R.i.p.

[Laharl]

I bet energy prices will never go down again.

Energy prices will never again go down because the corporations have made a very cunning discovery: We need to pay their prices, and we can't do jack 'bout it. So they spend time generating excuses for high prices, so that when people complain they can turn around and say "No, see. There's a good reason for high prices! Look at our speculation. Eat our bull****. EAT IT."

The only solution is to protest all fuel products, for the next few years. If enough people did it...

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

Energy prices will never again go down because the corporations have made a very cunning discovery: We need to pay their prices, and we can't do jack 'bout it. So they spend time generating excuses for high prices, so that when people complain they can turn around and say "No, see. There's a good reason for high prices! Look at our speculation. Eat our bull****. EAT IT."

The only solution is to protest all fuel products, for the next few years. If enough people did it...

Thats not going to happen, people aren't just going to abandon their cars and the corporate sector isn't going to abandon their semi-trucks and planes and of course we need oil to generate electricity. Oil is the blood of any industrialized nation.

 

[x42bn6]

Thats not going to happen, people aren't just going to abandon their cars and the corporate sector isn't going to abandon their semi-trucks and planes and of course we need oil to generate electricity. Oil is the blood of any industrialized nation.

But it wouldn't harm to try.

The global warming issue has gently pushed its way into peoples' minds and slowly, at least where I am, the green issue has started to make minor inroads. Although it's taken many years, there's no reason why we can't start now.

I just hope it doesn't involve Live 8 concerts in the Arctic, though.*

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

But it wouldn't harm to try.

The global warming issue has gently pushed its way into peoples' minds and slowly, at least where I am, the green issue has started to make minor inroads. Although it's taken many years, there's no reason why we can't start now.

I just hope it doesn't involve Live 8 concerts in the Arctic, though.*

Eh...for the reason of getting a few laughs at other people's ignorance I listen to a conservative radio talk show then I drive to class every morning...the conservatives in US are trying to dismiss the global warming all together, some say that the earth is actually cooling. The thing is nothing is going to just happen, it will take 20 years to get establish the renewable infrastructure on any type of scale to make a difference in our emissions. The technology is certainly here, cars that run on hydrogen and nuclear fusion powerplants that create ten times as much electricity and produce no waste but what needs to happen is private individuals investing in those areas and not enough of them are convinced that global warming is real.

 

[torrid mind]

Thats not going to happen, people aren't just going to abandon their cars and the corporate sector isn't going to abandon their semi-trucks and planes and of course we need oil to generate electricity. Oil is the blood of any industrialized nation.

I would.
I will move to some remote island and live with NO electricity.
I mean ****, I squatted for a couple years of my life, living off the grid seems pretty ****ing nice right about now.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

I would.
I will move to some remote island and live with NO electricity.
I mean ****, I squatted for a couple years of my life, living off the grid seems pretty ****ing nice right about now.

Well, maybe you would, but the majority of us wouldn't. Replacing oil will take decades, in order to get rid of oil right now we will have to basically go back to living in the early 19th century. Isn't exactly good for economic growth, or progress in general...or living conditions for the majority of the population.

 

[torrid mind]

**** the population.
Back to survival of the fittest.

 

[Darkmatter]

I say we use a new type of energy and say **** you to the oil companies.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

**** the population.
Back to survival of the fittest.

Eh...do you really want the average life span to go back to 40 for men and most people's job being in the farming sector? Instead I would say we just put wires hooked to a car battery next to the balls of oil company CEOs and tell them to lower prices, which they can do very easily simply by starting to drill in more places (which are available to them even right now!), thus convincing the commodity traders who for some reason think that supply of oil is low (its the highest its ever been) that there is still plenty of oil left, thus the market will take its course and boom we got lower prices.

I say we use a new type of energy and say **** you to the oil companies.

Again, that will take 20-30 years to implement in any major way.

 

[torrid mind]

I know! Just stick a potato up every tailpipe in your town and then call Shell and thell them your whole town is on strike, maybe it will take everyone awhile to get the spuds out.

How would you get a potato out of your tailpipe anyway? giant corkscrew?

 

[Tipsy]

Thanks, but how exactly is not a way of reducing prices? Right now the prices are high even though demand is actually comparatively low, there are also oil fields out there, specifically in Alaska that the oil companies are legally allowed to drill but they don't because drilling there would influence speculation in a way that prices would go down. Speculation is regulated, right now its regulated by the actions of oil companies rather then actions of the consumers and thats not good. If you regulate it, you can lower the price, if you continue to regulate it the price will not rise.

It's because speculation is used in commodity markets so that future increases in prices can be hedged against. As a result prices are frozen (for example, say a barrel of oil is worth $150 and they promise to pay $175 for an extended period of time - prices are forced up, though there is stability for the company doing the speculating). The importance of the stability is that it allows costly investment allowing for new production, be it increases in drilling or R&D in alternative energy.

