By-Tor.com

ElfDude wrote:We only buy a small percentage of our oil from the Saudi's. The bulk comes from Canada and Mexico.

But I was talking about his taxation comment. A barell of OPEC oil costs the same to the Brits (for example) as it does to us. Yet they pay dollars more a gallon at the pump. And that's all because of their government's taxes.

Fair enough, my point being - they could increase production any time they CHOOSE...

The pricing game is a joke too. People are getting hosed THERE too.

Let's say a fuel truck heads out to your town and it's a two day trip...the
fuel was bought at a certain price THAT day. It gets delivered two days
later, and guess what? It's marked up before it even goes into the
underground tanks at the gas station. That dog don't hunt here.

Also, personally, it's getting really depressing watching the gavel go down
in the NYSE, the Dow finishing down 300 points and people behind the
gavel clapping.

you know THEY just got richer...

WASHINGTON -- The price of retail gasoline would fall by half, to around $2 a gallon, within 30 days of passage of a law to limit speculation in energy markets, four energy analysts told Congress on Monday. Testifying to a House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee, Michael Masters of Masters Capital Management said the price of crude oil would drop closer to its marginal cost of around $65 to $75 a barrel, about half the current $135. Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer & Co., Edward Krapels of Energy Security Analysis and Roger Diwan of PFC Energy agreed with Masters' assessment at the hearing. Other witnesses say speculators aren't a major factor in oil prices, however.

Copyright ? 2008 MarketWatch, Inc.

Mixed feelings about this one. I dcn't have sufficient economic knowledge to know if they are correct or not, for one thing. I would absolutely love to see gas prices drop. Though history tells me that when government meddles in a free economy, things get worse, not better. *sigh*

The speculators are getting away with murder. I don't care what THEY say.

They don't even have to put up cash for the oil. They GAMBLE. On PAPER.
It's nothing more than legalized gambling with oil as the chips.

But hey, form your own opinion. I've got enough to do.

America's untapped oil

Lawmakers lay into big oil for leaving million of acres untouched while at the same time asking to drill in Alaska and off the coasts.

Americans want to know why the oil industry is asking for more drilling rights when it isn't using the leases it already has.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil companies and many lawmakers are pressing to open up more U.S. areas for drilling. But the industry is drilling on just a fraction of areas it already has access to.

Of the 90 million offshore acres the industry has leases to, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico, it is estimated that upwards of 70 million are not producing oil, according to both Democrats and oil-industry sources.

If all these existing areas were being drilled, U.S. oil production could be boosted by nearly 5 million barrels a day.

Recent proposals to open up offshore coastal areas near Florida and California, as well as Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, might yield 2 million additional barrels, according to estimates from various government sources that also stressed the difficulty in making forecasts. The United States currently produces 8 million barrels of oil and other petroleum liquids a day and consumes about 21 million.

Oil companies "should finish what's on their plate before they go back in line," said Oppenheimer analyst Fadel Gheit.

Experts also charge that oil companies are deliberately not drilling on the land to limit supply and drive up oil prices.

"Big Oil is more interested in pumping up prices and pumping up their own profits rather than pumping more oil," said Rep. Edward Markey, who has co-sponsored a bill to charge oil companies a fee for land they hold that's not producing oil. "We should not even begin discussing handing over more public land to the oil companies until they first use [the land] they already hold."

The presumptive Republican candidate John McCain has come out in favor of lifting bans on oil-drilling off most of the East and West coasts of the United States. Added supply, the thinking goes, would ultimately bring down the price of oil. The bans were enacted in the 1970s following several coastal oil spills.

Critics say lifting the bans would do little to ease the nation's energy crisis in part because it would take years to produce meaningful amounts of oil, noting how much is currently going untapped.

Gheit hasn't seen the legislation proposed by Markey and others, but he thinks the government should revise the leasing process to encourage more drilling on existing areas before it puts more acres up for bid.

Big Blue Owl wrote:America's untapped oil

Lawmakers lay into big oil for leaving million of acres untouched while at the same time asking to drill in Alaska and off the coasts.

