Why aren't any candidates talking about oil/energy?

[StageLeft]

Link

The primary factor causing the surge in oil prices is the surprising drawdown in crude inventories, which caused traders to really react quite dramatically," said Victor Shum, an energy analyst with Purvin & Gertz in Singapore

Of course, OPEC Just recently met and said there's plenty of oil and they won't increase production. This is true, if you're willing to pay over $100/barrel for it.

The US imports half a trillion dollars a year on oil. Bush's answer is ethanol, which seems ludicrous given its patent inability to cover needs, not to mention in the face of rising crop prices (in part because of ethanol use already).

When is the US going to stop ignoring this problem? Gas is averaging $3.50 gallon in CA, the highest ever (even adjusted for inflation). I have not personally paid less than $3/gallon in over a year.

What we see is very obvious: The US is rich and OPEC knows that even with a jacked up oil cost the US can still afford it, so the end result is some of the riches here (more than before) end up going to the middle east. Ironically, OPEC doesn't want to raise prices in part because they see a lowered demand due to a weakening economy (which in part is weakened by high oil costs, of course).

A portion of these high barrel costs is the toilet-paper we call the US dollar, but even with its depreciation we cannot explain how oil has more than tripled in the past few years.

Back when gas hit $2, it was all over the news. Now, nobody seems to give a sh*t and meanwhile the US remains embroiled in various interests it could eschew if it didn't rely on these crap-ass countries (Iran, Venezeula, Saudi, etc.) for its life blood.

 

[Icepick]

It's no secret that the world's oil supply is running out. It blows my mind that energy isn't the #1 topic for discussion on the major television news programs and print media in the U.S. I can't imagine what life will be like for those of us in the northeast when fossil fuels become really difficult to obtain. How will people heat their homes? Energy independence is the single most important topic for the American public to focus it's resources on, IMO. Each of the candidates should really devote more energy (no pun intended) to the discussion.

 

[ebaycj]

Someone needs to convince OPEC that they would be better off selling oil cheaper (by increasing production), and investing all the money they've been piling up for the last four-six years in the new booming american economy brought on by 10 year low fuel prices.

EDIT: and then pull out your cash from the economy once the oil is about to run out.

 

[Genx87]

Because they would have the answer the tough questions.
Like "Why are you blocking attempts to open up domestic drilling capacity in ANWR?"

All the candidates will fail that answer so they stay away from the topic.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Because they would have the answer the tough questions.
Like "Why are you blocking attempts to open up domestic drilling capacity in ANWR?"

All the candidates will fail that answer so they stay away from the topic.

Well that oil still amounts to jack squat. It's not a long term solution.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Because they would have the answer the tough questions.
Like "Why are you blocking attempts to open up domestic drilling capacity in ANWR?"

All the candidates will fail that answer so they stay away from the topic.

No, the tough question would be how we can realistically move away from oil, not about drilling in Alaska to stave off the inevitable :roll:

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Genx87
Because they would have the answer the tough questions.
Like "Why are you blocking attempts to open up domestic drilling capacity in ANWR?"

All the candidates will fail that answer so they stay away from the topic.

No, the tough question would be how we can realistically move away from oil, not about drilling in Alaska to stave off the inevitable :roll:

Apparently it's a long-term anyway because it would take time to build up the infrastructure--5-10 years, which may not be a heck of a lot quicker than an aggressive alternative approach, IMO.

The US has done big things like building a highway system. It needs to take on a 10 year project to spend some serious money, not just for its own economic interests but because national security requires it. It is in the best interests of the nation, definitely, to ween off these oil masters.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Genx87
Because they would have the answer the tough questions.
Like "Why are you blocking attempts to open up domestic drilling capacity in ANWR?"

All the candidates will fail that answer so they stay away from the topic.

Well that oil still amounts to jack squat. It's not a long term solution.

It would provide enough oil on a daily basis to erase importing from the ME. And can do that for 27 years. The opinion ANWR's oil fields amount to jack squat is a lie.

No, the tough question would be how we can realistically move away from oil, not about drilling in Alaska to stave off the inevitable

Are you under some kind of opinion we are going to move to alternative sources of energy in under 5 years or something? It will take decades to fully move our oil economy to something different. Why not give us breathing room by limiting the cost of energy in the meantime?

