Gas Prices

[cableguy]

after an exhaustive 20 second search on google, i found this, dated september 26... http://bigcatchronicles.blogharbor.com/blog/Energy/Hurricanes/_archives/2005/9/26/1259503.html

this seems to be noteworthy as well.. is the daily koz one of your media sources??

http://bigcatchronicles.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2005/10/4/1280174.html

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/rita_refineries03.html

what has been difficult to find is a current status report... in any case, i am not worried, and am confident that within a month or so, oil and gas production and refining will be back to where it was, or very close to it...

it must really suck being worried and panicked about everything all the time... i will also take this time to remind you that many news sources were insisting the death toll from katrina would top 10,000... cnbc was definitely one of those.. no news source is unimpeachable, but some are more wrong than others...

personally, i like to sample a broad range of things, cross reference and verify as best i can, and only then reach my conclusions... where do i get my news from??? it doesnt matter, becuse whatever my answer is, you will simply cry cias or some other drivel.. that question, based on previous replys to its answer, does not deserve the dignity of an answer...

i would prefer to honor actual economic rules than believe everything i read at du or moveon or the daily koz, or the ny times and its subsidiarys, or watch on the network news, or hear on network or public newscasts... no, i prefer to stick with rules that arent open to interpretation... drs sowell and williams could teach you a lot, if only you were willing to learn...

 

[mindido]

cable,

"what has been difficult to find is a current status report... "

Gee, having problems reading your own links? Just a few quotes:

"What is bad news, though, is the lower rig count is due to destroyed or damaged rigs, taking these out of the count for at least the intermediate future.

Per the MMS as of October 4, 2005:

Hurricane Katrina

Rigs Destroyed
1 Jack Up
3 Platform

Rigs Adrift
1 Jack Up
5 Semi-Sub.

Rigs Damaged
2 Jack Ups
4 Semi-Sub. (AP)
1 Semi-Sub.
2 Platforms

Hurricane Rita

Rigs Destroyed
1 Jack Up

|Rigs Adrift
3 Jack Ups
10 Semi-Sub.

Rigs Damaged
7 Jack Ups
2 Semi-Sub. (AP)
1 Submersible
3 Rigs Unaccounted For"

Lets see, thats 46 rigs damaged or gone out of a total of about 100. Thats roughly 50%. And actually, these figures seem very low. See here (the Oct. 7 report):

http://www.mms.gov/ooc/press/2005/press1004a.htm

From the MMS report:

"Of the 4,000 platforms that the MMS administers, 3,050 platforms were in the path of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The preliminary damage assessment indicates that 108 of the older “end of life” facilities not built to MMS’ upgraded design standards were destroyed. They account for only 1.7% of the Gulf’s oil production and 0.9% of the Gulf’s gas production. Another 53 platforms suffered significant damage. As a result, only a very small percentage of production is expected to be permanently lost."

So I guess it depends on whose info you believe. Since the MMS is referenced in your links, I guess I'll go with MMS.

"n any case, i am not worried, and am confident that within a month or so, oil and gas production and refining will be back to where it was, or very close to it..."

Jeez, your own links seem to have a different idea:

"There’s still oil in the ground waiting for discovery, but the locations of potential new fields also lie in increasingly hostile or technically challenging environments like the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and in deep waters, of which the Gulf of Mexico is but one locale.

The bottom line of these more technically challenging environments is they will also entail higher exploration, production, and transportation costs. Additionally, as petroleum deposits are found at ever deeper depths, we can expect increasingly sour crude sources which will also require higher refining costs to generate commercial products."

You might want to actually learn to read your own links cable. They're saying the same as everyone else.

 

[mindido]

Another interesting article about a speech Matther Simmons gave a couple of years ago about peak oil and natural gas production. If you don't know Mr. Simmons, heres a brief intro (from the article):

"Matthew Simmons has been a key advisor to the Bush Administration, Vice President Cheney's 2001 Energy Task Force and the Council on Foreign Relations. An energy investment banker, Simmons is the CEO of Simmons and Co. International, handling an investment portfolio of approximately $56 billion. He has served previously on the faculty of Harvard Business School. Among Peak Oil researchers he is known for two seemingly contradictory things: being a staunch supporter of George W. Bush and his policies and probably the only outspoken insider to talk openly about Peak Oil."

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/061203_simmons.html

 

[Preferred User]

Another interesting article about a speech Matther Simmons gave a couple of years ago about peak oil and natural gas production.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/061203_simmons.html

Nice link min. Thanks.

 

[Texan]

Most of the rigs that where destroyed where already mouthballed and had been sitting out there for 30 years. For those of you with no experience in the Oil Field, things happen quick. Production will be restored.

 

[mindido]

Tex,

"mouthballed"????