Americans want to know why the oil industry is asking for more drilling rights when it isn't using the leases it already has.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil companies and many lawmakers are pressing to open up more U.S. areas for drilling. But the industry is drilling on just a fraction of areas it already has access to.

Of the 90 million offshore acres the industry has leases to, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico, it is estimated that upwards of 70 million are not producing oil, according to both Democrats and oil-industry sources.

If all these existing areas were being drilled, U.S. oil production could be boosted by nearly 5 million barrels a day.

Recent proposals to open up offshore coastal areas near Florida and California, as well as Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, might yield 2 million additional barrels, according to estimates from various government sources that also stressed the difficulty in making forecasts. The United States currently produces 8 million barrels of oil and other petroleum liquids a day and consumes about 21 million.

Oil companies "should finish what's on their plate before they go back in line," said Oppenheimer analyst Fadel Gheit.

Experts also charge that oil companies are deliberately not drilling on the land to limit supply and drive up oil prices.

"Big Oil is more interested in pumping up prices and pumping up their own profits rather than pumping more oil," said Rep. Edward Markey, who has co-sponsored a bill to charge oil companies a fee for land they hold that's not producing oil. "We should not even begin discussing handing over more public land to the oil companies until they first use [the land] they already hold."

The presumptive Republican candidate John McCain has come out in favor of lifting bans on oil-drilling off most of the East and West coasts of the United States. Added supply, the thinking goes, would ultimately bring down the price of oil. The bans were enacted in the 1970s following several coastal oil spills.

Critics say lifting the bans would do little to ease the nation's energy crisis in part because it would take years to produce meaningful amounts of oil, noting how much is currently going untapped.

Gheit hasn't seen the legislation proposed by Markey and others, but he thinks the government should revise the leasing process to encourage more drilling on existing areas before it puts more acres up for bid.

Interesting read.. Big Oil hasn't constructed new platforms in years, so it
only stands to reason.

I also saw proof that the Earth leaks more oil into the ocean - naturally -
than man ever could. The environmental concerns of increased drilling are moot:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/14/m ... -on-earth/

Mother nature is a leaky beeotch. We should collect that dripping earth-blood!

Nancy Pelosi quoted in a recent news article:

"The president of the United States, with gas at $4 a gallon because of his failed energy policies, is now trying to say that is because I couldn't drill offshore," Pelosi said in an interview. "That is not the cause, and I am not going to let him get away with it."

Her voice carries considerable weight since, as speaker, Pelosi is in a position to prevent a vote on expanded drilling from reaching the floor

And she and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, appear intent on holding the line against calls to approve drilling in areas now off limits. They mount the counterargument that the oil and gas industry is not aggressively exploring large expanses it has already leased on land and offshore. They also have urged Bush to pour some fuel from national reserves into the commercial supply chain in an effort to lower prices.

Just a couple of thoughts. It took gas something like 20 years to go from $1 a gallon to $2 a gallon, didn't it? That, to me, does not indicate "failed policies of the past" (as Obama puts it), nor does it indicate to me that the recent surge in price has much to do with Bush policies. As has been pointed out earlier, the big price surge didn't come until the majority in the congress and senate changed in 2006.

But more importantly... Pelosi and Reid are not politically positioning themselves very well here. 75% of Americans currently support the "drill here, drill now" idea. By being obstructionist about it, the Democrat leadership is really setting themselves up to look like the bad guys... the ones who want gas prices to keep climbing. It doesn't seem like a smart move in an election year.

ElfDude wrote:Nancy Pelosi quoted in a recent news article:

"The president of the United States, with gas at $4 a gallon because of his failed energy policies, is now trying to say that is because I couldn't drill offshore," Pelosi said in an interview. "That is not the cause, and I am not going to let him get away with it."

Her voice carries considerable weight since, as speaker, Pelosi is in a position to prevent a vote on expanded drilling from reaching the floor

And she and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, appear intent on holding the line against calls to approve drilling in areas now off limits. They mount the counterargument that the oil and gas industry is not aggressively exploring large expanses it has already leased on land and offshore. They also have urged Bush to pour some fuel from national reserves into the commercial supply chain in an effort to lower prices.

