New McCain Ad Blames Obama For High Gas Prices.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Budmantom
I have seen plenty of stories where the "experts" say they can be on line within a year or two(off shore), sorry I don't have any links.

Can you find me one of these articles, because I've been googling and am not finding it.

I think Bush said we would start to see some oil at the 5 year mark, but even then it would be such a small amount that it would not have any effec on prices or supply. The "experts" in articles and gov't reports that I've found seem to agree that impact on prices and supply won't take place for anywhere from 10 to 20 years.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Budmantom
I have seen plenty of stories where the "experts" say they can be on line within a year or two(off shore), sorry I don't have any links.

Can you find me one of these articles, because I've been googling and am not finding it.

I think Bush said we would start to see some oil at the 5 year mark, but even then it would be such a small amount that it would not have any effec on prices or supply. The "experts" in articles and gov't reports that I've found seem to agree that impact on prices and supply won't take place for anywhere from 10 to 20 years.

It will always have an affect on supply and prices when the oil starts making it to the refinery. What these reports are predicting is it wont have an meaningful effect on the prices. That I say we cant say with any kind of certaintly. I am sure 5 years ago none of them predicted we would hit 150 dollars a barrel either. We did this with China and India still relatively early in their mondernization programs. Wait 20 years when 300+ million chinese and Indians are driving cars.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
rather than destroy our coastlines and the tourism economies based on them, lets invest that money in alternative energy solutions....basically something renewable.

Hell I imagine if we invested in fusion research like we did in NASA we would have it by now.
 

RY62

Senior member
Mar 13, 2005
890
153
106
Originally posted by: Carmen813
rather than destroy our coastlines and the tourism economies based on them, lets invest that money in alternative energy solutions....basically something renewable.

Hell I imagine if we invested in fusion research like we did in NASA we would have it by now.

Invest what money? Are you suggesting that the government should dictate how and where corporations can invest their money?

 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Carmen813
rather than destroy our coastlines and the tourism economies based on them, lets invest that money in alternative energy solutions....basically something renewable.

Hell I imagine if we invested in fusion research like we did in NASA we would have it by now.

It's always NIMBY. People bitch about this stuff, but never want to pay up for it in different ways. We could have plenty of clean, abundant, nuke energy, but NIMBY there. We can have wind, solar, wave/tidal, and others, but NIMBY there. Always NIMBY.

Offshore drilling should be done as an intermediate step, taxed heavily with the money put into a fund to develop alternatives and exploit current plans. Those include land/sea wind power, solar, wave/tidal, among others.

we need to stop screwing around with this and move on it. Within 10-15 years we could be completely energy dependent, if only the tree huggers and oil men would let us.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
They wouldn't sit on ANWR because it's an extremely economical location to develop. I don't know about what kind of reserves they expect to find in the coastal shelf, though.

And don't get me wrong, I'm all for lifting the bans, I'm just skeptical of how quickly new reserves will be discovered and developed. Oil companies spent 1% on stock buybacks and dividends in 1993, 30% in 2000, and 55% in 2007. Meanwhile, the amount spent on exploration has remained constant. They want to go after the easy oil (ANWR, for example), but the problem is the easy oil is running out. They're going to have to suck it up and start dumping more money into exploration and development of less economical reserves. Of course, if the oil bubble bursts and prices drop significantly, this could seriously cut into their bottom line. Can't be having that can we? ;)

What in the world is easy about drilling/producing ANWR?

As far as them wanting to only go after the "easy" oil please google Gulf of Mexico ultra deep water drilling. They are having to design/build new "super" rigs just to drill that deep and can spend well over a billion dollars to develop one area. There is nothing easy or cheap about drilling in 5,000+ feet of water in the middle of the GOM.

I still don't understand why people have a problem with a company buying its stock back.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Harvey
More fodder for the discussion -- The oil industry already holds leases on 68 million acres on which they are not drilling. Last month, Congress voted on The Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act, summarized on Nancy Pelosi's page.
-snip-

This has been debunked already.