However, the bad in removing speculation is even worse. Supported by theory and real life examples, the removal of speculation from a commodity market causes a tight market meaning that the firm will increase their spot-market purchases to attempt to create the stability that is created by speculation. This version of hedging against rising prices rises prices even more than speculation does.

Short story is, speculation is the most efficient manner in which the firm can hedge against rising prices in that it will keep the prices the lowest. For future reference, when I use the term regulation I'm referring to government, though I completely understood what you meant when you used it in the context of consumers and oil companies.

Energy prices will never again go down because the corporations have made a very cunning discovery: We need to pay their prices, and we can't do jack 'bout it. So they spend time generating excuses for high prices, so that when people complain they can turn around and say "No, see. There's a good reason for high prices! Look at our speculation. Eat our bull****. EAT IT."

The only solution is to protest all fuel products, for the next few years. If enough people did it...

So why exactly would energy corporations wish to keep prices so extravagantly high so as to create monetary incentives for alternatives to rise. The people who run these corporations aren't dumb people surrounded by dumb people - they realize that such a high price is worse for them in the long term even with massive short term profit. All you have to do is look politically at support for alternatives (support for nuclear energy, subsidies, government investment in R&D) and the massive increase in private R&D in alternative energy. Demagoguing the oil corporations is a political expedient, not an economic reality.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

So why exactly would energy corporations wish to keep prices so extravagantly high so as to create monetary incentives for alternatives to rise. The people who run these corporations aren't dumb people surrounded by dumb people - they realize that such a high price is worse for them in the long term even with massive short term profit. All you have to do is look politically at support for alternatives (support for nuclear energy, subsidies, government investment in R&D) and the massive increase in private R&D in alternative energy. Demagoguing the oil corporations is a political expedient, not an economic reality.

I wouldn't get so carried away with that idea Tipsy. Oil companies are the ones out there with most money to conduct any type of research on alternative energies (except perhaps nuclear) and once **** hits the fan and the incentives of today are turned into actual infrastructure of tomorrow they'll be the ones making most money from it all since they are the ones who have the most funds available for R&D to maintain their share of the energy market. In the meanwhile before it happens they'll make top dollar by selling oil, its a win-win for them really. If they didn't want the prices up and if the prices were hurting them they would start drilling in the areas reserved for drilling in Alaska, although there would be no physical result for another 5 years as they develop the sites, the prices will go down within months since everything is based on speculation and oil companies exploring more oil sites gives people confidence.

 

[Tipsy]

I wouldn't get so carried away with that idea Tipsy. Oil companies are the ones out there with most money to conduct any type of research on alternative energies (except perhaps nuclear) and once **** hits the fan and the incentives of today are turned into actual infrastructure of tomorrow they'll be the ones making most money from it all since they are the ones who have the most funds available for R&D to maintain their share of the energy market. In the meanwhile before it happens they'll make top dollar by selling oil, its a win-win for them really. If they didn't want the prices up and if the prices were hurting them they would start drilling in the areas reserved for drilling in Alaska, although there would be no physical result for another 5 years as they develop the sites, the prices will go down within months since everything is based on speculation and oil companies exploring more oil sites gives people confidence.

I agree with everything you say here, it is the thing with Laharl talking about "So they spend time generating excuses for high prices, so that when people complain they can turn around and say "No, see. There's a good reason for high prices! Look at our speculation." The economic reality is as you put it, however with the added part of this is a result of the oil corporations responding to our demands and what is actually feasible, not "generating excuses for high prices" as Laharl put it. For example, why would oil corporations drill more and refine more if they would never get by with it due to special interest groups in Washington. I can look up the poll if you wish, but as recently as 2000 polls regularly showed that about 3/4 of the population regularly put environment over economy (which has been changing now). I remember you talking about your support for nuclear energy in the AS - why do you think a nuclear powerplant hasn't been opened in decades in the United States? They need approval from Washington and environmentalists would never allow it.

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

I agree with everything you say here, it is the thing with Laharl talking about "So they spend time generating excuses for high prices, so that when people complain they can turn around and say "No, see. There's a good reason for high prices! Look at our speculation." The economic reality is as you put it, however with the added part of this is a result of the oil corporations responding to our demands and what is actually feasible, not "generating excuses for high prices" as Laharl put it. For example, why would oil corporations drill more and refine more if they would never get by with it due to special interest groups in Washington. I can look up the poll if you wish, but as recently as 2000 polls regularly showed that about 3/4 of the population regularly put environment over economy (which has been changing now). I remember you talking about your support for nuclear energy in the AS - why do you think a nuclear powerplant hasn't been opened in decades in the United States? They need approval from Washington and environmentalists would never allow it.

And that means that the environmentalists are retarded. But I am talking about something else, I actually agree with Laharl somewhat, the thing is that there are sites in Alaska and elsewhere in US that were already approved for drilling by Washington but the oil corporations don't drill there because as Laharl put it they need excuses for keeping the prices high. With media not covering any of this their masterplan is working, people are convinced that oil is running low and thus the prices are increasing. The fact is that there is plenty of oil out there still and there is no shortage of supply like there was say back in 70s, the last time you guys had an energy crisis, thus the oil companies regulate speculation by lying to the public and the media is not covering any of this. I also love how the Senate gives those harsh talks to the oil company CEOs and then does nothing to back up their words with any sort of action.

