Gasoline Expected to Rise to $5.00 to $6.00 a gallon

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The 21 Arab oil billionaires whose assets are 2.6 trillion stand to benefit handsomely from the OPEC's plan to push oil prices even higher in anticipation increased demand. Doesn't that make you feel good all over, knowing capitalism is at work, producing the very best product at best possible price.

Capitalism really isn't at work here. If it was we'd be drilling our own oil and providing competition.

 

[MaggieMae]

Geo political events are driving commodities traders into a form of panic buying.
They have run up the price of crude oil( West Texas Intermediate crude) on the New York Mercantile Exchange( NYMEX) has run up from $84 per barrel three weeks ago to over $100 per barrel before settling today with a slight drop.
The price yesterday fell due to a news story alleging Libyan leader Kadhafi had been shot and killed.
Although Other OPEC nations have pledged ot make up for the roughly 1.5 million barrel daily output form Libya's wells, commodities traders continue to fear anti- government strife will spread to other Gulf Arab nations and most importantly, Saudi Arabia.
Unfortunately with the US and other economies on shaky ground, this does not bode well for any kind of economic recovery. In fact some analysts have stated that if the present spike in oil and gasoline prices continues, it could send the US and European economies into a second tail spin.
In any event, there is no end in sight of the current run up in prices.

So you agree that it isn't government policy that drives the price of oil but Wall Street. Good.

Oh your poor uninformed girl.
But for our government policy regarding the lack of vision on natural resources and kowtowing to the environmental lobby, we would be not only the largest exporter of oil but the largest producer. We could essentially ignore OPEC and the Middle East.
In the last 30 years no new oil refineries have been built in the US for one reason. Government policies enacted by left wing politicians. SO much land with eons of recoverable oil and gas reserves were snapped up by the federal government and placed off limits. This was done to appease the enviro-lobby and in deference to foreign interests. Particularly OPEC.
Now, every time someone in the Middle East farts, we have an oil and gas price spike.
ENOUGH!!!!!

Oil from everywhere is sold on the GLOBAL MARKET to the highest bidders. Until that changes, the entire state of Texas could be soaking in oil, and it still wouldn't be piped to storage facilities exclusively in the United States, unless of course, the end distributors are the highest bidders.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yeah...Obama and his pie in the sky ideas about solar and wind energy and his idiotic drilling bans.
Clinton and his seizing of lands under which there are billions of barrels of unharvested oil and natural gas.

You can't even comprehend your own words in your previous post:

"Geo political events are driving commodities traders into a form of panic buying.
They have run up the price of crude oil( West Texas Intermediate crude) on the New York Mercantile Exchange( NYMEX) has run up from $84 per barrel three weeks ago to over $100 per barrel before settling today with a slight drop."

Moron......25% of the oil consumed in the US comes from the Gulf of Mexico.
Obama shut off oil drilling there.
That in and of itself jeopardizes supply. The markets react to the amount of available product vs the demand for said product.
The marketplace simply reacts to geopolitical policy and events.
Your feeble attempt to use oversimplification to make your point is actually quite amusing.
You work in 10 second soundbites and movie critic style blurbs.

You're entitled to your own fiction, but not your own facts.

FACT-CHECK: Sen. McConnell on Gulf of Mexico Oil Production/Consumption | Meet the Facts : Meet the Press Needs Fact-checking

PolitiFact | Hatch says '30 percent of our oil' comes from the Gulf

And here are all the F.A.C.T.S you need to know for your reeducation.

Crude Oil : Consumer Energy Alliance

 

[MaggieMae]

You can't even comprehend your own words in your previous post:

"Geo political events are driving commodities traders into a form of panic buying.
They have run up the price of crude oil( West Texas Intermediate crude) on the New York Mercantile Exchange( NYMEX) has run up from $84 per barrel three weeks ago to over $100 per barrel before settling today with a slight drop."

Moron......25% of the oil consumed in the US comes from the Gulf of Mexico.
Obama shut off oil drilling there.
That in and of itself jeopardizes supply. The markets react to the amount of available product vs the demand for said product.
The marketplace simply reacts to geopolitical policy and events.
Your feeble attempt to use oversimplification to make your point is actually quite amusing.
You work in 10 second soundbites and movie critic style blurbs.

