R K
Guest
Don't let me throw any facts into false statements.
Gas Prices
- Thread starter IceHogsFan
- Start date
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,490
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Back in Jax
When Obama took office the price of gas was roughly $1.80. Are you saying that is not a fact? And that the cost is not now more than double?
Oh, wait, some of you will clamor for a link:
http://www.GasBuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=USA Average&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=48&units=us
- Joined:
- May 31, 2010
- Posts:
- 7,172
- Liked Posts:
- 4,179
Jax, are you denying the fact that gas prices were as high as they are now (give or take) in June/July of 2008?
You and IHF seem to be implying that since gas was ~$2/gallon when Obama took office and ~$4 now, it is all his fault, ignoring the drastic drop in the fall/winter of 2008 due to a GLOBAL economic recession, including a large drop in demand for oil not only in the US, but also in the developing world such as China.
- Joined:
- May 31, 2010
- Posts:
- 7,172
- Liked Posts:
- 4,179
Holy shit Jax!
You didn't even see that huge drop in late 2008 on your chart?
Are you fucking blind?
You didn't even see that huge drop in late 2008 on your chart?
Are you fucking blind?
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,490
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Back in Jax
Not denying the high prices in June/July 2008. It is historical fact. However, some of you seem to think global collapse was the only reason for the price drop. I disagree. Bush SAID he was going to open the reserves (and didn't even have to) and prices dropped like a rock. I've said it before, but I guess it needs repeating...........the world economy is is WORSE now than it was then, not better. A president with some balls said **** YOU to the rest of the world and called their bluff. Too bad the guy in office now has no balls.
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,490
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Back in Jax
But yes, as Pete has pointed out time and time again, the sharp increases and eventual collapses are due primarily to speculators. They just kept running it up and running it up in 2008 until they got nervous because they suspected a bubble was about to burst. The American public decided they were going to curtail leisure travel and our president at the time said he was going to flood the market with supply. Even though OPEC cut production by 2.2million barrels/day at the end of 2008 it wasn't enough to keep the speculators from fearing huge losses. Now the honest part: I'm not going to sit here and pretend that the credit crunch felt around the world had nothing to do with the situation, it did, but it wasn't the leading factor in the drastic drop. People with opposing views can argue til the end of time, because no matter what, there is evidence to support both sides. Conservatives will say it was because Bush threatened to flood the market with our oil, and progressives will claim it was a worldwide financial collapse. Sitting here saying Obama can't do a single fucking thing to decrease gas prices is complete bullshit. He doesn't WANT to, because as long as people are paying high prices for gas, he can use that to further his other goals.
R K
Guest
I'm saying it goes up and down and during the last administration it was exactly where it is now. It really has nothing to do with the Presidency what so ever.
That's what I'm saying and that same link is where I found the previous administrations averages ( ( I didn't feel the need to post it). And FYI it's never been 1.80 here or near that in the past 10 years.
And the reserve would do very little and would last not a long time. And this administration has also talked about it.
R K
Guest
That's exactly what I was pointing out. To blame EITHER Administratio for the OIL price is assinine. Even to suggest either could control it is fucking comical.
I didn't like either President but lets call a spade a spade here.
Jax dig around. The US and Britan have been in discussions for weeks about the SOS. Even the threat isn't having much play. Did it work for Bush, I'm not so sure about that either.
Blanket statements like "its twice as high now than when he took office" are just fucked.
I'll go back to ignoring this part of NHTA now. It's not worth the hypocrisy it brings.
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,490
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Back in Jax
Around here? If gas buddy shows the national average, you can't tell me the Chicagoland area is so much worse that it was NEVER NEAR 1.80. +-10% falls in my definition of "near that" but I guess your definition is not the same.
As far as our reserves, I also disagree with you. Maybe we are looking at different information. I show that the USA could live off our own, without importing a single barrel for at least 60 years. That doesn't seem like an amount which would do "very little" to me. The administration "talked about it" by saying "why would we do that? It wouldn't accomplish anything." That's quite different from "we'll use our own oil and quit buying your shit."
jakobeast
New member
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,903
- Liked Posts:
- 21
- Location:
- yer ma's pants
The President doesn't control oil/gas prices, he doesn't create jobs, plain and simple. He can manipulate the oil market, but it is a short term fix at best. It doesn't last.