Just a couple of thoughts. It took gas something like 20 years to go from $1 a gallon to $2 a gallon, didn't it? That, to me, does not indicate "failed policies of the past" (as Obama puts it), nor does it indicate to me that the recent surge in price has much to do with Bush policies. As has been pointed out earlier, the big price surge didn't come until the majority in the congress and senate changed in 2006.

But more importantly... Pelosi and Reid are not politically positioning themselves very well here. 75% of Americans currently support the "drill here, drill now" idea. By being obstructionist about it, the Democrat leadership is really setting themselves up to look like the bad guys... the ones who want gas prices to keep climbing. It doesn't seem like a smart move in an election year.

Read Ann's post for today Elf.... http://www.anncoulter.com/

CygnusX1 wrote:

ElfDude wrote:Nancy Pelosi quoted in a recent news article:

"The president of the United States, with gas at $4 a gallon because of his failed energy policies, is now trying to say that is because I couldn't drill offshore," Pelosi said in an interview. "That is not the cause, and I am not going to let him get away with it."

Her voice carries considerable weight since, as speaker, Pelosi is in a position to prevent a vote on expanded drilling from reaching the floor

And she and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, appear intent on holding the line against calls to approve drilling in areas now off limits. They mount the counterargument that the oil and gas industry is not aggressively exploring large expanses it has already leased on land and offshore. They also have urged Bush to pour some fuel from national reserves into the commercial supply chain in an effort to lower prices.

Just a couple of thoughts. It took gas something like 20 years to go from $1 a gallon to $2 a gallon, didn't it? That, to me, does not indicate "failed policies of the past" (as Obama puts it), nor does it indicate to me that the recent surge in price has much to do with Bush policies. As has been pointed out earlier, the big price surge didn't come until the majority in the congress and senate changed in 2006.

But more importantly... Pelosi and Reid are not politically positioning themselves very well here. 75% of Americans currently support the "drill here, drill now" idea. By being obstructionist about it, the Democrat leadership is really setting themselves up to look like the bad guys... the ones who want gas prices to keep climbing. It doesn't seem like a smart move in an election year.

Read Ann's post for today Elf.... http://www.anncoulter.com/

You want me to READ Ann? Whenever I go to her website it's just areflex to click on the photo gallery... and then faint.

Results from a poll conducted from May 29 through June 1.

So what are the Dems saying- we should "share the wealth" and keep paying abroad for energy?

ElfDude wrote:Results from a poll conducted from May 29 through June 1.

I'm all for that. The talking heads say that even when enough oil has
been transferreed from the SOR to market to lower prices for the push,
the SOR will still be at 90% capacity.

Gotta like that.

YYZ30 wrote:So what are the Dems saying- we should "share the wealth" and keep paying abroad for energy?

Heheh Now that would be such a nice gesture

No, I think they would just prefer to go about energizing ourselves in a different way than we have for so many years now. Still, for bad or good, they'll lose and we will soon begin drilling in the forbidden zones. I have a deep sense of foreboding that it will have no affect on our price of gas at the pump, though. Perhaps it will just get filtered back into the world, supporting old and creating new millionaires while we scrimp, save and go on Staycations. I hope not, though.

Big Blue Owl wrote:

YYZ30 wrote:So what are the Dems saying- we should "share the wealth" and keep paying abroad for energy?

Heheh Now that would be such a nice gesture

No, I think they would just prefer to go about energizing ourselves in a different way than we have for so many years now. Still, for bad or good, they'll lose and we will soon begin drilling in the forbidden zones. I have a deep sense of foreboding that it will have no affect on our price of gas at the pump, though. Perhaps it will just get filtered back into the world, supporting old and creating new millionaires while we scrimp, save and go on Staycations. I hope not, though.

I think (now THAT could be dangerous) that many of us, myself included, just want to see SOMETHING done about it.

"Staycation"

that RULED Owlie.

I would much rather stay home (or REALLY local) for vacation. That $4 a gallon is killing the tourist industry.