Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

I Has a Bucket: Preventing bucket theft on Bleeding Hollow | FUBU: A better BH Forum
It is currently Fri Jul 11, 2025 5:00 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: is the FED partially to blame for food and gas prices go
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:38 am  
User avatar

Old Conservative Faggot
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 12:19 am
Posts: 4308
Location: Winchester Virginia
Offline

OPEC production is probably going to be reduced by default given the current situation(s) in the Middle East. The oil cartel is going to have a hard time manipulating world markets when it's members are being slaughtered by the plebes. Having domestic production in swing, or on it's way to being in swing, would go a long way toward reducing the impact of reduced supplies from a current hot-spot.

Your Pal,
Jubber


AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: is the FED partially to blame for food and gas prices go
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:27 am  
Blathering Buffoon
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:12 am
Posts: 1152
Offline

By the time American oil is making an impact on the world markets the situations in those countries will be stabilized enough to get oil out (which will be American priority number one after we determine that these countries are not going to be Islamic theocracies).

And yes, I'm sure the oil companies would work very fast to get the oil up, but given the terrible record they have for spills and the complete disregard for the environment they show (unless forced to), I don't really think rushing is a good idea.

Frankly, I'd rather pay 10 cents more a gallon.


Dvergar /
Quisling
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: is the FED partially to blame for food and gas prices go
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:50 am  
User avatar

Old Conservative Faggot
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 12:19 am
Posts: 4308
Location: Winchester Virginia
Offline

I wish I was clairvoyant so that I could know for sure that the situation in those countries is going to stabilize like you do, but I'm not. Because I'm not, I have to consider worst case scenarios, and one of them is that everything goes apeshit crazy and we're shit out of luck because there isn't any oil available.

As far as the oil industry, they've had two major disasters in my lifetime, which is almost forty years, and one of those disasters wasn't the result of shenanigans on the part of the oil industry, it was because the captain of the Valdez turned out to be a negligent, incompetent drunk. I think that's a pretty good track record...especially considering the other incident was the responsibility of a foreign company previously known for it's environmental outreach.

Your Pal,
Jubber


AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: is the FED partially to blame for food and gas prices go
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:56 am  
User avatar

Obama Zombie
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 1:48 pm
Posts: 3149
Location: NoVA
Offline

