Oil Prices

[Charleston native]

Considering that there were more than 12 oil spills per year for the last 8 years, they do happen every month. At least.

Right. And millions of tons of oil get pumped into the ocean every day, a far larger frequency than the accidents mentioned. As rolfinney said, your argument is weak.

[Ocklawaha]

 

Needless to say, it is not hurting our anemic tourism industry either

How could it? It's simple, it is impossible to destroy our micro-tourism on the Riverwalk along a highly polluted river with a "highly polluted river". If this keeps up, walking on water will be no miricle in Jacksonville!

Ocklawaha

[Lunican]

Lunican,

I am curious if the sources you are quoting are including "spills" like the one in downtown Jacksonville recently.  This was hardly major at all and the environmental engineers said it will take two days to clean up and they see no effect on the aquatic wildlife in the area.  Needless to say, it is not hurting our anemic tourism industry either. 

Check the list, they appear to involve hundreds of thousands of gallons per incident.

Considering that there were more than 12 oil spills per year for the last 8 years, they do happen every month. At least.

Right. And millions of tons of oil get pumped into the ocean every day, a far larger frequency than the accidents mentioned. As rolfinney said, your argument is weak.

.

Not as weak as dismissing one of the largest ecological disasters in history by claiming that nature loves pipelines.

And as far as "destroying wildlife", Stephen, that argument is false, delusionary, and tired. Seeing nature thrive around the Pipeline and other drilling areas totally negates that argument. Besides, I think that photo of the ANWR area speaks for itself. I hardly think they'll damage anything that basically contains nothing.

The arguments against drilling in preserved areas can't be overlooked because you suddenly can't afford gas.

[Charleston native]

Not as weak as dismissing one of the largest ecological disasters in history by claiming that nature loves pipelines.

This is a complete fabrication, twisting of words, and/or manipulation of what I said. I never dismissed the oil spill; my point was that the oil spill in itself is insignificant in comparison to what naturally occurs everyday. I also never said nature loves pipelines; my point here is that if man sets up drilling and transport correctly, he can minimize the impact on nature and even help it thrive.

The arguments against drilling in preserved areas can't be overlooked because you suddenly can't afford gas.

So what are we supposed to do: allow the majority of free men to go into poverty based on a premise that accidents can occur? Besides, I'm not overlooking the arguments; I think the majority of common sense people understand that if we are to allow drilling, we do it in a way that minimizes environmental impact, especially since we have the technology to do so. To just leave the area as is when we know it has resources that can help us is an exceptionally weak argument. Actually, it's pretty foolish.

[RiversideGator]

Wow, from what you were referring to, I thought oil spills occurred every month. Of course, you seem to be forgetting the fact that millions of tons of natural oil actually seeps into the ocean from the ocean floor everyday. And yet, the ocean is still able to provide life for billions of aquatic forms of life.

Considering that there were more than 12 oil spills per year for the last 8 years, they do happen every month. At least.

12 yearly spills worldwide or in the US?

[Charleston native]

That would be worldwide, River.

Of course, who cares that the US has the least frequent amount of accidents and is the most capable of cleaning them up. 

[RiversideGator]

CN:  The real truth is many enviro-socialists hate capitalism and modernity and wish to return us to the imagined paradise of the pre-industrial era.  You can never make oil drilling safe enough for them because they do not want us to use oil period.  So, it isnt about the oil spills at all.

[RiversideGator]

If that is 12 spills worldwide per year, I am going to let go a big yawn right now.   

[Charleston native]

CN:  The real truth is many enviro-socialists hate capitalism and modernity and wish to return us to the imagined paradise of the pre-industrial era.  You can never make oil drilling safe enough for them because they do not want us to use oil period.  So, it isnt about the oil spills at all.

Oh, absolutely River. But even if their true agenda was legitimate concern for oil spills, there is plenty of evidence that demonstrates the resiliency of nature and man's ability to minimize their impact on nature.

I guess that's the problem; we're addressing solutions and refutations on a disingenuous argument. I wish they would actually just come out and say that what they wish for is pre-industrialism.

