It's an issue. Discuss.

3/1/2012 9:41:44 PM

I spent $42 on gas today. I do not approve.

3/1/2012 9:43:05 PM

System is corrupted absolute.

3/2/2012 3:24:17 AM

not an issue here. all electric mode gets me commuting with no issue
only using gas on longer travel days now


huffington post censoring ron paul in video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/super-tuesday-2012_n_1310795.html?ref=politics

3/2/2012 7:28:01 AM

^of course it's a fucking issue


cost of gas increases --> shipping costs increase --> cost of everything increases.

3/2/2012 7:55:06 AM

The US domestic production of natural gas and oil is down 40% compared to 10 years ago. Thanks Barack

3/2/2012 8:11:22 AM

Do you have the source for that? Just curious because I had an article come across my desk for my AM research that stated US imports of oil were at a 12 year low. And imports as a share of US consumption is at the lowest proportion since 1995.

I'm far from an oil expert since we don't really do much commodity work but that doesn't seem to mesh with what you posted (like I said I don't fully understand oil dynamics).

[Edited on March 2, 2012 at 9:40 AM. Reason : Didn't realize our oil consumption overall was down from '95 - mystery solved]

3/2/2012 9:32:42 AM

I drive about 5 miles tops per week, and am concerned this means more people will start crowding my bus. But then again, that also means there'll be less traffic slowing the bus down. Tough call.

3/2/2012 10:02:52 AM

Natural gas production has been on a long-term rising trend. Oil production has been on a long-term declining trend for over 30 years but started moving up a few years ago. I too would like to know where this "Down 40% since 10 years ago" claim originated. Also I'm not sure why you'd "Thank Barrack" for a 10 year trend, if that trend even existed.

[Edited on March 2, 2012 at 10:13 AM. Reason : .]

3/2/2012 10:08:13 AM

^ also, I'd be interested in how Canadian oil sands are treated (as "import" or "domestic North American"), as well as drilling in international waters in the Gulf. i'm pretty sure from my time working at BP that North American crude production as a whole is actually up from 15 years ago, but i could very well be mistaken.

And I know people love to hate ethanol (and I too absolutely think the subsidies the govt pays producers are stupid), but at oil over ~$70/bbl it's actually a more cost effective fuel (even after energy adjustment) than gasoline, and helps reduce the price we pay at the pump. i think the real debate that needs to be had is around what's the optimal liquid fuel mix for the U.S. (imported oil vs. north american oil vs. biofuels vs. LNG, etc), and what policies need to be in place (or removed) to support it - not just "can we drill off the coast of North Carolina or not".

3/5/2012 4:27:20 PM

Canada



USA

3/5/2012 5:34:44 PM

2011 was a huge year for gas exports. That map may be misleading.

gas was our #1 export last year.

3/6/2012 1:59:58 AM

Oil != Gas

Those maps are about local production of oil and natural gas. Last year was a big year for gas exports because we imported and refined oil into it then exported it again.

And by "we" I mean transnational corporations that are for the most part unhinged from any national identity or loyalty.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 8:56 AM. Reason : .]

3/6/2012 8:54:26 AM

Quote :

"^of course it's a fucking issue cost of gas increases --> shipping costs increase --> cost of everything increases."

actually my monthly gas savings offsets this a little bit. (actually once it's paid off this will start to be honest)

i'm in for the long term investment


[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 9:27 AM. Reason : x]

3/6/2012 9:19:19 AM

^^ exactly! that's why i get so frustrated with the recent election rhetoric around gas prices, as if our government has any direct impact on them (other than the explicit taxes associated with each gallon). not only is crude oil an international commodity, so is gasoline, and when there's a surplus in the U.S. of gasoline because we reduced the number of H3's and Expeditions we've bought since 2008, the refiners will ship it overseas to higher demand regions.

the best way for Americans to reduce what they spend on gas isn't to elect Newt Gingrich (as his ads here in Georgia want us here to believe), it's to carpool and stop driving that '01 Yukon. Newt can't make the Chinese stop wantin' their gas too

3/6/2012 9:40:43 AM

Quote :

"Also I'm not sure why you'd "Thank Barrack" for a 10 year trend, if that trend even existed."