Apparently it's a long-term anyway because it would take time to build up the infrastructure--5-10 years, which may not be a heck of a lot quicker than an aggressive alternative approach, IMO.

The US has done big things like building a highway system. It needs to take on a 10 year project to spend some serious money, not just for its own economic interests but because national security requires it. It is in the best interests of the nation, definitely, to ween off these oil masters.

You must sit in the same boat as jman if you think we can change our energy policy from oil based to something different in a few years. This will take decades to change. No need to starve our economy of the energy it requires because we believe some corn will solve our issues.

 

[bamacre]

http://ap.google.com/article/A...g2_yzjYnPIP8gD8V7HN2O4

Part of the reason gas prices are high is the low value of the dollar.

 

[StageLeft]

You must sit in the same boat as jman if you think we can change our energy policy from oil based to something different in a few years. This will take decades to change. No need to starve our economy of the energy it requires because we believe some corn will solve our issues.

Anything can be done with enough money, and there is a lot being wasted. And I didn't say to use oil. I specifically said not to. If the US relied on domestic and imports from reliable nations, it could close the gap on imports from crap nations and do it through things such as electric vehicles. There are a few coming out in the next several years. They were a bit of a joke when oil was $20/gallon, but now they seem less comical.

 

[TheSlamma]

I think it's because most Americans still don't really care. Sure people complain about it, but then go buy that fashonable guzzling SUV or any other gas guzzling rally car or something a Dodge commercial told them to buy. Until the people truly make an effort to show they need and want to save money on gas it's not going to be in the spotlight.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Topic: Why aren't any candidates talking about oil/energy?

Because then they would have to answer questions about the declining value of the dollar.

The world is awash in oil. Iraq and Iran alone have excess capacity approaching 5 mb/d. OPEC oil production is down over 2 mb/d in the last 2 years.

Venezuela's oil production is down 1 mb/d since 2000.

And boy it sure is INTERESTING that the number of total active US Rotary Rigs has increased over 300% since George Bush, Oil Man, became Prezinit (as the price of a barrel of oil increased 500%).

AND do you not find it interesting that since 2004 US monthly oil production has increased from 4.85 million barrels per day to 8.37 millions of barrels per day in 2006 ???

If you are not angry you are not paying attention.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Topic: Why aren't any candidates talking about oil/energy?

Because then they would have to answer questions about the declining value of the dollar.

The world is awash in oil. Iraq and Iran alone have excess capacity approaching 5 mb/d. OPEC oil production is down over 2 mb/d in the last 2 years.

Venezuela's oil production is down 1 mb/d since 2000.

And boy it sure is INTERESTING that the number of total active US Rotary Rigs has increased over 300% since George Bush, Oil Man, became Prezinit (as the price of a barrel of oil increased 500%).

AND do you not find it interesting that since 2004 US monthly oil production has increased from 4.85 million barrels per day to 8.37 millions of barrels per day in 2006 ???

If you are not angry you are not paying attention.

Absolutely correct. Oil prices / gas prices have less in common with supply and demand than people think.

A de-regulated energy market DOES NOT operate the same way as a widget making market. People fail to realize that.

 

[yllus]

Iraqi cabinet gives green light to oil ministry to sign oil deals

BAGHDAD: Iraq's cabinet has given the green light to the Oil Ministry to sign agreements with international oil companies to help increase the nation's crude output, a ministry official said Wednesday.

The two-year deals, known as technical support agreements, or TSAs, are designed to develop five producing fields to add 500,000 barrels per day to the country's current 2.4 million barrels per day output.

Last December, Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSB), BP PLC (BP), ExxonMobil Corp. (XOM) and Chevron Corp. (CVX) submitted technical and financial proposals for the five oil fields and received counterproposals from the Iraqi side.

In January, representatives from the companies and from Iraq met again in Amman, Jordan, and they will hold the third round of discussions later this month, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to release information.

In Vienna, Iraq's Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani said that Iraq intends to compensate these companies with crude oil rather than in cash, the Dow Jones Newswires reported on Wednesday.