It's quite clear we are paying more for fuel because of the markets reaction and not the actual price of the fuel.
If Obama cut loose and allowed drilling everywhere the markets would again react and that same gallon of fuel will magically cost us less.

How much louder does the fact that the global market sets prices for ALL CRUDE OIL DRILLED AND CAPTURED need to be? If a huge reserve say, off the coast of Santa Barbara starts wildly producing crude oil, and Standard Oil owns the drilling and production rights, if Japan is the highest bidder, Japan gets that oil.

 

[MaggieMae]

The 21 Arab oil billionaires whose assets are 2.6 trillion stand to benefit handsomely from the OPEC's plan to push oil prices even higher in anticipation increased demand. Doesn't that make you feel good all over, knowing capitalism is at work, producing the very best product at best possible price.

Capitalism really isn't at work here. If it was we'd be drilling our own oil and providing competition.

We are drilling here, but, AGAIN, it's the oil companies like Exxon who offer it up to the highest bidder. That's competition and that's capitalism at work. The only way all oil drilled in the continental United States could remain in the states would be if oil production was nationalized. And what's that? Socialism.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The 21 Arab oil billionaires whose assets are 2.6 trillion stand to benefit handsomely from the OPEC's plan to push oil prices even higher in anticipation increased demand. Doesn't that make you feel good all over, knowing capitalism is at work, producing the very best product at best possible price.

Capitalism really isn't at work here. If it was we'd be drilling our own oil and providing competition.

We are drilling here, but, AGAIN, it's the oil companies like Exxon who offer it up to the highest bidder. That's competition and that's capitalism at work. The only way all oil drilled in the continental United States could remain in the states would be if oil production was nationalized. And what's that? Socialism.

We aren't drilling anywhere near are capacity. We have ANWR, we have plenty of more reserves in the Gulf, not to mention off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. There has been a moratorium on drilling for nearly a year now and the Obama administration has issued only one drilling permit so far.

Furthermore, I don't think you really understand the economics. Nobody said the oil we drill had to remain in the states. The added supply to the world market would bring down the price regardless of who it is being sold to. As for production needing to be nationalized, I have no idea how you come to that conclusion. It's not logical.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Capitalism really isn't at work here. If it was we'd be drilling our own oil and providing competition.

We are drilling here, but, AGAIN, it's the oil companies like Exxon who offer it up to the highest bidder. That's competition and that's capitalism at work. The only way all oil drilled in the continental United States could remain in the states would be if oil production was nationalized. And what's that? Socialism.

We aren't drilling anywhere near are capacity. We have ANWR, we have plenty of more reserves in the Gulf, not to mention off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. There has been a moratorium on drilling for nearly a year now and the Obama administration has issued only one drilling permit so far.

Furthermore, I don't think you really understand the economics. Nobody said the oil we drill had to remain in the states. The added supply to the world market would bring down the price regardless of who it is being sold to. As for production needing to be nationalized, I have no idea how you come to that conclusion. It's not logical.

Oil prices fluctuate from nation to nation, hell they fluctuate from state to state. Go on long trip by car in the US and you'll see a pretty large price range when it comes to the gas in different areas. so having new supplies wouldn't necessarily lower prices everywhere-the prices are so much higher in certain areas because of the demand-not the supply.

Oil is not a normal commodity-it's dictated by demand SO much more than the supply, because the demand is massive-and even if the prices goes up-people will still be forced to purchase it one way or another. We use oil for shipping, harvesting crops/farms, transportation, plastic creation, etc. For almost every product produced, and consumed: oil is needed in some way, shape or form. There's a reason why 4/5 of the corporations that make the most amount of money in the US are oil companies (Walmart's the other for the record)-it has a lot less to due with supply than a normal product.

Prices are usually lowered when there are larger supplies because the scarcity is lowered. However when everybody is a consumer of a product-it's accurate to say that the usual supply-demand curve isn't totally applicable. Having a larger supply of oil wouldn't lower prices-because the demand wouldn't go down-it would remain the same (and as the population grows, oil demand grows too).

When supply goes up, demand goes down (because you're stretching out your market). But you can't tap out a market in which everybody is a consumer (directly or indirectly). If the supply of oil goes up-will more people purchase more oil? Most likely not.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

in all of your pontificating you exposed yourself for what you really are....A NIMBY.....Not In My Back Yard.
You stated very clearly that you do not care about other states. You are just fine with the harvesting of natural resources just as long as YOU don't have to deal with it.
It is at this point your argument loses all credibility....You are on the losing side here. Discussion terminated. You have made your agenda clear. No further discussion with you is necessary.
You Floridians are the last people who should talk about exploiting your state for every dime you can get. So don't go there. Yer done. OUT.
You may now have the last word.

