Oil price drop....largest in 17 years

[HowardRoark]

coulter was "onboard" with clinton, etc.
.

I thought he liked fat brunettes.

[retailguy]

YOu missed the point...we are talking gas prices..not production.

Nah, I didn't miss the point. Prices, in my opinion, have more to do with the value of the dollar than short term production.

However, thinking increased production wouldn't lower prices is a straw man argument, really. Whether it "slows the increase" or actually reduces prices, it is illogical to claim that increased production won't affect prices. Even those who claim no change in price point to rapidly increasing demand... so with regard to oil, one side of the economic "supply & demand" model is relevant but the other side isn't? Yeah, OK.

BTW, i have never even been to moveon. But, as opposed to you and the rest of the conservs...i watch Fox....i highly doubt you go to moveon.

In my opinion, FOX is not, nor ever has been conservative. Yes, they give more time to conservative candidates & pundits, but as a network giving conservative propaganda, um... NO.

You'd be surprised where I go and what I read. Additionally, you might also like to know that there are some left leaning Law students in my neighborhood who won't engage me in political discussion any longer because they keep losing the debate.

That is how i can tell you o'reilly thinks oil companies are making too much, coulter was "onboard" with clinton, etc.

Great, maybe now you should tell me WHY they think what they think. Then, maybe, you'd "get" the other argument (I don't really care whether you believe it or not). And, implying that O'Reilly is conservative? Nah, he's just a blowhard that straddles the fence most of the time, and picks the battle based on ratings. I'm not, and never have been, impressed with O'Reilly.

I watch fox all the time. It gives me hope...with all those dopes (o'reilly, coulter)it makes me feel confident that change is coming.

Great. Head over to the Washington Post and read George Will. Look at the article he wrote about oil prices. Then, I'll be impressed.

[mraynrand]

Prices are high partly because of the futures market. People betting on what Oil will cost in a few years. Since there is no promise of significant increases in oil production - compared with the very likely increase in demand, people are gambling that the prices will remain very high on tight supply and high demand. Prices could drop back down just on the promise of increased production - if drilling is authorized off the US coast and ANWR, if the fields discovered off S. America are even bigger than estimates, if production from shale is ramped up, etc. Where would prices go? It's true the value of the dollar has dropped, so I'm just guessing without futures inflation, prices would hover around $3. But this is what worries me - the futures market has become a bubble of it's own. It has to be inflated over what it really should be. So 1) the people invested in futures would be more than likely to lobby congress NOT to allow any new drilling, because it would wipe out their earnings or potential earnings and 2) if new supplies are found - or if any real alternative becomes viable - the bubble would burst - and what sort of hit would that be on the economy...

[HowardRoark]

Oil broke through support at $136...should go lower.

[Freak Out]

Here is an FYI on ANWR: There are wells in the western portion of ANWR that could be turned to production in a season of work....but the problem is a pipeline. The distance to the eastern operating area of Prudhoe Bay is "close" in Alaska terms but unless Congress throws most the rules out the window it would take years of permitting let alone legal battles. If pipe was available and weather was perfect you could probably complete a transfer line to the main Trans Alaska line in 2-3 years. In a global oil market this does little as far as commodity prices go.....but helps quite a bit as a domestic supply especially if Americans start using their heads and learn to conserve. I won't even address the caribou issue...and it is an issue as far as the Porcupine herd goes.

[texaspackerbacker]

From Freakout's post on page 1:

Here is an FYI on ANWR: There are wells in the western portion of ANWR that could be turned to production in a season of work....but the problem is a pipeline. The distance to the eastern operating area of Prudhoe Bay is "close" in Alaska terms but unless Congress throws most the rules out the window it would take years of permitting let alone legal battles. If pipe was available and weather was perfect you could probably complete a transfer line to the main Trans Alaska line in 2-3 years. In a global oil market this does little as far as commodity prices go.....but helps quite a bit as a domestic supply especially if Americans start using their heads and learn to conserve. I won't even address the caribou issue...and it is an issue as far as the Porcupine herd goes.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So build a damn road or railroad and haul it!

Oh wait, the environmentalist wackos wouldn't stand for that, would they?