The Thanks Barack comment is for his continual policy of hurting America's oil energy security. He discourages development left and right and if anyone thinks that discouraging oil extraction locally has "no" effect on prices then you're not thinking straight.

Obama's gov't held one drilling land lease rights sale in 2011. ONE. Nevermind his continual delay of the development of the Keystone pipeline (already thousands of pipelines across this country).

3/6/2012 12:57:45 PM

I prefer all these policies versus war with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran. That would be epicly worse for oil prices. So unless the Republicans (not Ron Paul, he's not Republican) change their platform no Republican is allowed to bitch about Obama.

3/6/2012 2:27:05 PM

^^ true, i can't argue that. the government regulations on offshore drilling do have some impact on the price you pay at the pump today. just as the wind does have some impact on how long it takes you to drive to work.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 2:29 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2012 2:28:55 PM

Quote :

"not Ron Paul, he's not Republican"

Certainly not, he only came in second in the republican primaries.

^ That there is uncertainty about the impact does not make the impact tiny. Chinese price controls on fuel make their consumption entirely immune from price fluctuation. As such, it is not the case that if America produced more or consumed less the difference would be consumed by the Chinese. Similar price control arrangements exist in India and much of the third world. When demand curves begin to slope this much, a sustained extra amount of production can have a large impact on prices.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 5:29 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/6/2012 5:25:10 PM

^he's just pissy right now b/c he knows...
obama = bush + more pork barrel spending



who needs oil when you've got obama!

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 5:29 PM. Reason : z]

3/6/2012 5:28:17 PM

Nobody mentioned the trillions of $ printed by global central banks, straight to the Bush vs Obama.

3/6/2012 6:39:57 PM

Americans do not pay too much for gas.

3/6/2012 6:48:57 PM

^^^^ i was just using a simplifying example re: China, hence the

my point is that it's frustrating watching people eat it up when the republican pundits preach that "Obama is making your gas expensive!!!", which is disingenuous rhetoric at best. there are hundreds of factors inflating gas prices right now, few of which (if any) can be linked to our current President. this idiocy leads to people pointing out how "gas prices were $2.00/gallon when Obama took office, but der $3.80 now!!! It must be his fault!!!" not putting anyone on this board in that camp, just crap i've overheard and seen people post on the facebooks. anyhow, to add to this hypocrisy, house republicans completely ignore the demand side of the equation when they voice opposition to the stricter CAFE standards that were tied to the auto bailout. the U.S. is a massive net importer of crude, the best way to get our gas prices down is to focus on reducing our huge demand, not raging about opening up all of our minimal reserves. but you'll never hear a republican politician promoting higher gas mileage requirements or investments in public transportation.

and it is true that there's no certainty around at which point on the global production cost curve our currently-off-limits reserves would fall, thus their impact on crude pricing is, well, uncertain. but estimates are that less than 5% of the worlds total remaining oil reserves are in the U.S. - so even if they're in the lowest quartile, unless the cost curve in 2020 is immensely steep, the impact of whatever marginal barrels we somehow may tap a decade from now will likely have little appreciable impact on what people driving their H3's will be paying at the pump. Global demand, geopolitical stability in the middle east, and ample refining capacity will be, by far, the driving factors of what gas cost. not whether Obama or Newt or Mitt allow drilling off the Atlantic coast.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 9:42 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2012 9:41:26 PM

Quote :

"He discourages development left and right and if anyone thinks that discouraging oil extraction locally has "no" effect on prices then you're not thinking straight."

It doesn't. Not only are our local reserves insubstantial next to the world market, but the companies that drill oil will gladly sell it to anyone else on the globe if it goes for more there. That oil that comes out of the ground is not "ours" and will not reduce the price at the pump whatsoever whether it comes from America or Saudi Arabia. It's priced at world market prices no matter what hole in the ground it's pulled out of.

[Edited on March 7, 2012 at 10:26 AM. Reason : .]

