Gas Prices you knew this was commin!

[Independent George]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Indep Geo,
You obviously know far more than I do about Saudi oil production. You probably have the capacity of exports from Jan - June, so I won't provide them.
There's no need to apologize for your insult.
If you found humor in what I've said, it balances the pathetic feeling I get from reading your "expertise".

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...DE61A68081D%7D

Conspiracy theorists--------you gotta love 'em.

Who's the "them" that made this "call" to Saudi Arabia; and why would Saudi Arabia care about our Nov elections. How does the party in office have any effect on how much we buy or how much we will pay for their oil?

I wont apologize...........I think it's hilarious.

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Pillow,
I'm a very big cynic on this topic.
back in the '70's during the "oil embargo", all I had to do was drive along the Palisades Parkway along the Hudson to see loaded tankers, one after another, all full but not off loading at the NJ refineries, to prove to me that the market can and is manipulated. People were lined up at gas stations, coming in with cans for gas due to the "gas shortage".
Did the price go up then?

So, now we have elections coming in November. Do you think production is up for a reason? Sure prices are coming down..for now.
Do you think the Saudis got a call to have them do a favor? They'll go down just long enough for people to forget the high prices of the past year...watch what happens to the prices in Dec. and Jan.

DTS, what are the Saudis independently going to do to lower price. The only way to lower world oil price is cut demand, or increase production. The Saudis are members of OPEC, and can't produce a significant more crude than what is allotted to them. I would say the drop in price is due to production catching up with todays demand...rather than some kind of election time conspiracy.

Ez

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by ezrabrooks

DTS, what are the Saudis independently going to do to lower price. The only way to lower world oil price is cut demand, or increase production. The Saudis are members of OPEC, and can't produce a significant more crude than what is allotted to them. I would say the drop in price is due to production catching up with todays demand...rather than some kind of election time conspiracy.

Ez

Ez,
Click on the "marketwatch" link in my previous post.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Independent George

Conspiracy theorists--------you gotta love 'em.

Who's the "them" that made this "call" to Saudi Arabia; and why would Saudi Arabia care about our Nov elections. How does the party in office have any effect on how much we buy or how much we will pay for their oil?

I wont apologize...........I think it's hilarious.

You are uninformed if you know nothing of the Bush family's connections with the Saudi royal family.

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Ez,
Click on the "marketwatch" link in my previous post.

Yes, I saw the link. It pretty much states that OPEC has not curbed production, even with the price dropping (constant production with lower demand..equals decrease in price). So, all OPEC nations continue to produced at their allotted rates. If the price continues to drop, then you might see OPEC move to limit production..to hold the price to what they feel is fair (what they want).. Remember this is the group OPEC..not one individual member. It's been like this since the 70's..

Ez

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by ezrabrooks

I said (meant) the price went to about $75 this time (2006)...and around $46 in the early 1980's.

They (the tankers) weren't allowed to unload? I have to ask.. who was stopping them? Are you saying the owners of the tankers, the owners of the crude, the refiners.....or the feds, were stopping them? The whole conspiracy claims concerning crude oil price manipulation just doesn't hold water, as why did prices dip into the single digits in the late 1980's? OPEC, through production, can maintain a price, but this is far from any oil company or US government conspiracy.

Ez

I don't know why the tankers weren't being off loaded. I DO know what a loaded tanker looks like. All you have to do is look at the water line.
The fact is, they were anchored in the Hudson while the lines went for blocks at the gas stations.
You're guess as to why they weren't delivering their shipments is as good as mine. Maybe better.
I just know what I saw with my own eyes.

[Downthestretch55]

Another interesting article about "oil".

Published on Monday, September 25, 2006 by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Georgia)
Now, Oil-Rich Leaders Mock Bush Team
by Jay Bookman

Last week, the presidents of Iran and Venezuela took to the podium at the U.N. General Assembly to lambaste President Bush, with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez going so far as to refer to Bush as the devil.

That rhetoric drew harsh condemnation from Republicans and Democrats alike, with some conservatives seizing the opportunity to bash the United Nations as well, which is more than a little silly. (Getting mad at the United Nations for being the setting of such speeches is like getting mad at Turner Field because the Braves have played so poorly.)

However, Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have more in common than their dislike for Bush. It is no coincidence that they also head two of the most oil-rich countries in the world. Through our nation's dependence on oil and our decades-long refusal to pursue energy alternatives and energy efficiency, we have contributed to giving Chavez and Ahmadinejad the money and power to behave as they do.

