Don't scapegoat energy price runup
Rocky Mountain News
Published July 5, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Average gas prices nationally and in Colorado have zipped past the $4 mark, just in time for this Independence Day weekend. Oil prices continue to set new records, vaulting from $33 a barrel in early 2004 to $145 this week.
Rather than pushing energy policies that might actually ease the pain at the pump, such as by boosting supplies, Washington politicians have instead found a culprit behind soaring prices: "manipulation" by "speculators."
More than a dozen bills targeting speculation in energy markets have recently been introduced in Congress, and even Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar weighed in last month, blaming "rampant speculation [for] contributing to recent jumps in oil prices."
The search for villains leads directly to energy traders. But placing tight restrictions on their transactions would be a huge mistake with many unintended consequences.
For one thing, some major enterprises - think airlines and transit systems like the Regional Transportation District - use the futures market to insulate themselves from rising costs. If those opportunities evaporate, passengers may see their fares rise more quickly than before, or more routes curtailed.
Another alleged evildoer may be your pension fund or 401(k). The Chicago Tribune reported that more than half of the $139 billion invested in energy commodities in the first quarter of 2008 came from retirement funds. Institutional investors are banking on energy profits to offset other losses.
Besides, most impartial experts have concluded that energy prices are rising for a reason that's hardly sinister: scarcity. Supply isn't keeping pace with demand, for a host of reasons. If you don't believe us, then heed the International Energy Agency, the Paris-based global think tank.
The IEA's recently published five-year forecast concluded that the world had entered a third "oil shock" and that a blossoming middle class in previously poor nations will stress supplies even more in the near future.
"Blaming speculation is an easy solution which avoids taking the necessary steps to improve supply-side access and investment, or to implement measures to improve energy efficiency," the report said.
There are plenty of reasons supply isn't matching demand - and in the near future, Congress can't do a lot to reduce the pressures driving prices higher.
One cause driving up prices at the margins doesn't get a lot of headlines: 77 percent of the world's known petroleum reserves are controlled by state-owned oil companies. As Reason magazine science correspondent Ronald Bailey has noted, oil production from several of the world's largest suppliers - Iran, Mexico, Nigeria and Venezuela - has recently slipped. Corruption is sometimes to blame, but the greater problem is that the state companies are inefficient and they haven't reinvested enough oil profits in infrastructure and technology.
Sure, there's a role for conservation and efficiency. U.S. automakers have been battered from the collapse in sales of SUVs. Ridership at RTD is up. To the extent Americans use less gas and conserve electricity, they'll save money individually; collectively, lower fuel use will ease some of the pressure on prices.
Clamping down on "speculation," however, will not bring more oil to market. If Congress wanted to help consumers handle higher energy prices, it would focus on expanding domestic production - the outer continental shelf is the largest opportunity - and letting markets work.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Holiday Lights
Is your house the jolliest on the block? Submit your holiday lights display.
-
Holiday Gift Guide
Looking to get a jump-start on the holiday shopping season?
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's midweek rant on the Chiefs.
-
Broncos Video
Get the latest from Dove Valley as the Broncos prepare for Sunday's matchup.
-
Calendar wallpaper
Download this month's desktop wallpaper calendar
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Stirrin' the Soup with Matt Iseman
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
Read the Rocky's coverage of Colorado's cannibal, Alfred Packer, in 1886.
July 5, 2008
5:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
rjb3445 writes:
I find it amusing that oil speculators are putting up a blizzard of false media reports, like the Rocky's July 5 editorial, proclaiming their innocence in the devasting run-up of gas prices. This, of course, just as Congress is set to wade into them with a baseball bat and clean up their scam.
The truth is that fully 70% of the oil futures contracts on NYMEX and London's ICE are traded by neither oil producers or consumers. They are done by Wall Street investment banks, hedge funds and pension funds, none of which have ability to accept delivery on a oil contract. They simply put up 5% of the value of a barrel of oil, and hold it off the market until the price goes up. Hence your $4.00+ gas at the pump.
