quote:


ORIGINAL: Jeff_from_Kentucky

We could actually be getting a large supply of oil from ANWR within six months if they wanted to!

quote:

ORIGINAL: saved9201

quote:


ORIGINAL: Jeff_from_Kentucky

We could actually be getting a large supply of oil from ANWR within six months if they wanted to!

Link please.

- Julius

quote:

ORIGINAL: saved9201

quote:

There is no way I could afford Julius' $600/month hydrogen car.

Neither can I. But did you take into account the fact that your no-payment car costs around $4 a gallon (and climbing) to operate?

quote:

ORIGINAL: saved9201

quote:

There is no way I could afford Julius' $600/month hydrogen car.

Neither can I. But did you take into account the fact that your no-payment car costs around $4 a gallon (and climbing) to operate?

I thought the same thing about cell phones when they first came out. I thought those gadgets were for rich people. No way common folks could ever afford them. Why would they need them anyway? If you're out and you miss a call, oh well. And how many people thought a computer was for business people and nerds? As far as OPEC thinking we'd be "bluffing", well, the key is, we wouldn't be.

I'd love to see those greedy, arrogant cartel running barons at OPEC who think they run things and can bring the world begging to their knees to be brought down to size, not militarily, but economically. Not by competing with them for market share, but by eliminating the demand for their only source of income entirely. Make them show the rest of the world some respect for a change.

-Julius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sophie11

quote:

ORIGINAL: saved9201

quote:

There is no way I could afford Julius' $600/month hydrogen car.

I'd love to see those greedy, arrogant cartel running barons at OPEC who think they run things and can bring the world begging to their knees to be brought down to size, not militarily, but economically. Not by competing with them for market share, but by eliminating the demand for their only source of income entirely. Make them show the rest of the world some respect for a change.

-Julius

Well now, that last paragraph is something I can get behind!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeff_from_Kentucky

quote:

ORIGINAL: saved9201

quote:


ORIGINAL: Jeff_from_Kentucky

We could actually be getting a large supply of oil from ANWR within six months if they wanted to!

Link please.

- Julius

If I had one I would provide it. I read it in Newsweek a couple of years back. It was a quote from the oil company execs. They claimed that they already knew where to drill and that they could start getting oil within six months. I say let them do it and if they don't deliver, then fine them heavily.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeff_from_Kentucky

Julius, what I posted was what the oil execs claimed in that article. As I said before when I edited that post, give them a shot at it if they claim they can bring oil in within six months and fine them heavily if they fail to deliver.

Besides, I'm not concerned about the oil supply for the rest of the world. I'm concerned for the United States and our economy. Look at how many jobs have been lost due to rising fuel costs! If the oil companies claim they can deliver and if it will help our economy, why not give it a shot? We can't continue the way things are now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: saved9201

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeff_from_Kentucky

Julius, what I posted was what the oil execs claimed in that article. As I said before when I edited that post, give them a shot at it if they claim they can bring oil in within six months and fine them heavily if they fail to deliver.

Besides, I'm not concerned about the oil supply for the rest of the world. I'm concerned for the United States and our economy. Look at how many jobs have been lost due to rising fuel costs! If the oil companies claim they can deliver and if it will help our economy, why not give it a shot? We can't continue the way things are now.

Let me see. Department of Energy did a study and determined it would be 10 years. Some unnamed oil company execs a couple years ago said six months. I'll go with DOE.

Lets just say the gubment decides to throw a pile of money that we don't have at the oil company execs to appease the angry mob. I have a feeling that if the gubment tells the oil company execs to "go for it" but that they'll fine them if they can't do it in 6 months, I'll bet those guys will back off that claim in a heartbeat. Or they'll con the gubment into giving them more money, citing unforseen circumstances, and more time and we'll be glad to give it to them because we can't let the libral tree huggers keep us from getting our oil.

Two cents a gallon, Jeff. Seventeen years from now.

-Julius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeff_from_Kentucky

Julius, didn't the oil execs testify before Congress a few months back that if they were allowed to start drilling in ANWR and in the Gulf of Mexico that gas prices would immediately drop to under $2/gallon? I seem to recall seeing that on one of the news channels (maybe CNN though I can't swear to it) as I was flipping through them at the time. I say let's tell them to put up or shut up. Give them the go ahead to drill and if they don't deliver, fine the heck out of them. If they say they can do it, let them prove it. If not, they have to pay! And if the oil execs back out, then we will know it was all a bunch of baloney! That seems very reasonable to me.

As far as the government survey about ANWR is concerned, it may very well be accurate. I'm not ruling out that possiblity. But, looking at how the government handles things such as Social Security and other major issues, I can't help but be highly skeptical about the report. Our government, regardless of which party is in charge, is notorious for mismanagement and misleading the public. And I don't see either major party jumping up to provide us with any immediate economic relief.

