$1.99 gas .

[BOP]

So where are all the freaks on the right (ya hear me GRUPS, Hijinx,. Gilligan, MamaTutu) proclaiming their love of Mr. Obama?

One of their initial and, incredibly wrong (as usual) complaints about Mr. Obama was that gas prices were below $2 when he came into office and then rose. Of course, none of these mental giants understand that the President has zero impact on gas prices...how many times did that have to get explained to LG before he stopped stating it? None of them considered that we were in a damn near depression in early 2009.

Now that oil has dropped so drastically (also without any impact from a weak and ineffectual President), these same mental giants are either mute or have all of a sudden grasped the concept of supply and demand!

I just paid $2.23 this am in Lex Park. Somebody's racissss....or something.


So, I guess all the drilling going on in this country, as well as a possible Republican majority House and Senate overriding the Won's future veto of the Keystone Pipeline has nothing to do with falling prices, huh?

Twit.


edit: should have been $2.23, not $4.23 Dur.

 

[BernieP]

So where are all the freaks on the right (ya hear me GRUPS, Hijinx,. Gilligan, MamaTutu) proclaiming their love of Mr. Obama?

One of their initial and, incredibly wrong (as usual) complaints about Mr. Obama was that gas prices were below $2 when he came into office and then rose. Of course, none of these mental giants understand that the President has zero impact on gas prices...how many times did that have to get explained to LG before he stopped stating it? None of them considered that we were in a damn near depression in early 2009.

Now that oil has dropped so drastically (also without any impact from a weak and ineffectual President), these same mental giants are either mute or have all of a sudden grasped the concept of supply and demand!

This has nothing to do with Obamie, and everything to do with OPEC. OPEC is trying to drive US domestic production out of business (less we become energy independent). If they keep the price low enough, long enough, it will force domestic production to cease as it will be come cost prohibitive. Also it should be noted, one of the largest backers of the anti-fracking movement is Qatar. You have it boys and girls, OPEC is an ally of the environmental whacko jobs.

 

[GURPS]

So where are all the freaks on the right (ya hear me GRUPS, Hijinx,. Gilligan, MamaTutu) proclaiming their love of Mr. Obama?

what has Obama got to do with the LOW Price of OIL :shrug:


that's right NOTHING .......





what Obama did to limit production increases ....

PICKET: Flashback - Oil drilling permits down 36 percent under Obama


President Barack Obama and Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney engaged in a heated discussion over oil production during the president’s first term during their second debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York on Tuesday night. President Obama insisted that oil production has been up and that the oil companies have been granted permits to drill but refuse to do so. Governor Romney, though, pointed out that the government is not granting many permits to oil companies, particularly on federal land.

“The most important thing we can do is to make sure we control our own energy. So here’s what I’ve done since I’ve been president. We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years,” President Obama said. Natural gas production is the highest it’s been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment. But what I’ve also said is we can’t just produce traditional source of energy. We’ve got to look to the future. That’s why we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars.”

Governor Romney shot back, saying: “Oil production is is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent. Why? Because the president cut in half the number of licenses and permits for drilling on federal lands, and in federal waters.”

Romney continued, ” What we don’t need is to have the president keeping us from taking advantage of oil, coal, and gas. This has not been Mr. Oil, or Mr. Gas, or Mr. Coal. Talk to these people working in those industries. I was just in coal country. People grabbed my arms and said, ‘Please save my job.’ The head of the EPA said, ‘ You can’t build a coal plant. You’ll virtually—it’s virtually impossible given our regulations.’”

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Obama’s Interior Department just banned drilling on 11.5 million acres of petroleum reserve:

President Obama is campaigning as a champion of the oil and gas boom he’s had nothing to do with, and even as his regulators try to stifle it. The latest example is the Interior Department’s little-noticed August decision to close off from drilling nearly half of the 23.5 million acre National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.

The area is called the National Petroleum Reserve because in 1976 Congress designated it as a strategic oil and natural gas stockpile to meet the “energy needs of the nation.” Alaska favors exploration in nearly the entire reserve. The feds had been reviewing four potential development plans, and the state of Alaska had strongly objected to the most restrictive of the four. Sure enough, that was the plan Interior chose.​

Obama’s Drilling Denials



In a tense exchange during the Oct. 16 debate, President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney sparred over domestic oil and gas production on lands and in waters under the Obama administration’s control.

The facts, for the most part, are on Romney’s side.