In dire need of expertise from international oil companies to achieve the Oil Ministry's target of 3 million barrels per day by the end of 2008, Iraq has been relying on a Saddam Hussein-era natural resources law until Parliament approves a new oil law to regulate the international oil companies' work and share Iraq's oil resources among the country's Shiites, Sunni Arabs and Kurds.

All the inevitable cash/oil grab comments aside, this can really only be a positive step for the Iraqis and the U.S. alike.

 

[rchiu]

One thing no one has talked about is oil as an investment tool just like gold, silver and other commodities. With US economy slowing, lots of people, fund is putting money into commodities and driving up the price of those commodities. In addition, everyone knows oil price is moving upward and lots speculators are putting their money in oil future/index and that again drive up the oil price too.

Here is what OPEC says about the oil price increase. People might want to rethink about all these derivatives based on commodities that we actually use because the trading of those derivatives could add lots of cost to the underlying commodities for people actually uses it.

 

[Pabster]

ANWR should have been drilled and tapped long ago.

There's no excuse for it.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
I think it's because most Americans still don't really care. Sure people complain about it, but then go buy that fashonable guzzling SUV or any other gas guzzling rally car or something a Dodge commercial told them to buy. Until the people truly make an effort to show they need and want to save money on gas it's not going to be in the spotlight.

Obviously today's gas prices are not deterring people enough. I believe last year 54% of all car sales in the US were SUVs / Trucks.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

You must sit in the same boat as jman if you think we can change our energy policy from oil based to something different in a few years. This will take decades to change. No need to starve our economy of the energy it requires because we believe some corn will solve our issues.

Anything can be done with enough money, and there is a lot being wasted. And I didn't say to use oil. I specifically said not to. If the US relied on domestic and imports from reliable nations, it could close the gap on imports from crap nations and do it through things such as electric vehicles. There are a few coming out in the next several years. They were a bit of a joke when oil was $20/gallon, but now they seem less comical.

Hahaha yeah you are right, with enough money. The question of course is how much do we spend where it is a positive effect vs spending money to spend money and leaving us worse off? Opening up ANWR for drilling will help supply issues.

btw how do you recharge an electric car? What about the batteries when they are dead? Toss them into the landfill?The solutions arent simple and pretending we are going to get off oil soon is wrong.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Genx87
Because they would have the answer the tough questions.
Like "Why are you blocking attempts to open up domestic drilling capacity in ANWR?"

All the candidates will fail that answer so they stay away from the topic.

Well that oil still amounts to jack squat. It's not a long term solution.

It would provide enough oil on a daily basis to erase importing from the ME. And can do that for 27 years. The opinion ANWR's oil fields amount to jack squat is a lie.

No, the tough question would be how we can realistically move away from oil, not about drilling in Alaska to stave off the inevitable

Are you under some kind of opinion we are going to move to alternative sources of energy in under 5 years or something? It will take decades to fully move our oil economy to something different. Why not give us breathing room by limiting the cost of energy in the meantime?

Apparently it's a long-term anyway because it would take time to build up the infrastructure--5-10 years, which may not be a heck of a lot quicker than an aggressive alternative approach, IMO.

The US has done big things like building a highway system. It needs to take on a 10 year project to spend some serious money, not just for its own economic interests but because national security requires it. It is in the best interests of the nation, definitely, to ween off these oil masters.

You must sit in the same boat as jman if you think we can change our energy policy from oil based to something different in a few years. This will take decades to change. No need to starve our economy of the energy it requires because we believe some corn will solve our issues.

Where are you getting your numbers for that 27 years? The US now imports 12 million barrels per day of oil (over 60% of it's useage each day). Even if useage stayed the same, that would mean 118,260,000,000 barrels of useable oil there to just keep from importing any over that 27 year span. I don't think there is that much there.

On a side note, the US private industry spend 175 billion dollars on alternative energy development and useage last year, an all time record. BP stated that they spent 15 billion alone and will do so (at least) until 2015 with large increases mentioned. The private market is starting to stir to the high energy prices and possible profits that lay in sources other than oil

 

[lozina]

Less to do with oil supply & demand, more to do with the dollar.

The dollar is being devalued, inflation in commodities follows.

We should be asking our candidates why aren't they talking about reversing the downward spiral of the dollar

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: lozina
Less to do with oil supply & demand, more to do with the dollar.