Oh, and giving the oil companies permission drill does not mean that the government will give them any money either. The oil companies would have to spend their own money.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

quote:

ORIGINAL: saved9201

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeff_from_Kentucky

Julius, what I posted was what the oil execs claimed in that article. As I said before when I edited that post, give them a shot at it if they claim they can bring oil in within six months and fine them heavily if they fail to deliver.

Besides, I'm not concerned about the oil supply for the rest of the world. I'm concerned for the United States and our economy. Look at how many jobs have been lost due to rising fuel costs! If the oil companies claim they can deliver and if it will help our economy, why not give it a shot? We can't continue the way things are now.

Let me see. Department of Energy did a study and determined it would be 10 years. Some unnamed oil company execs a couple years ago said six months. I'll go with DOE.

Lets just say the gubment decides to throw a pile of money that we don't have at the oil company execs to appease the angry mob. I have a feeling that if the gubment tells the oil company execs to "go for it" but that they'll fine them if they can't do it in 6 months, I'll bet those guys will back off that claim in a heartbeat. Or they'll con the gubment into giving them more money, citing unforseen circumstances, and more time and we'll be glad to give it to them because we can't let the libral tree huggers keep us from getting our oil.

Two cents a gallon, Jeff. Seventeen years from now.

-Julius

In all fairness, though, the impact would probably be greater. In today's headline on Yahoo Finance, one economist estimated that oil had a coefficient of inelasticity of 20, and a lot of other estimates put it at at least ten.
Source: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080621/saudi_oil_summit.html

What this means is that if you increase oil supplies by 1%, you can see the price go down by 20%. That's why these small measures can add up to something bigger. Cutting the national speed limit to 55 might not save a large amount of fuel- perhaps 1% of our consumption (according to the anti-speed limit AEI), but it might help reduce gas prices by 10-20%. Likewise, increasing production would also have the same impact, but it would take a while to get there and would be temporary.

Lowering the speed limit to 55 would have the economic impact of IMMEDIATELY bringing 1/4 of ANWR online at its full capacity, PERMANENTLY.

Likewise, bringing wind infrastructure online would have the impact of permanently increasing our energy infrastructure.

The wisest move is to work on a long-term solution for oil. It may not be the easiest or most expedient solution, but it is the most efficient way to make sure we won't have to worry about our energy supply in 30 years.

Coastal drilling? Drilling in ANWR? Maybe. But let's make sure the government is working to ensure we have a permanent energy infrastructure in place before we go off and get energy using the old technology.

quote:

ORIGINAL: saved9201

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeff_from_Kentucky

Julius, didn't the oil execs testify before Congress a few months back that if they were allowed to start drilling in ANWR and in the Gulf of Mexico that gas prices would immediately drop to under $2/gallon? I seem to recall seeing that on one of the news channels (maybe CNN though I can't swear to it) as I was flipping through them at the time. I say let's tell them to put up or shut up. Give them the go ahead to drill and if they don't deliver, fine the heck out of them. If they say they can do it, let them prove it. If not, they have to pay! And if the oil execs back out, then we will know it was all a bunch of baloney! That seems very reasonable to me.

As far as the government survey about ANWR is concerned, it may very well be accurate. I'm not ruling out that possiblity. But, looking at how the government handles things such as Social Security and other major issues, I can't help but be highly skeptical about the report. Our government, regardless of which party is in charge, is notorious for mismanagement and misleading the public. And I don't see either major party jumping up to provide us with any immediate economic relief.

Oh, and giving the oil companies permission drill does not mean that the government will give them any money either. The oil companies would have to spend their own money.

I give up.
Oil company execs you trust.
Department of Energy you don't.
Bye.

- Julius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeff_from_Kentucky

quote:

ORIGINAL: saved9201

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeff_from_Kentucky

Julius, didn't the oil execs testify before Congress a few months back that if they were allowed to start drilling in ANWR and in the Gulf of Mexico that gas prices would immediately drop to under $2/gallon? I seem to recall seeing that on one of the news channels (maybe CNN though I can't swear to it) as I was flipping through them at the time. I say let's tell them to put up or shut up. Give them the go ahead to drill and if they don't deliver, fine the heck out of them. If they say they can do it, let them prove it. If not, they have to pay! And if the oil execs back out, then we will know it was all a bunch of baloney! That seems very reasonable to me.

As far as the government survey about ANWR is concerned, it may very well be accurate. I'm not ruling out that possiblity. But, looking at how the government handles things such as Social Security and other major issues, I can't help but be highly skeptical about the report. Our government, regardless of which party is in charge, is notorious for mismanagement and misleading the public. And I don't see either major party jumping up to provide us with any immediate economic relief.