I applaud the efforts of Senator Salazar and others to put a stop to this financial rape of America by greedy speculators eager to recoup their losses in the mortgage collapse at the expense of you and me.
July 5, 2008
6:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
robbyr2 writes:
"most impartial experts have concluded that energy prices are rising for a reason that's hardly sinister: scarcity." Other than Bush Administration officials (hardly impartial), I haven't seen any impartial experts quoted saying such. Morgan and Stanley have been quoted but they make money when ordinary people gamble in oil futures. These were the same kind of experts who said there was no speculation going on during the California electricity crisis in 1999 and in the real estate boom of the early 00s.
Is the IEA funded by Mother Theresa? Where do you think they get their money? I've never read an impartial think tank report in my life.
And the idea that a pension fund manager should be able to invest their customer's money in the commodities market is just dumb. No one "invests" in oil futures. It's just speculation anyway. No different than investing in a craps in a Vegas casino. If oil prices do go down suddenly, how many pension funds are going to go bankrupt?
You've chosen to believe the speculators themselves. I will believe the producers who say they can't raise production because no one wants the extra oil. The Saudis spend $10 getting a barrel of oil out of the ground. Even if they only got $100 a barrel, why wouldn't they want to pump another million barrels a day (and they can)?
July 5, 2008
6:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
Salazar - go talk to Bill Clinton about the "rampant speculation." He signed that loophole into law...
The whole mindset behind creating a bogey-man other than supply issues (the truth) is to side-step the need to create our own energy dependence by opening up coastal and ANWR drilling. Politicians want to dance around this issue until after the election by creating diversions like the "speculator" spectre of evil-doing. The bigger problem is, look how many Gomers out there are buying into that cr*p and not holding the politicians accountable for true resolutions.
July 5, 2008
6:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
bitwranglers writes:
If you’ve bought gas in the last couple of weeks, Newt has an answer ...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UOpcPfAarjY
July 5, 2008
7:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
robbyr2 writes:
Opening up all coastal areas, other internally protected areas, and ANWR to drilling isn't going to help anything for years. ANWR would replace our imports for about 8 years, in theory, but most of its' oil will go to Japan and China. Most of the coastal areas under consideration are in the Gulf of Mexico so we will even more at the mercy of hurricanes than we are at the mercy of OPEC. And none of them will produce any oil for 8-10 years.
And none of it helps deal with the issue of global warming, which by the way, even GW admits is real (he'll let his children and grandchildren figure out how to fix it but he believes finally).
The short-term answers are to stop pension fund managers from gambling with someone else's money, encourage energy conservation through shifting tax subsidies from oil companies to auto companies to make smaller, but nicer, cars, encourage the prompt construction of all alternative energy plants(solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, methane and nuclear), and find ways to pressure the Chinese and Indians to pass along the real cost of oil to their citizens. And of course, we all have to find ways to cut gasoline use- whether its a new car, a new home, a bus ride, a vanpool, fewer trips for errands.
And finally, we have to figure out that we just aren't rich enough to be the world's policeman. Regardless of everything else, we have to get out of Iraq unless they want to start paying us to be there.
July 5, 2008
7:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
Next time you pay $4/gal, thank an SUV driver. If you are an SUV driver, thank yourself.
July 5, 2008
7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
ghoax writes:
How about we get the truth on the mountains of legislation and ridiculous environmental blockades that thwart not only oil and gas but also the new energy development first?, or the falling dollar caused by irresponsible spending and crazy fiat money system which congress will never change?...(yeah every time the Fed pumps "money" into the system, your dollar is worth less , making things cost more) ...then we'lll talk about how the commodities market works. Much to the delight of those who bow to the royal "save the field mouse" crowd...we are forced to conserve in hopes of driving down demand. The Obamas, Pelosi's Boxer Markay lemmings quiver with excitement as they get closer to the ultimate control they want over peoples lives, where the STATE will control how you live. If we want cheap energy, we're going to have to fight our own government and the enviro whacko's for it...and that is a sad state of affairs. We live in a time where mating habits of wildlife, a fly's habitat, the preservation or study of dirt trumps human needs. One last question, who are these people who have the time and money to watch wildlife mate , count insects , or count mice in a field... don't have anything better to do? I the only one that finds that quite odd?