3/7/2012 10:25:21 AM

anonymous needs to get their off internet forums and start doing some real shit.

how fucking cool would it be if some anons started hacking gas pumps or oil rigs and taking them offline.

getting kind of boring as is... they need to take it up a notch from 'we got an email list and DOS'ed your homepage'

[Edited on March 7, 2012 at 10:36 AM. Reason : ,]

3/7/2012 10:35:44 AM

First they gotta take their living situation a notch above Mom's basement.

3/7/2012 10:37:47 AM

they obviously have the tools to get shit done.

hell if they can shut down the fucking homeland security site... get into some missile defense systems.. and launch a couple of those fuckers at wall street.

that'll quickly get OWS back on its feet.

3/7/2012 10:39:11 AM

Yeah, as soon as they hook their missile defense systems up to their apache servers we're in for it. Maybe if they hit dowjones.com hard enough the 404 will cascade all the way down and crash the whole market!

[Edited on March 7, 2012 at 10:49 AM. Reason : .]

3/7/2012 10:47:58 AM

A major factor prices have gone up so much is because of the sanctions and war-mongering over Iran. If Obama doesn't have influence over that, then what the hell does he? Ron Paul for President!

Str8Foolish, I don't think anyone is suggesting more U.S. production will reduce oil prices in the U.S. relative to other countries, just that it will reduce the world price for oil, which is true, especially for the reasons I gave above. World demand has not increased very much recently, yet prices are much higher. If U.S. production had managed to keep up with the recent increases in consumption, prices would not have increased.

3/7/2012 10:50:53 AM

You'll have to show me your math then, I don't buy that the US has enough oil to even dent prices more than a few cents.


edit: I'm also curious as to why OPEC wouldn't just slow their production to keep prices up.

[Edited on March 7, 2012 at 11:05 AM. Reason : .]

3/7/2012 10:57:57 AM

gasoline is just too good as a fuel. its energy dense and its easy to transport. theres nothing that comes close to how nice gas is as a fuel.

natural gas is decent and its cheap right now, but if you converted a significant chunk of fleet vehicles over to CNG that price is gonna go up as well. Its a good solution for now, but its probably not sustainable long term.

battery tech is a joke. its gonna take a miracle breakthrough to come up with a battery capable of replacing gasoline. our best bet here is to come up with batteries that arent the big toxic sludge containers dependent on rare metals that we have today. then we'd just need to put chargers every mile or so. or even try the more crazy ideas like inductive charging.

hydrogen as a fuel is a pain cause the fuel cells can be problematic, it requires pressurized storage, and on top of that generating hydrogen requires lots of energy in the first place and then you need a way to get it to market.

so whats the solution? idk.

On the consumption side you can encourage people to live closer to work, create better public transportation systems, encourage telecommuting, and other things to decrease usage. people who can afford it will buy higher efficiency vehicles and then those will eventually be sold to the used market, but that transition time may not be fast enough.


On the price side, you can do lower the prices of other forms of energy. Replace oil and natural gas power plants with nuclear. if you can lower the price of electricity while decreasing the amount of oil/gas used for production it would benefit everyone across the board.

Household efficiency is a great way to tackle this as well. New insulation, better windows, etc... are all gonna do more to decrease consumption and therefore prices than anything you're gonna do supply side.

all the pollitical bickering about "OBAMAS MAKIN GAS COST ALOT!!" or "WE NEED GREEEN JARBS!!" aint gonna help.

If i was a politician my plan would be:

Significant federal subsidies to homeowners, landlords, building managers, or whoever for efficiency improvements centered around eliminating environmental loss. elegibility would be by current building efficiency rather than economic class. It doesnt matter if we make energy cheap or clean if we're still throwing it out the windows.

A nuclear blitz targetting the replacement of oil and coal plants. Oil probably wouldnt be a problem because the plant owners dont care how they make their energy, and the oil producers will just sell it somewhere else. coal would be a bitch though cause that shit is dirt fucking cheap and power generation is really the only major use of coal. although i guess they could sell it to china. You'd also massively increase the amount spent on research in new reactor designs and the number of designs. Make the US once again the leader in nuclear technology, which will be critical to the future of everyone on the planet.

