Analyst Says Prices Could Go To $3.50 A Gallon By Labor Day

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

There's an open, worldwide market for oil these days.  There will always be gas available for purchase, unless there's something like a major world war or stupid government policy like price controls.   You'll always be able to buy gas.  You may not like the price, though.

[De Selby]

There's an open, worldwide market for oil these days.  There will always be gas available for purchase, unless there something like a major world war or stupid government policy like price controls.   You'll always be able to buy gas.  You may not like the price, though.

Again, this is plainly contradictory-if you can't control the price, you certainly can't ensure you'll always be able to buy gas, and more importantly, that you'll be able to buy it without crippling effects.

That's the point of coming up with alternatives-so that you aren't paralyzed when the price goes to a point that, absent alternatives, efforts to obtain fuel consume all the available financial resources.

[macadore]

Egads, man.  It's a Riley Redux.

worse, looks like a lot of cut and pasting posting.

My father worked in the oilfield for 40 years. I worked in the Oilfield for 35 years. We both had our own businesses and owned oil and gas wells. I worked overseas in the oilfields and have numerous friends who did as well. I worked in the countries of which I speak and talked at length with their oil company representatives.

You cant refute my facts or logic so you libel me and dismiss my argument based on your libel. Thats weak.

It's not your facts that are wrong (although they could be wrong, I haven't bothered to verify them, the line about oil companies setting the price of oil is highly suspicious).  It's your interpretations and conclusions that I think are way off base.

Markets are cyclical, and all companies will act in their best interests.  here's nothing sinister or conspiratorial about it.  Next time, deploy Occam's Razor before you deploy the tinfoil.   T

1.   Why do markets cycle?
2.   Who sets the price?
3.   Occam's razor (i.e. parsimony) fits my explanation quite well. Those who control essential resources set the prices. Some economist calls this idea a hydraulic economy because it was originally based on the control of water. If you live in a dessert and control the water, you control everything. Wars have been fought over this.
4.   

Markets are cyclical, and all companies will act in their best interests.  here's [sic] nothing sinister or conspiratorial about it. 

I agree. Its just business, but it is not a free market.
5.   A tinfoil hat accusation from a Ron Paul supporter?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

There's an open, worldwide market for oil these days.  There will always be gas available for purchase, unless there something like a major world war or stupid government policy like price controls.   You'll always be able to buy gas.  You may not like the price, though.

Again, this is plainly contradictory-if you can't control the price, you certainly can't ensure you'll always be able to buy gas, and more importantly, that you'll be able to buy it without crippling effects.

That's the point of coming up with alternatives-so that you aren't paralyzed when the price goes to a point that, absent alternatives, efforts to obtain fuel consume all the available financial resources.

Gas prices cannot rise to the point where it consumes all financial resources.  Should gas prices rise to the point where nobody can afford to buy it, then obviously nobody will buy it.  Demand plummets, supply rockets, and prices come back down.  The system rebalances itself, reaches its proper equilibrium.

I was talking about cyclical markets earlier, but apparently the point was lost.  People buy more gas when it's cheap, demand rises, prices rise, people buy less of it when it's expensive, demand falls, prices fall, people buy more because its cheap.  Cyclical, repetitive.  High prices beget low prices beget high prices beget low prices...

This is basic economics, something you never seem to consider.

As for alternatives, why not take up the deal I proposed earlier?  You allow me to develop whatever new sources I want (ANWR, coastal drilling, etc), and I let you develop whatever new sources you want (wind, solar, you name it).  Just a little bit of good ol' fashioned liberty.  Whadya say?

There would be only two requirements.  One, you can't obstruct me from doing what I want and I can't obstruct you from doing what you want.  Two, you and I both pay for our new developments with our own money, neither of us can extorting money from the other via government.

Do we have a deal?

[De Selby]

Gas prices cannot rise to the point where it consumes all financial resources.  Should gas prices rise to the point where nobody can afford to buy it, then obviously nobody will buy it.  Demand plummets, supply rockets, and prices come back down.  The system rebalances itself, reaches its proper equilibrium

Yeah, except you're presuming that an entire infrastructure of fuel-guzzling products is not built up in the period before the skyrocketing gas price. 

If so, what happens to the economy when the price gets to high? Then you have lower demand because...the economy is wrecked, so no one can buy anything.  Then there's also the fact that the people who sell the oil might receive enough benefit from less oil sold at a higher price to make it worth their while....again, no magic rule of the market prevents this, which is why you plan for it.

These are things you try to avoid because they are catastrophic, not beautiful functions of the free market.

As for alternatives, why not take up the deal I proposed below?  You allow me to develop whatever new sources I want (ANWR, coastal drilling, etc), and I let you develop whatever nerw sources you want (wind, solar, you name it).  There would be only two requirements.