July 5, 2008
9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
It is a bit like blaming the bartender for getting you drunk except, in this case, when you ask for a cup of coffee he serves you more booze.
With America still being stripped of industry and having jobs sent to China and India, the dollar is loosing value while our global competitors are increasing their energy demands. The oil capitalists are on top of this. They've hit on yet another golden opportunity to fleece America.
Ironically, most of the capitalists doing the fleecing are fleecing their own shareholders on the price of gas while giving a little bit back in a dividend. Evidently, Rocky editors believe it's a great deal when someone robs you of $100 and gives you a $1 dividend. No wonder Denver's newspaper combination is loosing money.
Congress needs to act but reining in the speculators is a feeble piece of work. It's only a beginning. We really need to nationalize the oil companies to get a grip on this problem. The oil royals are using their wealth to corrupt our government, turning it into an instrument of war and tyranny. By nationalizing the oil companies, the profits can be used for building the infrastructure that America needs for energy independence.
July 5, 2008
10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
Froward, then if you are correct, and it is only speculation, then why does your obama want to reduce use, reduce demand? Is he wrong?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ene...
I see nothing there about lynching republicans or speculators, please show us all.
July 5, 2008
11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
sunshinestate writes:
Speculators practically destroyed Sanfrancisco through proposed land use changes/office conversions during the "Dot Com" episode. How many clearly recall the upset with energy supply in California a couple of years ago?Then the investor frenzy swung to real estate............. I say good for Congress in their review.
July 5, 2008
12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
Froward, "republicans cry that here in the us it is lack of supply and refining capacity. while the supply issue is moot", from your post of 7:54am. From your post of 11:49am "reducing use leads to reducing demand.
Obama is not wrong. He is spot on.".
How is it fear mongering to point out you stated one thing, then when shown obama said another you want to say I am fearmongering? Fascist, was I being a fascist when I supported Hillary, is your definition of anybody that doesnt wholly support obama a Fascist?obama08
July 5, 2008
12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
Froward, "when in reality the republicans hate for the Constitution as a whole became apparent with the suspension of habius corpus. effectively restricting 9 of the first 10 amendments of The US Constitution." from your post of 7/4 at 8:40am.Fearmongering?
July 5, 2008
1:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
Froward, from your post of 11:49am, you contradict yourself again, "reducing use leads to reducing demand.
Obama is not wrong. He is spot on."
, then, "ardently defend International Oil company's and speculators, that have no incentive what so ever, to care about the US economy?", so is it the speculators, and obama is wrong, or is it the supply and demand and "republican buddies did not make enough profit when it was ILLEGAL to gouge the American consumer."?
"ANY Crude extracted still gets the international price tag, even if it simply travels down the road to the newest refinery the Oil company had to be forced to build.", now you endorse a profit, but only after obama takes control of the industry?
July 5, 2008
1:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
ghoax, "we are forced to conserve in hopes of driving down demand. The Obamas, Pelosi's Boxer Markay lemmings quiver with excitement as they get closer to the ultimate control they want over peoples lives, where the STATE will control how you live.", then Froward posts "the newest refinery the Oil company had to be forced to build.", looks like he proves your point, further proof of obamas intent to dictate to american industry is found at
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ene...
"I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses"
July 5, 2008
3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Squatch,
You said: "their recycled windmills and solar have yet to deliver their first jobs and their first drops of oil..."
Let's go over this yet one more time old buddy: Wind turbines and Solar panels aren't intended ro deliver oil, they produce electricity. You mess up your own point every time with that piece of flawed logic.