For one thing, the federal government doesn't keep the necessary records to demonstrate the kind of info Pelosi is attempting to pass off as fact.. For another, the oil companies ARE exploring these lands.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Budmantom

I have seen plenty of stories where the "experts" say they can be on line within a year or two(off shore), sorry I don't have any links. The same expert claim that us getting serious about drilling will drop to oil price by the speculators.

Any links to when we can start seeing savings by using ""alternative energy"?

Wrong question. The more meaningful question is where to invest the finite resources to achieve the best result. For example, if an investment in drilling won't produce more oil for a decade, and during that same decade, a similar investment in a renewable energy source could be brought online to produce a similar amount of power at a similar cost, then it would make more sense to prioritize in favor of the renewable resource because it addresses other benefial goals of reducing our carbon output.

I get the impression that you believe the highest priority objective is global warming?

There are a lot more of us who feel it is the high cost of oil and the financial drain on our economy (high food costs, inflation, hurts Balance of Trade, devalues the dollar etc). There is also a national security element to it.

We have NO such problem with generating electricity. Coal (and natural gas) are relatively cheap and ABUNDANT domestic natural resources.

You complain about the cost of the Iraqi *war*, yet if T-Boone Pickens is to believed we send 4 times that amount of money overseas every year.

Drill the oil. Use the royalties to fund alt tech. Improve our financial situation. THEN go after renewables for electrical power generation.

Al Gore and MMGW people are attempting to highjack the current concern over high gas prices for their CO2 jihad. No matter how *clean* our electrical power generation becomes, it won't help one d@mn bit with the high cost of oil and it's resultant problems.

Again, somebody get back to me when we have the battery we need for cars, and the infrastructure in place to use them.

Fern
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: Fern

I get the impression that you believe the highest priority objective is global warming?

I get the impression that you're too easily impressed. What I said was, finite resources restrict the number of solutions we can pursue at any given time. The objective should be to prioritize the use of those resources toward solutions that address more complete solutions.

Global warming is indeed an important issue. If financial limits restrict our choices, and the choice is drilling for more oil, or pursuing an alternative solution that solves the problem in a similar time frame, at a similar cost that also reduces our carbon footprint, we should use the resources to pursue the alternative solution.

I didn't say we won't need petroleum for the next ten to fifty years, and we may always need some petroleum for some purposes. However, if we're going to reduce our dependence on imported oil, we have to start seriously pursuing that goal.

NOW is the right time to start. Twenty or more years ago would have been better, but the current version of my wayback machine requires more fuel to get there and back than we could save. :p
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Carmen813
rather than destroy our coastlines and the tourism economies based on them, lets invest that money in alternative energy solutions....basically something renewable.

Hell I imagine if we invested in fusion research like we did in NASA we would have it by now.

It's always NIMBY. People bitch about this stuff, but never want to pay up for it in different ways. We could have plenty of clean, abundant, nuke energy, but NIMBY there. We can have wind, solar, wave/tidal, and others, but NIMBY there. Always NIMBY.

Offshore drilling should be done as an intermediate step, taxed heavily with the money put into a fund to develop alternatives and exploit current plans. Those include land/sea wind power, solar, wave/tidal, among others.

we need to stop screwing around with this and move on it. Within 10-15 years we could be completely energy dependent, if only the tree huggers and oil men would let us.

Exactly so. The same people who demand alternative energy solutions are going to be the first in line complaing about the hundreds of thousands (millions eventually) of acres covered in windfarms and solar arrays.

Just think, drive through Kansas and instead of acres of golden wheat we see thousands of towers with big blades turning in the breeze.

I am all for other forms of energy developed as soon as possible. We've waited too long, we need to go now.
 

badnewcastle

Golden Member
Jun 30, 2004
1,016
0
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
god damn the America where Nancy Pelosi and the democrats in congress don't let states decide for themselves.

Yeah!!!! Give this guy some points. :thumbsup:

Well I suppose rather then us drilling for oil in use territory we should let China do it... oh they already are? Hmm...