• Obama was wrong when he denied Romney’s claim that the Obama administration cut in half the number of new permits and new leases for offshore oil and gas drilling. The decrease is actually more than half.
• Romney exaggerated, however, when he said the number of new permits and new leases for onshore drilling also declined by half under Obama. The decline isn’t that steep.
• Obama was wrong when he told Romney it’s “just not true” that domestic oil production on federal lands is down 14 percent and gas production has fallen 9 percent in one year. Production of oil and natural gas on federal lands and in federal waters did indeed fall by those percentages as Romney said, although Romney erred in saying the drops took place “this year.” The decreases occurred in fiscal year 2011.
• Romney failed to note, however, that oil production from federal jurisdictions has risen over the three-and-a-half years of Obama’s term. And while natural gas production has declined under Obama, the downturn started long before he took office.

Romney’s claim reflects the larger Republican talking point that production of oil and natural gas has fallen on federal lands and in federal waters but increased on private and state-owned properties. As we’ve written before, the claim is true only for 2011.

Romney and Obama argued during the first half hour of the town-hall-style debate — long after a man had asked a question about gasoline prices and energy policy.

Report: US oil-and-gas production up despite drop on federal lands

By Zack Colman - 03/05/13 04:43 PM EST
“Where the states have been in charge, we have seen energy development boom in a safe and responsible way, but under federal control we have seen a sharp decline in production. A web of red tape and a backlog of delayed permits are blocking important energy production opportunities on federal lands,” Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, said in a Tuesday statement.

Republicans have prodded Obama to emulate the activity on private and state lands, where a bulk of the nation’s drilling is occurring.

They say expanding energy development could yield more situations like North Dakota’s Bakken formation, where drilling has added thousands of jobs.




Other News: http://fuelfix.com/

 

[Baja28]

The $6.00 bridge toll is enough to keep me from heading that way...

EasyPass = $2.10

 

[Popster]

Nephew in Medina Ohio paid $5.84 for 30 gallons using food store savings on gas!

 

[PsyOps]

A gallon of gas is still around $10.00 in Norway.

I can't speak for Norway, but I know when I was in Germany gas was nearly 4X what it was in the states; and that was because of taxes.

 

[Gilligan]

This story is a month old...the outlook for production is not good. Going to be a lot of layoffs along the gulf coast, North Dakota, etc.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Rig-count-shows-big-weekly-drop-as-oil-price-fall-5954255.php#/0

 

[SG_Player1974]

There isn't a coordinated effort; rather there is simply a worldwide glut of oil and oil production capacity.

I really do not buy this....

So, you are buying the idea that, after nearly 10 years of increasing prices at the pump and oil-per-barrel, that in the last 12 months there is suddenly a windfall of oil and a new-found oil production capacity that was not there?! So after an alleged 10 year steady increase in "demand" and "worldwide usage" there is a sudden and sharp 35% decrease?!

Sounds like another "story" to me.

 

[Gilligan]

I really do not buy this....

So, you are buying the idea that, after nearly 10 years of increasing prices at the pump and oil-per-barrel, that in the last 12 months there is suddenly a windfall of oil and a new-found oil production capacity that was not there?! So after an alleged 10 year steady increase in "demand" and "worldwide usage" there is a sudden and sharp 35% decrease?!

Sounds like another "story" to me.

Happens to every other commodity and market...why would oil be any different? Bubbles are created..bubbles collapse. Pretty basic stuff.

Perhaps I have a better vantage point; since I'm involved, or at least closely exposed, in the marine side of oil production worldwide to varying degrees, I've seen and paid close attention to the steady growth in development and production. Increased development means an increase in all the various support vessels. And now I get to watch that market collapse too. ;-(

 

[SG_Player1974]

Happens to every other commodity and market...why would oil be any different? Bubbles are created..bubbles collapse. Pretty basic stuff.

Yes, however commodities are traded due to SPECULATION. Just 12 months ago, price of gas at the pump was higher than it ever was. Now, all of the sudden, it has lost over 1/3 of its value and people want to say it is because of "a decrease in demand?"

I believe it is due to the Saudi's driving down the price to stop our own production. There is no denying that there is some form of political undertones going on here.

 

[bilbur]

I really do not buy this....

So, you are buying the idea that, after nearly 10 years of increasing prices at the pump and oil-per-barrel, that in the last 12 months there is suddenly a windfall of oil and a new-found oil production capacity that was not there?! So after an alleged 10 year steady increase in "demand" and "worldwide usage" there is a sudden and sharp 35% decrease?!

Sounds like another "story" to me.

