Gettin better day by day. Maybe, by Labor Day, all those SUV owners will "get it" not to mention the corporations that force their employees to commute long distances instead of providing local neighborhood work centers and telecommuting options.

Change be a comin...

“Revolutions, before they happen, appear to be impossible and after they occur they appeared to have been inevitable.� - Alexis de Tocqueville

Amazing. Five years ago we would have shuddered at the idea of oil at $50, and $100 would have seemed unimaginable.

Now we're speculating whether it will reach $150, $170, or $200 (!)

Either this is going to turn out to all be a short-term bubble, or the world is going to be a very different place in a few years.

Gotta disagree with daCascadian.

I would have no problem if we had gotten to $140 oil by, say, implementing a $10/barrel tax in the early 90s and raising it $10 per year on a clear, predictable schedule. Everyone would know what was coming and could plan for it, and the money could be spent on useful stuff.

Instead, nobody knows where we're going or how this is going to end, the world's economy is peering into the abyss, and most of the profits are going to people, businesses, and regimes that I'm not enamored of.

Orwell writes: When you can make money doing something everybody wants to do it.

Let's see, you can make money by winning a Nobel Prize. Ergo, everybody wants to do it. Ergo, the number of Nobel Prizes must be skyrocketing.

Except, oh yeah, I forgot ... the supply of Nobel Prizes is limited. And oil is boundlessly plentiful. So much for that analogy.

What if al Qaeda attacked an oil production facility in Saudi Arabia?

How vulnerable is the Alaska pipeline? Other pipelines?

J

I would have no problem if we had gotten to $140 oil by, say, implementing a $10/barrel tax in the early 90s and raising it $10 per year on a clear, predictable schedule. Everyone would know what was coming and could plan for it, and the money could be spent on useful stuff.

The sad fact is that there *were* people proposing such a thing along with other forward looking solutions but they were shouted down by the ultra rich and by gullible and foolish people.

Humanity sucks at long term planning. That is a simple fact.

Carl Nyberg wrote: "How vulnerable is the Alaska pipeline?"

If I recall correctly, the Alaska pipeline was once shut down because a hunter mistook it for a bear and shot a hole in it with a hunting rifle.

I think we had been getting a little complacent over the last two or three weeks, starting to get a little used to the higher prices. Driving behavior has been interesting here in the midwest over the last three-four months. When the price really started to climb back in March-April, you could see people starting to react to it by driving less. I noticed that people actually were *slowing down* on the highway to 65 or 60 from 70 or 65mph. That happened through Memorial Day and peaked a few days after that. The last two or three weeks they have been speeding back up again (while the price stabilized or dropped slightly). I've heard more boomer cars of late. Could be summer, could be rebate cash going into junior's allowance for the first time in a while... But, I think that rebate cash is getting close to being tapped out again. Maybe it will get quieter and traffic slower in the next few days?

SecularAnimist: the Alaska pipeline was once shut down because a hunter mistook it for a bear

Maybe they should require an eye test to get a hunting license.

Those testifying (not idle chit chat) may be leaning a bit into their own pet peeves, like anyone else. But you shouldn't just blow off the idea that speculation has a big effect on oil (etc.) prices. At least take a look:

Link

It has to be a question of "how much" in any case. It just isn't credible that people trading oil futures wouldn't have some noticeable effect on prices, not just to be affected by them. It's not a matter of picking which theory, but of understanding all the causes.

$400 a barrel? I have no idea how people think we can get to that in the short term. I would guess that any crisis that severe would push the entire global economy into a massive deflationary recession, and the demand for crude would plummet.

On the other hand, I would have said the same thing about $150 a barrel crude a year ago. So keep your eyes out for my September comment about how a doubling of crude to $800 is an impossibility.

Incidentally, does anyone remember that commenter who told Kevin that if he really believed in peak oil, he would buy some long-dated $85 crude oil calls? Whatever happened to that guy?

If I recall correctly, the Alaska pipeline was once shut down because a hunter mistook it for a bear and shot a hole in it with a hunting rifle.

IIRC, it was an act of vandalism and not a mistake. However, I believe that the pipeline has been shutdown more frequently as a result of poor maintenance. Corrosion never sleeps.

Rapidly rising fuel costs will have no end to bad secondary effects. Transportation networks won't work on solar or wind power. Airline losses this year are projected somewhere north of $10 Billion. Goodbye tourism, goodbye business travel.

On the other hand, national manufacturing might - eventually - become feasible, once again. Why ship plastic dog poo from China when we can make it here?

"If I recall correctly, the Alaska pipeline was once shut down because a hunter mistook it for a bear and shot a hole in it with a hunting rifle."

That must have been a very powerful rifle to go through that much steel. Perhaps the pipeline was already very corroded. By the way, corrosion seems to pose a serious threat to pipelines. Much more so than terrorism because it is inevitable.

I saw a chart of oil prices on C-SPAN last night from an oil conference held at Rice U. on Tuesday. The almost verticle line of increasing oil prices was exactly like the one for home prices right before that bubble burst.

There certainly is a lot of heavy psychology pushing prices, IMO. I think the Libyan threat to cut production was some payback for us because Khaddafi is likely upset that they pussed out and got rid of their nuclear program before they realized what bumbling fools we would turn out to be in Iraq.

That must have been a very powerful rifle to go through that much steel.