I agree that drilling has no short term benefits but it doesn't look like any other solutions are even looking good for mid to long term... drilling will extend stability of the nation and reduce reliance on foreign oil, at the very least it will give us more time to come up with the other sources of energy.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: dphantom
Just think, drive through Kansas and instead of acres of golden wheat we see thousands of towers with big blades turning in the breeze.

Why is this constantly framed in an either/or fashion? Wind turbines have a small footprint and the land right around it can still be farmed.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: Harvey

Somehow, I don't think McCain will get much help from Pickens or any of the other experts who have already told America all the domestic oil we could drill wouldn't do squat to gas prices, and it wouldn't be available for at least a decade.

Just for you Harvey!!!



I have a feeling that the Dems won't see Pickens as the authority that he was a couple of days ago :)

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Harvey

Somehow, I don't think McCain will get much help from Pickens or any of the other experts who have already told America all the domestic oil we could drill wouldn't do squat to gas prices, and it wouldn't be available for at least a decade.

Just for you Harvey!!!



I have a feeling that the Dems won't see Pickens as the authority that he was a couple of days ago :)

Heh ouch.

 

badnewcastle

Golden Member
Jun 30, 2004
1,016
0
0
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Harvey

Somehow, I don't think McCain will get much help from Pickens or any of the other experts who have already told America all the domestic oil we could drill wouldn't do squat to gas prices, and it wouldn't be available for at least a decade.

Just for you Harvey!!!



I have a feeling that the Dems won't see Pickens as the authority that he was a couple of days ago :)

:beer:
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Your link, Budmantom, does not address the issue of price at all- Pickens does not imply that more domestic drilling will change the price, merely the source of oil....

There is a difference...
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Your link, Budmantom, does not address the issue of price at all- Pickens does not imply that more domestic drilling will change the price, merely the source of oil....

There is a difference...

What do you think will happen if we increase supply?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Your link, Budmantom, does not address the issue of price at all- Pickens does not imply that more domestic drilling will change the price, merely the source of oil....

There is a difference...

What do you think will happen if we increase supply?


Nothing, if world demand goes up at the same rate.

If demand outstrips supply, then prices will go up even more to dampen demand...

You don't really think world demand will drop significantly, do you? Certainly not with huge US balance of payment deficits growing the economies of China, India and others...

I won't argue one way or another that speculation is affecting price atm- even if it is, the days of $2/gal gas are gone, and the long range trend is for price to go up...

The only real answer for the US is to reduce consumption of oil in general thru adoption of european and japanese models of auto type, production and usage... production and sales of whopper SUV's, trucks and autos isn't dead yet, but it's snakebit...
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Your link, Budmantom, does not address the issue of price at all- Pickens does not imply that more domestic drilling will change the price, merely the source of oil....

There is a difference...

What do you think will happen if we increase supply?


Nothing, if world demand goes up at the same rate.

If demand outstrips supply, then prices will go up even more to dampen demand...

You don't really think world demand will drop significantly, do you? Certainly not with huge US balance of payment deficits growing the economies of China, India and others...

I won't argue one way or another that speculation is affecting price atm- even if it is, the days of $2/gal gas are gone, and the long range trend is for price to go up...

The only real answer for the US is to reduce consumption of oil in general thru adoption of european and japanese models of auto type, production and usage... production and sales of whopper SUV's, trucks and autos isn't dead yet, but it's snakebit...


Soooo if Mexico and Canada stopped producing oil nothing would happen?
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
More detail about Semgroup. To all of the fools who think that this is still supply/demand, wake the fuck up.


SemGroup Fall May Be Tied to Oil Drop
By BRIAN BASKIN
July 24, 2008

The collapse this week of SemGroup LP, a little known private oil-marketing firm, may have played a role in crude oil's 14% drop over the past 10 days.

The Tulsa, Okla., company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Tuesday, citing among other financial woes a loss of at least $2.4 billion in crude-oil futures. Changes in its hedging strategies coincided with big moves in oil recently.

