But why have we waited so long to do anything about our dependence on oil REGARDLESS where it comes from?
What passes for the "left" in this country have been trying for decades to get something done. Fuel emission standards, solar power, wind generation, etc. We might all agree that some of the ideas mean little to nothing but at least the left have tried to move the ball forward. And who stood in the way? The environmentalists? The democrats?
No. The House of Saud, the republican party, Big Oil, et al. They are to be blamed for filibustering the issue and blocking any earnest efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign or domestic oil.
.
Time to call BS on this one. Dem's are just as responsible as Repub's are. In fact Dem's receive just as much contributions from Big Oil as Repub's do. Both parties are to blame equally. Your argument that one company is more responsible than the other is hogwash.
Using your rule that blame should be apportioned according to the amount of money each party gets from the oil companies, the republican party should accept 82% of the blame after the most recent completed election cycle of 2006.
t2940 Schumpeter Reincarnate
Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Posts: 5270
Location: cave dweller
Yes I know this is long and I usually don't do this but here is the truth about oil..............and subprime
Posted on Mon, May. 19, 2008
ICE, ICE, Baby
Special to the Star-Telegram
"There’s a few hedge fund managers out there who are masters at knowing how to exploit the peak [oil]
theories and hot buttons of supply and demand and by making bold predictions of shocking price
advancements to come, they only add more fuel to the bullish fire in a sort of self fulfilling prophecy." —
National Gas Week, September 5, 2005 as reprinted in the US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations’ report, "The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices," June 27, 2006
Fiddling While We Burn
There it is in plain sight for everyone to see, exactly what I’ve been reporting for the past few years: Many
individuals who are investing in oil and natural gas futures are going out in the media and trying to
convince the American public that either we are out of oil or there is a serious supply shortage of crude
against worldwide demand. The question is: Does it surprise you to discover that the US Senate
investigated the rigging of the oil market by speculators in the summer of 2006 – and concluded that there
was no supply and demand problem with oil? Did you know that their conclusion was that speculators
were responsible for a 70 percent overcharge in the price of oil in the months leading up to the summer of
2006?
This from page 1 of the Executive Summary of that Senate investigation, there is this one troubling line:
"Today, U.S. oil inventories are at an eight-year high, and OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development) oil inventories are at a 20-year high."
That’s odd because, in 2006, just like today, the media reporting covered the serious international
shortage of oil and justified oil’s high price. Even more troubling is that the House of Representatives held
a hearing this past December, ominously titled "Energy Speculation and Price Manipulation." How did it
pass under the radar that both the Senate and the House studied the issue of price manipulation in our
energy markets and both concluded that it was unregulated, massive trading in one futures market that
was really driving up the price of oil and natural gas? And given that conclusion, why has Congress done
nothing about it?
Investors Make the News, Literally
A week ago Goldman Sachs issued a new investor note, suggesting that somewhere between six months
to two years, the price of oil could go into a "super spike" and prices jump as high as $200 per barrel. It
became the major story of the night. Ignored in the reporting frenzy was that many legitimate and wellrespected
oil analysts dismissed Goldman Sachs’ prediction as groundless.
Get ready for the next shock to your system. In the past month we have added 11.9 million barrels of oil
into our stock reserves, giving us 32.3 million more barrels of oil than we had on hand January 1. On May
5, we found out that for the second time in as many years, Iran was storing its excess crude oil on tankers
in the Persian Gulf, because it had run out of storage space in the desert and was awaiting buyers for its
heavy crude. That same day Saudi Arabia cut the discount price for its Arabian Heavy crude to $7.45,
hoping to entice more buyers for immediate delivery. We didn’t hear that news, either.
While researching my third article for BusinessWeek online about the world’s oil situation in 2008, I asked
for the most current report from Oil Movements. Because the oil industry is not transparent, Oil
Movements tracks every tanker at sea, from both OPEC and non-OPEC oil countries, along with their
cargoes’ final destinations. Anne O’Shea responded immediately to my request with their report dated
May 8, 2008. Just so you will know, oil shipments are up from a year ago in almost every class, including
Middle East oil in transit and Non-OPEC in Transit. The only class of oil shipment that has declined is
covered on page 3 of that report. That chart is labeled, "4-Week Changes in Westbound Oil at Sea."