You would be suprised at the power of the rifles frequently carried in bush. You might also be surprised at the penetrating power of a jacketed soft-point bullet fired from a garden variety 30.06.

People will start drilling for oil and refineries will be built!

Orwell, you idiot, conservatives are at least supposed to understand the law of supply and demand.

If the price of oils is trending upwards rapidly -- say, doubling in the last year -- oil companies would have little incentive to extract more of the resource now, when it'll likely be worth more later -- especially when the resulting scarcity makes what they do extract plenty valuable.

And if the supply is low and trending downward, there's no incentive at all to invest in new refineries -- monstrously expensive behemoths taking decades to recoup their investment -- since the reduced supply will make the excess capacity useless.

Jackass.

Did anyone happen to notice this yeasterday (yes yeasterday) from our own EIA

(quote)

WASHINGTON -- World energy demand will grow 50% over the next two decades, oil prices could rise to $186 a barrel and coal will remain the biggest source of electricity despite its effect on global warming, government experts predict.

The Energy Information Administration's long-range forecast to 2030 said the world is not close to abandoning fossil fuels. They will continue to be at the core of energy production in transportation and electricity generation, according to the report released Wednesday.
(end quote)

So, one day later- oil is predicted to rise above 170 this summer with no real increase in demand. I can't wait until that 50% increase in demand kicks in!!

Where do they think all of that cheap oil will come from?

So what cave do these guys live in? They predicted 80/barrel on the average for 2008 as late as May. I guess we'll have 30/barrel in December to even it out. Or maybe not..

"You might also be surprised at the penetrating power of a jacketed soft-point bullet fired from a garden variety 30.06."

Oh, I've fired my share of 30.06 rifles. They are quite powerful. I usually bruise my shoulder firing them (yeah, I'll admit it, I'm a wimp). But they make your penis double in size. It seems that way, at least. And I guess if you're hunting in Alaska, you'd want a gun at least that powerful. Bears are a lot bigger there than they are here in Colorado.

I see all this as good news.

With the good people of DC now guaranteed their right to arm themselves, with unemployment rising rapidly, with people losing their homes, with two wars continuing, with two right-wingers on the campaign trail, with the cost of education and health care rising and incomes stagnant, I see this summer as a potentially bloody one.

Good that people will be forced to stay in their homes instead of free to drive through the decaying waste that is America.

A woman told me today that she could no longer afford gas for her SUV and because her credit sucks she can't replace it with something that gets better mileage. The public transportation in KC is pathetic. I guess she is going to starve because she can't afford to go to work.

When Obama tells the story about the guy who couldn't afford gas to look for a job, believe it.

Listening to head in the sand elites and shit for brains politicians got us to this place. I guess we are all going to have to dig our way out. Lets not forget how we got here.

Your right, Brojo, right now we are in a bubble. That doesn't make things any better for us. Remember rolling blackouts just before Enron collapsed.

I am convinced, however, that long term the trend for oil is up, up and away. We have passed peak oil. It is just that we aren't supposed to hit $200 oil until the year 2030.

I made one personal gasoline trip this year, $10 in gas to pick up a check and pay-off my share of the county pension fund.

My gallons /individual per year is 1.5.

Presidential approval tracks gas prices pretty closely. It will be interesting to see if W can break the 20% approval floor.

I see all this as good news.

For the Republicans!

[/so-called "liberal media"]

It's the end of the world as we know it...

Literally.

"If the price of oils is trending upwards rapidly -- say, doubling in the last year -- oil companies would have little incentive to extract more of the resource now, when it'll likely be worth more later -- especially when the resulting scarcity makes what they do extract plenty valuable."
______________________

Jesus, it's amazing. Gregory knows even less about the economics of oil than he does about warfare.

It might sound a bit off topic, but it really really would effect the price of oil if it goes down wrongly. HR362 supposedly allows us to blockade Iran. As they don't have any oil refining capacity, they just might interpret that as an act of war. If they do, and they retaliate that would be the perfect excuse to bomb Iran -and claim they started it. Maybe this has something to do with the price?

Does anyone what what we are doing here?

bigTom, Future prices for oil are normally higher than the present spot price. Spot prices now are higher than the futures price. That typically happens when people are fearing a short term supply disruption. I think there is also some hoarding going on in Asia. They are building strategic petroleum reserves and designing more of them. Hoarding is the same as storing, it just implies a little more of a frenzy and irrationality to it. It sure seems like a lot of people are worried about something.

Fostert - Does the 30.06 rifle really double penis size? Someone should tell thersites. That way he could save money on boner pills.

Trashy wrote: Jesus, it's amazing. Gregory knows even less about the economics of oil than he does about warfare.

Oh, that's rich, coming from someone who claims we're succeeding in Iraq, Trashy. Care to back up that, um, devastating critique with a few specifics?

Fun Fact: There are about 900 million cars/trucks in the world.This is not counting motorcycles,scooters,motorbikes,ect. The total will increase to ? by ?.

weenie,

Only if you shoot frequently. How many pairs of shoes will it take for me to find out?

J >"Gotta disagree with daCascadian...."

And I would care about your ignorant opinion why ?

The world has had (at minimum) 35 years to adjust to the "petroleum issue" in public policy & hasn`t done sh*t.

Carter attempted to raise awareness and had his political career destroyed by "head up their anal canal" types like you & trashhauler.