As for jobs, who has been building wind turbines by the dozen in our own back yard? One of the major wind turbine manufacturers set up shop in Colorado not long ago. Wind farms are growing in Colorado . How do you suppose that is happening without engineers, electricians, welders, Delivery drivers and laborers?
As for Solar not producing jobs: tell that to the electricians and engineers who installed solar on my roof a couple of years ago. Tell that to the people installing them on homes all over the state. Tell it to the people who are installing the huge solar arrays at the Federal Center and at DIA!
Do you really expect any thinking person to accept these unsubstantiated and illogical statements you make day in and day out.
It's time to remind you of your " Look out the window test" old buddy. You know, the one you make us suffer through every cold day in the winter?
So....on this 90 degree day with many days of drought behind us is global warming still flunking your "look out the window test"?
You can lead a mythological ape to logic, but you can't make him think!
July 5, 2008
3:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
MrPeabody writes:
Holier wrote:
"We really need to nationalize the oil companies to get a grip on this problem."
I think you need to get a grip. Find ONE nationalized oil company that is well run. Anywhere in the world. To think that anybody in this country would propose such a thing boggles the mind. Totally against the system that built our economy. A nationalized energy company no longer has any incentive to work hard, innovate and produce because the incentive is profit - you know, the "dirty word" to the uber libs.
Good thing that your sentiment is only shared by some extremist kooks and one nutty member of congress from the left coast.
July 5, 2008
5:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
BIGFOOT writes:
I noticed on KIPLINGER.COM that Mr Goldberg is advising investors to TRIM their oil investments. That sounds like a warning to me to get out of oil or risk the consequences. Multi-millionair Richard Rainwater has sold off most of his oil investments. Maybe he knows something we don't. I find it interesting that billionaire financier George Soros calls this OIL phenomena a market Bubble when everyone else sees it as a sharp spike in oil prices. He says he believes there are lots of bubbles building in financial markets, including OIL. To quote him he says "He believes better regulation is necessary to keep commodity prices at more reasonable levels." The government needs to step in and do something about commodities trading. First of all, OIL and Gas should not be traded like poker chips. The consequences of a mistake are far too grave. When fear, greed and suspicion surround an activity what does that tell you? The commodities market needs a good overhaul to bring some credibility back into commodities trading. New regulations are necessary because a huge greed driven spike in oil can cause fear among all other investment sectors that are adversely affected by high oil prices. That fear would trigger a market reversal of grand proportions that would far out-weight any gains made by oil. These high prices are not sustainable and jeopardise economic growth globally, The true market value of oil is probably closer to about 80 dollars a barrel. Imagine if all these investors suddenly decided to switch from oil futures to wheat futures and the price of wheat started to run away. Would the government just sit on their laurels and do nothing until a bushel of wheat was $200 or $500 or $1000?. That's scary stuff and yet the way that the CFTC regulates futures now, it could happen. On our website we conducted a poll, asking the question "who do you think is to blame for high oil prices". Over half say speculation is to blame. www.nbtv.ca There is also an excellent article on the CFTC and ICE loopholes that do exist and the so called DARK market trades at this website http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/...
July 5, 2008
9:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sweetpickle writes:
NO NO it can't be us. We can't be the cause of our problem.
Blame somebody, blame anybody, blame everyone but me.
Someguy I heard about knows how to solve this problem, it's easy. Lets have congress investigate, maybe if we give them a raise they will stop this evil. Vote republican. Vote democrat. My party will fix this.
B.S.
July 5, 2008
9:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Patron_Drinker writes:
greenleaf wrote to Sasquatch:
Do you really expect any thinking person to accept these unsubstantiated and illogical statements you make day in and day out.
====
Well, 'leaf, as long as you continue to respond to his nonsense, he wins. If you just ignore him and his comments, you'll be happier (and probably cooler, even on 90+ degree days).