Quote:
And yes, I'm sure the oil companies would work very fast to get the oil up, but given the terrible record they have for spills and the complete disregard for the environment they show (unless forced to), I don't really think rushing is a good idea.
Terrible Record? According to Infoplease.com, there have been 12 oil spills in America (or in the Gulf of Mexico) since 1976. Most of these incidents are the result of transport vessel mishaps or natural disasters and NOT because of a disregard for the environment or because there was some overly-fast, unsafe means of extracting oil. (I'm guessing you say that because of the Gulf Spill is fresh in your mind.)
Quote:
1976
Dec. 15, Buzzards Bay, Mass.: Argo Merchant ran aground and broke apart southeast of Nantucket Island, spilling its entire cargo of 7.7 million gallons of fuel oil.
1979
June 3, Gulf of Mexico: exploratory oil well Ixtoc 1 blew out, spilling an estimated 140 million gallons of crude oil into the open sea. Although it is one of the largest known oil spills, it had a low environmental impact.
1989
March 24, Prince William Sound, Alaska: tanker Exxon Valdez hit an undersea reef and spilled 10 million–plus gallons of oil into the water, causing the worst oil spill in U.S. history.
1990
June 8, off Galveston, Tex.: Mega Borg released 5.1 million gallons of oil some 60 nautical miles south-southeast of Galveston as a result of an explosion and subsequent fire in the pump room.
1993
Aug. 10, Tampa Bay, Fla.: three ships collided, the barge Bouchard B155, the freighter Balsa 37, and the barge Ocean 255. The Bouchard spilled an estimated 336,000 gallons of No. 6 fuel oil into Tampa Bay.
2000
Nov. 28, Mississippi River south of New Orleans: oil tanker Westchester lost power and ran aground near Port Sulphur, La., dumping 567,000 gallons of crude oil into lower Mississippi. Spill was largest in U.S. waters since Exxon Valdez disaster in March 1989.
2004
Dec. 7, Unalaska, Aleutian Islands, Alaska: A major storm pushed the M/V Selendang Ayu up onto a rocky shore, breaking it in two. 337,000 gallons of oil were released, most of which was driven onto the shoreline of Makushin and Skan Bays.
2005
Aug.-Sept., New Orleans, Louisiana: The Coast Guard estimated that more than 7 million gallons of oil were spilled during Hurricane Katrina from various sources, including pipelines, storage tanks and industrial plants.
2006
June 19, Calcasieu River, Louisiana: An estimated 71,000 barrels of waste oil were released from a tank at the CITGO Refinery on the Calcasieu River during a violent rain storm.
2008
July 25, New Orleans, Louisiana: A 61-foot barge, carrying 419,000 gallons of heavy fuel, collides with a 600-foot tanker ship in the Mississippi River near New Orleans. Hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel leak from the barge, causing a halt to all river traffic while cleanup efforts commence to limit the environmental fallout on local wildlife.
2010
Jan. 23, Port Arthur, Texas: The oil tanker Eagle Otome and a barge collide in the Sabine-Neches Waterway, causing the release of about 462,000 gallons of crude oil. Environmental damage was minimal as about 46,000 gallons were recovered and 175,000 gallons were dispersed or evaporated, according to the U.S. Coast Guard.
April 24, Gulf of Mexico: The Deepwater Horizon, a semi-submersible drilling rig, sank on April 22, after an April 20th explosion on the vessel. Eleven people died in the blast. When the rig sank, the riser—the 5,000-foot-long pipe that connects the wellhead to the rig—became detached and began leaking oil. In addition, U.S. Coast Guard investigators discovered a leak in the wellhead itself. As much as 60,000 barrels of oil per day were leaking into the water, threatening wildlife along the Louisiana Coast. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared it a "spill of national significance." BP (British Petroleum), which leased the Deepwater Horizon, is responsible for the cleanup, but the U.S. Navy supplied the company with resources to help contain the slick. Oil reached the Louisiana shore on April 30, affected about 125 miles of coast. By early June, oil had also reached Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi. It is the largest oil spill in U.S. history.

Read more: Oil Spills and Disasters — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001451. ... z1FeKeMyZ7

According to a NOAA picture that surfaced last year, there were over 3500 platforms/rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and, depending on the rig, could be tapping into multiple wells. (Meaning there are multiple conduits for extraction.) That number/image isn't including the number of wells off the west coast, Alaskan coast and it's not counting any land-based wells/rigs you'd find in Texas or Alaskan interior. (These spills get cleaned up pretty well, too.)

With that amount of infrastructure and a four decade time line, I'd say the track record is actually very good. A handful of disasters, often at the mistake of vessel operator error, isn't any reason to slow the extraction of oil. That'd as knee-jerk as banning using cars because there was an accident on the road.

Quote:
Frankly, I'd rather pay 10 cents more a gallon.

Image

Or $.80 over the course of a year... but it's all the same, right?

Edit: Meh. Jubber beat me to it. :(
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: is the FED partially to blame for food and gas prices go
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:18 pm  
Blathering Buffoon
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:12 am
Posts: 1152
Offline

A simple search would have shown you a much greater number of oil spills. NOAA lists 86 since 2000, and that was only oil spilled on water, and only spills reported to them. http://databases.sun-sentinel.com/news/ ... l_list.php

Spills are also becoming more frequent:

Quote:
Oil spills in U.S. waters from rigs and pipelines have more than quadrupled in this decade, government records show.