Provide credits for businesses for hiring workers who primarily telecommute or who use public transportation.

This stuff aint gonna get fixed by drilling more, export taxes on gas, or throwing up some feel good wind towers.

3/7/2012 11:57:11 AM

Wait. So are you admitting that government is the only player who can influence the market enough to produce significant, positive results? I thought the free market would sort itself out to deliver the optimal outcome?

3/7/2012 12:33:55 PM

well, considering that the the gov't is the player that has largely influenced the market so much to produce significant, negative results, it kind of makes sense that it needs to do something to stop fucking things up. the free market only works when the gov't doesn't have its boot to the market's neck forcing certain outcomes.

3/7/2012 12:40:06 PM

spooner dropping truth bombs ITT

3/7/2012 12:44:09 PM

private companies cant just build nukes willy nilly, so yes the government would need to be involved.

we'd also eliminate government waste on oil, wind, and solar subsidies and repeal the stupid cap and trade law. replace it with a flat carbon tax. no riders, no earmarks, and no favoritism like the current law.

3/7/2012 12:45:30 PM

It'd be a lot easier to convince me that Obama doesn't actually want higher gasoline prices if he actually did anything beneficial to the oil industry, instead of harmful policies. As I mentioned:

-Restrictive offshore drilling
-vetoing further pipelines
-limited land leasing

It also doesn't help that his own Secretary of Energy stated a few years ago that he wants gas prices to go up.

Nuclear power increases, as Shaggy mentioned, would be great. But Obama's administration nixed Yucca mountain, effectively stopping any momentum in the nuclear industry.

Perhaps Obama's policies have had very little effect on gasoline prices. But please show me what he has done to at least try to prevent gas prices from rising?

3/7/2012 1:17:35 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps Obama's policies have had very little effect on gasoline prices. But please show me what he has done to at least try to prevent gas prices from rising?"

First, you have to show that those things you listed actually raise prices substantially. To do that, you have to show that the amount of oil that could be extracted under those conditions would impact world prices.

Also explain why the companies extracting that oil would choose to lower prices at all, considering they do much of the international drilling as well and don't seem to be rushing to decrease the price on THAT oil.

Also offer some kind of reasoning as to why OPEC wouldn't simply cut production to keep prices up, as they've done over and over and over again throughout history?

[Edited on March 7, 2012 at 1:28 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2012 1:23:33 PM

Quote :

"well, considering that the the gov't is the player that has largely influenced the market so much to produce significant, negative results, it kind of makes sense that it needs to do something to stop fucking things up. the free market only works when the gov't doesn't have its boot to the market's neck forcing certain outcomes."

So is it more a question of specific policy or basic government interference? I'm not sure where you're going with this.

^^ I don't think oil and gas companies are hurting too much. America has been subsidizing oil and gas industries for awhile now. We generally pay less than all other parts of the world. If you don't like how much gas actually costs find solutions to reduce consumption or increase efficiency.

[Edited on March 7, 2012 at 1:26 PM. Reason : ^]

3/7/2012 1:25:57 PM

Not that it will largely impact gas prices, the Keystone Pipeline is being re-proposed with the needed changes to avoid environmentally sensitive areas. Sadly I know that some (if not a good deal of) my people will still bitch about it, but the president should really just sign off on it. Granted, approving it now will be spun on the right as doing it for political gain and "had he just done it the first time..." but fuck 'em, whatever.

3/7/2012 1:30:43 PM

^^ I imagine that the gov't could undertake specific policies to promote a move away from oil, sure. You can also stop a child from bleeding, eventually, by bashing them repeatedly with a shovel.

For starters, we should stop the oil subsidies as well as the ethanol subsidies. Our current gov't policies have the intended effect of continuing our dependence on oil to the detriment of other technologies.

