Rise of oil: the cost to US economy

[zzzz]

Saw this explanation that related the rise of oil to the econmomy.

“A one-dollar, one-day increase in a barrel of oil takes $12 million out of the U.S. economy,” said Jason S. Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington research group. “If tensions in the Mideast cause oil prices to rise by $5 for even just three months, over $5 billion dollars will leave the U.S. economy. Obviously, this is not a strategy for creating new jobs.”

Oil rose almost $4 last Friday to almost $90. There is a possibility that it could get to $100 later this year. The cost of oil is determined the availabilty of the margin between the supply of oil and the demand. Even though a relatively small amount of oil comes through the Suez it has a big effect on the margin and therefore the price rises.

The price of oil will determine America's economic recovery or slide back into recession. If, as I foresee, oil continues to rise we are doomed to endure another recession which we cannot afford.

 

[B. Kidd]

Last I heard, between tankers that use the Suez Canal and an adjoining pipeline running through the Suez, provide 40 per cent of oil used in the U.S.. Not a small amount.

 

[Mr. H.]

Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

 

[B. Kidd]

Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

Don't need to drill. Whoever is running the Egyptian gov't has the Suez canal lined with tanks. (Sarcasm).

 

[Pepe]

Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

I always try to temper this comment with the adage that all Petroleum is sold to the "highest bidder" on the world market.

Just like most Alaskan oil is sold to Japan.

 

[Mr. H.]

Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

I always try to temper this comment with the adage that all Petroleum is sold to the "highest bidder" on the world market.

Just like most Alaskan oil is sold to Japan.

Alaskan oil is sold to Japan because the state of California pleaded and won the arguement that the influx of crude into their local markets would ruin the state's oil industry by suppressing prices.

 

[william the wie]

This price move will drive research into various forms of bio-crude.

 

[Mr. H.]

This price move will drive research into various forms of bio-crude.

You really need sustained high prices to support continued R & D into alternatives- at least from the investment community. All you need to finance research from the government is scare tactics- like the ones perpetuated by the liberals.

 

[uscitizen]

Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

I always try to temper this comment with the adage that all Petroleum is sold to the "highest bidder" on the world market.

Just like most Alaskan oil is sold to Japan.

Alaskan oil is sold to Japan because the state of California pleaded and won the arguement that the influx of crude into their local markets would ruin the state's oil industry by suppressing prices.

Yep and I think that supports the argument that drilling here would not necessarially make it any cheaper for us.

The US econiomy hurting becuase of rising oil prices? Nope but the people do, the higher oil prices make the GDP rise and show a recovery.

 

[rdean]

This is hilarious. We lease land to foreign oil companies like BP. They find oil and put it on the open market to be bid on by the rest of the world. The price starts to go down, so the oil companies hold back until the price goes back up. Then the right wing screams we need to "Drill baby, drill".

Why do they think we get the oil? Republicans will make sure that never happens. That's the legacy of the Bush/Cheney energy policy. That and the oil subsidies.

The only energy we "get to keep" is energy we develop here. Republicans will block that. They are too heavily invested in oil companies. Or, maybe I should say, the oil companies have heavily invested in them. This is the truth. Nothing will change unless the right wing votes Boehner, the guy who apologized to BP and others of that ilk out of office. Won't happen. They totally support the white people who are in office for one single reason. They're white.

Do the majority of Republicans really believe that after the deaths of nearly a dozen people and millions of oil blasted into our Gulf Coast that we should apologize to BP? Seriously? I don't think so. In fact, Senate Republicans have voted three times I know about to block the president from subpoena power to investigate BP. Perhaps it was simply part of the "apology"?

 

[rdean]

This price move will drive research into various forms of bio-crude.

You really need sustained high prices to support continued R & D into alternatives- at least from the investment community. All you need to finance research from the government is scare tactics- like the ones perpetuated by the liberals.

You must endorse the apology to BP.

 

[Douger]

All natural resources ( what are left), in the nation formerly known as the USA, should be nationalized, as should the fed and all of the banks, energy companies, and credit unions.
One ounce of oil, one ton of coal, or one fish caught, or raised, in US territory, sold abroad is traitorous.
Keep voting for the capitalists.
Ya see how well that has worked out, eh ?

 

[Mr. H.]

This price move will drive research into various forms of bio-crude.

You really need sustained high prices to support continued R & D into alternatives- at least from the investment community. All you need to finance research from the government is scare tactics- like the ones perpetuated by the liberals.

You must endorse the apology to BP.

That was a bit of an odd comment, given the venue and the circumstances. But, yeah I think it was a ballzy statement w/re: to the judge/jury/executioner atmosphere at those hearings.

 

[Mr. H.]

I always try to temper this comment with the adage that all Petroleum is sold to the "highest bidder" on the world market.

Just like most Alaskan oil is sold to Japan.

Alaskan oil is sold to Japan because the state of California pleaded and won the arguement that the influx of crude into their local markets would ruin the state's oil industry by suppressing prices.

Yep and I think that supports the argument that drilling here would not necessarially make it any cheaper for us.

The US econiomy hurting becuase of rising oil prices? Nope but the people do, the higher oil prices make the GDP rise and show a recovery.

Do you mean "any cheaper" to drill for, or cheaper the commodity? As was pointed out in an earlier post (or thread) oil is a commodity that's traded the world over- not so much by the energy companies themselves, but by hugely funded investment firms, traders, and speculators. And just what is the arguement? Cheaper oil or the sustained availability of oil?

Drilling here, and producing oil here, keeps the money here.

