GOP blocking the Speculation bill

[uscitizen]

It is a global market Damo.

 

[cawacko]

The question is do they really believe regulating speculation would work, or are they just gaining political points by playing the blame game? Regulating speculators would not work, not only because U.S. speculators would simply move their offices to avoid the regulations, but also because we are already in competition with foreign speculators. Anyone who thinks putting fetters on U.S. speculators would somehow cause foreign speculators to cap their prices is smoking something.

Again, the republicans screwed the pooch when they stopped the alternate energy bill. (There were a few subsidy proposals I did not like, but they could have been ironed out later.)

But in the case of blocking this regulation bill, they are not blocking anything that would have a significant impact short term, (while having the potential to screw us big time if lack of ability to compete in oil futures end up denyng the U.S. the level of imports we need.)

And in the other corner, we have the Democrats who are standing on their no-drilling principles, and in the process denying both the long term effects that would result in greater domestic supply, AND the short term effects it would have on speculation. If speculators anticipate a change in the supply/demand equation in favor of supply, then their bets (ie: speculation) on oil FUTURES (ie future production of oil) will drop, thereby dropping prices. Already shortening demand - and a visible trend to continue to shorten demand (or at least decrease the rate demand was increasing - if that make sense) has changed the equation enough to bring speculative prices down some. IF speculators were to believe a large increase in supply were coming down the pike - even if it is not for 5 years or more, prices would drop further. Remember, it is oil FUTURES that speculators set their eyes on when price bidding, not CURRENT oil production.

Bottom line, BOTH parties are out there gaining points from their constituencies by playing brain dead political "gotcha" games. NEITHER party is supporting the comprehensive, across-the-board package we need of both increased domestic oil supply AND decreased oil demand through development of alternates. It is the COMBINED package that will bring about both short term relief by causing speculators to look at a significant change in the supply/demand equation, AND in the long term by assuring greater self sufficiency in U.S. energy demands.

That's a pretty good analysis right there.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again you can't understand at all what I am talking about, because you prefer to be deliberately obtuse.

We need a national program, like the lunar landing, to get us off the foreign oil.

And yes, we would be uniquely positioned to take advantage of oil that they do not have to deliver elsewhere. You still narrowly and short-sightedly focus solely on price. Your fixation is nearly terminally stupid. Even if it costs more, if we want to avoid future conflicts of this type in the ME, we must begin to get off foreign oil.

If we are going to "fight a war on terrorism" then we need to stop funding both sides of the war.

No, they don't have to deliver it elsewhere, but in a global market they would sell it to the person willing to pay the highest price, whether it be in the US or elsewhere.

And I'm not really fixated on anything. You're fixated on "getting off of foreign oil" without really thinking it through. Increasing domestic production simply increases the world oil supply, which is good, but it doesn't mean that we don't have to worry about supply disruptions elsewhere.

Unless you are proposing to nationalize the oil industry increasing domestic supply still leaves us vulnerable to supply restrictions. All it does is increase worldwide supply to minimize the impact of supply restrictions by others.

 

[Damocles]

It is a global market Damo.

Yes, I recognize that. It changes nothing about my position.

 

[Damocles]

No, they don't have to deliver it elsewhere, but in a global market they would sell it to the person willing to pay the highest price, whether it be in the US or elsewhere.

And I'm not really fixated on anything. You're fixated on "getting off of foreign oil" without really thinking it through. Increasing domestic production simply increases the world oil supply, which is good, but it doesn't mean that we don't have to worry about supply disruptions elsewhere.

Unless you are proposing to nationalize the oil industry increasing domestic supply still leaves us vulnerable to supply restrictions. All it does is increase worldwide supply to minimize the impact of supply restrictions by others.

Hence, the smart thing is give them incentive to sell it here. To retain that independence. Instead you give excuse after excuse of why we cannot do the responsible thing. Deliberately covering your eyes and praying for the rain.

 

[Bonestorm]

Hence, the smart thing is give them incentive to sell it here. To retain that independence. Instead you give excuse after excuse of why we cannot do the responsible thing. Deliberately covering your eyes and praying for the rain.

What "incentives" are you talking about? Did you have a particular incentive in mind?