Even that small extension of the pipeline shouldn't take more than a few months, not 2-3 years.

And the off shore extended drilling should get into production even quicker.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

coulter was "onboard" with clinton, etc.
.

I thought he liked fat brunettes.

Well, she is kinda horse faced, but calling ann coulter a guy...well, that is just a cheap shot.

But, i guess that is expected from a republican.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

YOu missed the point...we are talking gas prices..not production.

Nah, I didn't miss the point. Prices, in my opinion, have more to do with the value of the dollar than short term production.

However, thinking increased production wouldn't lower prices is a straw man argument, really. Whether it "slows the increase" or actually reduces prices, it is illogical to claim that increased production won't affect prices. Even those who claim no change in price point to rapidly increasing demand... so with regard to oil, one side of the economic "supply & demand" model is relevant but the other side isn't? Yeah, OK.

BTW, i have never even been to moveon. But, as opposed to you and the rest of the conservs...i watch Fox....i highly doubt you go to moveon.

In my opinion, FOX is not, nor ever has been conservative. Yes, they give more time to conservative candidates & pundits, but as a network giving conservative propaganda, um... NO.

You'd be surprised where I go and what I read. Additionally, you might also like to know that there are some left leaning Law students in my neighborhood who won't engage me in political discussion any longer because they keep losing the debate.

That is how i can tell you o'reilly thinks oil companies are making too much, coulter was "onboard" with clinton, etc.

Great, maybe now you should tell me WHY they think what they think. Then, maybe, you'd "get" the other argument (I don't really care whether you believe it or not). And, implying that O'Reilly is conservative? Nah, he's just a blowhard that straddles the fence most of the time, and picks the battle based on ratings. I'm not, and never have been, impressed with O'Reilly.

I watch fox all the time. It gives me hope...with all those dopes (o'reilly, coulter)it makes me feel confident that change is coming.

Great. Head over to the Washington Post and read George Will. Look at the article he wrote about oil prices. Then, I'll be impressed.

1. Prices. Again, our gov't says it won't affect prices. Newt says it will. Which conservative should i believe? Or, just you...an anonymous poster. LOL

2. Fox isn't conservative. LOL

3. Lawyes losing. If that is what you think, good for you. It would be hard to imagine them ever winning or drawing...when you can't even see the fundamental truths like Fox being conservative.

4. I get the other side of the argument. Who said i didnt'? The point is i highly doubt you are reading moveon's site or emails. But, i love how you "subtlely" imply that those of us who don't buy your shit haven't figured it out...or are just too stupid.

5. Will. And, again, who said i haven't (the usual rhetoric..gov't, media, taxes, no new drilling, blame clinton for no new anwr drilling, . Wow, i should be impressed with another conservative columnist? Remind me again about his economic credentials? Right, he doesn't have any. He is PhD in politics.

Would you care to discuss Will's journalistic integrity. As will even stated.."inappropriate" in regards to carter vs. reagan.

Or Fairness and Accuracy criticizing his role in the 96 election..oops, his wife was on Dole's staff. Yet, he didn't disclose it.



Or, his inaccurate and widely quoted..cuba/china drilling story?

[Freak Out]

From Freakout's post on page 1:

Here is an FYI on ANWR: There are wells in the western portion of ANWR that could be turned to production in a season of work....but the problem is a pipeline. The distance to the eastern operating area of Prudhoe Bay is "close" in Alaska terms but unless Congress throws most the rules out the window it would take years of permitting let alone legal battles. If pipe was available and weather was perfect you could probably complete a transfer line to the main Trans Alaska line in 2-3 years. In a global oil market this does little as far as commodity prices go.....but helps quite a bit as a domestic supply especially if Americans start using their heads and learn to conserve. I won't even address the caribou issue...and it is an issue as far as the Porcupine herd goes.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So build a damn road or railroad and haul it!

Oh wait, the environmentalist wackos wouldn't stand for that, would they?

Even that small extension of the pipeline shouldn't take more than a few months, not 2-3 years.

And the off shore extended drilling should get into production even quicker.