You're so full of it. I simply said I think if a state wants to allow harvesting their resources (at great risks)-it should be left up to the state, and not the federal government. That's my point-if you can't grasp that-you really need to work on your reading comprehension.

If California, Alaska, etc. want to drill, or if they don't want to drill (the people of the state)-then I don't mind either way if they do or not. But here in Florida the people don't want it. It's not a NIMBY, it's a whoever's backyard it is should be able to decide-because the federal government doesn't have the authority to do so under the constitution.

I don't expect a response, when you're going as far as to strawman my point. You also dodged my question several times: where in the US constitution does it give the federal government the rights to impose off-shore drilling availability on the states.

So keep on putting words in my mouth, while not backing up your own claims, and by starting the personal attack route (which in itself weakens your arguments-as you're obviously no longer able to argue the points).

PS-keep using that paintbrush over there, I hear it's really good for painting all sorts of things.

Couldn't help yourself could ya?.....LOL
since you opened the door, this is what YOU wrote......I don't care whether there's drilling in Alaska, or off California shores-it's not my state. I wouldn't be the one at risk. If those states want to do it-more power to them. For me it's not about being an "enviro-nazi".

That in and of itself is classic NIMBY.....Look, you cannot get up early enough to get anything past me. I see EVERYTHING....
Mess with the bull, you get the horns, pal.
Facts are facts. Beyond three miles there is little a state can do regarding offshore energy exploration. It is through mutual cooperation and federal mandate that certain areas until now that have been deemed off limits.
However, if the need arises, exploration and drilling could commence.
Again, yours and other states which are involved would receive royalty payments from oil and natural gas harvesting. The potential damage to tourism economy would be negated by the revenue from the fossil fuels. And I am willing to go way out on a limb that tourists would not suddenly stop going to Florida because oil rigs were working 50- 100 miles off shore.
NIMBY gets you a little reprieve. Then you get swept aside.
Get a grip on the facts at hand.

If the people of Florida wanted off-shore drilling I would say ok they should be allowed to drill here. My stance on every other state is the same. So I don't have different standards with other states vs my own.

The revenue gathered from drilling would go to the state government-not to the people affected directly (fishers, hotels, businesses by the beaches, theme parks, etc.) Talk about big government.

And no I don't believe those who don't live in the backyard should have a say in it. I shouldn't have a say about the state of others-and others shouldn't have a say in mine.

I'm guessing you're a big government guy huh?

 

[Care4all]

The 21 Arab oil billionaires whose assets are 2.6 trillion stand to benefit handsomely from the OPEC's plan to push oil prices even higher in anticipation increased demand. Doesn't that make you feel good all over, knowing capitalism is at work, producing the very best product at best possible price.

Capitalism really isn't at work here. If it was we'd be drilling our own oil and providing competition.

We're not drilling oil here in the USA? huh?

 

[Old Rocks]

Still the same basic math. We use 24% of the world's oil, and have 3% of the world's reserves.

 

[Care4all]

I just find it interesting that the same people who were blaming Bush for the high gas prices three years ago are steadily mum over the current rapid increase. If it was Bush's fault then, is it not Obama's fault now?

well, president bush brought us in to a full fledged war in Iraq....and war presence in the middle east was a guaranteed, major hike in oil....it always is....

civil unrest in the middle east will ALWAYS raise oil prices, and make the Exxons of the world, REAP the benefits....perpetual war will always raise the price of oil....

 

[MaggieMae]

Still the same basic math. We use 24% of the world's oil, and have 3% of the world's reserves.

But that justifies the argument that more drilling here is required. Frankly, I don't much care if they do or don't, but big investors are actually more interested in putting their money into alternative energy sources anyway because they know that's where the future lies.

http://www.connectivecapital.com/pdf/CC EE Institutional Investor (2009.07).pdf

 

[Flopper]

The 21 Arab oil billionaires whose assets are 2.6 trillion stand to benefit handsomely from the OPEC's plan to push oil prices even higher in anticipation increased demand. Doesn't that make you feel good all over, knowing capitalism is at work, producing the very best product at best possible price.