Then President NoMind came along and delusion was king. "Screw reality, time to party on Garth !" was the mantra. He was followed by The Puppet of Petroleum Interests who tried to stir up reasons to seize the largest remaining petroleum reserves for his partners in crime. He was followed by The Financial Bubble Boy (backed by a different group of gangsters) who offended the known world by actually being able to get (OMG !!!) regular blow jobs. Then along came Son of The Puppet of Petroleum Interests who said screw it, we`re just gonna grab what we want & we don`t care about the consequences.

Time to pay the piper a**wipes. Your selfish delusions have killed millions (at least) and destroyed institutions that took generations to bring into being so the average human could raise their head out of the muck and be somewhat comfortable.

So STFU and take your medicine because the party is O V E R. Hope you enjoyed it.

There are straight forward ways out of this dead end but there is little chance for them to be taken until things get really messy & more humans die.

So, how long before you folks pull your collective heads out of your anal canals ? How many humans need to die ?

Fu*kin self absorbed jerks.

“What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so.� - Mark Twain

"Carter attempted to raise awareness and had his political career destroyed by 'head up their anal canal' types like you & trashhauler."
______________________

Heh, and here I always thought President Carter's career was sunk by that record-breaking "misery index" that was all the rage at that time. Of course, you admired his policies - no doubt you would have chuckled at mass famine, as well.

Misery mongers like yourself don't need a reason to spread bad news - you just get off on it. Misery likes company and you must be one miserable SOB.

Instead, nobody knows where we're going or how this is going to end, the world's economy is peering into the abyss, and most of the profits are going to people, businesses, and regimes that I'm not enamored of. Posted by: J

Actually, the only two major economies that haven't done any long term planning for this are the U.S. and China. For example, they just finished a new subway line in Tokyo last month, and gasoline has been more than $5.00/gallon there for years with the taxes on it going to fund transit.

We've made virtually no investment in mass transit of any kind, and the authoritarian (but none too bright) Chinese government is allowing the importation and manufacture of the same out sized and overpowered vehicles heretofore favored by Americans.

The adage still holds to a degree that if the American economy sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold. However, the biggest immediate problem for the U.S. economy is still the subprime meltdown credit crunch. With gas at nearly $5/gallon, I still haven't seen too many SUVs and pick-up trucks up on blocks in the yard of the middle-income area I live in and it's still damned hard to find parking at the mall or at Costco on a Saturday.

Gregory knows even less about the economics of oil than he does about warfare.

Still, I bet he knows more than trashauler knows about the federal laws applicable to hiring career DOJ employees. Not, of course, that that kept trashauler from shooting his ignorant mouth off about it....

Stefan >"...Not, of course, that that kept trashauler from shooting his ignorant mouth off about it...."

Anyone care to bet how many more years he has in junior high ?

"...Never was such a cleverness used in the design of making us all stupid...." - Voltaire

"Fostert - Does the 30.06 rifle really double penis size?"

It probably doesn't actually do it, but it sure feels that way. But if you really want to feel that way, I'd recommend the Browning Automatic Rifle. It's like a 30.06, but fully automatic. It kicks some serious ass. It's a shame the clips are so small, though. In the end, my AK-47 is probably a better gun (and has 30 round clips), but there's something really cool about the BAR. And the bipod mount is way cool.

Care to back up that, um, devastating critique with a few specifics?
__________________________

You might start, gregory, with the understanding that there is more than one sort of oil company. While an up-and-running sweet crude producer might want to control supply for later profits, there are other actors who would not. Those that only refine crude and distribute oil products will be eager for new supplies, even if those supplies are not as easily refinable as the stuff from the Persian Gulf.

From an Apr 4, 2008 report to Congress:

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/103679.pdf

Crude oil prices spot prices reached $110 per barrel in the first quarter of 2008.
Should the price of crude oil remain at, or above, $100 per barrel for large portions
of the year, the profits of oil producing firms should be high. However, the economic
conditions will likely be difficult for firms that refine crude oil, but do not have their
own supplies. It is likely that a greater effort will be made by refiners to adapt
technologies that allow them to use heavy, sour, oil stocks. These lower quality
crude oils are more readily available than high quality oils and sell at a price discount
relative to the reference oils, West Texas Intermediate, for example.

The ones getting richest off of high oil prices are the current crude producers and commodity traders who are betting that the prices will continue to rise. Note that neither type will be bothered by government intervention, such as taxes on integrated oil companies.

Conservation, as we now know it, will have only a small impact on the price of crude. A two or three percent decrease in gasoline use is nothing compared to crude prices that increase 100%. The only thing that will slow the rise of crude prices is an increase, or at least the threat of an eventual increase, in supply, hopefully coupled with a concerted effort to develop other sources of energy.

And here's another kicker you probably haven't thought about: the companies best positioned to develop those other energies in the scale we need are likely to be those same energy companies you dislike so much. If the government makes altermative energy massively profitable, those big oil companies will simply diversify, buy up the pioneers, and continue on their merry way.

"Still, I bet he knows more than trashauler knows about the federal laws applicable to hiring career DOJ employees. Not, of course, that that kept trashauler from shooting his ignorant mouth off about it...."
__________________

Were you up in arms when Attorney General Reno demanded the resignation of all US District Attorneys? Geez, you guys play naive real well, when it suits you.

Should have IMPEACHED while oil was still cheap. Holding a gun on the oil producing states just makes them less co-operative with US. NOT TOO LATE, though, call Nan @1-202-225-0100.