The problem is, most of the steps that would ease our dependence on foreign oil have been fought bitterly by our own oil industry. Higher taxes on oil consumption, tougher fuel-efficiency standards on automobiles, substantial investment in energy alternatives — it has been impossible to get such ideas even considered by those now holding power in the United States.

And that's too bad, because what's good for Chevron and his buddies is good for Chavez and his pals, too.

One of the most maddening and illuminating examples of the oil industry's grip on the Bush administration is what's going on with deep-water oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico, where Chevron recently announced a major new find.

Back in the late '90s, the U.S. government signed more than 1,000 leases allowing oil companies to drill in the Gulf. Because deep-water drilling is expensive and risky, the U.S. government agreed not to collect its standard royalties of 12 percent to 16 percent of the price of oil or gas from those leases.

As part of the deal, though, those leases were supposed to include a provision requiring companies to start paying royalties if oil prices ever rose higher than $36 a barrel. The oil companies understood that was to be the arrangement; federal bureaucrats understood that, too. Yet when the contracts were signed, the fail-safe provision was somehow missing.

Today, with oil prices at more than $60 a barrel, that oversight has already meant a bonanza of roughly $1.3 billion for the oil industry, money that by rights ought to be going to taxpayers. Chevron alone may save more than $1 billion in royalties just on its newly announced discovery.

Outraged by that possibility, some members of Congress have tried to pressure oil companies into renegotiating their faulty leases, but their effort has been frustrated by Republican congressional leaders and the Bush administration. Bush officials are taking the legalistic approach, claiming that "a deal's a deal" and refusing to consider legal action, new legislation or any other way to possibly recoup the money.

In essence, the Bush administration claims that's just business, but it isn't. Not by a long shot.

In business, behaving as the oil industry has done in this situation would have consequences. If General Motors or Microsoft got stiffed out of billions of dollars by somebody who has displayed the bad faith demonstrated by the oil industry, you can bet their corporate lawyers and accountants would be re-evaluating every business relationship with the offending company, looking for any possible way to get leverage. They would never meekly accept such an outrage, as the Bush administration has done.

The Interior Department, which is supposed to act as the taxpayers' steward, has also cut the number of auditors investigating possible royalty fraud, which has produced yet another bonanza for the oil companies at the expense of taxpayers.

According to the nonprofit Project on Government Oversight, federal auditors recovered an average of $115 million a year in unpaid royalties between 1981-2001, making their salaries one of the best investments in government. But from 2002-2005, the number of auditors was cut and annual royalty recoveries fell to less than half the previous level.

It's gotten so bad that four government auditors who were denied permission by their superiors to pursue unpaid royalties from oil companies are now seeking to recover the money by filing lawsuits as private citizens. It's just too bad we can't sic 'em on Chavez and Ahmadinejad, too.

Jay Bookman is deputy editorial page editor. His column appears Mondays and Thursdays.

© 2006 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

[DiscreetCat=Monster]

are young america is dying over this, and for what, to protect our freedom. 99.9% of Iraq never planned on comming to america. Bush is wacked and so was his dad.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Another interesting article about "oil".

Published on Monday, September 25, 2006 by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Georgia)
Now, Oil-Rich Leaders Mock Bush Team
by Jay Bookman

Last week, the presidents of Iran and Venezuela took to the podium at the U.N. General Assembly to lambaste President Bush, with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez going so far as to refer to Bush as the devil.

That rhetoric drew harsh condemnation from Republicans and Democrats alike, with some conservatives seizing the opportunity to bash the United Nations as well, which is more than a little silly. (Getting mad at the United Nations for being the setting of such speeches is like getting mad at Turner Field because the Braves have played so poorly.)

However, Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have more in common than their dislike for Bush. It is no coincidence that they also head two of the most oil-rich countries in the world. Through our nation's dependence on oil and our decades-long refusal to pursue energy alternatives and energy efficiency, we have contributed to giving Chavez and Ahmadinejad the money and power to behave as they do.

The problem is, most of the steps that would ease our dependence on foreign oil have been fought bitterly by our own oil industry. Higher taxes on oil consumption, tougher fuel-efficiency standards on automobiles, substantial investment in energy alternatives — it has been impossible to get such ideas even considered by those now holding power in the United States.

And that's too bad, because what's good for Chevron and his buddies is good for Chavez and his pals, too.

One of the most maddening and illuminating examples of the oil industry's grip on the Bush administration is what's going on with deep-water oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico, where Chevron recently announced a major new find.