 

[Damocles]

What "incentives" are you talking about? Did you have a particular incentive in mind?

Well, I think we should pay the necessary price to keep ourselves clean of the foreign oil drug. I think fighting a "war" sometimes takes sacrifice, and doing the responsible thing isn't always easy.

Do you think the current plan that creates enemies where none should be is the better way to go? Do you think that such can increase our independence at the same time we work towards a more permanent solution, all while increasing national security positions?

I certainly do. I think your weak-kneed rejection because you want people to fear pricing is just sad.

Also, wouldn't it be prudent not to use carbon-based energy to deliver carbon-based energy elsewhere?

Also, the increase in supply will lower the price, even if you pretend it won't based on what you heard on NPR.

We must stop funding both sides of the "war on terror". Shoot we even "recruit" for them.

 

[Bonestorm]

Well, I think we should pay the necessary price to keep ourselves clean of the foreign oil drug. I think fighting a "war" sometimes takes sacrifice, and doing the responsible thing isn't always easy.

Do you think the current plan that creates enemies where none should be is the better way to go? Do you think that such can increase our independence at the same time we work towards a more permanent solution, all while increasing national security positions?

I certainly do. I think your weak-kneed rejection because you want people to fear pricing is just sad.

Also, wouldn't it be prudent not to use carbon-based energy to deliver carbon-based energy elsewhere?

Also, the increase in supply will lower the price, even if you pretend it won't based on what you heard on NPR.

We must stop funding both sides of the "war on terror". Shoot we even "recruit" for them.

You aren't answering my question. How does increasing domestic supply, which will be sold to the highest bidder wherever that bidder may be, int he US or elsewhere, get us off of foreign oil?

Unless you propose a mechanism requiring domestically produced oil to remain in the US, an increase in domestically produced oil merely increases the worldwide supply of oil. While this may have an impact on the global price of oil and benefit all consumers of oil, it doesn't do anything to uniquely benefit the United States.

 

[Damocles]

You aren't answering my question. How does increasing domestic supply, which will be sold to the highest bidder wherever that bidder may be, int he US or elsewhere, get us off of foreign oil?

Unless you propose a mechanism requiring domestically produced oil to remain in the US, an increase in domestically produced oil merely increases the worldwide supply of oil. While this may have an impact on the global price of oil and benefit all consumers of oil, it doesn't do anything to uniquely benefit the United States.

I do answer your question but you do not listen. I continue to say we purchase the oil from the domestic supplier and why, but you keep becoming less likely to actually hear what I say by the minute. You are becoming a block of rock, set in your stance, you cannot move or even hear a different view or recognize any other reason to do something than that which you want others to hear. If the market cost is higher overseas it will be higher here too, we purchase the supplies from the domestic sources because it is more responsible in myriad ways.

And becoming independent from foreign sources will benefit us in unique ways, you just are being too deliberately obtuse to actually read what I have posted. I have posted exactly why we need to do this. We need, desperately to stop focusing on where the flow comes from and focus on solving our own energy needs, without that focus we will continue to find ourselves in "wars" across the globe.

This constant effort to ignore the very real effects of the status quo is disheartening to say the least, maybe uscitizen is right. Americans are too stupid to learn from the past, and too focused on price to effect a solution that may ask them to sacrifice a bit. I will continue to effort towards a more permanent solution, that will relieve dependency, focus attention on the US rather than the ME, deliver monies to research efforts to find the next generation energy so that we can supply the world in the future.

You can continue to just do the last part and feed the status quo. I feel confident that you are among the minority that can see no benefit from changing the focus, moving the target, actually having a plan that will end the "war on terror".

 

[Bonestorm]

I do answer your question but you do not listen. I continue to say we purchase the oil from the domestic supplier and why, but you keep becoming less likely to actually hear what I say by the minute. You are becoming a block of rock, set in your stance, you cannot move or even hear a different view or recognize any other reason to do something than that which you want others to hear. If the market cost is higher overseas it will be higher here too, we purchase the supplies from the domestic sources because it is more responsible in myriad ways.

I just don't understand why a profit-seeking rational actor would sell a product at a below market price in the United States rather than selling it at a market rate elsewhere.

You say "If the market cost is higher overseas it will be higher here too, we purchase the supplies from the domestic sources because it is more responsible in myriad ways."