The dollar is being devalued, inflation in commodities follows.

We should be asking our candidates why aren't they talking about reversing the downward spiral of the dollar

Partially to do with dollar. Oil supplies in this country are at a 14 year high and oil useage is down at a sustained rate for the first time in 16 years. The dollar has dropped but it's nowhere near low enough to cause what we are seeing. Oil is 10X the price per barrel it was in 1998. The dollar/demand curves combined do not warrant a 10X increase in price.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Genx87
Because they would have the answer the tough questions.
Like "Why are you blocking attempts to open up domestic drilling capacity in ANWR?"

All the candidates will fail that answer so they stay away from the topic.

Well that oil still amounts to jack squat. It's not a long term solution.

It would provide enough oil on a daily basis to erase importing from the ME. And can do that for 27 years. The opinion ANWR's oil fields amount to jack squat is a lie.

No, the tough question would be how we can realistically move away from oil, not about drilling in Alaska to stave off the inevitable

Are you under some kind of opinion we are going to move to alternative sources of energy in under 5 years or something? It will take decades to fully move our oil economy to something different. Why not give us breathing room by limiting the cost of energy in the meantime?

Apparently it's a long-term anyway because it would take time to build up the infrastructure--5-10 years, which may not be a heck of a lot quicker than an aggressive alternative approach, IMO.

The US has done big things like building a highway system. It needs to take on a 10 year project to spend some serious money, not just for its own economic interests but because national security requires it. It is in the best interests of the nation, definitely, to ween off these oil masters.

You must sit in the same boat as jman if you think we can change our energy policy from oil based to something different in a few years. This will take decades to change. No need to starve our economy of the energy it requires because we believe some corn will solve our issues.

Where are you getting your numbers for that 27 years? The US now imports 12 million barrels per day of oil (over 60% of it's useage each day). Even if useage stayed the same, that would mean 118,260,000,000 barrels of useable oil there to just keep from importing any over that 27 year span. I don't think there is that much there.

On a side note, the US private industry spend 175 billion dollars on alternative energy development and useage last year, an all time record. BP stated that they spent 15 billion alone and will do so (at least) until 2015 with large increases mentioned. The private market is starting to stir to the high energy prices and possible profits that lay in sources other than oil

I think you misread me. I didnt say it would replace all of our imports. Only those from the ME. Our imports from the ME are ~ 2 million barrels a day. ANWR was expected to out 1.5-2 million barrels a day once fully operational.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Genx87

I think you misread me. I didnt say it would replace all of our imports. Only those from the ME. Our imports from the ME are ~ 2 million barrels a day. ANWR was expected to out 1.5-2 million barrels a day once fully operational.

Ah, that I did. That would still be 19+ billion barrels over 27 years. I have not seen estimates anywhere near that.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb

You must sit in the same boat as jman if you think we can change our energy policy from oil based to something different in a few years. This will take decades to change. No need to starve our economy of the energy it requires because we believe some corn will solve our issues.

Anything can be done with enough money, and there is a lot being wasted. And I didn't say to use oil. I specifically said not to. If the US relied on domestic and imports from reliable nations, it could close the gap on imports from crap nations and do it through things such as electric vehicles. There are a few coming out in the next several years. They were a bit of a joke when oil was $20/gallon, but now they seem less comical.

Hahaha yeah you are right, with enough money. The question of course is how much do we spend where it is a positive effect vs spending money to spend money and leaving us worse off? Opening up ANWR for drilling will help supply issues.

btw how do you recharge an electric car? What about the batteries when they are dead? Toss them into the landfill?The solutions arent simple and pretending we are going to get off oil soon is wrong.

The grid currently can handle a lot of cars charging at night. Otherwise, more cable more nuke plants, we need more juice, dang it!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

I think you misread me. I didnt say it would replace all of our imports. Only those from the ME. Our imports from the ME are ~ 2 million barrels a day. ANWR was expected to out 1.5-2 million barrels a day once fully operational.

Ah, that I did. That would still be 19+ billion barrels over 27 years. I have not seen estimates anywhere near that.

Yeah, not sure where I came up with the 27 years. At 2 million a day it it more like 14 straight years. The estimates were high for ~10 billion barrels. I think the high end was 20 billion and the low end just a few billion.