Mike, you are too fucking stupid to live. Shut the fuck up. Seriously? How fucking sad is it for you to come here every fucking day and post your little impeachment rants and phone number? SHUT THE FUCK UP you clueless douche nozzle.

Apparently you can buy a device that allows you to quickly and easily drain the gas from a car. Even with locked gascaps, this is an epidemic in my neighborhood. One or two cars a night being drained.

Welcome to the new drug market - gasoline.

Ha, ha, ha, ha.............

Give it up trashy, everyone knows US Attorney is a political position and it is standard procedure for an incoming administration to replace them.

Surely even you aren't that naive.

Disingeniuous, yes, but then you are a Republican troll, lies and distortion are the only tools you have.

Looks like Stefan is right, again.

Mike, ignore Pat.
But please please please top making bad movies, okay pal?

Let's not forget how much of the increase in oil prices is actually attributable to the decline of the dollar. While the price of oil has risen 352% in dollars since 2000, it's only risen 134% in Euros (from 38 Euros/bbl. to 89 Euros/bbl).

If today's dollar/Euro exchange rate was still the same as it was in 2000, then oil would would still be selling for roughly $73/bbl.

So a huge part of the rise in oil prices should really be attributed to the weakness of the dollar.

When you factor in the impact of the changing exchange rate, then $140/bbl oil doesn't look quite so crazy anymore....

Either this is going to turn out to all be a short-term bubble, or the world is going to be a very different place in a few years.

I don't think people realize that it's only just begun. They may feel a little squeezed right now but think surely it'll get better soon. A rude awakening is coming.

"Give it up trashy, everyone knows US Attorney is a political position and it is standard procedure for an incoming administration to replace them."
_____________________

That was my point, moron, or weren't you paying attention? None of you dim bulbs seemed to notice that I did not express approval of either the Republicans or the Democrats attempts at shifting the allegiance of the US Attorneys. They differed in method only, which is why I referred to the "spoils system." Acknowledging something is quite different from approving of it. Of course, you idiots apparently think it's fine, so long as the right people - people you approve of - are the one manipulating the system.

That's also fine. But don't try to come off all high and mighty superior about it. Corruption is still corruption, even if you like the people doing the corrupting.

"And here's another kicker you probably haven't thought about: the companies best positioned to develop those other energies in the scale we need are likely to be those same energy companies you dislike so much."

Umm, no. I've thought about it, and not just in this industry. I know damn well that Phillip Morris will be able to roll the fattest of fatties when marijuana is legalized. And I'm looking forward to that day. But that's because tobacco companies know quite a lot about rolling organic matter with paper. How much do oil companies really know about manufacturing solar cells? Not much. And even the glowing predictions I receive from my Exxon Mobil annual reports don't convince me that they know how to do it. And the delivery mechanism is very different. You can't force solar cells through a pipeline. Intel would probably be better prepared to deal with large scale solar cell production than Exxon Mobil. They understand the forming of silicon and the attaching of electrical conductors way better than any oil company. That's why they make chips and Exxon Mobil makes oil.

You might start, gregory, with the understanding that there is more than one sort of oil company. While an up-and-running sweet crude producer might want to control supply for later profits, there are other actors who would not. Those that only refine crude and distribute oil products will be eager for new supplies, even if those supplies are not as easily refinable as the stuff from the Persian Gulf.

That's a pretty interesting theory -- except that the biggest players explore, produce, refine, AND distribute. There's every incentive for them to keep supply as low as possible somewhere along the chain, which prior to the peak they did by preventing new refineries from being built, particularly when they can achieve record-shattering profits with minimal effort given the skykrocketing price of oil.

Of course, it is all much more complicated than this, but Gregory's remark was not completely off base.

As far as the oil and gas giants being particularly suited to develop alternative energy sources, other than in the area of synfuels there's little basis for that claim. Solar, wind, battery power, microgeneration -- these and others have entirely different manufacturing and infrastructure requirements than petroleum.

Sure, uber-wealthy oil and gas companies might buy ultimately up these technologies -- but that should be a real concern given their horrible ethical and environmental track record to date, not a smug raspberry to someone calling them out on it.

That was my point, moron, or weren't you paying attention?

No, you weren't paying attention. The U.S. attorneys under Bush weren't let go at the beginning of the administration as part of the usual changing of the guard -- which has nothing to do with "corruption," by the way, you jackass.

In fact, they were let go after years of faithful service and stellar records when they refused to be pressured by the DOJ to break the law by engaging in political prosecutions aimed at Democrats, and a number of them are willing to testify to that effect.

Gotta hand it to you for the tireless propaganda campaign in the face of continuous smackdowns, though. 90% of success is just showing up, right?

But don't try to come off all high and mighty superior about it. Corruption is still corruption, even if you like the people doing the corrupting.

In fact you're the one who makes false equivalences on this blog on a regular basis and dismisses Republican wrongdoing or lawbreaking because you believe someone else did it in the past. There is no Republican wrongdoing so perverse or craven that you haven't dismissed it on this blog as immaterial or irrelevant in some way. You're in dire need of a moral compass.

Bring it On!!!! Mission Accomplished!!!!

Misery mongers like yourself don't need a reason to spread bad news - you just get off on it. Misery likes company and you must be one miserable SOB.

And you can keep smiling happily as you push your SUV to work!

Don't worry - be happy!

Jackass.