That makes zero sense. Instead of purchasing oil from whoever wants to sell it to us at the lowest cost we purchase oil from American sources because its more responsible in myriad ways? I don't get it. Are you pressing some uber-protectionist/isolationist policy where we remain an insular and self-contained energy producer and consumer regardless of cost?

I think you need to think on this one a bit more because as articulated now it makes no sense at all.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No, they don't have to deliver it elsewhere, but in a global market they would sell it to the person willing to pay the highest price, whether it be in the US or elsewhere.

And I'm not really fixated on anything. You're fixated on "getting off of foreign oil" without really thinking it through. Increasing domestic production simply increases the world oil supply, which is good, but it doesn't mean that we don't have to worry about supply disruptions elsewhere.

Unless you are proposing to nationalize the oil industry increasing domestic supply still leaves us vulnerable to supply restrictions. All it does is increase worldwide supply to minimize the impact of supply restrictions by others.

1) If there is indeed a disruption elsewhere.... is it better to have more oil on the market or less? Think about this for a moment.

2) If indeed the disruption causes higher prices... is it better to give our money to a US company producing domestic oil and providing domestic jobs or is it better to give it to a company producing foreign oil and using foreign labor?

 

[Damocles]

I just don't understand why a profit-seeking rational actor would sell a product at a below market price in the United States rather than selling it at a market rate elsewhere.

You say "If the market cost is higher overseas it will be higher here too, we purchase the supplies from the domestic sources because it is more responsible in myriad ways."

That makes zero sense. Instead of purchasing oil from whoever wants to sell it to us at the lowest cost we purchase oil from American sources because its more responsible in myriad ways? I don't get it. Are you pressing some uber-protectionist/isolationist policy where we remain an insular and self-contained energy producer and consumer regardless of cost?

I think you need to think on this one a bit more because as articulated now it makes no sense at all.

That is because you are short sighted. You cannot see how we can work together to reach a goal to benefit all of America using the simple idea of refocusing efforts from killing people in the ME towards drawing energy from Domestic sources could be beneficial. You can't see how that change in focus would change how we act towards the ME.

 

[Damocles]

1) If there is indeed a disruption elsewhere.... is it better to have more oil on the market or less? Think about this for a moment.

2) If indeed the disruption causes higher prices... is it better to give our money to a US company producing domestic oil and providing domestic jobs or is it better to give it to a company producing foreign oil and using foreign labor?

Well, see... You are making sense, so he will tell you that you need to rethink purchasing oil from a domestic source because it won't change our focus if we no longer need to ensure the oil sources from a different area of the world.

 

[Bonestorm]

1) If there is indeed a disruption elsewhere.... is it better to have more oil on the market or less? Think about this for a moment.

2) If indeed the disruption causes higher prices... is it better to give our money to a US company producing domestic oil and providing domestic jobs or is it better to give it to a company producing foreign oil and using foreign labor?

1) I understand and concede the point, which is why I asked what benefits there would be that are unique to the United States from an energy perspective. More oil on the market benefits all consumers of oil, not just the US.

2) It depends. Basically, you folks want to pay a "national security premium" on American oil so that American firms use it in America rather than export it. I don't see how it works otherwise. No?

 

[Bonestorm]

Well, see... You are making sense, so he will tell you that you need to rethink purchasing oil from a domestic source because it won't change our focus if we no longer need to ensure the oil sources from a different area of the world.

I understand that you think we should purchase oil from a domestic source. I just don't understand what is to prevent American oil from being sold on the global market. Why should they sell it to us as opposed to the highest bidder?

 

[uscitizen]

Yes, I recognize that. It changes nothing about my position.

I knew it would not.

 

[Good Luck]

No, they don't have to deliver it elsewhere, but in a global market they would sell it to the person willing to pay the highest price, whether it be in the US or elsewhere.

And I'm not really fixated on anything. You're fixated on "getting off of foreign oil" without really thinking it through. Increasing domestic production simply increases the world oil supply, which is good, but it doesn't mean that we don't have to worry about supply disruptions elsewhere.

Unless you are proposing to nationalize the oil industry increasing domestic supply still leaves us vulnerable to supply restrictions. All it does is increase worldwide supply to minimize the impact of supply restrictions by others.

