are oil wells off the Pacific coast that were capped years ago when the offshore drilling ban was first adopted. They could be brought back into production in less than a year. Expert oil engineers recently interviewed have said other sites could be producing in 18 months. The standard estimate for production from new drilling in Alaska is 10 years. But if the government gets the lawsuits and regulatory delays out of the way, here's betting the new wells would be producing in less than 5 years

[stupendousman]

Okay..prices keep dropping. How much additional supply has been put into play the past couple of weeks? Surely if this is mainly about supply/demand, then there's been a lot of additional supply put into place?

...otherwise, we can pretty much zero out the notion the prediction that putting a lot of additional supply into the market in 20 years (and the whole timeline is suspect in the first place) won't have much effect on the price of oil. If it can drop this far without any significant supply increase, then obviously there are factors that have to be considered other than simply supply/demand.

The prediction also ignores the fact that in 20 years there will likely be technological advantages which will make for less demand for oil. It will be like the situation with black and white TV's. At one time, they were expensive. They were the only game in town. As technology advanced and the price to produce went down, the demand increased. New, more attractive alternatives came to play (color TV's) and the demand went down. Now with color technology, the cost to produce black and white TV's was a lot lower, but demand didn't really increase due to the availability of color. You could glut the market with cheap black and white TV's today (decrease price) but you aren't going to likely increase demand due to contributing factors.

Let's start drilling now so in 20 years we will have added supply and decreased demand due to more attractive alternatives. Hopefully at some point, just like cheap black and white TV's, the need to produce mass quantities of oil will go down to almost nothing. It won't likely happened without first going through the "decreased price/decreasing demand" stage.

[CreepDogg]

<Sigh> Welcome to 4 pages ago.

Originally Posted by Me, 4 pages ago

I think we can have a much greater impact on the demand side of the equation than on the supply side.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

<Sigh> Welcome to 4 pages ago.

<sigh>

Even with dropping demand and increased supply by OPEC, prices where staying high. Prices didn't really start dropping until things started to really get hot POLITICALLY. That's when the markets started moving, and haven't stopped.

We can have impact on supply and demand. That's the smart way to go. If you ignore supply, then you allow the middle east to set ALL of the terms and have no reason to be reasonable - and those betting on the future of the prices have no reason to believe that prices won't skyrocket even with decreased demand (OPEC can just stop producing additional supply themselves if demand decreases in order to keep prices high). We simply don't have the technology yet to rely entirely on the reduction of demand. It's like telling people to stop buying black and white TV's before color was developed and expecting the price to go down when there's only one guy making the additional supply of TV's to support the demand.

[CreepDogg]

I thought we all agreed that the timeframe was too short to prove any causation, much less correlation in events?

If demand is dropping, why would you increase supply? As a supplier, you are squeezed on price and not getting value (profitability) out of the goods you sell. If no one wants B&W TV's any more, why would you push to make more of them? You'd be out of business fast.

I don't understand what your diatribe about B&W vs. color TVs is about. New technology came in. Demand for the old technology dropped. Supply of the old technology did not increase - it decreased. Anyone who did not adapt to the new technology went out of business. The cost to produce B&W TV's didn't suddenly go down because color TV's came in the picture - there just was not enough demand to justify that cost, even though it was lower than color TVs. Actually the same thing is going on right now with old tube TVs vs. the new flat panels.