For one thing, those resources don't belong to you or to the oil companies-they belong to the US, and the US (at least in theory) belongs to the voters.

But anyway, it's irrelevant-it's silly to try and shut down every effort to conserve fuel and develop alternatives on the notion that oil will always be available (it won't-that is a fact) and that the purveyors of oil will always be forced to react to the market before their pricing destroys the economy (no magic law of economics involved there either.)

Your viewpoint is not predictated on economics, it's predicated on fantasy economics where sellers must obey some magic law of pricing, and where sellers have complete control over the supply of a product that comes from the ground, mostly in places outside the USA, and that is finite in quantity. 

[El Tejon]

I demand massive federal bailouts for oil speculators!

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I've never tried to shut down alternative energy.  I strongly oppose government funding of alternative energy.  I strongly oppose government mandated use of alternative energy.  I oppose government restrictions on conventional energy.  I think most alternative energy schemes are stupid, but I've never begrudged anyone the opportunity to go out and try to develop it with his own money.

Let me drill new wells, build new refineries, put up a bunch of nuke plants.  I'll let you do whatever you want with wind or solar or hot air or whatever.  I'll pay for mine, you pay for yours.  We'll let the American people vote with their dollars for whichever solution they prefer.

Whadya say?

[De Selby]

Okay, this is starting to look like you are saying "Hey, I'm not opposed to alternative energy...I'm just opposed to every conceivable plan involving it, whether it be backed by private oil billionaires, the government, or people who want smaller cars"

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Heh.  This is amusing.  I said I'm opposed to government funded or mandated alternative energy.  You read that as me being opposed to every conceivable plan involving alternative energy.

Is this the root of our misunderstanding?  Is the problem that you cannot conceive of an alternative energy plan that isn't government funded and mandated?

[Ben]

I think it's a good idea to develop alternatives so that varying fuel prices don't cripple your budget.

I agree with this. I think Joe Everyday should prepare, and so should the US. I just don't believe we should promote alternatives to the detriment of the de facto main fuel source we currently use. I've cited China before as an example of a country that is investing in alternative energy, but not giving up current fuel sources while they do that. They're still importing and drilling for oil while they develop bio-products and build nuke plants.

The problem with most of the Gore-ist plans is they want us to severely curtail petroleum use now and throw everything we've got into alternative fuels. There's no reason we shouldn't promote alternative fuel innovation, but we shouldn't curtail oil exploration and production either.

[De Selby]

Okay, check out reply 33:

Markets are cyclical, and people react to them cyclically.  We all know that.  People buy gas-guzzlers when gas is cheap, and people buy econoboxes when the price of gas is high.  What's wrong with that?  Should people buy cars that don't fit the times?

Again, if we're not supposed to react to the possible interruptions in supply...how do we plan for a future with oil problems?

Oh that's right-the only sensible solution is to just drill for more oil, when we know: 1) that drilling here doesn't control the prices all that well and 2) Even drilling here, there's only so much oil...it is finite.

Then:

You're kidding right? Whether someone can afford an SUV or not is something else entirely, and the responsibility of the auto buyer. If you're buying a $50K SUV or $50K BMW instead of a $12K Ford Focus, money to put fuel in the vehicle shouldn't be an issue, or you shouldn't be buying that expensive of a vehicle.

We don't have an issue of not having enough oil nationally to "fuel all machines". I haven't seen any "out of gas" signs at any gas stations anywhere.

The issue is not enough oil-here today, gone tomorrow, interruption for any of a multitude of reasons in between.

Maybe instead of ragging on anyone who comes up with any solution other than "burn more oil, get more oil out of the ground", we should all start cooperating to come up with a way so that we are not paralyzed by supply issues.

On this thread, I have seen exactly the opposite attitude:

"Hey, oil prices are great....now I can afford that SUV I always wanted!"

"What's wrong with buying the 6000 SUX? It's perfectly suited to our 99cent a gallon gas economy....we'll just trash them all when gas is 10 dollars and that won't be wasteful nor will it damage the economy!"

"Supply? There's gas everywhere...it's not like Saudi Arabia/Iran could strangle our economy by shutting down supply, or that we'll ever run out of oil.  There's more oil than we ever dreamed of in the north pole...the oil companies told me so, and they even helped me plan for the future by opposing any shift in energy production away from oil products! Yay oil companies, they're so selfless!"

[yesitsloaded]

I've got to give you cred for the Robocop reference. But we all know that oil is infinite because there is a group of elves at the center of the Earth pumping it out by the millions of barrels. Actually I'm not positive that the oil supply isn't regenerative to some degree. Doesn't mean we should whore out the environment anyway. Conservation and stewardship should cross party lines. The problem with this country is that we no longer uphold quality as the sign of luxury. We place more emphasis on size and number instead of the finer details.  The biggest this, the most that. A $120,000 American vehicle is a Hummer H1 Alpha, the quality equivalent is a Porche or Ferrari. The differences are vast. Instead of elegant solutions to complex problems, we seem to think we can just do something more or bigger and it will all solve itself.   