Its all about logistics Texas....you can rant all day long but you are ignorant about what it takes to do those kind of things in the arctic.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

From Freakout's post on page 1:

Here is an FYI on ANWR: There are wells in the western portion of ANWR that could be turned to production in a season of work....but the problem is a pipeline. The distance to the eastern operating area of Prudhoe Bay is "close" in Alaska terms but unless Congress throws most the rules out the window it would take years of permitting let alone legal battles. If pipe was available and weather was perfect you could probably complete a transfer line to the main Trans Alaska line in 2-3 years. In a global oil market this does little as far as commodity prices go.....but helps quite a bit as a domestic supply especially if Americans start using their heads and learn to conserve. I won't even address the caribou issue...and it is an issue as far as the Porcupine herd goes.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So build a damn road or railroad and haul it!

Oh wait, the environmentalist wackos wouldn't stand for that, would they?

Even that small extension of the pipeline shouldn't take more than a few months, not 2-3 years.

And the off shore extended drilling should get into production even quicker.

Its all about logistics Texas....you can rant all day long but you are ignorant about what it takes to do those kind of things in the arctic.

ICE ROAD TRUCKERS BABY!!!!!!!!!

P.S. RR or trucking...yep, let's just go back in time. By the way, i hate that pesky assembly line...craft guildsman all the way!!!!

[texaspackerbacker]

Freakout, I'd be glad to yield to your expertize if you presented any evidence or credentials. Heaven knows, I've never been up there.

I do know this, though. The thing the wackos are so bent on preserving is the TUNDRA. Apparently, the climate in that area doesn't allow for a helluva lot of snow and ice. So if we can get by the politics of environmentalist wackoism, the technicalities of digging a pipeline or building a road or railroad shouldn't be as bad as dealing with glacier ice or something like that.

Now if there are some specifics I'm ignoring, please let me know, as I admit to winging it here--just going by what seems logical and sensible.

[retailguy]

Freakout, I'd be glad to yield to your expertize if you presented any evidence or credentials. Heaven knows, I've never been up there.

I do know this, though. The thing the wackos are so bent on preserving is the TUNDRA. Apparently, the climate in that area doesn't allow for a helluva lot of snow and ice. So if we can get by the politics of environmentalist wackoism, the technicalities of digging a pipeline or building a road or railroad shouldn't be as bad as dealing with glacier ice or something like that.

Now if there are some specifics I'm ignoring, please let me know, as I admit to winging it here--just going by what seems logical and sensible.

Tex,

There are logistical issues in AK, that's for sure, but there are options, some better than Ice road truckers, I'd think.

BP has been using a flexible pipeline in Alaska at Prudhoe Bay on a limited basis since 1997. That's one example.

I'm no expert on pipelines but I'm sure there are others. Currently, I do know that there is capacity in the Alaska pipeline as the field production is steadily declining. You don't need a new pipeline, you just need to attach the new line to the existing one.

Seems to me that even if you didn't want to use the flexible technology long term, you could use it in the short term while you constructed the permanent line...

There are options, IF you want to look at them. Unfortunately, most people aren't willing to look at options, they just believe what they're told.

[retailguy]

1. Prices. Again, our gov't says it won't affect prices. Newt says it will. Which conservative should i believe? Or, just you...an anonymous poster. LOL

Ok, you're so hung up on prices, it makes me laugh. As if the ONLY reason to drill is that prices go down. Frankly I don't care whether you believe Bush or Newt or me. Just tell me why half the economic equation works and the other half doesn't. You know - the part of my answer you SKIPPED. (The fundamental truth part...)

Then tell me why it's better to give billions of dollars to Middle East dictators rather than Alaskans. Last time I checked they weren't dictators but AMERICANS.

2. Fox isn't conservative. LOL

3. Lawyes losing. If that is what you think, good for you. It would be hard to imagine them ever winning or drawing...when you can't even see the fundamental truths like Fox being conservative.

You can't be serious. A fundamental truth? Hell, I thought economics or physics were fundamental truths. Now, FOX is a fundamental truth? Please. This is a strawman argument if I've ever heard of one. You believe Fox is conservative therefore it's a fundamental truth. And I'm "just some guy on the internet", but YOU define fundamental truths. And you're not a hypocrite or "some guy on the internet"? Jeez. There's a double standard...