Holy shit....
Genius, OPEC nations are every bit as susceptible to oil price spikes and sudden drops.
That said, if the price rises too quickly and in violation of market fundamentals, OPEC will increase production to stem the rising prices. If they do not and allow the price to rise too high, the potential for a sudden collapse of the price can be devastating.
For example. About mid January read a statement from the Saudi OPEC oil minister stating he wanted crude prices to stay below $100 per barrel to protect against the potential for a 2009 type collapse.

If what you state is true then there would be no incentive for OPEC to raise production quotas. They could in fact decrease production to hold product off the market in order to let the price skyrocket.

OPEC is a cartel; with one of its principal goals is the determination of the best means for safeguarding the organization's interests, individually and collectively. The fact that they regard the free market as a destructive force says loads about the organization. The huge investments they have in western economies gives them a vested interest in seeing that there is sufficient oil to keep these economies growing, but not so much as to allow prices to fall. Price fixing benefits the producer and never the consumer.

 

[Flopper]

So you agree that it isn't government policy that drives the price of oil but Wall Street. Good.

Oh your poor uninformed girl.
But for our government policy regarding the lack of vision on natural resources and kowtowing to the environmental lobby, we would be not only the largest exporter of oil but the largest producer. We could essentially ignore OPEC and the Middle East.
In the last 30 years no new oil refineries have been built in the US for one reason. Government policies enacted by left wing politicians. SO much land with eons of recoverable oil and gas reserves were snapped up by the federal government and placed off limits. This was done to appease the enviro-lobby and in deference to foreign interests. Particularly OPEC.
Now, every time someone in the Middle East farts, we have an oil and gas price spike.
ENOUGH!!!!!

Oil from everywhere is sold on the GLOBAL MARKET to the highest bidders. Until that changes, the entire state of Texas could be soaking in oil, and it still wouldn't be piped to storage facilities exclusively in the United States, unless of course, the end distributors are the highest bidders.

The only way we can keep oil prices down in the US is to either nationalize the oil industry, which is very unlikely or produce enough oil to saturate world markets, which is even less likely.

 

[Flopper]

Still the same basic math. We use 24% of the world's oil, and have 3% of the world's reserves.

But that justifies the argument that more drilling here is required. Frankly, I don't much care if they do or don't, but big investors are actually more interested in putting their money into alternative energy sources anyway because they know that's where the future lies.

http://www.connectivecapital.com/pdf/CC EE Institutional Investor (2009.07).pdf

Drilling more in the US will have only a minor impact on oil prices. Oil produced in the US will be sold on the world market. However, if the US were energy independent and Arab oil flow was interrupted, the government could intervene limiting exports to insure sufficient supplies in the US. The argument that more production in the US will lead to very low fuel prices is without merit. The only difference we would see would be due to transportation cost.

 

[steeliniraq]

I just find it interesting that the same people who were blaming Bush for the high gas prices three years ago are steadily mum over the current rapid increase. If it was Bush's fault then, is it not Obama's fault now?

Quiet now. Dont use too much common sense or else we will have to listen to BS excuses as to why it was Bush's fault and not Obama.

 

[Synthaholic]

It's about state rights. Here in Florida for example we should have the right to either allow, or deny oil drilling off of our shores. The constitution doesn't grant the federal government-or any body to either allow, or restrict oil drilling. Therefore it's up to the states individually.

We don't want drilling because it'll greatly hinder our economy. Our tourism would get hit really hard-let alone if something like the BP spill happened again, which would then hit our fishing, boating, ports, etc.. We have too much to risk just to slightly lower gas prices for the nation as a whole. Floridians shouldn't be subjected to unconstitutional risks to our economy just for people in the other 49 states (talk about big government).

The majority of Floridians are against off-shore drilling here. It's against our state law not to drill here. If you can point out an area of the US constitution that states the federal government has the right to overstep that law-by all means show it. If you can't (which you can't)-too bad, so sad-get over it.