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Maybe instead of ragging on anyone who comes up with any solution other than "burn more oil, get more oil out of the ground", we should all start cooperating to come up with a way so that we are not paralyzed by supply issues.

On this thread, I have seen exactly the opposite attitude:

"Hey, oil prices are great....now I can afford that SUV I always wanted!"

"What's wrong with buying the 6000 SUX? It's perfectly suited to our 99cent a gallon gas economy....we'll just trash them all when gas is 10 dollars and that won't be wasteful nor will it damage the economy!"

Again, I ask what's so wrong about letting people buy the cars they want?  This is a free country, isn't it?

I've tried several times to get you to agree to a fair, liberty-minded solution.  Let us pursue our ideas for new fuels, and we'll let you pursue yours.  Keep your hands out of our pockets, we'll keep ours out of yours.  It's perfectly fair and perfectly reasonable.

But you won't agree.  Why not?

Nobody is stopping your side from developing your alternatives.  But that's never been good enough for you.  What you want is for the government, your fellow citizens, to pay for the development of your preferred fuel source.

What's more, your side won't let anyone else drill for more oil.  You don't have to drill the oil yourself, or to pay for it yourself.  We're not asking you to lift a finger.  All we want is for you to get the hell out of the way and let someone else do it.   

But no, your side won't even tolerate that.

At some point it becomes clear that this isn't about fuel.  What you want is control.  You want the power to force people to do things your way, and prohibit people from doing things their way.  "Live and let live" is NOT an option for your side.

[macadore]

Nobody is stopping your side from developing your alternatives.

I believe it was Davy Crockett who said, None are so blind as those who will not see. The people who control most of the worlds oil supplies do their best to prevent everyone from developing alternatives. They convinced Jimmy Peanut Head Carter to ban the production of new nuclear power facilities. At the time the pseudo intellectuals were sure that nuclear energy was going to destroy the world. Towards the end of the Carter administration we had our first energy shortages and gasoline prices quadrupled. Today, France gets over 80% of its power from nuclear energy while we get almost none. Look at the way France is demonized in some sections of our media. Who is behind that? Who benefits the most from the U.S. not producing enough nuclear energy to meet 80% of our needs?

[Regolith]

Nobody is stopping your side from developing your alternatives.

I believe it was Davy Crockett who said, None are so blind as those who will not see. The people who control most of the worlds oil supplies do their best to prevent everyone from developing alternatives. They convinced Jimmy Peanut Head Carter to ban the production of new nuclear power facilities. At the time the pseudo intellectuals were sure that nuclear energy was going to destroy the world. Towards the end of the Carter administration we had our first energy shortages and gasoline prices quadrupled. Today, France gets over 80% of its power from nuclear energy while we get almost none. Look at the way France is demonized in some sections of our media. Who is behind that? Who benefits the most from the U.S. not producing enough nuclear energy to meet 80% of our needs?

Methinks you should remove the tinfoil hat. 

The ONLY resistance I've ever seen to nuclear power comes from two groups:  Environmentalist, and NIMBY's.  Unfortunately, those two groups are very, very good at suing the crap out of anyone who ever thinks about putting up a nuclear power plant, and this resistance is usually enough to keep nuclear plants out of most areas.

I've never heard of nor seen any evidence that the oil companies are backing these groups, or putting up any effective resistance themselves.

[macadore]

Nobody is stopping your side from developing your alternatives.

I believe it was Davy Crockett who said, None are so blind as those who will not see. The people who control most of the worlds oil supplies do their best to prevent everyone from developing alternatives. They convinced Jimmy Peanut Head Carter to ban the production of new nuclear power facilities. At the time the pseudo intellectuals were sure that nuclear energy was going to destroy the world. Towards the end of the Carter administration we had our first energy shortages and gasoline prices quadrupled. Today, France gets over 80% of its power from nuclear energy while we get almost none. Look at the way France is demonized in some sections of our media. Who is behind that? Who benefits the most from the U.S. not producing enough nuclear energy to meet 80% of our needs?

Methinks you should remove the tinfoil hat. 

The ONLY resistance I've ever seen to nuclear power comes from two groups:  Environmentalist, and NIMBY's.  Unfortunately, those two groups are very, very good at suing the crap out of anyone who ever thinks about putting up a nuclear power plant, and this resistance is usually enough to keep nuclear plants out of most areas.