I'd like it if we could have more mass transportation, but, let's face it, our gov't pushed suburbanization and lower population densities via oil subsidies. I'd also love it if private companies could spearhead the building of new transportation networks, but with the way the gov't is today, that would be impossible. The only entity capable of pushing through the environmental and gov't regulations is, frankly, the gov't, because it can ignore those regulations at its pleasure. That's not an endorsement of gov't, mind you, because the gov't making it so only the gov't can do the job doesn't mean that only the gov't could ever have done the job.

[Edited on March 7, 2012 at 1:38 PM. Reason : ]

3/7/2012 1:37:45 PM

Quote :

"America has been subsidizing oil and gas industries for awhile now."

american oil subsidies are insignificant compared to the energy generated. we could (and should) get rid of them without much of a price increase. and any price increase that would occur would be from "HURR OBAMA IS INCREZSING GAS PRICES!!!" and not from actual cost increases from the subsidy expiring

3/7/2012 1:37:50 PM

Trade the authorization of new pipelines and drilling for an elimination of the subsidies. ez pz.

3/7/2012 1:41:09 PM

The irony will be when Oil execs look at their balance sheet, minus the subsidies, and find the pipeline to be an insufficiently profitable venture.

3/7/2012 1:44:02 PM

they look at oil prices to determine profitability of new extraction or transport. they'll claim the subsidies are for research and building new capacity and while that might be sort of true, the subsidies are a drop in the bucket compared to direct profits. as long as gas prices stay high (globally) as demand continues to increase, stuff like the new pipeline will remain profitable.

3/7/2012 1:53:49 PM

Quote :

" I imagine that the gov't could undertake specific policies to promote a move away from oil, sure. You can also stop a child from bleeding, eventually, by bashing them repeatedly with a shovel. For starters, we should stop the oil subsidies as well as the ethanol subsidies. Our current gov't policies have the intended effect of continuing our dependence on oil to the detriment of other technologies. I'd like it if we could have more mass transportation, but, let's face it, our gov't pushed suburbanization and lower population densities via oil subsidies. I'd also love it if private companies could spearhead the building of new transportation networks, but with the way the gov't is today, that would be impossible. The only entity capable of pushing through the environmental and gov't regulations is, frankly, the gov't, because it can ignore those regulations at its pleasure. That's not an endorsement of gov't, mind you, because the gov't making it so only the gov't can do the job doesn't mean that only the gov't could ever have done the job."

I am 100% for unraveling the clusterfuck of legislation we currently have. I don't necessarily believe the government should play no role, however. I am firmly convinced that there are some things we need as a society that would not occur without government intervention. The free market does not operate with sustainability in mind. It operates with short term profits in mind. A private system of economics that seeks short term profits without jeopardizing long term sustainability would be ideal and I feel like you might agree. An unregulated market is incapable of creating this because people are too dumb and irrational on a social (macro) level to create it from the bottom up.

-----------------------------
If oil companies lost their subsidies they would just raise their prices to increase their profit margins back to ridiculous levels.

3/7/2012 2:22:16 PM

Quote :

"If oil companies lost their subsidies they would just raise their prices to increase their profit margins back to ridiculous levels."

Not so sure about this, this assumes that their prices are currently not already as high as they can get away with without taking a serious demand shock.

3/7/2012 2:28:14 PM

Oil is almost totally inelastic. They would increase prices and blame the government.

3/7/2012 2:30:47 PM

could you clarify what you mean by "sustainability"

3/7/2012 2:43:31 PM

Quote :

"Oil is almost totally inelastic. They would increase prices and blame the government."

That doesn't answer the question of why they're waiting to raise the price?

3/7/2012 2:51:12 PM

Promoting policies for long-term profitability. Increasing economic stability. Removing or accounting for externalities. Minimizing environmental degradation. Discouraging waste.

I feel like sustainability is a specific enough term. We generally have enough knowledge of basic cause and effect that is agreed upon but we don't apply this knowledge. I'm not talking about micro-managing the economy in an attempt to fine tune every aspect of every industry. I agree that this causes unforeseen negative consequences. But creating a framework of regulations for economic activity that promotes stability and limits dangerous risk is a good thing.

3/7/2012 3:03:51 PM