Interesting point. There was a report just on CNBC suggesting that it will be at least several months before many of the rigs are back online, more than likely not until next summer (just in time for a new hurricane season). I guess it depends on your definition of "quick".

 

[Texan]

CNBC is full of shit...I have mutliple friends who work in all facets of the oil field from roughnecks to company men they should know a little bit more than those CNBC talking heads. Hell they damn near build large rigs in that amount of time. Just another example of biased media.

 

[Preferred User]

And of course oil field workers have absolutely no bias.....

Everyone has an angle.

 

[mindido]

Uhhhh, Tex,

CNBC was interviewing the CEO's of several of those companies that build and repair those rigs. Those people are examples of "media bias"? You might want to rethink that.

And by the way, you're the first I've heard to characterize CNBC as biased. Most every republican I know listens to it as much as I do (or even more).

 

[cableguy]

thanks, tex... what many folks seem to not realize is that lost production is lost proceeds, which is--wait for it--lost PROFIT!!! not having a rig up and running costs its owners big time, and if that cost isnt necessary, there is no reason, need, or logical justification for not getting it back in service as fast as humanly possible... how many times have groups of Americans been told "you cant do that" only to proove their detractors wrong??

the entire liberal political machine is dependant on a failing US economy... cnbc, as part of nbc, carries the same institutional bias that nbc does... left of center, with a worldview entirely different than more than half the voting electorate... once upon a time, political differences were limited to policy variances, but all sides supported a strong America... no longer... the dems have, since 2002, bet everything they have, and have done all they can, to actually work for a weaker America... bad news for America seems to be good news to democrats.. this doesnt seem to be changing at all in the forseeable future...

 

[Iceberg]

the entire liberal political machine is dependant on a failing US economy

Well, yes! This is true, since the economy is usually put into a dire situation by conservatives who cut government spending and reduce taxes, making it increasingly tough for ordinary people to get health coverage, a proper education, and food on their plate (and not "on their family" as Dubya once said).

It was once said by an intelligent man that the economy is like an automobile. If you put it in "D" (Democrat), it goes forward. If you put it in "R" (Republican), it goes backward.

The Democrats are usually elected when the economy is faltering (as it did prior to Clinton's election in 1992). When the economy is doing very well, the Republicans usually get elected (as it did when Dubya was "elected" in 2000). Then the economy goes down the toilet (as it has under Bush II).

In 2006, the Democrats will pick up significant gains in Congress and in the Senate, slowing the drop in the economy, and if the economy is still falling, a Democrat will be elected President in 2008. (Put me down for this bet. No cash, but for pride's sake.)

 

[mindido]

cable (and I think I'll call you cartman from now on, you remind me so much of him),

"cnbc, as part of nbc, carries the same institutional bias that nbc does... left of center,..."

CNBC left wing???? You must be joking. Virtually every republican I know (except, apparently, you and Tex) listen to that station virtually religiously. Its just about the only place where you can get up to the minute business news (at least during the day) and stock quotes.

So I guess that must put you in the extreme right wing.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

Well, yes! This is true, since the economy is usually put into a dire situation by conservatives who cut government spending and reduce taxes, making it increasingly tough for ordinary people to get health coverage, a proper education, and food on their plate (and not "on their family" as Dubya once said).

It was once said by an intelligent man that the economy is like an automobile. If you put it in "D" (Democrat), it goes forward. If you put it in "R" (Republican), it goes backward.

The Democrats are usually elected when the economy is faltering (as it did prior to Clinton's election in 1992). When the economy is doing very well, the Republicans usually get elected (as it did when Dubya was "elected" in 2000). Then the economy goes down the toilet (as it has under Bush II).

In 2006, the Democrats will pick up significant gains in Congress and in the Senate, slowing the drop in the economy, and if the economy is still falling, a Democrat will be elected President in 2008. (Put me down for this bet. No cash, but for pride's sake.)

A Democrat will be elected in 2008? What a statement. Here's the deal. You have the die hards and the do goods. These debates that you see and hear so much about, and the state to state tours these candidates go on are not done for the hell of it. You seem to believe that the only people who vote are die hard followers of politics. No, a large part of voters will vote on the person. Like Chris Rock said No decent human being would vote on politics alone. Not everyone is a die hard, fathom that. If Hillary is the dems choice then i will without a doubt be put down on your bet. And it wouldn't surprise me to see them waste it on her like they did the last candidate.

 

[jerichooo]

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a hillary vs condaleeza rice battle. Seems like the republicans are pushing her out in the spotlight more and more. I'm a democrat my self and I wouldn't mind seeing Rep. John McCane in there.