If that is 12 spills worldwide per year, I am going to let go a big yawn right now.  

I guess they need to start making daily articles with titles like this: "Atlantic Ocean Fissure Releases Another Million Tons of Natural Oil Today"! 

[Lunican]

Charleston Native and RiversideGator, you guys seems terrified of some kind of impeding pre-industrial age. It sounds kind of like a kooky conspiracy theory though. Where do you guys hang out? I haven't had anyone warn me about this (besides you two).

Not as weak as dismissing one of the largest ecological disasters in history by claiming that nature loves pipelines.

This is a complete fabrication, twisting of words, and/or manipulation of what I said. I never dismissed the oil spill; my point was that the oil spill in itself is insignificant in comparison to what naturally occurs everyday. I also never said nature loves pipelines; my point here is that if man sets up drilling and transport correctly, he can minimize the impact on nature and even help it thrive.

So what are we supposed to do: allow the majority of free men to go into poverty based on a premise that accidents can occur? Besides, I'm not overlooking the arguments; I think the majority of common sense people understand that if we are to allow drilling, we do it in a way that minimizes environmental impact, especially since we have the technology to do so. To just leave the area as is when we know it has resources that can help us is an exceptionally weak argument. Actually, it's pretty foolish.

I'm not advocating for or against drilling. I'm pointing out that your dismissal of the risks associated with drilling is foolish. These protected areas were designated as such for reasons you fail to accept as legitimate.

These aren't decisions that can be made with 'common sense' alone. Suggesting common sense will bring us quickly to the answer on this suggests that the answer is obvious, when it is not.

[Midway ®]

I don't think that you have to worry about "common sense".

And as long as there are no oil spills near RiversideGator World or in Charleston Native Land, all is OK. That oil spill in Alaska didn't bother them a single bit. So some birds got a little dirty.

Only downside was that it slightly adversely affected Exxon earnings because the bleeding heart liberals made them clean it up when mother nature could have done the job just as well.....maybe better.

Lunican, why do you hate Amerika?

And when the impending pre industrial age arrives, I can convert RG's Lincoln Navigator into a water powered grist mill.

[jaxnative]

This is a small section from a position paper put out by CRA International titled, Economic Impacts of Proposed House/Senate Energy Legislation on the U.S. Economy:

IMPACTS ON SPECIFIC METRICS OF ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE Specific impacts of the legislation on economic performance include the following: • Additional taxes on the oil and natural gas industry combined with additional restrictions on drilling could result in an estimated average decline in domestic oil production of roughly 4% over the 2010â€"2020 period, and an estimated average decline in domestic natural gas production of 2% relative to baseline levels. • The proposed legislation is projected to result in significantly higher costs across a wide array of goods and services, especially for transportation fuels. As a result, the demand for petroleum products is estimated to decline by roughly 18 percent in 2020 and by one-third in 2030 relative to baseline levels. Overall, U.S. transportation fuel consumption is projected to decline due to significantly higher costs faced by end-users. • By 2030, the proposed legislation is projected to cause a net loss of roughly 4.9 million total jobs from baseline levels. While all regions of the country would be adversely impacted, the Southeast, areas around the Great Lakes, and Texas-Oklahoma regions would be disproportionately affected. • By that year, the proposed legislation is estimated to diminish the average American household’s annual purchasing power by approximately $1,700. • Aggregate investment is projected to fall by 3.4% from baseline levels by 2030. As with the employment losses, the impact would be uneven both across industries and among regions. The pattern resembles that of estimated employment losses.
Page iv
Economic Impacts of Proposed House/Senate Energy Legislation on U.S. Economy
November 2007 CRA International
• By 2020, GDP, a commonly used measure of total economic activity, is estimated to be roughly 1.7% below the baseline and by 2030 is estimated to drop to approximately 4.0% below baseline levels. Petroleum refining, commercial transportation services, motor vehicles, electric generation and energy intensive manufacturing would be among the disproportionately affected sectors. The proposed legislation would restrict the supply of energy available to the U.S. economy and would likely increase energy costs. Higher energy costs would likely reduce total consumption, employment, investment, and economic output. The link between energy supply and the economic performance is key to understanding the pattern of the study results and central to an assessment of the implications of the proposed legislation. .
Page v