Speaking of nonsense, it's gotten to 90+ degrees in the Denver area in early July for decades, probably even centuries. Global warming still fails the "look out the window test". Not that I'm complaining but 30 years ago climatologists warned of another ice age occurring in our lifetime. They were wrong then, they're wrong now.
Just so ya know, I'm not opposed to the greening of America. Being a Christian, one of the first lessons I was taught was that God appointed mankind as stewards of the Earth. I just think we need to find means of stewardship that do not include extortion, intellectual dishonesty, and playing the fear card.
July 5, 2008
10:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
independentenergy writes:
The reason we have an energy problem is simple;
1. Nationalized government oil companies like Pemex control 85% of the world's reserves. They are badly run and are not typically allowed to reinvest their cash into increasing production (social programs win out).
2. Politicians and governments trying to buy popularity by keeping energy prices artificially low in places like China.
The only ones actually DOING anything about the tight balance between supply and demand are the companies getting all the blame. At least they are investing every day in increasing production and reserves.
July 5, 2008
10:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
independentenergy: "The only ones actually DOING anything about the tight balance between supply and demand are the companies getting all the blame. At least they are investing every day in increasing production and reserves."
Actually, they aren't. In fact, it's no secret that the oil companies are putting most of their profits back into shareholder payouts, stock buybacks, and executive compensation. Some analysts are wondering if the industry is preparing for a liquidation, in fact.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pi...
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/...
July 6, 2008
5:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
robbyr2 writes:
"mytwosense writes:
independentenergy: "The only ones actually DOING anything about the tight balance between supply and demand are the companies getting all the blame. At least they are investing every day in increasing production and reserves."
Actually, they aren't. In fact, it's no secret that the oil companies are putting most of their profits back into shareholder payouts, stock buybacks, and executive compensation. Some analysts are wondering if the industry is preparing for a liquidation, in fact."
Actually, the article says we are blaming the "innocent" speculators... not that the oil companies are innocent either. The problem with this editorial suggests that the fact that we are using 2 million barrels a day less in the US is irrelevant, which should not be true. When the Iranians, Saudis and Libyans all publicly complain that they can't find buyers for any more oil, prices should not be going up. When pension fund managers buy oil futures for which there will be no customers, we have a big problem. Someone IS going to lose... customers, pension fund contributors, etc. Of course, not the pension fund managers!
And the major oil companies told Congress they don't plan to drill more or build any more refineries- they see the handwriting on the wall. They don't believe the price is right either, and they believe that global climate change (or customer belief in it, regardless) will mean more renewable energy use. Why do you think Conoco Phillips is coming to the metro area?
July 6, 2008
6:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
independentenergy writes:
mytwosense and robby2r: you write that the oil companies are giving more money back to shareholders than into capital investment in response to my assertion that the oil companies are the only ones actually doing something about the oil shortage.
1. Your references are only to a few oil majors, not the whole industry. The industry's capital expenditures are way up.
2. The reason that the industry CAN'T spend even more is because 85% of the world's reserves are tied up by concompetent government-owned oil companies
3. If companies that can't profitably invest their capital back into production give it to shareholders, it's up to shareholders to invest in new alternative energy companies that are better positioned than Exxon to invest in these very different businesses.
July 6, 2008
8:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
jackson_foi writes:
I haven't pulled in to fill up with crude oil in some time.
I have bought gasoline, and know people who heat with heating oil. If this were a demand-based price signal to the market, why wouldn't those prices be leading the way? Perhaps, the regulated NYMEX markets for those commodities don't provide the thrill of the unregulated paper market for crude oil.
With regard to the futures market being a balanced market, that is, 1 buyer for 1 seller, what happens when there are no sellers? I think, one of the buyers must become a seller, and his price will necessarily be higher to cover his conversion. And, on the other side, when there are only sellers in the market (like for stocks currently), the buyers price is lower because he really wanted to be selling. I suspect that on the way up commissions were made and paper gains recorded, and on the way down commissions will be made and paper losses recorded.