I've never heard of nor seen any evidence that the oil companies are backing these groups, or putting up any effective resistance themselves.

So facts that contradict what you want to believe are delusional conspiracy theories? If ad hominum arguments are all you have, then you have no argument. Thats the way 5 year olds argue.

Youre a poo poo head.
Well youre a popie head.
Am not.
Are too.
Am not.
Are too.

Oh please.

I've never heard of nor seen any evidence that the oil companies are backing these groups, or putting up any effective resistance themselves.

I repeat, none are so blind as those who will not see. Does the fact that you have not seen or heard of something mean it does not exist or does it mean you are making decision based on incomplete and faulty information?

Do you honestly believe that organizations that are making billions of dollars off of the current situation will not try to preserve the situation? Thats naive. I spent most of my life working in the energy industry. I have seen how they operate. They are as predatory as the robber barons. I realize most schools do not spend much time on the robber barons. Could it be that the robber barons want to control our thinking? Is it possible they have succeeded?

Rather than another ad hominum argument, answer my questions.

1.   Who curtailed oil shipments to the U.S in the late seventies which put hundreds of independent refineries out of business and quadrupled the price of gasoline?
2.   Who flooded the oil market in the nineties and forced thousands of wells to be plugged and forced hundreds of independent oil producers out of business?
3.   Who benefits from the current energy situation?
4.   Will those who benefit from the current situation try to create conditions that will allow them to continue benefiting?

[roo_ster]

5.   A tinfoil hat accusation from a Ron Paul supporter?

Really, that ought to be a big ol' sign that you may WAY off Reality Road.

[roo_ster]

At some point it becomes clear that this isn't about fuel.  What you want is control.  You want the power to force people to do things your way, and prohibit people from doing things their way.  "Live and let live" is NOT an option for your side.

I do believe you have come to the meat of the issue.

[Regolith]

Nobody is stopping your side from developing your alternatives.

I believe it was Davy Crockett who said, None are so blind as those who will not see. The people who control most of the worlds oil supplies do their best to prevent everyone from developing alternatives. They convinced Jimmy Peanut Head Carter to ban the production of new nuclear power facilities. At the time the pseudo intellectuals were sure that nuclear energy was going to destroy the world. Towards the end of the Carter administration we had our first energy shortages and gasoline prices quadrupled. Today, France gets over 80% of its power from nuclear energy while we get almost none. Look at the way France is demonized in some sections of our media. Who is behind that? Who benefits the most from the U.S. not producing enough nuclear energy to meet 80% of our needs?

Methinks you should remove the tinfoil hat. 

The ONLY resistance I've ever seen to nuclear power comes from two groups:  Environmentalist, and NIMBY's.  Unfortunately, those two groups are very, very good at suing the crap out of anyone who ever thinks about putting up a nuclear power plant, and this resistance is usually enough to keep nuclear plants out of most areas.

I've never heard of nor seen any evidence that the oil companies are backing these groups, or putting up any effective resistance themselves.

So facts that contradict what you want to believe are delusional conspiracy theories? If ad hominum arguments are all you have, then you have no argument. Thats the way 5 year olds argue.

Youre a poo poo head.
Well youre a popie head.
Am not.
Are too.
Am not.
Are too.

Oh please.

I've never heard of nor seen any evidence that the oil companies are backing these groups, or putting up any effective resistance themselves.

I repeat, none are so blind as those who will not see. Does the fact that you have not seen or heard of something mean it does not exist or does it mean you are making decision based on incomplete and faulty information?

Do you honestly believe that organizations that are making billions of dollars off of the current situation will not try to preserve the situation? Thats naive. I spent most of my life working in the energy industry. I have seen how they operate. They are as predatory as the robber barons. I realize most schools do not spend much time on the robber barons. Could it be that the robber barons want to control our thinking? Is it possible they have succeeded?

Rather than another ad hominum argument, answer my questions.

1.   Who curtailed oil shipments to the U.S in the late seventies which put hundreds of independent refineries out of business and quadrupled the price of gasoline?
2.   Who flooded the oil market in the nineties and forced thousands of wells to be plugged and forced hundreds of independent oil producers out of business?
3.   Who benefits from the current energy situation?
4.   Will those who benefit from the current situation try to create conditions that will allow them to continue benefiting?

Tell you what.  Run and go get some sources that show that oil companies have been blocking nuclear production in the United States.  Then, maybe I will believe you.  Right now, all you have is empty rhetoric and conspiracy theories spun out of moonbeams.

[Gewehr98]

Not exactly a lighthouse beacon emanating from this thread, and there isn't much said here that hasn't been hashed out ad nauseam in a bazillion threads before.  

In the meantime, I just filled up again with E-85 for $3.00/gallon.

Running on a cloud of alternative-fuel smug, I'd wager.