The question I see is how long the American people will put up with the hand wringing effeminates that now control our Congress and are willing to wait decades , if ever, to see their alternative fuels dreams come to fruition as they whine their disengenuous concerns about not seeing any oil for ten years if we start drilling right away.  Maybe the oil companies will eventually have to hire Blackwater or others to provide security and just go start working where the reserves are at.  Maybe the then Commander in Chief and representative from both houses of Wussgress can just come out and "taaaallllllkkkk" it out. 

The above report is very good and can be read at www.crai.com

[Midway ®]

Are you referring to S.2191 in this report?

[RiversideGator]

Oil prices are down nearly 10% in just the past 2 weeks:

Oil, Gasoline Fall After U.S. Fuel Supplies Rise, Demand Drops

By Mark Shenk

June 4 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil fell more than $2 a barrel and gasoline dropped the most in two months on a larger-than- expected U.S. fuel-supply gain and signs demand will weaken because of increasing prices.

Gasoline stockpiles rose 2.94 million barrels last week, the biggest gain since February, the Energy Department reported today. Supplies of distillate fuel, including heating oil and diesel, climbed 2.28 million barrels, the most since July. Fuel demand was down from a year ago, the department's report showed.

``It's pretty clear that demand will be very poor this summer,'' said Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy & Economic Research in Winchester, Massachusetts. ``Refiners are making the fuel but nobody wants to buy it.''

Crude oil for July delivery fell $2.01, or 1.6 percent, to settle at $122.30 a barrel at 2:43 p.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the lowest close since May 6. Futures, which reached a record $135.09 a barrel on May 22, are up 85 percent from a year ago.

Gasoline for July delivery declined 15.74 cents, or 4.7 percent, to settle at $3.1951 a gallon in New York, the biggest drop since March 17. Futures touched a record $3.52 on May 29.

Last week's 1.4 percent gasoline inventory gain to 209.1 million barrels left supplies 3.8 percent higher than during the same week last year. Stockpiles were expected to increase 825,000 barrels, according to the median of 14 estimates in a Bloomberg News survey.

Distillate inventories climbed 5.7 percent to 111.7 million barrels in the past four weeks. Supplies were expected to grow 1.68 million barrels, according to the analyst survey.

Refinery Operation

Refineries operated at 89.7 percent of their capacity last week, up 1.8 percentage points from the week before and the highest since the week ended Jan. 4, the department said. The profit margin, or crack spread, for making three barrels of crude oil into one of heating oil and two of gasoline jumped 46 percent in May.

``U.S. refiners should continue increasing operating rates in the weeks ahead because margins have improved a great deal,'' said Brad Samples, commodity analyst for Summit Energy Inc. in Louisville, Kentucky. ``Product markets are going to loosen up a little bit.''

Crude-oil inventories fell 4.8 million barrels to 306.8 million barrels last week. Analysts were split over whether crude-oil supplies rose or fell in the Bloomberg News survey.

``It's the products that are in the driver's seat,'' Samples said. ``In large part it was the products that led crude oil higher and now the reverse is occurring.''

Consumption Decline

Fuel consumption averaged 20.4 million barrels a day in the four weeks ended May 30, down 1.1 percent from a year earlier, the Energy Department said.

``You are starting to see consumers respond to these high prices,'' said Michael Fitzpatrick, vice president for energy risk management at MF Global Ltd. in New York. ``We are getting growing evidence that demand is taking a hit. I think we will test $120 before the week is over.''

U.S. gasoline use fell 4.7 percent last week from a year earlier as motorists cut consumption, MasterCard Inc. said yesterday.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602013&sid=afM3KOfPAXkE&refer=commodity_futures

[Driven1]

decent correction.  i am waiting a little longer to buy something like the brazilian oil company.