 

[cableguy]

iceberg, in your perfect world, the government would pay for everything, and you would pay for nothing... there is a basic problem here, and that is the government has NO money of its own... it must tax its people to gain money... if the government provides everything, the tax rates would, of necessity, be so high, there would be a definite DISincentive to work... no work, no income, no taxes, no services... look at france, if you will... free health care, generous social programs, double digit unemployment, and an economy in the shitter... its called socialism, and it cannot work in a technological society...

health coverage is not a constitutional right, nor is education... in any case, for a good education, one has to go to a private school, and last i checked, your allies are the ones standing in the way of any program that would reallocate tax dollars for education to the school of the parents choosing, public or private... seems your folks are against a good education in favor of equal suffering and a bad education for all...

President Clinton would have never been elected in 92 had perot not joined the race... period... it wasnt the economy, stupid, it was one party divided between two candidates... oh, and the recession that hit in 2001 started in 1998 or 1999, and was made far worse by something... oh, what was that... ah, yes, september 11, 2001... a major terrorist attack on this nations soil that killed over 3000 innocents and destroyed a landmark and damaged another... they have never made a President that could shrug something like that off... not this one, not the last one, not any one...

the government is the single worst entity to be put in charge of spending money responsibly or efficiently, or to be administering ANY program... why do you liberals believe that the government can better spend a citizens money than the citizen himself?? why do you believe that allowing workers to keep more of what they EARNED is a bad thing?? why do you ignore the proven fact that if tax rates are too high, EVERY tax cut results in MORE money coming into the treasury?? as recently as this very year, that was the case...

conservatives think, liberals feel... intellect should always best emotion... i would be surprised to see the dems gain in 2006, and if hillary is annointed and mccain stays out of the third party picture, i will guarrantee a republican win in 2008... in fact, the only way i see any democrat winning the 08 election is if mccain decides he wants to be like perot.... and if Dr Rice opposes hillary, it wont even be close...

mindido, call me anything you wish... i forgive you...


***BOT (for however short a time)***

gas prices continue to fall... filled up the work vehicle for 2.28 today, and expect it to be less next time... where is the astonishment and the amazement now that the price is again coming back to where it was??? just something i find fascinating...

 

[mindido]

cable-cartman,

Wholesale oil finally fell below $60 per barrel this a.m. on word that Wilma will probably not hit any of the Gulf oil fields. If she changes course, then we'll see....

"where is the astonishment and the amazement now that the price is again coming back to where it was???"

Well, its not there yet. Prices, until today, have been hovering between $62 and $64 per barrel for quite a while so there was no real news.

 

[mindido]

Well,

That lasted a whole several hours. Oil closed on Friday at about $60.60 per gallon. Have a ways to go before we get back to the $20 to $23 range.

 

[cableguy]

why, oh why, does the price of gas continue to fall??? last night, i saw 2.20... anyone smell something funny?? are you saying that the price of gas is independant of the price of oil?? please explain this discrepancy...

we need more oil rigs, more oil wells, more oil refineries, and more bombs to drop on those pesky opec tyrants... oh, and environmental regs need to have a long look taken at them by a group of rational folks...

 

[mindido]

cartman,

I wish you'd stick your nose out of that cave once in a while and look around a bit. Crude is back at $62.70 at the moment and wholesale gasoline is at about $1.65. The reason that gasoline is coming down is because the oil companies are suddenly very worried. Demand for big SUV's and trucks has plummeted (down about 60% in the last two months) while orders for fuel efficient vehicles has skyrocketed. Gasoline demand is down about 5% in the last month and a half and they also now have Congress breathing down their backs about their gouging. So the oil companies are now lowering gasoline prices. But if you look at the cost of diesel, its barely moved (even though its cheaper and easier to produce) so their still screwing the truckers.

And have you checked your natural gas bill lately? Its currently sitting at about $14.03, about double what it was a year ago. If you heat your house with natural gas, as most people do, have fun.

Wake up!

 

[cableguy]

i do heat my house with gas, and i sincerely doubt it will be much more than it was last year... in any case, it will cost what it will cost, and i wont complain about it... why dont you quit your bitching--all of you--and buy stock in those companies... it is doing rather well of late... naturally, they wouldnt be so "evil" if you had an ownership stake in them and were making some of those "obscene profits" for yourself...

grow up and smell reality... it truly isnt so bad...

http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nSP289065&imageid=top-news-view-2005-10-26-171422-eRPPISA%5B73%5D.jpg&cap=Major%20Lukoil%20oil%20refinery%20near%20town%20of%20Kagalym%20in%20western%20Siberia,%20in%20July%207,%202004,%20file%20photo.%20Photo%20by%20Viktor%20Korotayev/Reuters.

yep.... demand is down... oh, sorry, thats the demand for HEATING OIL that is down, and dragging the barrel price with it...

more misguided ado about absolutely nothing... i am used to hearing it by now...