Where do you think the market is, and will you be buying or selling today?
July 6, 2008
12:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
nbharris writes:
rjb3445 wrote - They [oil futures speculators] simply put up 5% of the value of a barrel of oil, and hold it off the market until the price goes up.
This simply isn't possible. Buying oil futures doesn't hold anything off the market. It doesn't hold physical oil off the market - the only way to do that is to put it in storage tanks. It doesn't even hold oil futures contracts off the market - unlike stocks, where the total number of issued stocks is limited, there is no limit to the number of futures contracts that can be bought for any given delivery month - every deal between a buyer and seller creates new, matched long and short futures positions. Of course, if enough players enter the futures markets as big buyers, they'll drive the price of those futures contracts up. But eventually, they either have to take delivery of the oil, or they have to sell the futures contracts back and close their positions before the delivery month arrives - at which point, they'll drive the price back down again.
Robbyr2 wrote - The Saudis spend $10 getting a barrel of oil out of the ground. Even if they only got $100 a barrel, why wouldn't they want to pump another million barrels a day (and they can)?
For one, the Saudis have a stated policy of not devloping every new field and producing every possible barrel of oil - they're deliberately leaving some in the ground for their children. More importantly, if you look at the Saudi's (and OPEC's) history of manipulating the oil price through production quotas, they're probably guilty of holding the price DOWN more than of raising it. The last thing they want to see is oil being sold at a price that comes anywhere near reflecting its true value to consumers, and therefore encourages people to consume less of it, and makes it economically viable for people to develop alternative energy sources and transport fuels.
Rather than blame the oil producers for high prices now, you should be blaming the big oil companies for the artificially low prices that they used to fool American citizens into thinking that gasoline would always be cheap, and allowed the oil majors and auto manufacturers to build a nation addicted to huge gas guzzling automobiles, with almost no public transport infrastructure.
July 6, 2008
3:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
i am simply amazed that the rocky is still posting these ignorant letters still spouting supply and demand mythology.
demand can't explain The Trend:
1992
$19/barrel
$1.05/gallon
2000
$23/barrel
$1.42/gallon
today
$145/barrel
$4/gallon
July 6, 2008
11:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
GasPriceFighter writes:
My idea of a Citizen Oil Company urges people to tell their legislators that drilling for oil OURSELVES & SELLING IT OURSELVES at Citizen Coop stations for $2 a gallon or less - IS THE ONLY WAY OUT OF THIS MESS!
Obama seems to want HIGH Prices & for you to take Mass Transit so he can award contracts to build more mass transit to his Union Friends, as Bush & McCain's ideas to ONLY have BIG OIL drilling for oil off our coasts - which WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER GAS PRICES if 'BIG OIL' is involved!
MY PLAN is to 'RE-INTRODUCE' competition to the retail gasoline market - that has no competitive aspects to it - with a Citizen Oil Company concept!
But before MORE TIME is WASTED, we must BEGIN BUILDING NEW CITIZEN OIL COMPANY REFINERIES - seperate from those owned by 'BIG OIL' - who are controlling gas prices at articially HIGH PRICES!
I'm not talking about 'NATIONALIZATION' like some Democrats are, as the Citizen Oil Company is NOT AN ATTEMPT to install Socialism in the retail gasoline market.
bInstead, Citizen Oil Company seeks to act as an artificial means of 'RE-INTRODUCING' competition to a market which has no visible signs of competition - with a 'PRICE-CALMING' EFFECT that would eventually exert pressure on Big Oil to lower prices!
And, due to the LONG LINES for bargain-priced gas at the affordable Citizen Oil Company CO-OP stations - Big Oil would still be free to charge the public more for the 'convenience' of buying higher-priced fuel - that would eventually be FORCED TO DROP IN PRICE with the Citizen Oil Company influence on prices!