"In fact, they were let go after years of faithful service and stellar records...."
____________________

Whereas the DAs dismissed by Reno were just nasty old Republican hacks, is that it?

You people are scary, trex. Your stupid insults mean nothing, but there are some among you who would make it a crime just to disagree with you. That's reason enough for me to be here.

thersites: Everyone's a movie critic these dayz.

Pat: YOU do know that Dennis Kucinich has done the paperwork and read 35 counts of IMPEACHMENT into the Congressional Record and those passed the juciciary vote 255-161. THE ONLY MOVE LEFT IS PELOSI.(1-202-225-0100) (but I guess YOU"re afraid of WINNING for once or maybe YOU just want Bush to stay in office and keep ruining the country)

trashhauler, you really are a stupid dishonest hack.

For the last time, it is normal for the President to replace most of the U.S. Attorneys he inherits from a predecessor of the other party. Ronald Reagan replaced 89 of 93 U.S. Attorneys during his first two years. Clinton also replaced 89 of 93 U.S. Attorneys during his first two years. And nobody complained when G.W. Bush replaced 88 of them during his first two years.

Firing 7 of the U.S. Attorney he himself had appointed on one day and up to 4 more over the previous two year is a whole different ballgame. Particularly when that is followed by trying to replace them under a new and obscure provision of the Patriot Act that bypasses Senate confirmation, then repeatedly lying about why they were dismissed and using every trick in the book to delay and obstruct any outside investigations.

It is also completely different and blatantly illegal to politicize the hiring of civil-service positions such as the D.O.J. Honors program which is the more recent issue.

Mike: Call us when the shuttle lands you pathetic moonbat. NEWSFLASH: Dennis Kucinich is a kook, and a laughingstock among Demcrats on Capitol Hill. The Senate can't even get 60 votes for cloture on countless billls and you think supermajorities are going to appear magically nad impeach Bush in his last sic months in office. Keep living in fantasy land you fucking crackpot.

As for the current topic of this thread, the potential gains from improved efficiency are on the order of 30-50% not 2-3%.

In the area of transportation, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 will raise the CAFE from 27.5 to 35 mpg by 2020, will require the NHTSA to establish the "maximum feasible" fuel economy requirements levels after that and put more efficiency requirements on light and heavy trucks.

In addition, efficiency improvements can be brought online much faster than increased fossil fuel supplies. It takes up to 10 years to bring a new oil fields into productions and both ANWR and offshore reserves together could provide only a tiny fraction of our annual consumption.

It could be worse. You might be filling your car up in the UK. A quick calculation tells me that I spent more than $160 filling up (1.21GBP a litre, 68 litres, 1.95 exchange rate).

We are definitely starting to see people reconsider how to get from one place to another - which is frankly excellent news. It's going to require some short term pain, but it needs to happen.

Firing 7 of the U.S. Attorney he himself had appointed on one day and up to 4 more over the previous two year is a whole different ballgame. Particularly when that is followed by trying to replace them under a new and obscure provision of the Patriot Act that bypasses Senate confirmation, then repeatedly lying about why they were dismissed and using every trick in the book to delay and obstruct any outside investigations.

And on top of that, there's abundant evidence that these US attorneys were fired because they were perceieved as not engaging in corrupt governance -- either not bringing illegally partisan prosecutions (see: Don Siegelman) or not soft-pedaling investigations of Republicans.

Trashy really

As for your rebuttal to me, Trashy, you assert -- without evidence -- that "other actors" will fill the gap, but as trex points out, there's precious little room in the system for other actors to extract more oil. We aren't talking Texas wildcat wells, here. Oil extraction involves a massive investment in infrastructure and equipment that aren't exactly suitable for upstart startups.

In fact, your subsequent assertion in the same post that only the big oil companies have the capacity to provide the supply necessary to reduce prices proves my point. You've already tacitly admitted that they have little incentive to drive down the price of a commodity that's skyrocketing in value.

On top of all of that, there's the obvious point that, as oil prices have steadily climbed, production has not in fact increased. Your predictions of what could happen to drive down prices haven't happened, while my analysis -- while broad and general -- fits the available facts.

You rail about "ignorance" while spewing the usual neocon bullshit about how we're winning in Iraq and your opponents desire defeat, while posting rebuttals that prove your opponent's point about oil supply and while pretending that the US attorney firings isn't any special level of corruption. Such a departure from reality can be attributed to ignorance or dishonesty. In your case, Trashy, you've provided abundant evidence it's the latter. Shame on you.

"As for your rebuttal to me, Trashy, you assert -- without evidence -- that "other actors" will fill the gap, but as trex points out, there's precious little room in the system for other actors to extract more oil.
______________________

Pretty weak, Greg. Only you could write that I made an assertion without evidence about a post in which I cited a government report on the very point you dispute.

You neglect the fact that until recently the price of oil was not high enough to encourage large scale exploitation of the harder to refine oil sources - Canadian oil sands, American oil shale and less refinable crude in all sorts of places. That didn't prevent oil companies from trying to get permission to open those oil regions with known reserves of sweet crude - ANWR and off the coasts. If they were all intent on keeping supply low, they would not have been trying to open those areas, now would they? The industry is not monolithic and the urge to compete still exists within it.

The sudden rise in prices lately makes the non-traditional sources of crude more attractive. Barring government roadblocks, they'll soon begin using those other sources.

