Oil Prices: Speculation or supply and demand?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Dunno about CA and TX, but NY has 8% sales tax and around $0.41 a gallon gas tax (all built into the price, of course)

[notyoueither]

Sales taxes are normally on top of posted price, are they not?

[Jon Miller]

Not for gas

JM

[notyoueither]

You silly Yanks.

[rmsharpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You don't think air pollution causes any health effects?

I didn't say that. However, I can think of few places in this country where it wouldn't be safe to breathe the air on a daily basis.

Of course we are. As Victor alluded to, my argument is that we as a society are paying for the negative externalities instead of having the oil companies pay.

The oil company doesn't pay anything, the consumer does. The oil company can't make a dollar unless somebody buys their products.

For example, why are there so many troops in the ME?

They're stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq after the two invasions.

Would there be if there was no oil?

Would there have been a Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden if there were no oil? Or would they just be another Idi Amin and

Apparently you are, since your solution to negative externaliities that oil companies put out but don't pay for is, basically, "this is an industrial society.. tough".

I'm saying you can't have it both ways; you've either got to accept the limitations of science (namely the ability for us to produce energy that has no environmental effects) or you've got to ship out.

If you're directly harmed by the irresponsibility of another, you should be able to seek compensation. If you want to live in a society with flush toilets and computers, you've got to accept that you can't go around banning all of our energy supplies.

As I've told many people in the past, the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means, so if you want to argue about what the government can or cannot do, you have to refer to it.

Don't get me started on that! The Constitution was pretty well-written; I don't think an appointed body of 9 judges should be deciding what is written on the Constitution.

You have entirely too little faith in the strength of the American economy.

How many things can you manufacture and how many services can you provide without electricity or the energy to transport those goods? I know nobody is trying to ban electricity (yet, give it a few years) but it's getting to the point where you're going to basically price 90% of Americans out of the market.

It's kind of ironic that the left (and the "compassionate" "conservatives") want to help the poor, yet at the same time are trying to force them to live like 18th century French peasants. Comrade Charlie Rangel can support a $5/gallon fuel tax increase because he's got enough money to buy gas at a devastatingly punishing price.

If cheap energy is the foundation of the US economy, then we're ****ed until someone finds out how to make fusion power.

Look at where most of America's energy comes from. It doesn't come from solar or wind. Even hydroelectricity doesn't generate more than 3% of our nation's power.

Where does it come from? Oil, natural gas, and coal. That's where 85% of our energy comes from.

Alternative energy research is the best way to lower energy costs at the moment.

We've been researching wind and solar power for more than 30 years and yet it hasn't been made cost-effective. How much more research do we need? Also, please explain how doubling the research budget is going to increase the speed or results of said research.

Which protectionist measures referring specifically to oil have succeeded or have a chance of succeeding?

Have you heard about the attempts by Democrats to create a policy that would ban the U.S. export of Alaskan oil?

With government subsidy for the start up costs, it can be. Why shouldn't the government subsidize nuclear power, when it already does so with other energy (as I've pointed out above).

The government doesn't subsidize other energy; Exxon paid $30,000,000,000 in taxes last year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_Australia

I'm not talking about just gasoline for cars, I'm talking about coal power generation. Australia uses coal for over 80% of their power generation.

[Victor Galis]

If you're directly harmed by the irresponsibility of another, you should be able to seek compensation. If you want to live in a society with flush toilets and computers, you've got to accept that you can't go around banning all of our energy supplies.

How is taxing banning?

Don't get me started on that! The Constitution was pretty well-written; I don't think an appointed body of 9 judges should be deciding what is written on the Constitution.

Who then?

How many things can you manufacture and how many services can you provide without electricity or the energy to transport those goods? I know nobody is trying to ban electricity (yet, give it a few years) but it's getting to the point where you're going to basically price 90% of Americans out of the market.

Our electricity is generated by hydro power .

Look at where most of America's energy comes from. It doesn't come from solar or wind. Even hydroelectricity doesn't generate more than 3% of our nation's power.

Where does it come from? Oil, natural gas, and coal. That's where 85% of our energy comes from.

And those run out eventually. You can be prepared when they do or invite disaster.