Oh, and giving the oil companies permission drill does not mean that the government will give them any money either. The oil companies would have to spend their own money.

I give up.
Oil company execs you trust.
Department of Energy you don't.
Bye.

- Julius

Did I say I trusted the oil companies? No. I said to give them a chance to put up or shut up. Let them prove they can back up their claims. As far as trusting the government or a government agency, well, I would like to see one that has been proven trustworthy. I certainly haven't seen one yet that is.

quote:

The truth is, I don't trust the government or the oil companies. That is why I say call their bluff and see if what they say holds water, or in this case holds oil. Is it because you might be proven wrong that you don't even want to call the oil companies on this and see what happens? If they can't do it then you were right and we lose nothing by calling them on it. But if they can do what they claim, then wouldn't the whole nation benefit? Or it is worth letting the economy to continue to go down the tubes just so that you cannot be proven wrong?

quote:

At least I am opened minded enough to say that either side could be right. I may be skeptical but I am open to the possibility that the government report could be right, as I posted before. Oh, I bolded the part where I said the government report could be accurate just in case you missed it the first time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000
One step Congress should take....regulate the speculation in the energy futures market (go back to pre-Enron days).

quote:

ORIGINAL: henny

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000
One step Congress should take....regulate the speculation in the energy futures market (go back to pre-Enron days).

This is one of the better solutions, I think, and it's really not a DFL or GOP thing, as there was a bipartisan committee in 2006 who basically came to the conclusion back then, that what we call the "Enron loophole" that deregulated this sort of speculation back in the year 2000 resulted in both the downfall of Enron and the huge oil bubble that we are dealing with today.

Re-regulate the energy futures market, and I think oil prices would decrease somewhat.

quote:

I also think this is another area where the Iraq war proves to be monumentally stupid. Saddam Hussein was no friend to the Saudis, so having him there as a potential threat gave us a certain amount of leverage when negotiating with surrounding oil rich nations -in as much as we were able to provide them with a level of military and political protection from the threat within their midst. Now they really don't need that anymore, so we shouldn't be so surprised that they are so resistant to our demands to increase production (and, of course, they've been supporting terrorism through back channels all along, so they've never been a great friend anyway).

quote:


The problem is that the futures market can be just as easily manipulated from Dubai or Iran or wherever as it can from inside the US. And the US only has jurisdiction over its territory.

If we regulate the futures industry, the most we can do is just move the manipulation offshore. In the meantime, you're going to put the honest traders based in the US at a disadvantage while the market manipulators move offshore.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000

quote:


The problem is that the futures market can be just as easily manipulated from Dubai or Iran or wherever as it can from inside the US. And the US only has jurisdiction over its territory.

If we regulate the futures industry, the most we can do is just move the manipulation offshore. In the meantime, you're going to put the honest traders based in the US at a disadvantage while the market manipulators move offshore.

Did this occur prior to the Enron days....or was Enron the "pioneer" in energy futures trading?

quote:

Until the 1970s, the price of oil was relatively stable with production largely controlled by the biggest oil companies. The 1970s transformed the industry forever. Two oil price shocks meant that price volatility became a fundamental feature of the market, short-term physical markets rapidly evolved, and the need to hedge emerged.

A group of energy and futures companies founded the IPE in 1980 and the first contract, for Gas Oil futures, was launched the following year. In June 1988, the IPE successfully launched Brent Crude futures. Volumes rapidly took off and the Exchange has experienced incremental growth, year-on-year for almost its entire history. New trading instruments such as swaps, futures and options have grown up. The modern business, though complex, is efficient, flexible and fast moving.

The International Petroleum Exchange, based in London, is one of the world's largest energy futures and options exchanges. Its flagship commodity, Brent Crude is a world benchmark for oil prices, but the exchange also handles futures contracts and options on gas oil, natural gas, electricity (baseload and peakload), coal contracts and, as of 22 April 2005, carbon emission allowances with the European Climate Exchange
The IPE was acquired by the IntercontinentalExchange in 2001. The IPE was an open outcry exchange until April 7, 2005, when its name was changed to ICE Futures and all trading was shifted onto an electronic trading platform.

quote:

In the past, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission acted as the cop on the beat, ensuring that buyers in the market were not distorting or manipulating prices beyond what supply and demand normally dictate. Certainly, if a hard frost hit Florida and cost growers an orange crop, then bidding up the price of the remaining oranges was both a wise investment and allowed under the trading rules. Right now investors know that if they borrow and invest huge amounts in commodities futures, they can create a shortage on paper – which drives prices up just like an actual shortage of any given product would. What kept traders from cornering the market that way in the past were the government’s anti-manipulation rules.