Back in the late '90s, the U.S. government signed more than 1,000 leases allowing oil companies to drill in the Gulf. Because deep-water drilling is expensive and risky, the U.S. government agreed not to collect its standard royalties of 12 percent to 16 percent of the price of oil or gas from those leases.

As part of the deal, though, those leases were supposed to include a provision requiring companies to start paying royalties if oil prices ever rose higher than $36 a barrel. The oil companies understood that was to be the arrangement; federal bureaucrats understood that, too. Yet when the contracts were signed, the fail-safe provision was somehow missing.

Today, with oil prices at more than $60 a barrel, that oversight has already meant a bonanza of roughly $1.3 billion for the oil industry, money that by rights ought to be going to taxpayers. Chevron alone may save more than $1 billion in royalties just on its newly announced discovery.

Outraged by that possibility, some members of Congress have tried to pressure oil companies into renegotiating their faulty leases, but their effort has been frustrated by Republican congressional leaders and the Bush administration. Bush officials are taking the legalistic approach, claiming that "a deal's a deal" and refusing to consider legal action, new legislation or any other way to possibly recoup the money.

In essence, the Bush administration claims that's just business, but it isn't. Not by a long shot.

In business, behaving as the oil industry has done in this situation would have consequences. If General Motors or Microsoft got stiffed out of billions of dollars by somebody who has displayed the bad faith demonstrated by the oil industry, you can bet their corporate lawyers and accountants would be re-evaluating every business relationship with the offending company, looking for any possible way to get leverage. They would never meekly accept such an outrage, as the Bush administration has done.

The Interior Department, which is supposed to act as the taxpayers' steward, has also cut the number of auditors investigating possible royalty fraud, which has produced yet another bonanza for the oil companies at the expense of taxpayers.

According to the nonprofit Project on Government Oversight, federal auditors recovered an average of $115 million a year in unpaid royalties between 1981-2001, making their salaries one of the best investments in government. But from 2002-2005, the number of auditors was cut and annual royalty recoveries fell to less than half the previous level.

It's gotten so bad that four government auditors who were denied permission by their superiors to pursue unpaid royalties from oil companies are now seeking to recover the money by filing lawsuits as private citizens. It's just too bad we can't sic 'em on Chavez and Ahmadinejad, too.

Jay Bookman is deputy editorial page editor. His column appears Mondays and Thursdays.

© 2006 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

DTS: You DO have a lot of conspiracy theories floating around, but I'll give you this. If this article is even half right, then something serious should be done about it.

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Another interesting article about "oil".

Published on Monday, September 25, 2006 by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Georgia)
Now, Oil-Rich Leaders Mock Bush Team
by Jay Bookman

Last week, the presidents of Iran and Venezuela took to the podium at the U.N. General Assembly to lambaste President Bush, with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez going so far as to refer to Bush as the devil.

That rhetoric drew harsh condemnation from Republicans and Democrats alike, with some conservatives seizing the opportunity to bash the United Nations as well, which is more than a little silly. (Getting mad at the United Nations for being the setting of such speeches is like getting mad at Turner Field because the Braves have played so poorly.)

However, Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have more in common than their dislike for Bush. It is no coincidence that they also head two of the most oil-rich countries in the world. Through our nation's dependence on oil and our decades-long refusal to pursue energy alternatives and energy efficiency, we have contributed to giving Chavez and Ahmadinejad the money and power to behave as they do.

The problem is, most of the steps that would ease our dependence on foreign oil have been fought bitterly by our own oil industry. Higher taxes on oil consumption, tougher fuel-efficiency standards on automobiles, substantial investment in energy alternatives — it has been impossible to get such ideas even considered by those now holding power in the United States.

And that's too bad, because what's good for Chevron and his buddies is good for Chavez and his pals, too.

One of the most maddening and illuminating examples of the oil industry's grip on the Bush administration is what's going on with deep-water oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico, where Chevron recently announced a major new find.

Back in the late '90s, the U.S. government signed more than 1,000 leases allowing oil companies to drill in the Gulf. Because deep-water drilling is expensive and risky, the U.S. government agreed not to collect its standard royalties of 12 percent to 16 percent of the price of oil or gas from those leases.

As part of the deal, though, those leases were supposed to include a provision requiring companies to start paying royalties if oil prices ever rose higher than $36 a barrel. The oil companies understood that was to be the arrangement; federal bureaucrats understood that, too. Yet when the contracts were signed, the fail-safe provision was somehow missing.