I blame the show Backyard Oil, now everyone with an acre of land in Kentucky is drilling. While I am sort of kidding I do bet the show had a small impact on US oil production just like shows such as Auction Hunters flooded the storage auctions with people trying to find 1 container that would make them rich.

 

[Tilted]

I really do not buy this....

So, you are buying the idea that, after nearly 10 years of increasing prices at the pump and oil-per-barrel, that in the last 12 months there is suddenly a windfall of oil and a new-found oil production capacity that was not there?! So after an alleged 10 year steady increase in "demand" and "worldwide usage" there is a sudden and sharp 35% decrease?!

Sounds like another "story" to me.

Who has suggested a 35% decrease in demand? Or, really, anything near that?

If you're suggesting that such a large drop in prices, if we're going to attribute it to changes in supply-demand realities and/or expectations (which would be a correct attribution), necessarily implies a similarly large drop in supply or increase in demand, then that suggestion is misguided. That's not how supply-demand dynamics work, that's not how markets work. Yes, it's possible in some circumstances that the percent increase or decrease in price lines up pretty well with the percent increase or decrease in supply or demand, but that's not going to be the typical case - and it's likely more happenstance than anything in those particular cases. And it's certainly not going to be the case when it comes to some markets and some products in particular - e.g., global oil.

For a number of reasons that I'd be happy to walk through with you, there is great inelasticity in global oil pricing. Small differences in the supply - demand balance, if they are (or are likely to be) sustained over a significant period of time, can mean huge differences in prices. We aren't talking about a huge (relative) spike in global oil supply or a huge (relative) drop in global oil demand. We're talking about fairly small (a percent or two perhaps) shifts in those things that have evolved over recent months and years. The reality of those shifts have hit global markets - and become unavoidable (or undeniable) - in the last 6 months of so. So, prices have adjusted as will be needed to rebalance supply and demand (again, huge price differences to effectuate smallish supply and demand adjustments). Prices have not only corrected, they've over-corrected. And, by the way, in the past such smallish (would-be) shifts have often been met with some market manipulation, so to speak (e.g. intentional cuts or increases in production), such that they didn't eventually result in large price swings. That's part of why global oil prices had been so stable over the preceding four or so years.

It can't be emphasized enough - for legitimate, natural, reasons - oil pricing happens at the margins. What's going on at the margins of supply and demand determines, for the most part, pricing. And various things happen to change the outlook at those margins, so without someone or someones actively manipulating the margins of the market, oil prices can be quite volatile. The story here (not the long-term story, but the immediate story) is that no one has stepped in (read: OPEC, Saudia Arabia in particular, has not stepped in) to offset natural developments in oil markets in order to stabilize prices.

 

[Tilted]

They don't need to pump, just drill the hole. That way, when OPEC says "You've had enough" we are ready to ramp up our own production. Like hiding snickers in the sock drawer.

Drilling the hole, as we're oversimplifying the process here, is what costs money - what requires capital expenditures and is done based on decisions which are based in part on, among other things, the expected price that will be got for the oil that might be produced. The process of deciding whether or not it makes fiscal sense to take the risk to drill a given hole (or, more realistically, a given project of holes) is greatly affected by the consideration of what future oil prices might be. The pumping part, as we're oversimplifying the process here, isn't the issue. If you've drilled the hole, it's probably greatly profitable to pump no matter what the price is. But at certain prices, it doesn't make sense to drill the hole to begin with - especially considering the risks involved and thus the potential upside needed to offset the risks such that it makes sense to green light a particular project.

 

[Gilligan]

I blame the show Backyard Oil, now everyone with an acre of land in Kentucky is drilling. While I am sort of kidding I do bet the show had a small impact on US oil production just like shows such as Auction Hunters flooded the storage auctions with people trying to find 1 container that would make them rich.

A LOT of "closed/old" wells and properties were put in production (or back in to production) as the price of oil kept increasing steadily over the past 6 or so years. Heck, I'm a 1/5 owner of an oil property in Texas that had its wells closed down in the early 60s..and just two years ago, out of the blue, a drilling company tracked us down and negotiated a new lease deal to open it up again. Guess I won't be seeing any big royalty check on that now..

 

[Tilted]

I think we could be, and should be, experiencing gas below $1.00 if this government would get our dependency off foreign oil, start drilling here at home/offshore, stand up more refineries, approve the Keystone Pipeline... And if we had been doing this from the beginning we should have never gone above $1.00.

PsyOps, what are you basing this belief on? That we could have $1 / gallon gasoline? I'd curious to know, because I think it is completely implausible.