Hell yeah it's hurting the consumer- which is why it's in nobody's interest to have prolonged high oil prices. It stunts consumer spending in other areas, supresses demand, and adds to manufacturing and transportation costs. As for your comment about the GDP I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[uscitizen]

"And just what is the arguement? Cheaper oil or the sustained availability of oil?"

We would get neither one.
In my opinion we should save our oil to use when it gets scarcer and more countries start keeping their oil vs selling it. That will happen.
Kind of an untapped strategic reserve.

 

[rdean]

You really need sustained high prices to support continued R & D into alternatives- at least from the investment community. All you need to finance research from the government is scare tactics- like the ones perpetuated by the liberals.

You must endorse the apology to BP.

That was a bit of an odd comment, given the venue and the circumstances. But, yeah I think it was a ballzy statement w/re: to the judge/jury/executioner atmosphere at those hearings.

So you are saying you agree with apology to BP? 11 people dead and millions of gallons of oil in our gulf? The apology was because the Republicans feel it was "just an accident" and the cost should be paid for by middle class America?

Subpoena power in BP oil spill investigation blocked by Senate Republicans

Blocking subpoena power in disaster investigative commissions is unheard of. The terrorists crisis, the financial crisis and Three Mile Island commissions all had subpoena power. However, Senate Republicans gave no explanation on Monday when they blocked the Presidential Commission on the BP oil spill from having subpoena power to conduct the investigation.

 

[Mr. H.]

This is hilarious. We lease land to foreign oil companies like BP. They find oil and put it on the open market to be bid on by the rest of the world. The price starts to go down, so the oil companies hold back until the price goes back up. Then the right wing screams we need to "Drill baby, drill".

Why do they think we get the oil? Republicans will make sure that never happens. That's the legacy of the Bush/Cheney energy policy. That and the oil subsidies.

The only energy we "get to keep" is energy we develop here. Republicans will block that. They are too heavily invested in oil companies. Or, maybe I should say, the oil companies have heavily invested in them. This is the truth. Nothing will change unless the right wing votes Boehner, the guy who apologized to BP and others of that ilk out of office. Won't happen. They totally support the white people who are in office for one single reason. They're white.

Do the majority of Republicans really believe that after the deaths of nearly a dozen people and millions of oil blasted into our Gulf Coast that we should apologize to BP? Seriously? I don't think so. In fact, Senate Republicans have voted three times I know about to block the president from subpoena power to investigate BP. Perhaps it was simply part of the "apology"?

Leasing terms for offshore drilling blocks as well as onshore acreage is very lucrative for the U.S. Both bring in billions of dollars annually to the Treasury.

"The oil companies hold back"? In what fashion? Some specifics if you could.
This "drill baby drill" mantra isn't rooted in short-term price spikes. It's about developing domestic resources, rather than importing them. Domestic hydrocarbons, domestic jobs, internally generated revenues, taxes and royalties. Each incremental barrel of oil produced here is one less that's iimported.

Uh - Bush/Cheney. Oh those guys from the last administration. Well you have your own darling in power now. The one that proclaimed in his State of the Union speech that he's going to recoup billions of dollars taken from the taxpayers by the evil oil companies.

What horse shit. He's a one-term horse shit know nothing liberal Robin-Hood who thinks he can solve societal and economic ills by robbing from the doers and give to the do nothings.

 

[Mr. H.]

"And just what is the arguement? Cheaper oil or the sustained availability of oil?"

We would get neither one.
In my opinion we should save our oil to use when it gets scarcer and more countries start keeping their oil vs selling it. That will happen.
Kind of an untapped strategic reserve.

I think you're absolutely right.

Cheap oil won't provide the revenues needed to sustain exploration and production. Expensive oil supresses demand and ultimately drives prices down (albeit temporarily).
Plus- high oil prices bring out the worst of the anti-business, anti-profit crowd and Congress goes into vapor lock.

But, that is the bitch about the oil business. How can you construct any long-term planning models when you don't know what the price of the commodity will be 6 months out?

Even a pizza parlor knows what a pizza will be worth 2 years from now.

I've heard the "save our oil for later" argument for the past 30 years. It takes months and often years to implement and E & P program and to get oil into the tanks (or pipeline).
The SPR is no "quick draw" either.

And what is the purpose of the SPR? To ensure sustained supply or suppress prices?
So far, it's been used to suppress prices.

 

[uscitizen]

One guarantee 10 years from now the price of oil will be higher than now.
And even higher 20 years from now.
I think we need to more fully utilize our natural gas far more than we have been.
We vent and burn off more natural gas than some countries use.

 

[Mr. H.]

You must endorse the apology to BP.

That was a bit of an odd comment, given the venue and the circumstances. But, yeah I think it was a ballzy statement w/re: to the judge/jury/executioner atmosphere at those hearings.

So you are saying you agree with apology to BP? 11 people dead and millions of gallons of oil in our gulf? The apology was because the Republicans feel it was "just an accident" and the cost should be paid for by middle class America?

Subpoena power in BP oil spill investigation blocked by Senate Republicans

Blocking subpoena power in disaster investigative commissions is unheard of. The terrorists crisis, the financial crisis and Three Mile Island commissions all had subpoena power. However, Senate Republicans gave no explanation on Monday when they blocked the Presidential Commission on the BP oil spill from having subpoena power to conduct the investigation.

rdean or aren't dean? Only my hairdresser knows for sure.
(sorry-been wanting to use that for a long time now)

As I recall, the "apology" comment came from one idividual- not an entire pollitical party.

I already gave you my opinion of it.

Not sure about that subpoena issue. I'll read your link.
But I should think that the action of blocking a subpoena is itself subject to contest.
Was it contested? Why not? It's fun to share ideas, opinions, and experiences here but lighten up- I'm no Jiggs Casey.