Lay, DeLay, Gramm, Gramm & Clinton

The late, infamous Enron head, Ken Lay, realized in the eighties that he could make more money bidding up energy in the futures market than by actually creating and selling energy. But, under then-current rules, how much you could make swapping paper was limited. Fortuitously, Lay had excellent Texas political connections; and in November of 1992, the head of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission moved to exempt energy-derivative contracts and related swaps from any government oversight.

A vote was hurriedly put together before the Clinton White House would take over, and so Lay could finally start "dark" – unregulated – futures trading. The head of the CFTC was Wendy Gramm, wife of Texas Senator Phil Gramm; five weeks after she left, she became a board member of Enron in Houston.

Fast-forward to late 2000 and H.R. 5660, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, sponsored by Republican Congressman Thomas Ewing of Illinois. That bill went nowhere, even though Tom Delay’s wife Christine was then working for a Washington lobbying firm, Alexander Strategies – which Enron had paid $200,000 to push through legislation for permanent energy deregulation in these "dark" markets.

Six months later came Senate Bill 3283, also named the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. This time around the sponsor was Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, and now Phil Gramm was listed as one of the bill’s co-sponsors. Like it had in the House, this bill was destined to go nowhere until, late one night, it was attached as a rider to an 11,000-page appropriations bill – which was signed into law by President Clinton.

Now traders had an officially deregulated market for energy futures. Worse, that bill also deregulated many financial instruments – including the collateralized debt obligations that are at the center of today’s mortgage crisis, which may well cost us more than $1 trillion before it’s over.

Everybody Was Warned!

As USA Today wrote of this fiasco in January of 2002, "But, as a power marketer, [Enron] could buy enough energy-futures contracts in a region to create a virtual monopoly." That’s right: As early as the winter of 2002, it was widely known that the 2000 Commodities Futures Modernization Act had created a monster, capable of running up energy prices outside of the normal law of supply and demand. Worse, our government had been warned this was going to happen. Representatives of the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the CFTC had already told Congress not to deregulate energy because "the market was ripe for manipulation." Everybody was warned; that’s why this deregulation bill was stealthily inserted into that appropriations bill without a floor debate.

When Enron failed and took its private, unregulated energy exchange to the grave, another rose to take its place. The Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) was the brainchild of Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, British Petroleum, Deutsche Bank, Dean Witter, Royal Dutch Shell, SG Investment Bank and Totalfina. In 2001 ICE purchased the International Petroleum Exchange in London; renamed ICE Futures, it now operates as an "exempt commercial market" under section 2(H)(3) of the Commodity Exchange Act. As the Senate hearings pointed out in the summer of 2006, "Both markets operate outside of any CFTC oversight."

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000

quote:


The problem is that the futures market can be just as easily manipulated from Dubai or Iran or wherever as it can from inside the US. And the US only has jurisdiction over its territory.

If we regulate the futures industry, the most we can do is just move the manipulation offshore. In the meantime, you're going to put the honest traders based in the US at a disadvantage while the market manipulators move offshore.

Did this occur prior to the Enron days....or was Enron the "pioneer" in energy futures trading?

quote:

Sen. Barack Obama on Sunday said as president he would strengthen government oversight of energy traders he blames in large part for the skyrocketing price of oil.

The Democratic candidate's campaign singled out the so-called "Enron loophole" for allowing speculators to run up the cost of fuel by operating outside federal regulation. Oil closed near $135 a barrel on Friday — almost double the price a year ago.

"My plan fully closes the Enron loophole and restores commonsense regulation as part of my broader plan to ease the burden for struggling families today while investing in a better future," Obama said in a campaign statement.

Obama's campaign blamed the loophole on former Sen. Phil Gramm, a Texas Republican who serves as Republican candidate Sen. John McCain's co-chairman and economic adviser. The Obama campaign accused Gramm of inserting a provision into a bill in late 2000 "at the behest of Enron lobbyists" that exempted some energy traders from government oversight.

quote:

ORIGINAL: henny

Obama was talking about this a couple days ago:

quote:

Sen. Barack Obama on Sunday said as president he would strengthen government oversight of energy traders he blames in large part for the skyrocketing price of oil.

The Democratic candidate's campaign singled out the so-called "Enron loophole" for allowing speculators to run up the cost of fuel by operating outside federal regulation. Oil closed near $135 a barrel on Friday — almost double the price a year ago.

"My plan fully closes the Enron loophole and restores commonsense regulation as part of my broader plan to ease the burden for struggling families today while investing in a better future," Obama said in a campaign statement.

Obama's campaign blamed the loophole on former Sen. Phil Gramm, a Texas Republican who serves as Republican candidate Sen. John McCain's co-chairman and economic adviser. The Obama campaign accused Gramm of inserting a provision into a bill in late 2000 "at the behest of Enron lobbyists" that exempted some energy traders from government oversight.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Obama_vows_crackdown_on_energy_spec_06222008.html