Today, with oil prices at more than $60 a barrel, that oversight has already meant a bonanza of roughly $1.3 billion for the oil industry, money that by rights ought to be going to taxpayers. Chevron alone may save more than $1 billion in royalties just on its newly announced discovery.

Outraged by that possibility, some members of Congress have tried to pressure oil companies into renegotiating their faulty leases, but their effort has been frustrated by Republican congressional leaders and the Bush administration. Bush officials are taking the legalistic approach, claiming that "a deal's a deal" and refusing to consider legal action, new legislation or any other way to possibly recoup the money.

In essence, the Bush administration claims that's just business, but it isn't. Not by a long shot.

In business, behaving as the oil industry has done in this situation would have consequences. If General Motors or Microsoft got stiffed out of billions of dollars by somebody who has displayed the bad faith demonstrated by the oil industry, you can bet their corporate lawyers and accountants would be re-evaluating every business relationship with the offending company, looking for any possible way to get leverage. They would never meekly accept such an outrage, as the Bush administration has done.

The Interior Department, which is supposed to act as the taxpayers' steward, has also cut the number of auditors investigating possible royalty fraud, which has produced yet another bonanza for the oil companies at the expense of taxpayers.

According to the nonprofit Project on Government Oversight, federal auditors recovered an average of $115 million a year in unpaid royalties between 1981-2001, making their salaries one of the best investments in government. But from 2002-2005, the number of auditors was cut and annual royalty recoveries fell to less than half the previous level.

It's gotten so bad that four government auditors who were denied permission by their superiors to pursue unpaid royalties from oil companies are now seeking to recover the money by filing lawsuits as private citizens. It's just too bad we can't sic 'em on Chavez and Ahmadinejad, too.

Jay Bookman is deputy editorial page editor. His column appears Mondays and Thursdays.

© 2006 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Let's see....leases signed in error the late 90's, sounds like another mess that Bush has to clean up left by the Clinton Administration... OK, just kidding, but this royalty issue is not as black and white as the article tries to make it seem. Royalties paid on oil and gas leases can be quite complex, and that is where most of the under payments come from. The leases signed in error...with all of the bureaucrats at the BLM, god only knows how that could have happened.

Ez

[Independent George]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

You are uninformed if you know nothing of the Bush family's connections with the Saudi royal family.

Did you know that George Bush had the airforce redirect Hurricane Katrina by using the backdraft of hundreds of B-52's,so that it would hit New Orleans?

Did you know that George Bush personally dynamited the WTC after learning of the terrorist plot to crash planes into the buildings?

Did you know that Monica Lewinsky was a plant sent by George Bush? Do you know the Bush family's connections with the Lewinsky's?

Do you know that Osama Ben Laden, under the direction of Carl Rove, will surrender to US armed forces two days before the election? Check out the connections of the Bush family to the Ben Laden's.

And you call me uninformed !!!!

[Downthestretch55]

http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?...rder=0&thold=0

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?...rder=0&thold=0

DTS, I am really trying to follow your logic with regard to the Sudan..but, I am missing something. This huge field of which you speak, substantiated by seismic operations and one (1) well, is owned by who? My guess is that whoever conducted the seismic operations, and drilled the so called discovery well, is going to own the concession, and therefore, have the right to develop same (if there is a field). The capital expenditures to develop a field of this size will be huge, therefore, I am guessing that a State sponsored company (like China), or group of non state sponsored companies, will have the lion's share of the ownership. From the Article you posted, US companies are barred from participating in this concession...so, with regard to this new, although still questionable, discovery, a change in the US policy towards Sudan is going to do what? Sounds to me like the window of opportunity to get into that deal has closed.

Ez

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by ezrabrooks

DTS, I am really trying to follow your logic with regard to the Sudan..but, I am missing something. This huge field of which you speak, substantiated by seismic operations and one (1) well, is owned by who? My guess is that whoever conducted the seismic operations, and drilled the so called discovery well, is going to own the concession, and therefore, have the right to develop same (if there is a field). The capital expenditures to develop a field of this size will be huge, therefore, I am guessing that a State sponsored company (like China), or group of non state sponsored companies, will have the lion's share of the ownership. From the Article you posted, US companies are barred from participating in this concession...so, with regard to this new, although still questionable, discovery, a change in the US policy towards Sudan is going to do what? Sounds to me like the window of opportunity to get into that deal has closed.

Ez

I don't know who did the exploratory drilling. I do know that the '97 sanctions prevent US companies from participating. Doesn't it state in the article that there are "ways around" this?
Is this why the US has been slow to stop the genocide? hmmm..your guess is as good as mine.