We've been researching wind and solar power for more than 30 years and yet it hasn't been made cost-effective. How much more research do we need? Also, please explain how doubling the research budget is going to increase the speed or results of said research.

Hiring more people -> faster research. I would think this bit would be pretty obvious. Most research in the US is underfunded.

Have you heard about the attempts by Democrats to create a policy that would ban the U.S. export of Alaskan oil?

The Democrats aren't really terribly bright either. They've just had the good fortune to be right more often than the Republicans... which, isn't saying much.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Victor Galis

Hiring more people -> faster research. I would think this bit would be pretty obvious. Most research in the US is underfunded.

The US is terrible at funding research right now. In fact, we had to pull out of the fusion power plant prototype because of funding.

JM

[rmsharpe]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
How is taxing banning?

You're pricing people out of the market by creating an artificially high price.

Our electricity is generated by hydro power .

And those run out eventually. You can be prepared when they do or invite disaster.

No, fossil fuels should be used until a time when a more cost-effective nuclear or other power source can be developed.

I wouldn't have a problem taxing some for nuclear power if we did away with all of the wasteful welfare programs.

Hiring more people -> faster research. I would think this bit would be pretty obvious. Most research in the US is underfunded.

What I'm saying is, the research budget increases as far as I know haven't yielded any significant change in results. Plus, if we're going to spend money on research, it should be on the most technologically advanced and effective forms of energy, not this nonsense with solar and wind power.

The Democrats aren't really terribly bright either. They've just had the good fortune to be right more often than the Republicans... which, isn't saying much.

Not on this issue; they say it isn't an issue of supply and demand. How dumb is that?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
That's either because there's no oil there or the oil is too costly to get to (yes, even at $150/barrel).

What's the point of being given land to drill on if there's nothing there?

Yes, many lease areas end up dry and some have oil and are not cost competitive but also some are used as part of an oil company's long term reserves. Every oil company tries to build up a back log of untapped reserves to prove to investors that they're not pumping everything they own and that the company will still be around in 1, 5, 10, or even 20 years from now.

If the company's reserves drop to low then their stock takes a hit because investors think "Gee, they're doing great now but 2-5 years out they're going to be dry". So, yes, companies do hold back on developing some areas they know have oil they could sell today but don't develop it for strategic reasons.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by rmsharpe

You're pricing people out of the market by creating an artificially high price.

Which can be a very good thing. For instance Japan is the most energy efficient country on Earth because the Japanese government taxes and regulates the hell out of energy usage. The positive effect is Japanese industry is forced to become more efficient and this creates a competitive advantage and second the Japanese government is able to keep energy imports lower then they would other wise be thus creating greater energy security for the Japanese state (not to mention improve it's balance of trade).

One can argue over if this is a good thing or not but Japan has come to the conclusion that come hell or high water they're not going to make their country any more dependent on foreigners then they have to. France does much the same and that's why both countries have very large nuclear power industries.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by rmsharpe

You're pricing people out of the market by creating an artificially high price.

Except none of the taxes are that significant. I mean we tax alcohol and tobacco and people still buy those.

Our electricity is generated by hydro power .

[edit] Québec
Data is as of 2002[5]:

Hydro - 96.7%
Nuclear - 2.3%
Oil - 0.5%
Biomass - 0.3%
Natural gas - 0.2%
Wind - 0.1%

(From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electri...ctor_in_Canada)

Those Albertans make us look bad if you do a country-wide chart

What I'm saying is, the research budget increases as far as I know haven't yielded any significant change in results. Plus, if we're going to spend money on research, it should be on the most technologically advanced and effective forms of energy, not this nonsense with solar and wind power.

Yes, why harness limitless relatively-safe forms of power when we can go for dangerous futuristic forms that are even further from being viable.

Not on this issue; they say it isn't an issue of supply and demand. How dumb is that?

As I've said before, both sides are arguing over which squirt gun to use on a forest fire. I'm arguing that putting out this one leads to brush piling up and an even bigger fire in the future.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
That's either because there's no oil there or the oil is too costly to get to (yes, even at $150/barrel).

What's the point of being given land to drill on if there's nothing there?