The company had taken out short positions, or bets that crude prices would fall, as a hedging strategy for oil it intended to move through a subsidiary's pipelines and sell to refiners, according to an affidavit filed in Delaware bankruptcy court by Terrence Ronan, SemGroup's senior vice president, finance. Then, when oil prices rose, SemGroup moved to "cover" its short positions by taking out equivalent long positions, or bets that oil prices would rise.

Eventually, SemGroup was unable to put up collateral for its swelling bets and sold its futures account to Barclays Capital on July 16, according to the affidavit. SemGroup officials couldn't be reached for comment. A spokesman for Barclays declined to comment.

The firm had $14.7 billion in revenue as of 2006, the last year for which there are public records. Its publicly traded subsidiary, SemGroup Energy Partners LP, operates about 1,200 miles of oil pipelines and controls 15 million barrels of oil storage capacity, including seven million barrels at Cushing, Okla., a storage hub closely tracked by the oil market.

One theory making the rounds in the market is that as SemGroup's long positions snowballed, so did the oil rally. SemGroup's rapid exit from the market removed a force for upward momentum when the market, under siege from negative U.S. economic indicators, needed it most.

"In the three days surrounding that transfer" to Barclays, crude futures "plunged $15.89...thus, with SemGroup removed from the market, crude oil has been free to fall," wrote Stephen Schork, editor of the Schork Report, a newsletter tracking the oil market.

SemGroup likely played a supporting role in oil's fall, said Nauman Barakat, senior vice president at Macquarie Futures USA in New York.

The initial plunge came on July 15, as Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress that the U.S. economic downturn would prove more persistent, and potentially more severe, than initially thought.

Oil prices fell again the following day, immediately after the Energy Department reported a surprise build in U.S. crude stocks, underscoring that demand is weakening.

SemGroup's contribution would have been to remove a steady source of upward momentum, wrote Edward Meir, with MF Global.

"SemGroup is not helping the bullish cause, as with the firm now bankrupt, whatever short-covering that was done...is now behind us," Mr. Meir wrote.

"We know SemGroup was in trouble, the only question is when another shoe drops," he said.

Separately, Reuters reported that a group of SemGroup LP creditors on Wednesday raised the prospect that unauthorized energy trading may have caused the $3.2 billion loss that sank the firm.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Oil has dropped $20 something since the executive ban on offshore drilling lifted.

Sounds like those saying no drilling are at fault. :)

Just imagone how much lower it could go if congress also repeals the ban and starts leasing new lands. And the moeny from those leases could, shocking here, go to funding new energy R&D.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: lupi
Oil has dropped $20 something since the executive ban on offshore drilling lifted.

Sounds like those saying no drilling are at fault. :)

Just imagone how much lower it could go if congress also repeals the ban and starts leasing new lands. And the moeny from those leases could, shocking here, go to funding new energy R&D.

Lifting the ban was political showboating and you know it. When would that oil and money you speak of begin to flow? 5 years? 7 years? 10 years? I'm not saying we shouldn't explore all options but (some) people act like lifting the ban today will get the oil to the pumps tomorrow.

As far as the oil price drop, you know, I pressure washed my condo right before the prices started to fall and that's not something I do very often. Coincidence? I think not! :laugh:
 

badnewcastle

Golden Member
Jun 30, 2004
1,016
0
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: lupi
Oil has dropped $20 something since the executive ban on offshore drilling lifted.

Sounds like those saying no drilling are at fault. :)

Just imagone how much lower it could go if congress also repeals the ban and starts leasing new lands. And the moeny from those leases could, shocking here, go to funding new energy R&D.

Lifting the ban was political showboating and you know it. When would that oil and money you speak of begin to flow? 5 years? 7 years? 10 years? I'm not saying we shouldn't explore all options but (some) people act like lifting the ban today will get the oil to the pumps tomorrow.

As far as the oil price drop, you know, I pressure washed my condo right before the prices started to fall and that's not something I do very often. Coincidence? I think not! :laugh:

Show boating or not the speculators drive the price up more knowing they can't drill off shore, whether the drilling is happening or not. All the ban did was give them another excuse to speculate higher.