The majority of Floridians aren't even Floridians. They live half the year in New York or New Jersey.
You go ahead and keep buying into the enviro-nazi propaganda. If there were oil rigs off the FL coast, you would not have a clue their presence. The entire story behind FL's off shore ban was based on the California spills of the 1970's. Oil production technology is far more advanced. The BP explosion was an accident.
If anything, FL taxpayers would benefit from off shore oil production in the form of royalties from said production.
Look, it's either we here in the US start realizing that with economic freedom comes a little risk or we remain under the thumb of people who don't like us very much.
BTW, to a certain distance off the shoreline ,yes the State has jurisdiction. Beyond that , I believe it is three miles, offshore waters come under federal jurisdiction. It is through cooperation between the federal government and states that offshore drilling is limted.
However, if push came to shove and the country needed the oil, we'd get it. and of course the respective state would receive ample compensation.
This is not about "slightly lower gas prices"..This is about doing the right thing and harvesting our own natural resources. You complain about risk. You mention fisheries and tourism twice. Sounds like you have an agenda. an agenda that is somewhat self centered.
Newsflash...we're all in this together. Last time I checked Florida was still part of the United States of America.
This is about economic independence and economic security. Do not ever forget that.
We don't get to that point without a little risk.
If we used your theory about avoiding risk, there would be no air travel and no cars.

The States Rights clause in the Constitution does not apply here.

Totally incorrect. Stop talking out your ass.

 

[uscitizen]

Umm Obama did not invade and occupy Iraq and Afganistan?

Obama say let the market decide when Enron was ripping CA for billons?

did Obama say that Iraqs oil revenue would pay for their rebuilding?

Yeah Obama sucks, but We will be paying for Bush and his accolytes for decades.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I just find it interesting that the same people who were blaming Bush for the high gas prices three years ago are steadily mum over the current rapid increase. If it was Bush's fault then, is it not Obama's fault now?

well, president bush brought us in to a full fledged war in Iraq....and war presence in the middle east was a guaranteed, major hike in oil....it always is....

civil unrest in the middle east will ALWAYS raise oil prices, and make the Exxons of the world, REAP the benefits....perpetual war will always raise the price of oil....

Umm, the oil companies are not reaping benefits. When the market forces cause the price to rise, the oil producers costs rise.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It's about state rights. Here in Florida for example we should have the right to either allow, or deny oil drilling off of our shores. The constitution doesn't grant the federal government-or any body to either allow, or restrict oil drilling. Therefore it's up to the states individually.

We don't want drilling because it'll greatly hinder our economy. Our tourism would get hit really hard-let alone if something like the BP spill happened again, which would then hit our fishing, boating, ports, etc.. We have too much to risk just to slightly lower gas prices for the nation as a whole. Floridians shouldn't be subjected to unconstitutional risks to our economy just for people in the other 49 states (talk about big government).

The majority of Floridians are against off-shore drilling here. It's against our state law not to drill here. If you can point out an area of the US constitution that states the federal government has the right to overstep that law-by all means show it. If you can't (which you can't)-too bad, so sad-get over it.

The majority of Floridians aren't even Floridians. They live half the year in New York or New Jersey.
You go ahead and keep buying into the enviro-nazi propaganda. If there were oil rigs off the FL coast, you would not have a clue their presence. The entire story behind FL's off shore ban was based on the California spills of the 1970's. Oil production technology is far more advanced. The BP explosion was an accident.
If anything, FL taxpayers would benefit from off shore oil production in the form of royalties from said production.
Look, it's either we here in the US start realizing that with economic freedom comes a little risk or we remain under the thumb of people who don't like us very much.
BTW, to a certain distance off the shoreline ,yes the State has jurisdiction. Beyond that , I believe it is three miles, offshore waters come under federal jurisdiction. It is through cooperation between the federal government and states that offshore drilling is limited.
However, if push came to shove and the country needed the oil, we'd get it. and of course the respective state would receive ample compensation.
This is not about "slightly lower gas prices"..This is about doing the right thing and harvesting our own natural resources. You complain about risk. You mention fisheries and tourism twice. Sounds like you have an agenda. an agenda that is somewhat self centered.
Newsflash...we're all in this together. Last time I checked Florida was still part of the United States of America.
This is about economic independence and economic security. Do not ever forget that.
We don't get to that point without a little risk.
If we used your theory about avoiding risk, there would be no air travel and no cars.

The States Rights clause in the Constitution does not apply here.

Totally incorrect. Stop talking out your ass.

Really? Examples please.....Have at it or stow it.
The uninformed have no right to an opinion. Since you insist on being uninformed, well...