U.S. Minerals Management Services says the annual total of oil spills has increased from an average of four spills per year of 50 barrels or more in the 1990s to more than 17 per year from 2000 to 2009, USA Today reported Tuesday.

One barrel of oil is equal to 42 gallons, MMS says.

Figures indicate the company with the highest average number of spills this decade is oil giant BP, which has been trying to cap a well that has been spewing oil into the Gulf of Mexico since April 20.

Not counting the current spill, BP and its affiliated companies have reported 23 spills of 50 barrels or more since 2000.

MMS says Shell Oil Co. is next with 21 spills.


http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/06/ ... 276004328/



Your 80 cents has no basis. My 10 cents can from Jubber's own numbers since none of us know what effect new American oil will have on the market.


Dvergar /
Quisling
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: is the FED partially to blame for food and gas prices go
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:35 pm  
User avatar

Obama Zombie
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 1:48 pm
Posts: 3149
Location: NoVA
Offline

I feel there is a difference between a spill and a disaster. I listed disasters (although I didn't list them as such - mah bad)... ya know, the things that are going to have a greater environmental impact than a 100 gallon oil spill in some South Carolina harbor. Disasters are the things you hear about. Oil spills are the things you had to google for in order to make your argument look more legitimate than it really is and oil spills aren't nearly as devastating as an Exxon Valdez or Deepwater Horizon disasters.

As far as the frequency... the article says an average of four more spills per year. Four. An average, too... scary.

Quote:
Your 80 cents has no basis. My 10 cents can from Jubber's own numbers since none of us know what effect new American oil will have on the market.

Wrong. When Hurricane Katrina came through the Gulf and impacted oil distribution, extraction and gasoline production for about a week, gas prices surged nationally, jumping as much as $.50 and more in urban areas. With that, we know what happens when our production is slowed and we know what happens when the middle east explodes with riots - the price per barrel increases. When the production normalized in the Gulf, prices dropped. It appears that an increase in Gulf production will bring down prices and a decrease in production will drive prices higher.

Edit: More oil production isn't the only piece to energy independence, either. We'd have to tap our own resources to help pull ourselves from the instability of the world while increasing infrastructure (wind, solar, nuclear) to provide other sources of energy. Being so dependant on foreign countries for our life blood is dangerous and we need to do what we can to get rid of their influence.
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: is the FED partially to blame for food and gas prices go
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:48 pm  
User avatar

Querulous Quidnunc
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 3:18 pm
Posts: 7047
Offline

Quote:
Being so dependant on foreign countries for our life blood is dangerous and we need to do what we can to get rid of their influence.



This.


Image
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: is the FED partially to blame for food and gas prices go
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:54 pm  
User avatar

Obtuse Oaf
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:46 pm
Posts: 776
Location: Ontario
Offline

Rathmoon wrote:
Drunk tattoo on my hand, unquoted, troll worts, or $5 in gas?
here's a graff:

Image


So if someone in 1913 got in a time machine with their life savings in hand they wouldn't be able to buy much. In the real world, wages have been inflating with prices, and this doesn't mean very much. The value of the dollar by itself is just a number. What actual real world effects do you think inflation has caused?

Quote:
The dollar, since the Fed was conceived, has been slowly losing value until the late 1970's when we abandoned the Gold Standard and just started printing money because we could print money -- at that point the Fed started to accelerate the devaluing of money. Look at 2009 when the Fed printed $1T out of thin air. You're right - the dollar still exists but when you print money like that it makes the money less valuable meaning you need more of it to purchase goods and services. If we had some way to change metals to gold, the value of gold would drop because we could create as much of it as we wanted. If everyone in the world had a doctorates in some biology-related field, your education wouldn't be worth as much since it'd be a dime a dozen. The dollar is no different, especially when there is nothing backing it's value.

Seriously, this is one big game of moving money from your right pocket to your left. You write yourself an IOU, then you tell yourself you're going to pay yourself back with money that you're about to make, then you make the money and give it back to yourself and that somehow settles the score and makes you twice as rich?