Let's see. The conservative says FOX is not conservative. The Liberal says they are. In your mind the liberal is correct and it's a fundamental truth. In my mind that make fox fair I guess.

Anyone with a brain ought to see your bias, hypocrisy and intolerance of other views.

As to the law students, not lawyers, they're young and idealistic. No clue how the real world works. No capacity to see the big picture. I see them similar to you. Love to argue but have little more than rhetoric.

4. I get the other side of the argument. Who said i didnt'? The point is i highly doubt you are reading moveon's site or emails. But, i love how you "subtlely" imply that those of us who don't buy your shit haven't figured it out...or are just too stupid.

I do read moveon's site. i sure don't subscribe to their emails. I do educate myself to the opposing point of view, and I DON'T refer to my perspective as a "fundamental truth"...

And you don't get the other side of the argument. You won't even read it. So lets be clear, I said you don't get it. And I guess that's a fundamental truth too.

5. Will. And, again, who said i haven't (the usual rhetoric..gov't, media, taxes, no new drilling, blame clinton for no new anwr drilling, . Wow, i should be impressed with another conservative columnist? Remind me again about his economic credentials? Right, he doesn't have any. He is PhD in politics.

Would you care to discuss Will's journalistic integrity. As will even stated.."inappropriate" in regards to carter vs. reagan.

Or Fairness and Accuracy criticizing his role in the 96 election..oops, his wife was on Dole's staff. Yet, he didn't disclose it.



Or, his inaccurate and widely quoted..cuba/china drilling story?

I asked you WHAT HE SAID, not who he was. I don't give a shit if you think he's credible or not. Quite frankly, your ilk has been telling me for years that personal ethics don't matter, whether it's in your bedroom, or in your bed beneath your desk in the oval office. IT DOESN'T MATTER.

So, ignore the messenger, read the message. I directed you to a point of view about OIL AND GAS. I could care less what his wife did for a living or whether or not he disclosed it. If this doesn't prove your "closemindedness" I just don't know what will.

You know, I'm no Tex or Bobblehead, but I thought I'd get a better response than your "C" game. This feeble attempt sure wasn't your "A" game. But whatever straw man. You believe whatever you choose to believe. See, if you can't conceive it, it can't be real. It just can't.

Enjoy the bus ride.... I'm done responding to your close minded ranting.

[Freak Out]

Freakout, I'd be glad to yield to your expertize if you presented any evidence or credentials. Heaven knows, I've never been up there.

I do know this, though. The thing the wackos are so bent on preserving is the TUNDRA. Apparently, the climate in that area doesn't allow for a helluva lot of snow and ice. So if we can get by the politics of environmentalist wackoism, the technicalities of digging a pipeline or building a road or railroad shouldn't be as bad as dealing with glacier ice or something like that.

Now if there are some specifics I'm ignoring, please let me know, as I admit to winging it here--just going by what seems logical and sensible.

The pipe is above ground on transit lines due to permafrost....but my point is that Congress can set down rules to speed this up considerably...we can do a safe, efficient, clean job of this given the opportunity. Enviro laws don't have to be thrown out the door but stop the legal dog piles and we can get this thing going. I'm talking about onshore development here in the larger petro reserves and the extreme west of ANWR not offshore north slope oil.

What bothers me the most is that Congress will vote to fund a war or invade at the drop of a hat but not to sensibly develop some mineral reserves.

[swede]

The pipe is above ground on transit lines due to permafrost....but my point is that Congress can set down rules to speed this up considerably...we can do a safe, efficient, clean job of this given the opportunity. Enviro laws don't have to be thrown out the door but stop the legal dog piles and we can get this thing going. I'm talking about onshore development here in the larger petro reserves and the extreme west of ANWR not offshore north slope oil.

What bothers me the most is that Congress will vote to fund a war or invade at the drop of a hat but not to sensibly develop some mineral reserves.

QFT

I won't even address the caribou issue...and it is an issue as far as the Porcupine herd goes.

I say we relocate the porcupines to higher ground. The caribou can take care of themselves.