If you are saying that world market prices would continue to have an impact on the price of domestically produced oil, you are correct.

But no, we would NOT export domestically produced oil, only to go elsewhere to buy more imported oil. Any oil company that did that would be deliberately courting bankruptcy. (What we are exporting is refined petroleum products, not crude oil -which IS a topic I think needs to be addressed.)

And it is YOU not thinking things through. An increase in domestic supply would decrease imports, thereby decrease trade deficits, thereby strengthening the dollar. And a stronger dollar ends with lower prices.

Also, the more we are self reliant on energy, the less impact world crude oil prices will have on local markets. It would still have some impact, but the impact would be greatly diminished, and more in the area of refined products rather than crude. And we will not need to "nationalize" anything to reap those benefits. Self reliance in ANY economic market means greater economic stability for the country who is self reliant.

 

[uscitizen]

If you are saying that world market prices would continue to have an impact on the price of domestically produced oil, you are correct.

But no, we would NOT export domestically produced oil, only to go elsewhere to buy more imported oil. Any oil company that did that would be deliberately courting bankruptcy. (What we are exporting is refined petroleum products, not crude oil -which IS a topic I think needs to be addressed.)

And it is YOU not thinking things through. An increase in domestic supply would decrease imports, thereby decrease trade deficits, thereby strengthening the dollar. And a stronger dollar ends with lower prices.

Also, the more we are self reliant on energy, the less impact world crude oil prices will have on local markets. It would still have some impact, but the impact would be greatly diminished, and more in the area of refined products rather than crude. And we will not need to "nationalize" anything to reap those benefits. Self reliance in ANY economic market means greater economic stability for the country who is self reliant.

Umm check it out I think we curently export some crude. A small amount, but do it. We actually import about 12% of our gasoline in refined form.

And I agree on the self reliance, but we are far from that today in most areas, not just oil.

 

[Good Luck]

I understand that you think we should purchase oil from a domestic source. I just don't understand what is to prevent American oil from being sold on the global market. Why should they sell it to us as opposed to the highest bidder?

Because domestic demand will keep most of it at home. It makes no sense to export on the global market when we are already 70% dependent on imports. It's not like they can sell domestic oil higher than the global market, then import foreign oil lower than the global market. What they can sell domestic oil for (assuming similar grades) is what they'll have to pay for importing foreign oil - and add transportation costs on top of it. That's would yield a net loss in the exchange. No company is going to do that.

 

[uscitizen]

Umm maybe I was wrong, I was quoting an article I posed on here earlier this year about gasoline imports...not sure but here is something interesting, very interesting...

ANALYSIS-US oil firms seek drilling access, but exports soar
07.03.08, 2:40 PM ET

United States - By Tom Doggett

WASHINGTON3 (Reuters) - While the U.S. oil industry want access to more federal lands to help reduce reliance on foreign suppliers, American-based companies are shipping record amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel to other countries.

A record 1.6 million barrels a day in U.S. refined petroleum products were exported during the first four months of this year, up 33 percent from 1.2 million barrels a day over the same period in 2007. Shipments this February topped 1.8 million barrels a day for the first time during any month, according to final numbers from the Energy Department.

The surge in exports appears to contradict the pleas from the U.S. oil industry and the Bush administration for Congress to open more offshore waters and Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.

"We can help alleviate shortages by drilling for oil and gas in our own country," President Bush told reporters this week. "We have got the opportunity to find more crude oil here at home."

"As a nation, we can have more control over our energy destiny by supplying more of the oil and natural gas we'll be consuming from resources here at home," Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum (otcbb: AMPE.OB - news - people ) Institute, said in a letter last week to U.S. lawmakers.

But environmentalists and other opponents to expanding drilling areas could seize on the record exports to argue Congress should not open more acres if U.S. refineries are churning crude oil into petroleum products that are sent out of the American market.

"It doesn't look good to say: 'We need more oil.' But then export the refined products that you're getting. It doesn't seem to be consistent," said Jim Presswood, energy lobbyist for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/07/03/2008-07-03T184028Z_01_N02435397_RTRIDST_0_USA-OIL-EXPORTS-ANALYSIS.html