So why the **** do it?
So why the **** do it?
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,024
- Liked Posts:
- 0
You are correct, directly the POTUS does not control gas prices nor do I ever want him/ her. The bigger question is what is the energy policy of this administration? What are they doing to address the costs? What does the future hold in store for us based upon what is being done now?
I have no problem with the profits of corporations but I am tired of this POTUS always attacking industry and the profits they make. There are items that can be addressed by Congress of which he could take the lead on such as the commodities market.
I give suggestions and share concerns while others would rather attack the debate but never give any realistic suggestions as to what can be done. I am open to suggestions and discussion but not here to ridicule others.
R K
Guest
There are many theories on the SOS out there. It has also been debated many times on how much the 700 million barrels (rough estimate) would last if there was a complete discourse in importation.
To suggest what you are, since in the history(1970) it's never really been used is speculation. Speculation on my part as well, in time it would last, and or degree it would curb the betting on futures, which in a nutshell what keeps prices higher.
The POTUS has very little to do with it. Which is the same exact reason it WAS over $4 during the last administration as well. But hey, blame who you want man.
As for pricing around here, driving the vehicle I do I'm pretty concious on price and can't remember in the last decade it every being near or below 2$. This area is historically one of the highest on average in the Country.
Jako I agree with you. It's easier to throw stones when there is dislike there to begin with.
"I give suggestions and share concerns while others would rather attack the debate but never give any realistic suggestions as to what can be done. I am open to suggestions and discussion but not here to ridicule others.:
Poor IHF. You don't really believe that do you. Your arguments are pretty transparent, and 99% of the time one sided where this or any political issue is concerned. Just the way it is.
Several have spoken about the free market and why prices are the way they are. When you can correct the free market, maybe you have a chance. Or curb the BILLIONS in profits from these OIL companies winning the Hedge battle. I think two of them recorded yet even more RECORD profits last quarter. In the tune of 10 BILLION or more. How many of these companies AVOID taxation? Do a little digging and find out.
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,490
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Back in Jax
RK I don't disagree with most of what you said above. And Jako, so what if it is temporary? That isn't an excuse to continue to pay what we pay, which makes the cost of everything else go up (just as it seems we are finally starting to turn things around on the economy). If congress has to pass laws making oil speculation illegal in our country then so be it. I don't claim to be smart enough to know what we do with the rest of the world.
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,014
- Liked Posts:
- 4
- Location:
- Plainfield, IL
As I recall a year or so ago Obama did open up the reserves and gas prices barely budged.
R K
Guest
Not sure if they actually released any, but it was definitely threatened. We must remember you have to have the refinery capacity to process any thats been released. Right now this country is out of refinery space. Another political issue NOT lying at the President of ANY administration. Instead the PAC;s and environment thumpers in California, ect ect, run that while throwing massive amounts of money at Congress to oppose it.
in the midwest they are now exchanging the "winter blend" to the "summer blend", there is always an excuse for the oil industry for everything.
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,024
- Liked Posts:
- 0
So you are saying that if the POTUS and Congress wanted to move ahead with bringing more refineries online that they are powerless to do so?
One of the greatest ideas I had heard that has never been acted upon was building refineries on closed military installations.
jakobeast
New member
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 3,903
- Liked Posts:
- 21
- Location:
- yer ma's pants
Who is gonna open/run those refineries? Oil companies have a direct interest in keeping the refineries to a minimum. It keeps gas prices higher. If the gubmint opens and runs refineries on closed bases, does that mean they are getting into the oil business? I dont want that at all.
R K
Guest
Did you see me mention Congress? You didn't. You added that. I most certainly think Congress could play a role in many ways. Unfortunately they are too busy playing Partisan fucking Politics. That happens far before anything gets to the WH my friend.
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 991
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Not far from 127th and Archer
Refining capacities is the problem? Oh for fucks sake. Why would facilities be shuttered if refining capacities in the US be an issue?
http://www.reuters.c...ketsNews&rpc=43
Sunoco Inc. said on Thursday it continues to talk with prospective buyers for its 335,000 barrel per day refinery in Philadelphia but will shut down the plant in July as planned if it is not sold.
"We're still talking to interested parties. If a suitable transaction can't be completed, we intend to idle the main processing units at Philadelphia by July 2012," said Thomas Golembeski, a company spokesman.