Yes, we can have sudden swings and prices can drop really low (though not that low, I don't think) for a short period of time. But big picture, current realities (e.g. relating to global demand and global participants, the nature of much of the new production sources that are available to us) just wouldn't allow for it. At $1 / gallon gas (and the corresponding barrel oil prices that would be needed) for an extended period of time, the world just wouldn't produce as much oil as it would consume. And that's a physical impossibilities (i.e. we can't consume more oil than we produce, save for using up the relatively smallish amount of oil that might be stored in various infrastructure at a given time), so prices can't be that low for long.

Now, to qualify what I'm saying, it's assuming we don't have the ability or inclination to take over various global oil production sources. That is to say, we don't get to make OPEC, e.g., do whatever we want. If we had the resources that Saudi Arabia and the UAE and Kuwait have, then yeah - maybe we could develop enough additional cheap oil sources to move prices lower and keep them there for a bit. But we aren't going to do that, and it isn't in their interests to flood the market with enough new oil to allow prices to be as low as you suggest (and keep them there for a longer period of time).

And more refineries isn't really the issue now (though refinery margins have improved considerably more recently), nor would the Keystone Pipeline (the XL that I assume you're referring to) likely make a big difference when it comes to prices in general.

 

[Tilted]

There isn't a coordinated effort; rather there is simply a worldwide glut of oil and oil production capacity. What is somewhat unusual is that OPEC has been irrelevant and ineffective this time around, and not able to coordinate a reduction in member-country output. There is some speculation that the Saudis are refusing to cut their production in an effort to undermine the US operations, many of which have much higher break-even points (some as high as $80/barrel) than what the Saudis get out of their fields. Saudi production costs are really low.

The economic "shot in the arm" for the US is huge...yes indeed. For everyone except the oil industry anyway.

That's about right, but it isn't so much that OPEC hasn't been able to coordinate a reduction in output. It's that the real power in OPEC hasn't wanted to coordinate a reduction in output. If they wanted to, they could do so - hell, Saudi Arabia could do it on its own if it wanted to - enough so to stabilize prices and head them back upward.

Representatives of the various OPEC power brokers have been quite clear about their intentions. We don't really need to speculate. They've said - paraphrasing here - that they didn't cause this oversupply problem, that other oil producers have been irresponsible and done so. So they aren't going to be the ones to fix the problem, at least not by themselves. Those suppliers that have increased production and oversupplied the market (e.g. shale producers, perhaps Russia) are going to pay the price for their irresponsibility and are going to have to be the ones to cut back on production. Saudi Arabia has suggested, however, that it might be willing to participate in production cuts IF non-OPEC members would agree to do so as well. They're willing to help fix the problem, so to speak, but they aren't willing to fix it all by themselves.

 

[Gilligan]

PsyOps, what are you basing this belief on? That we could have $1 / gallon gasoline? I'd curious to know, because I think it is completely implausible.

.

I think it entirely implausible too. My own rough estimate is that something "around" 3.00/gal is sustainable over a longer term. But not a whole lot less than that.

 

[stgislander]

The economic "shot in the arm" for the US is huge...yes indeed. For everyone except the oil industry anyway.

I don't think we can keep saying this enough. As a plain working stiff, I'll take the benefits of this "economic shot in the arm" over seeing the DOW close over 18000 any day. Hopefully this will last long enough to see other prices drop as well.

 

[Gilligan]

As a plain working stiff, I'll take the benefits of this "economic shot in the arm" over seeing the DOW close over 18000 any day.

Bingo. I get sick and tired of seeing some point to the DJIA and chortle about how great that means the economy is doing. I've yet to figure out how to fry up and eat a stock certificate.

 

[SG_Player1974]

Representatives of the various OPEC power brokers have been quite clear about their intentions. We don't really need to speculate. They've said - paraphrasing here - that they didn't cause this oversupply problem, that other oil producers have been irresponsible and done so. So they aren't going to be the ones to fix the problem, at least not by themselves. Those suppliers that have increased production and oversupplied the market (e.g. shale producers, perhaps Russia) are going to pay the price for their irresponsibility and are going to have to be the ones to cut back on production. Saudi Arabia has suggested, however, that it might be willing to participate in production cuts IF non-OPEC members would agree to do so as well. They're willing to help fix the problem, so to speak, but they aren't willing to fix it all by themselves.

Thank you for agreeing with my main point that the recent fluctuations of oil and thus, gas prices at the pump, are basically politically influenced and NOT due to the old "supply and demand" BS.