Wages have also been inflating with prices since the late 70s. The median household income in 1975 was $11800 in 1975 dollars, which is about $43000 in todays dollars. Current median household income is about $50000. People in the past weren't richer than they are today because their dollars were worth more - they had fewer dollars, and they were actually slightly poorer.


Laelia Komi Anomalocaris
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: is the FED partially to blame for food and gas prices go
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:18 pm  
User avatar

Obtuse Oaf
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:46 pm
Posts: 776
Location: Ontario
Offline

Jubbergun wrote:
I suppose that makes sense depending on how you're going to define "significant." Currently, for every dollar the price a barrel of oil increases, the price at the pump increases by $.02 per gallon. Any new production is going lower the price per barrel by putting more on the market (supply up/price down), and even the difference of $5 per barrel is going to change pump prices (which is the way the American consumer views energy prices) by $.10 per gallon, which in the eyes of most consumers is significant. Obviously, new supplies wouldn't hit the market immediately, but in the long term, this is the best option, especially given the volatile nature of the region of the world from which we import most of our supply.

On that note, the reason that we import so much from the Middle East isn't because we're "running out," but because regulations and mandates have slowed the flow. In Texas, most new wells aren't for petroleum, they're for natural gas. Why? Because the there is a wider profit margin in natural gas, and less red tape. There is also the issue of having to drill deeper, but that would not be an issue in previously untapped regions, like the Eastern Seaboard and ANWAR, for quite some time.

We're already paying the price for pollution at the pump, in the form of the regulations meant to curtail it which increase the prices. I have no issue with necessary and reasonable regulation, but you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that all the regulations impeding new drilling/exploration, new refineries, and other new infrastructure are reasonable and necessary. If anything, we're far more responsible here than in many other parts of the world, especially emerging economies like China and India. with whom we compete for these resources. While I wouldn't want us doing business the way they do, and agree that there need to be requirements to prevent pollution, the current cost/benefit calculation is, as far as I'm concerned, costing too much for too little discernible benefit.

If the concerns of those worried over 'peak oil' fears are correct, the cost of petroleum as a fuel source will eventual increase to a point where we will be forced to use other sources...perhaps even ethanol. Remember that petroleum was not always in demand, and was in fact once an impediment to industry, since it was sometimes found in salt-mines, where it ruined the material industry was there to harvest. It was not until someone played with the crude and discovered that it could be run through a still to make cheap lamp oil that anyone had any interest in the stuff. Diesel engines were originally designed to run off of animal and plant oils until it was found that one of the by-products of petroleum refining was cheaper and more effective. Those were innovations that occurred without a government prodding it to happen with subsidies...and the next wave of energy innovations are more likely going to be the result of some serendipitous event or guy screwing around in his garage.


I'm not sure that even $5 would be achievable. The ANWR is the biggest untapped reserve of conventional oil left in the US, and the EIA estimates that drilling in the ANWR would lower oil prices by $0.41-$1.44 at the peak of production (in the mid 2020s). Maybe if all undeveloped oil fields came online simultaneously there would be a few years with that kind of cost reduction, but it seems unlikely.

As for paying for pollution, the current regulations don't come close to accounting for the true cost (and the US hands out a lot of subsidies to oil companies, which negate a lot of that). Other sources of energy are needed for the future, but they can't compete on their own as long as pollution from burning oil is free.


Laelia Komi Anomalocaris
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: is the FED partially to blame for food and gas prices go
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:43 pm  
User avatar

Old Conservative Faggot
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 12:19 am
Posts: 4308
Location: Winchester Virginia
Offline

Dvergar wrote:
A simple search would have shown you a much greater number of oil spills. NOAA lists 86 since 2000, and that was only oil spilled on water, and only spills reported to them. http://databases.sun-sentinel.com/news/ ... l_list.php

Spills are also becoming more frequent:

Quote:
Oil spills in U.S. waters from rigs and pipelines have more than quadrupled in this decade, government records show.