Weak indeed, Trashy. You quoted the report thus:

Crude oil prices spot prices reached $110 per barrel in the first quarter of 2008.
Should the price of crude oil remain at, or above, $100 per barrel for large portions
of the year, the profits of oil producing firms should be high. However, the economic
conditions will likely be difficult for firms that refine crude oil, but do not have their
own supplies. It is likely that a greater effort will be made by refiners to adapt
technologies that allow them to use heavy, sour, oil stocks. These lower quality
crude oils are more readily available than high quality oils and sell at a price discount
relative to the reference oils, West Texas Intermediate, for example.

Though the report notes that "Should the price of crude oil remain at, or above, $100 per barrel for large portions
of the year, the profits of oil producing firms should be high," there is not one word there that oil producing firms will increase production -- leaving my point that oil producers have no motivation to do so when the price is steadily rising, so existing reserves will be worthm ore in the future, unassailed -- nor that "other actors" you imagine will enter the scene.

So yes, Trashy, your assertion that "You might start, gregory, with the understanding that there is more than one sort of oil company. While an up-and-running sweet crude producer might want to control supply for later profits, there are other actors who would not" is, in fact, without evidence.

That didn't prevent oil companies from trying to get permission to open those oil regions with known reserves of sweet crude - ANWR and off the coasts. If they were all intent on keeping supply low, they would not have been trying to open those areas, now would they?

Trashy, you jackass, neither ANWR nor undeveloped offshore oil reserves are likely to come on line anytime soon -- we're talking years. Yes, as crude oil reserves dwindle, oil companies -- who do, after all, need something to sell -- are seeking to ensure their supply lines in the future. My point that they have no incentive to increase production right now stands, and furthermore, there's nothing to indicate that the reserves you mentioned will increase the overall supply, as opposed to simply being alternatives to the dwindling existing supplies.

Again, Trashy, only a complete moron or a deeply dishonest person would argue as you are. In your case, the second conclusion is unavoidable -- your disgusting false equivalence in the characterization of the US Attorney scandal is proof enough alone -- but it's becoming increasingly difficult to avoid concluding that the first must be true as well. Shame on you, Trashy.

After years of debating with dead-ender Bush apologists in these threads, I'm more and more convinced that a lack of critical thinking skills is essential to movement conservatism.

Holy oleo if this comment section isn't typical.

"Look, this line of ink is vertical like the final seconds of Fat Boy before it exploded."

Chartwatchers need to take a glimpse at the real world now and then. The bubbles in this market account for no more than the head on a beer.

"It is the falling dollar that accounts for much of it."

This disputes the bubble theory nicely. It also points out that in addition to rising oil prices the GOP borrow-all-you-can chickens are coming home to roost. Double whammy.

And my personal favorite, the typical troll misdirection of "look over there." I think they learned this from the Scientology motto of "Always attack, never defend."

Now to add to Doc's description of what he is seeing in the real world, this is what I am seeing.

Many semi's have definitely started driving slower. In addition some SUVs or maybe nervous Nellies have done the same. Also, if an SUV is actually driving fast then most of the time it is, as Doc guessed, Junior behind the wheel pissing away Mom and Dad's money faster than at a casino.

I have also seen more motorcycles and even scooters than in the past 10-20 years.

People with the means are changing. It is too little too late, and with China soon having a middle class larger than ours and quickly reaching the same number of cars that we have it won't help very much. But that is what happens when we are lulled to sleep for years by GOP BS.

Meanwhile Bush is escaping the US to take his fool's act around the world. I'm serious about this one. All the pitiful guy has left is his idiotic fool routine and it is embarrassing as hell to think he represents the US.

Speaking of Trashy's disgusting, dishonest delusions, his long history of carrying water for the mendacious, corrupt, incompetent and tyrannical Bush Administration means that there's little he could say that surprises me, but I admit I was astonished at this:

there are some among you who would make it a crime just to disagree with you. That's reason enough for me to be here.

"there are some among you who would make it a crime just to disagree with you"? Who, Trashy? Name names. And since this very thread shows that your criticial thinking and partisan interpretation are highly suspect, by all means do provide a cite to back it up.

As for "enough for you to be here," I hate to break it to you, but you aren't some noble advocate of freedom. Your dishonorable dishonesty lets out noble, and your advocacy of the Bush Administration demonstrates that you can't possibly give a shit about liberty; only partisan advantage. You're here to spew bullshit in service of a pack of criminals, hacks and petty tyrants -- and badly, at that. Shame on you, Trashy.

Sure, the looming massive rejection by the American people of movement conservatism and neocon warmongering probably does scare you. But yor paranoia doesn't excuse your dishonesty.

Again: exactly who here would make it a crime just to disagree with you? Put up or shut up.

Shorter trashhauler:

We'll extract smaller amounts of more expensive oil so the price keeps rising but China can buy more and more cars as they call in the massive GOP debt we owe them.

Yes, that is very comforting.

Gregory,

trashhauler is simply following the scientology motto of "Always attack, never defend." Like a typical authoritarian follower he is not really capable of reason. He can parrot back certain responses but he cannot follow any normal chain of reasoning.

When his parroted response reaches a dead end he tries to change the subject.

That was my point, moron, or weren't you paying attention?

No, you incredible twat, you're the one not paying attention. The thread on which you made your idiotic statement was discussing the recent Justice Department finding that the Bush regime illegally politicized the hiring of career civil service positions, and it had nothing to do with the US Attorneys case, because US Attorneys are political appointees, not career employees. Your pea brain doesn't seem to be able to understand the difference -- or you're once again lying.