On Wednesday, ConocoPhilips pushed back the deadline for permanently idling Trainer by two months to May 31 from the end of March.
"Due to recent interest from potential buyers, we are extending the sales process deadline to the end of May to allow more time for discussions to take place," said Rich Johnson, a spokesman for the company.
Edit: Marathon Oil spilt their E&P(Exploration & Production) from their Marketing(Refining and sales), Conoco Philips will do the same in Q2. If refining capacity was so scarce, why would they do this? The answer is simple, they can make more money getting the oil out of the ground as opposed to refining and selling it.
Refining capacity is not the issue in the US. Plain and fucking simple. If you think otherwise, you truely are plain and fucking simple.
http://www.reuters.c...ketsNews&rpc=43
Sunoco Inc. said on Thursday it continues to talk with prospective buyers for its 335,000 barrel per day refinery in Philadelphia but will shut down the plant in July as planned if it is not sold.
"We're still talking to interested parties. If a suitable transaction can't be completed, we intend to idle the main processing units at Philadelphia by July 2012," said Thomas Golembeski, a company spokesman.
On Wednesday, ConocoPhilips pushed back the deadline for permanently idling Trainer by two months to May 31 from the end of March.
"Due to recent interest from potential buyers, we are extending the sales process deadline to the end of May to allow more time for discussions to take place," said Rich Johnson, a spokesman for the company.
Edit: Marathon Oil spilt their E&P(Exploration & Production) from their Marketing(Refining and sales), Conoco Philips will do the same in Q2. If refining capacity was so scarce, why would they do this? The answer is simple, they can make more money getting the oil out of the ground as opposed to refining and selling it.
Refining capacity is not the issue in the US. Plain and fucking simple. If you think otherwise, you truely are plain and fucking simple.
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,024
- Liked Posts:
- 0
I always chuckle when others feel they have to tear others down to build themselves up.
Nobody said it was THE issue but it is an issue in the greater scheme.
Home » News
U.S. Gov't Agency Plans $2.84 Billion Loan for Oil Refinery—In Colombia
By Terence P. Jeffrey
April 18, 2011
The Marathon refinery in Louisiana. (AP photo/Cheryl Gerber)
(CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Export-Import Bank, an independent agency of the federal government, is now planning a $2.84-billion loan for a massive project to expand and upgrade an oil refinery--in Cartagena, Colombia.
The money would go to Reficar, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ecopetrol, the Colombian national oil company.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-govt-agency-plans-284-billion-loan-oil-refinery-colombia
No new refineries built in decades? True or false?
"There have been no new refineries built since 1976" is a phrase commonly placed in stories revolving around high gasoline prices, refinery problems, or oil prices. There seems to be, however, more than meets the eye to this claim. While the phrase is technically correct, there are some glaring omissions that mislead motorists into thinking there has been no capacity added to refineries since the last new facility was brought online in 1976.
The simple truth (which may be hard to believe given that oil companies are generally looked down on), is that oil companies have been busy adding new capacity in the last decade—expansions of all sizes are underway or have recently been completed. The size of some of these expansions adds more than double the capacity of an average refinery.
Let's take, for example, Motiva's Port Arthur, Texas expansion project. Already underway since 2006, this expansion project would add 275,000 barrels of capacity per day to this facility. For reference, the current average size of a U.S. refinery stands at nearly 129,500 barrels per day. The expansion project in Port Arthur would be like adding more than two refineries in this country! The project is slated to be complete and operational in 2012.
While the number of operating refineries has fallen from 254 in 1982 to 137 in 2011, the operating capacity of today's 137 facilities is over 830,000 barrels per day more than it was in 1982. Basically, while we've watched 117 refineries close, capacity has risen. (The Energy Information Administration's earliest records date to 1982.)
Moreover, since 1985, when refinery capacity hit a low of 14.7 million barrels per day, we've seen over three million barrels of capacity added, or the equivalent to 23 average modern day facilities. A stark contrast to the misleading tidbit about having no new refineries built since the 1970's. So while we haven't seen new refineries open in new locations, we have virtually added the capacity of 23 of today's average size facilities—and that is nothing to scoff at.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/07/29/no-new-oil-refineries-since-the-1970s-but-capacity-has-grown