Please SPREAD THIS e-mail & contact GasPriceRevolt at Yahoo Dot Com - as even a rumor of this Citizen Oil company concept WILL have a DRASTIC EFFECT on LOWERING GAS PRICES - if WE 'Citizens' UNITE!!!
July 7, 2008
9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
rjnova writes:
I have to suspect there is impact from speculators on the price of oil. There has to be some more realistic method of using commodity futures for the hedge on price rise yet take the wild speculation out of the pricing. I have heard if one does not take delivery of the futures contract them something greater than 5% seems reasonable. I would yield to a more knowledgeable opinion than that.
Moreover the decline in the value of the US Dollar I hear accounts for $25/bbl and that is something I find this Congress should be correcting. Importing less oil is the most obvious correction.
Having said this, it is quite apparent that most of the fault lies with Environmentalist pressure on Democrats to prevent drilling offshore and onshore where it is known this country has oil. Also the EPA regulations on building refineries weighs heavy on oil prices. These anti-market regulations is who we can thank for $4 gas that will surely be $5 by fall.
July 7, 2008
9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bookem writes:
Jay....
Please do a little reasearch in regards to demand along the same time line in your post (1992 - present). Please break it down by the USA alone, then do global demand.
Please post the links that you get that information from.
THEN you can say the supply/demand argument doesn't work. However, after you do your research ... you won't be able to say it.
July 7, 2008
10:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Please do a little reasearch in regards to demand along the same time line in your post (1992 - present). Please break it down by the USA alone, then do global demand"
the only way that demand could account for the majority of the price increase is if it went up 400%.
it hasn't gone up 400%, bookem.
sure demand has caused some price increase...but let's try to keep the discussion on planet earth.
i'm sure the folks who still defend the republican policies that brought about the severe devaluation of the dollar and the further destabilization of the middle east would like to pretend that demand can account for the damage done by conservatives...but that's not really the case.
July 7, 2008
11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bookem writes:
Jay,
Nice way to dodge the question.
You just don't want to answer the question do you? How much has demand gone up since 1992?
Should be a simple question for a smart guy like you to answer...
July 7, 2008
4:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"How much has demand gone up since 1992?"
again...unless it has gone up an astronomical amount...which it hasn't...you can't scapegoat demand for high fuel costs.
why are you still confused by that fact...or is it the willful ignorance bug that's going around on the far right?
July 7, 2008
7:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oliver2 writes:
Oil and gas companies want to keep consumer prices high:
“This collateral damage of low oil and natural gas prices on the industry is affecting supply today and will continue to do so, until the industry has a chance to recover.”
[Translation-with low prices we drill less, with high prices we drill more. We view low consumer prices as 'damage'].
June 12, 2001
Testimony Of Virginia Lazenby-On Behalf Of The Independent Petroleum Association of America, before The [GOP led] Hose Committee on Science Subcommittee on Energy
http://www.ipaa.org/issues/testimony/...
Oil and gas multi-nationals do not want energy independence for the U.S., they want to be able to sell their product to whomever pays the most:
“Resource nationalism… in the form of energy independence … threatens to stymie innovation and slow energy development critical to continuing economic progress worldwide.
“Resisting resource nationalism in all its forms and promoting free trade in its place is as essential to meeting the energy supply challenge as technology and partnerships.”
[Translation: the talk of making America 'energy independent' scares us because we have no intention of being restricted to selling our product in the U.S. if it will drive prices down. We will resist American energy independence with the same vigor with which we seek to open up new lands to drilling, because both ensure greater profit for us].
ExxonMobil exec speech to industry brethren
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/n...
July 9, 2008
4:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
green43 writes:
How is riding the lightrail a true benefit?I think the fares for the lightrail are too outrageous as it is. For me to go 11 miles downtown it cost me $144/month to ride. I am really considering driving to work riding just isn't cost effective for me.If they raise the fares forget it I will be doing the traffic thing.
I'm in agreement with the person who mentioned the buses downtown on the 16th Street Mall.RTD really needs to consider reducing the number of buses - it's crazy.