Part two of the truth..........i know it's too long but hey, sometimes the truth is worth reading
ICE, ICE, Baby, conclusion
Special to the Star-Telegram
"What’s been happening since 2004 is very high prices without record-low [oil] stocks. The relationship
between U.S. [oil] inventory levels and prices has been shredded and become irrelevant."
— Jan Stuart, Global Oil Economist, UBS Securities
"What you have on the financial side is a bunch of money being thrown at the energy futures market. It’s
just pulling in more and more cash. That’s the side of the market where we have runaway demand, not on
the physical side."
— Tim Evans, Senior Oil Analyst, IFR Energy Services [From testimony: U.S. Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations’ report, "The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices,"
June 27, 2006]
The Love of Money
Record high prices without record low oil inventories, analysts saying that so much money flows into oil
commodities that it gives the impression of shortages, when in fact no shortage exists. That mirrors the
situation in the commodities market for food, as Bloomberg pointed out in its April 28 article, "Wall Street
Grain Hoarding Brings Farmers, Consumers Near Ruin": "Commodity investors control more U.S. crops
than ever before, competing with governments and consumers for dwindling food supplies." That’s right;
food, oil and gasoline have become an "asset class." No longer are you fighting a neighbor at the
supermarket over the last box of Cheerios®; now you’re fighting the futures traders, who are actually
determining what you will pay for that cereal.
We started as a society that worships hard labor and the basic business ethic of building value into the
goods you create. How’d we get from there to worshiping Wall Street’s billion-dollar boys — who create
nothing, build nothing, own nothing and deliver no goods, and yet can throw so much money into products
made by others that they determine what we consumers will pay for those goods?
It wasn’t always this way.
In the past, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission acted as the cop on the beat, ensuring that
buyers in the market were not distorting or manipulating prices beyond what supply and demand normally
dictate. Certainly, if a hard frost hit Florida and cost growers an orange crop, then bidding up the price of
the remaining oranges was both a wise investment and allowed under the trading rules. Right now
investors know that if they borrow and invest huge amounts in commodities futures, they can create a
shortage on paper – which drives prices up just like an actual shortage of any given product would. What
kept traders from cornering the market that way in the past were the government’s anti-manipulation rules.
Lay, DeLay, Gramm, Gramm & Clinton
The late, infamous Enron head, Ken Lay, realized in the eighties that he could make more money bidding
up energy in the futures market than by actually creating and selling energy. But, under then-current rules,
how much you could make swapping paper was limited. Fortuitously, Lay had excellent Texas political
connections; and in November of 1992, the head of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission moved
to exempt energy-derivative contracts and related swaps from any government oversight.
A vote was hurriedly put together before the Clinton White House would take over, and so Lay could
finally start "dark" – unregulated – futures trading. The head of the CFTC was Wendy Gramm, wife of
Texas Senator Phil Gramm; five weeks after she left, she became a board member of Enron in Houston.
Genghis made a couple of really good points, regardless of your opinions of oil shale, and gas reserves.
There have been less accidents associated with clean nuclear power, than coal, gas, and hydro electric. Safe and clean nuclear power should do wonders for this nations constant electrical needs. (problem is, what the heck to do with the waste, and no.. yucca mountain is NOT a viable solution).
What Genghis was referring to in terms of legislation in the Colorado Oil Shale drilling, is back in the 80's the only way to get to it, was through strip mining. Technology has changed, but Gehghis' information hasnt.
Now.. here's my opinion; Decreasing the cost of oil and gas is only a short term solution. The US needs to get away from oil dependancy Period. It's a finite source of energy, and regardless of opinion of emissions and polution, the demand is going to out weigh supply in the long term.
Until politicians get away from the big oil lobbyists, there will not be viable solutions to our increasing energy demands.
Until the auto makers get their heads out of the sand, and explore the technologies that exist, and look for ways to refine them, there will continue to be higher gas prices, and higher cost for food etc.
Look at the Geo Metro. It was a 3 cyl. Engine that got better milage than most hybrids. Sure, it had trouble getting out of its own way, but it was very economical. If say, GM were to refine and upgrade the plants they are shutting down to re produce a car like the metro, how many jobs would be saved? how much money could be made?
The need for oil has to be curbed if not out right eliminated here. Genghis was right on a few points, but mostly, he's another oil man. He's looking at the short term need, rather than a long term solution. The current gas and oil crunch is what the US needs in order to actively find a solution.