U.S. Minerals Management Services says the annual total of oil spills has increased from an average of four spills per year of 50 barrels or more in the 1990s to more than 17 per year from 2000 to 2009, USA Today reported Tuesday.

One barrel of oil is equal to 42 gallons, MMS says.

Figures indicate the company with the highest average number of spills this decade is oil giant BP, which has been trying to cap a well that has been spewing oil into the Gulf of Mexico since April 20.

Not counting the current spill, BP and its affiliated companies have reported 23 spills of 50 barrels or more since 2000.

MMS says Shell Oil Co. is next with 21 spills.


http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/06/ ... 276004328/


I think that's all very relevant, but it's nothing that can't be addressed. I think the spill issue are the result of two major issues, first that our requirements and expectations for transport aren't adequate, and secondly that our infrastructure is in need of upgrade.

I believe the first problem can be solved by tightening the licensing requirements for those who captain tankers and other ocean-going transport vessels moving petroleum and petroleum-related products/by-products (of the more volatile/dangerous nature, not plastic containers). I would even go so far as to suggest that more stringent standards be required of all who captain vessels in waters these type of vessels frequent, as at least one of the examples you and Eternal listed were the result of collisions. I also think this issue has gotten slightly better over time due to advances in our ability to track weather, so that these incidents aren't the result of vessels caught with their pants down when any type of tropical storm goes tear-assing through the Gulf of Mexico.

The second issue is the result of several factors, and one of them, unfortunately, is that there was apparently a huge failure in oversight. It was reported after the Deepwater-Horizon incident that inspectors and other employees of the Minerals Management Service, the division of the Interior Department responsible for enforcing regulations on off-shore rigs, were taking gifts from oil company representatives and that at least one had been negotiating for employment with a company whose rigs he inspected. Other reports found that scheduled inspections failed to occur on a regular basis, mainly because of weather preventing travel to-and-from the various sites, though some reports also show that poor planning by MMS also caused these lapses because of minor details like scheduling during planned helicopter maintenance.

There is also the issue again of cost, and again regulation plays a huge role in what those costs are. Because current regulations make infrastructure investments cost-prohibitive, what oil companies are doing is essentially treating infrastructure like an old Ford Pinto: instead of buying a new car, they're slapping new pieces on an old jalopy that is still falling apart because of age. This has been the case with our refineries since at least the Reagan administration. Let's say that the oil industry could begin replacing some of this aging infrastructure with equipment in a manner that would enhance their profitability, and that those replacements would cut pollution/emission by 1/4 and increase efficiency by 15%. The industry can't put those new pieces in because federal mandates require that new equipment, which would not enhance profitability due to a much greater cost, would require pollution/emission be cut by 1/2, and may not necessarily enhance efficiency in any way. While I agree that it would be great to cut the greatest amount of pollution/emissions possible, we're basically ensuring that we don't with current regulations, and creating a situation where there is an increased risk of infrastructure failure in the bargain.

Your Pal,
Jubber


AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: is the FED partially to blame for food and gas prices go
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:53 pm  
User avatar

Malodorous Moron
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:09 am
Posts: 747
Offline

this is both sides arguments, much better stated and it has some really meaty parts in it. It gets better as it goes along, if you get the chance to listen to it.

Esp. if you think the fed isn't to blame for our food and other prices inflation <3



Image
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

World of Warcraft phpBB template "WoWMoonclaw" created by MAËVAH (ex-MOONCLAW) (v3.0.8.0) - wowcr.net : World of Warcraft styles & videos
© World of Warcraft and Blizzard Entertainment are trademarks or registered trademarks of Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. in the U.S. and/or other countries. wowcr.net is in no way associated with Blizzard Entertainment.
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group