I'll make it very simple for you: the DOJ Honors Program that the recent report was about were hires for civil service positions, and political affilition cannot be taken into consideration when hiring for such career positions. A US Attorney -- not a career position.

Or even simpler: Apple. Orange. Apple. Orange. Get it?

When his parroted response reaches a dead end he tries to change the subject.

Which would make the liberal blogosphere the John Cleese character in the Monty Python sketch, trying, with decreasing patience, to convey the obvious fact of the parrot's death.

Trashhauler wrote: "there are some among you who would make it a crime just to disagree with you"

Poor pitiful conservative victimhood at the hands of powerful liberal elites -- it's the Gospel According To Rush Limbaugh.

Gregory,

After years of debating with dead-ender Bush apologists in these threads, I'm more and more convinced that a lack of critical thinking skills is essential to movement conservatism.

Have you seen this book? It explains so much. It is free on the web too.

Gas consumption is down 2.1% from last year, so of course it is in OPEC's best interest to stir up the speculators into the driving the price of oil back up. There was no disruption in supply that caused the price to increase. It was pure speculation based on the comments of OPEC's president.

A US Attorney -- not a career position.

Not only that, Stefan, even if the USAs "serve at the pleasure of the President," his political minions firing the attorneys because they wouldn't cooperate in subverting the Justice Department to political partisanship -- by pursuing bogus charges against Democrats, while soft-pedaling investigations of guilty Republicans -- is itself deeply immoral and unacceptable, if not criminal.

I might add, to further discredit Trashy's unbeleivable paranoia and martyr complex, that the US Attorney scandal revealed that the Bush Justice Department already has pursued or sought to pursue bogus criminal charges against those who disagreed with them -- or, more aptly, stood as rivals to their amassing of political power. Don Siegleman, to name just one.

Even if Trashy is able to nutpick a few of Kevin's threads and produce a quote or two, I'll see that and raise it the Bush DOJ. And here's Trashy defending their actions by false equivalence. Shame on you, Trashy.

Not only that, Stefan, even if the USAs "serve at the pleasure of the President," his political minions firing the attorneys because they wouldn't cooperate in subverting the Justice Department to political partisanship -- by pursuing bogus charges against Democrats, while soft-pedaling investigations of guilty Republicans -- is itself deeply immoral and unacceptable, if not criminal.

Actually, it's criminal as well, if the firing is done for the purpose of obstructing an ongoing criminal investigation, or for the purpose of suborning malicious or false prosecution.

Thanks, Stefan, I thought so but wasn't sure.

Here's one for daCascadian

"One of the indictments of civilizations is that happiness and intelligence are so rarely found in the same person".
-William Feather

Thw W. Bush fired USA's were vetted Republicans. They were fired because they would not make false accusations and charges against White House identified political opponents.

"[N]either ANWR nor undeveloped offshore oil reserves are likely to come on line anytime soon -- we're talking years...My point that they have no incentive to increase production right now stands."
______________________

Actually, it sounds like you are saying they have no capacity to increase production immediately, regardless of incentive, but nevermind. You'll change your tune as soon as the Democratic leadership decides it is politically expedient to support more oil. The one constant folks like you have is that your definition of the truth changes with the whatever is today's Party line.

Trashy wrote: Actually, it sounds like you are saying they have no capacity to increase production immediately, regardless of incentive

To recap what I said to "Orwell" upthread:

If the price of oils is trending upwards rapidly -- say, doubling in the last year -- oil companies would have little incentive to extract more of the resource now, when it'll likely be worth more later -- especially when the resulting scarcity makes what they do extract plenty valuable.

And if the supply is low and trending downward, there's no incentive at all to invest in new refineries -- monstrously expensive behemoths taking decades to recoup their investment -- since the reduced supply will make the excess capacity useless.

So no, Trashy, I've been saying that oil producers have little incentive to increase production now. I simply also pointed out that your counterexamples -- ANWR and offshore drilling -- fail to give them that capacity even if they wanted it.

You'll change your tune as soon as the Democratic leadership decides it is politically expedient to support more oil. The one constant folks like you have is that your definition of the truth changes with the whatever is today's Party line.

Oh, that's rich coming from you, Trashy! I'll take your post -- one misstatement of my position, one grumbling prediction that I'll "change my tune" and one feeble claim that my "definition of the truth changes with the whatever is today's Party line" (geez, Trashty, projection much?) as a concession you don't have an actual response to my arguments, which seem pretty darn consistent to me.

If you want to talk inconsistency, how about you address Stefan's crituque of your false equivalence between changing political DOJ appointees at the beginning of a Presidential term and the Bush Administration's abuse of the civil service hiring process and criminal manipulation of partisan prosecutions and obstruction of investigations.

And speaking of truth and your scurrilous accusations, Trashy, you laid down a mighty big marker upthread, and -- quelle suprise! -- failed to respond to the challenge to back up your word. So again: exactly who here would make it a crime just to disagree with you? Put up or shut up.

It's increasingly clear, Trashy, that you aren't here for good-faith debate, if you're even capable of it. As such, you have no right to complain when your bad behavior is greeted with the contempt it deserves.

And just to re-emphasize, Trashy -- I noted to "Orwell" that the rapidly increasing price of crude oil gives producers little incentive to supply more of this scare resource, given that the supply will likely be worth much more in the near future.