Americans dont do anything to change the status quo until forced to. Maybe 5 dollar, or 10 dollar gas will be the catalyst for such a change, until that point, I'm glad I have a bicycle.
Genghis...LOL...thats great!!!!
t2940 Schumpeter Reincarnate
Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Posts: 5270
Location: cave dweller
I'm off to a freedom party with a bunch of local patriots. I will read it when I get home and give my thoughts! I will try to only have a few pbr's before I do.
_________________ "For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil , there is one striking at the root" - Henry David Thoreau
In the end, though, I believe that the freedom/liberty people and message and the natural physics of the events at work, will assist the centralized power structures of the last two centuries to crumble to ash under their own despotic mass.
JW
icenvegas Schumpeter Reincarnate
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 3861
Location: Las Vegas
Okay, so who has dared to read the long posts above that has Ed Wallace insight into whats happening in the oil industry and what are your thoughts?
I read it. While I agree with much of whats said, there are still no voices of solution to the issue.
I still stand by MY stance, that the higher fuel costs should A) spur the US into alternative fuels out of emergency necessity, B) give us enough of a squeeze to move forward with nuclear power, and C) dust off existing technology to make the cost of fuels more bareable till alternatives are found.
my .02, take it, leave it, suck it LOL
_________________ I'm not smart, I just surround myself with stupid.
t2940 Schumpeter Reincarnate
Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Posts: 5270
Location: cave dweller
Good point ice. I'm not sure what we can do about it other than bombarding senators or if that would do any good either. Nice knowing the truth though. I'd like to see the push for alternative fuel sources but I remember that push before and then oil/gas would drop so everyone would forget about it. It does suck cause right now it's draining the economy and effecting every one.
buyerbeware Schumpeter Reincarnate
Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 3035
Location: minneapolis
Okay, so who has dared to read the long posts above that has Ed Wallace insight into whats happening in the oil industry and what are your thoughts?
I read it. While I agree with much of whats said, there are still no voices of solution to the issue.
I still stand by MY stance, that the higher fuel costs should A) spur the US into alternative fuels out of emergency necessity, B) give us enough of a squeeze to move forward with nuclear power, and C) dust off existing technology to make the cost of fuels more bareable till alternatives are found.
my .02, take it, leave it, suck it LOL
I'd like to see Ann Coulter sans-clothing but I haven't figured it out yet and by the time I do solve the problems leading to a fully-clothed Anne, it will be too late.
I digress.
Long term solutions, assuming there are some we can all agree on, won't matter much if we can't "get there". For instance, nuclear power plants take time, money, and public/private resolve. But even if nuclear power plants start popping up like dandelions over-night, my 1999 VW Passat has no uranium-235 converter so I am still up Shyt's Creek.
Fuel costs at the pump are artificially high due in part to speculation. How much, is debatable. But we know it and we can fix it. We should not be asked to suffer needlessly for the sake of commodity traders. Nor should we be forced to justify the higher cost as a means to inspire emergency efforts to replace fossil fuels. Should we be forced to rationalize higher food prices as a good opportunity to lose weight? (If you've been to the Minnesota State Fair, you might say YES). But what if we all die from malnutrition while we wait for technologies to emerge so we can eat again?
We are never going to get anywhere if we continue to listen to politicians who insist on demagogueing and politicizing the issues.
Gingrich may not know what he is talking about but that doesn't give him a pass. He should know that the laws prohibiting oil shale extraction in the Green River Basin were passed in 1930 and have since been lifted. Why doesn't he say that? If he doesn't know then he should STFU. If he does know then he should STFU.
He should know that the number of permits granted for drilling west of the Rockies were at record numbers for 2005 and 2006. Why doesn't he say that? Not knowing the facts is inexcusable and deliberately misleading the people to advance an agenda is treason.
He is doing what too many others are doing. He's politicizing the issue, convenietly avoiding the facts in favor of his truth.
To say there are no solutions is to be willing to do nothing even if there are solutions. And there is at least one solution. We can all contact our congressmen and congresswomen and hold them accountable. Tell them we want the energy commodities market to be regulated along sensible lines.
The thing about Enron is joe6pack had no idea what was going on. Now joe6pack is being told exactly what is going on and he is content to throw up his hands and say "well, the fat cats got us again; d'oh!!"
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