Like the other thread you probably mean something else. Like they don't want to pump oil there because they make more money not pumping it. On that I wouldn't disagree with you.

The important thing is that there is oil to be pumped, and pumping it would lower gas prices (if even a micropenny). The republicans are trying to make people think otherwise, that we have to authorise more leases.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
I didn't say that. However, I can think of few places in this country where it wouldn't be safe to breathe the air on a daily basis.

And if kids in those areas develop health problems as a direct result of that pollution, should they not be able to make the polluters pay for that?

The oil company doesn't pay anything, the consumer does. The oil company can't make a dollar unless somebody buys their products.

So the consumer has to pay for all the negative externalities? So basically you are saying you want to raise taxes or our health premiums so we consumers can pay for all the stuff the oil companies don't pay for (the health effects of pollution being one).

They're stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq after the two invasions.

And Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Oman and the naval battle groups in the region.

Would there have been a Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden if there were no oil? Or would they just be another Idi Amin

I don't really see why a Hussein is worse than an Amin.

I'm saying you can't have it both ways; you've either got to accept the limitations of science (namely the ability for us to produce energy that has no environmental effects) or you've got to ship out.

Or you can accept the limitations of science and have companies pay, a least a bit, for their negative externalities. Usually this takes the form of lawsuits (mostly class actions), but that's an inefficient way of making companies pay for their negative externalities.

Don't get me started on that! The Constitution was pretty well-written; I don't think an appointed body of 9 judges should be deciding what is written on the Constitution.

After 1803, that opinion became irrelevant (see: Marbury v. Madison)

How many things can you manufacture and how many services can you provide without electricity or the energy to transport those goods? I know nobody is trying to ban electricity (yet, give it a few years) but it's getting to the point where you're going to basically price 90% of Americans out of the market.

As pointed out by Oerdin, other countries have aggressively attempted to become very energy efficient and have succeeded in doing so. Electricity and energy will be around forever. Just because it will cost a little bit more and that money will go to government projects on energy or transportation (ideally) instead of Saudi princes, which is, IMO, a good thing.

Where does it come from? Oil, natural gas, and coal. That's where 85% of our energy comes from.

And what's wrong with making our use of those things a bit more energy efficient with a long term goal of making our carbon footprint equal 0?

We've been researching wind and solar power for more than 30 years and yet it hasn't been made cost-effective. How much more research do we need? Also, please explain how doubling the research budget is going to increase the speed or results of said research.

In some areas it really would be cost effective, especially wind power. Unfortunately for some it may reduce their water views (but not by all that much at all). Also unfortunately Senator Kennedy was one of those who blocked a project off Cape Cod which would have really made financial sense.

And solar in the desert could work nicely. Of course, those aren't mass country projects, but would help. In addition to nuclear energy. In addition to creating more efficient fossil fuel use (automobile companies, especially overseas, have really improved the mpgs automobiles use... and that was even before hybrid cars).

Have you heard about the attempts by Democrats to create a policy that would ban the U.S. export of Alaskan oil?

You mean this bill?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6523

That has NO co-sponsors? Hardly an "attempt by Democrats".

The government doesn't subsidize other energy; Exxon paid $30,000,000,000 in taxes last year.

So you are saying if a company pays corporate taxes on their profits they aren't be subsidized? It's great to know that we don't pay farm subsidies.

I'm not talking about just gasoline for cars, I'm talking about coal power generation. Australia uses coal for over 80% of their power generation.

We were talking gasoline for cars. That's were the additional tax would be applied.

But, regardless... we should also be making incentives for coal generation to get cleaner (Clean Coal is a good step... but it needs to go further)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Yes, many lease areas end up dry and some have oil and are not cost competitive but also some are used as part of an oil company's long term reserves.

I don't think "competitive" is the word for it. More exact, they don't want the price of oil to come down, so they don't want to pump too much oil. You're pretty right on about why they want more leases though.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
The oil company doesn't pay anything, the consumer does. The oil company can't make a dollar unless somebody buys their products.

It comes out of the oil companies profits. They do pay for part of it, as does the consumers. That way those who recieve the benefits pay the cost instead of poor kids in innercities with asthma paying for it all like they do in China.