P.S.: And yes I loves me some nuclear reactions, fission, fusion all sounds good to me....."You launch at that critical mass you dirty neutron you."

 

[Galatia]

The fact is that there is plenty of oil out there still and there is no shortage of supply like there was say back in 70s

The fact is that there is no more cheap oil out there. The oil left in Alaska can barely cover a very small part of the american demand - and it will cost a lot of money to drill it. The same goes for every oil producing country in the world. Yes, there is plenty of oil deep in the Brazilian oceans, for example, but the cost of drilling in such deep waters is extremely high. We are reaching the point where in order to drill one barrel we need to burn two - and this is the end of cheap oil.

Back in the '70s, the world population was half of what it is today and when the oil embargo took effect, the demand for oil dropped drammaticaly. Today, the demand keeps rising despite the high prices, even though the americans are cutting back on their oil use. Americans are no longer the major influence of the oil market and the existing oil supplies can't cover the global demand.

 

[Tipsy]

And that means that the environmentalists are retarded. But I am talking about something else, I actually agree with Laharl somewhat, the thing is that there are sites in Alaska and elsewhere in US that were already approved for drilling by Washington but the oil corporations don't drill there because as Laharl put it they need excuses for keeping the prices high. With media not covering any of this their masterplan is working, people are convinced that oil is running low and thus the prices are increasing. The fact is that there is plenty of oil out there still and there is no shortage of supply like there was say back in 70s, the last time you guys had an energy crisis, thus the oil companies regulate speculation by lying to the public and the media is not covering any of this. I also love how the Senate gives those harsh talks to the oil company CEOs and then does nothing to back up their words with any sort of action.

P.S.: And yes I loves me some nuclear reactions, fission, fusion all sounds good to me....."You launch at that critical mass you dirty neutron you."

It's not that simple. The fact you bring up is that oil companies have millions of acres of land that the federal government has leased to them for drilling. There are two things that need to be added to this to put it in perspective. First, not all of this land actually has oil. More importantly, oil companies will only drill where they can have a positive rate of return on drilling. The reason they keep asking for more land, notably offshore, is because they want to drill where it is easier and thus cheaper so they can have a positive rate of return.

You're right in that the oil is there and that oil companies choose not to drill it, but that's because on a lot of it they can't actually make a profit. That's not oil companies consciously trying to drive prices up, it's oil companies only pursuing profitable ventures.

Edit: A lot of what I said was what Gally just said; I didn't see her post.

 

[x42bn6]

Developing nations are starting to gently rival the United States in terms of oil consumption, too, in a contest I think nobody should try to win.

I suspect asking China to go green is going to be a lot harder than asking the United States to go green, though.*

 

[Uncle_Vanya]

The fact is that there is no more cheap oil out there. The oil left in Alaska can barely cover a very small part of the american demand - and it will cost a lot of money to drill it. The same goes for every oil producing country in the world. Yes, there is plenty of oil deep in the Brazilian oceans, for example, but the cost of drilling in such deep waters is extremely high. We are reaching the point where in order to drill one barrel we need to burn two - and this is the end of cheap oil.

Back in the '70s, the world population was half of what it is today and when the oil embargo took effect, the demand for oil dropped drammaticaly. Today, the demand keeps rising despite the high prices, even though the americans are cutting back on their oil use. Americans are no longer the major influence of the oil market and the existing oil supplies can't cover the global demand.

So we can blame the Chinese sons of bitches for this? I understand where you coming from, didn't look at it from this angle before, thanks.

It's not that simple. The fact you bring up is that oil companies have millions of acres of land that the federal government has leased to them for drilling. There are two things that need to be added to this to put it in perspective. First, not all of this land actually has oil. More importantly, oil companies will only drill where they can have a positive rate of return on drilling. The reason they keep asking for more land, notably offshore, is because they want to drill where it is easier and thus cheaper so they can have a positive rate of return.

You're right in that the oil is there and that oil companies choose not to drill it, but that's because on a lot of it they can't actually make a profit. That's not oil companies consciously trying to drive prices up, it's oil companies only pursuing profitable ventures.

Edit: A lot of what I said was what Gally just said; I didn't see her post.

But isn't driving the prices up a profitable venture for them?

 

[Jenny]

According to my economics teacher for my summer class, big truck and SUV sales haven't declined. I bet they will when they can't drive them anymore. My PoV is if you can afford you buy one you can probably afford to gas it. He may be wrong. I haven't seen less of them. I believe he also said they've got an increasing popularity over seas.

 

[Galatia]

According to Ford and GM, american sales have dropped drammatically. SVU's are still selling big in Europe, because the Euro is very strong and increasing gas prices don't look that bad over here (about 40% less).