You called this basic citation of the law of supply and demand a demonstration of ignorance. Yet you've done bugger all to show that it's incorrect. In fact, as you just demonstrated for all and sundry, you're reduced to dishonestly paraphrasing my point.

I rejoice, yet again, that our respective statements remain on this thread for all to see and judge. (Not to mention your lack of response to trex, Stefan and others.) For all the nasty accusations you've laid down in this thread, Trashy, your own postings reflect much, much more poorly on you, Trashy. You've achieved nothing but once again trashing your own reputation -- such as it is -- to carry water for a corrupt, mendacious, incompetent and tyrannical cabal.

It should go without saying that I don't plan to wait around for you to back up your accusations about jailing dissenters -- though the Bush Administration you carry water for has demonstrably done that very thing. All in all, another virtuoso demonstration of your dishonesty and lack of criticial thinking, Trashy. Shame on you.

For the last time, it is normal for the President to replace most of the U.S. Attorneys he inherits from a predecessor of the other party...Firing 7 of the U.S. Attorney he himself had appointed on one day and up to 4 more over the previous two year is a whole different ballgame.
_______________________

How so? What is the allowable cutoff for replacing personnel in order to get some who are more ideologically close to the President's own position? Two weeks? Six months? One year? If it's allowable immediately after taking office, then why not later?

The method used is irrelevant. If a law was broken, then file out a criminal complaint. Otherwise, it's all just political hot air.

trashhauler >"Actually, it sounds like you are saying they have no capacity to increase production immediately..."

Well he didn`t say that but if he had he would be correct. Of course you have not a clue about the petroleum business & how it actually functions. Currently the petroleum community (world wide) does NOT have the capacity to increase production by any significant amount due to resource restraints. There is a shortage of steel pipe and drilling rigs for instance not to mention many of the experienced petroleum engineers & workers are retiring. Also there are problems with many of the projects already underway coming in late (some VERY late.)

I`ll leave the whole question of how much petroleum there might actually be below ground to extract to the pros like Matt Simmons. Maybe you`ll want to argue with him but I`ll warn you he`s been financing energy projects for over 30 years so he does know his stuff.

I`ll help you out here. If you want to have a reasonable sense of what is actually going on in the global petroleum community start by reading the posts at The Oil Drum, which is home to many people in the business and others in related areas of the global economy (like finance & transportation). I feel duty bound to warn you however that if you try your usual games over there those folks will dance on your head regularly because they are savvy people that don`t tolerate silly juvenile ignorance like yours.

trashhauler >"...You'll change your tune as soon as the Democratic leadership decides it is politically expedient to support more oil...."

Doesn`t matter what the so called Democratic leadership decides cause the resources to do so are NOT available. Maybe aliens will show up and supply some steel pipe and drilling rigs & you will be proven correct.

Don`t hold your breath waiting though.

BTW, do they still have recess in junior high school these days ?

“Men argue; nature acts.� - Voltaire

How so?

How so? Because it was done for the criminal purpose of obstructing ongoing criminal investigations of Republicans, and in order to get rid of Republican USAs who refused to initiate unfounded politically-motivated prosecutions of Democrats.

What is the allowable cutoff for replacing personnel in order to get some who are more ideologically close to the President's own position? Two weeks? Six months? One year? If it's allowable immediately after taking office, then why not later?

You slavering twat, it's not the timing that's the issue, it's the motivation. If the president wants he can fire the whole batch of USAs every week and start the confirmation process over again. What he can't do is fire them because they won't engage in illegal criminal conspiracies for his partisan political gain, and what he can't do is try to institute a back-door system to try to fill the offices without Congressional approval, and what he can't do is lie to and obstruct Congress when it attempts to exercise its legally mandated oversight authority.

The method used is irrelevant. If a law was broken, then file out a criminal complaint.

Brilliant, except that the law was broken by the very people who were supposed to enforce it. That's why it's a big issue, because the Republicans attempted to turn what should have been a non-partisan law enforcement agency into a partisan arm of the GOP that could be used to persecute its Democratic political opponents. This is behavior that smacks of a Third World autocracy such as Zimbabwe.

Moreover, in the case of the DOJ Honors Program, the law against politicizing the hiring of civil service employees was clearly broken, as even the Bush DOJ concedes in its own report on the matter.

I have to admit, I'm really wavering whether he's continuing this argument because he enjoys the blatant lying or whether he's honestly this stupid. But then again, isn't "dumb,evil or both?" the constant question one must always ask about right-wingers?

Stefan wrote: I have to admit, I'm really wavering whether he's continuing this argument because he enjoys the blatant lying or whether he's honestly this stupid. But then again, isn't "dumb,evil or both?" the constant question one must always ask about right-wingers?

As I said upthread, some of his arguments are mind-bogglingly stupid, but there isn't any doubt as to Trashy's dishonesty. He has now pointedly refused to acknowledge the demand that he provide something substantive to back up his vile accusation that "there are some among you who would make it a crime just to disagree with you."

Trashy seems to enjoy insulting this forum with his bad faith discourse.

Then again, I love this: What is the allowable cutoff for replacing personnel in order to get some who are more ideologically close to the President's own position?

Thanks for the remarkable tacit admission that pursuing politically motivated prosecutions, and softpedaling investigations of Republicans, is "more ideologically close to the President's own position." And you accuse this forum that "there are some among you who would make it a crime just to disagree with you"?

Jackass.