GOP Props Up Gas Prices

Badmutha · #21 (**permalink**) 07-25-2008, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toxic

Scum guzzling Republicans vote to block release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Vote to keep prices high for their buddies raping America.

Price of oil when Democrats took over Congress??.....$50.00/barrel

Who are you blaming again?

Obama's Empty Suit · #22 (**permalink**) 07-25-2008, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

An extra million barrels a day from ANWR in forty years when Exxon finally decides to produce it isn't going to affect prices this year, next year, or twenty years from now.

This is total bullshit, ANWR would be up and running within 5-10 years and Exxon isn't the only company who would be involved, contrary to your evil empire fantasy. Furthermore it has nothing to do with the offshore ban which is at the heart of the current debate.

Quote:

Exxon with all its advanced knowledge and technology hasn't managed to figure out how to get oil from the patch of land right next to ANWR even after trying for three decades and 25 years after drilling six oil gushers out of seven exploratory wells in Point Thomson and getting approval to produce it.

This red herring again.... The mere mention of Point Thomson must be like viagra to you old fart. Unfortunately for your worn out argument, government red tape regarding construction of the gas pipeline and the order of how the Oil/Gas resources are produced, is what has held up Point Thomson not Exxon.

Quote:

So, if Exxon had leases today in ANWR and was authorized to cover it with toxic waste, it still couldn't affect oil prices in the lifetimes of anyone reading this.

Why do Alaskan's support opening ANWR to oil production you geezer? They are the only humans on the planet who would be effected, yet they endorse it. (Along with 75% of Americans) Go figure....

First off, why do you assume that Exxon would be the only company interested in developing ANWR?

Secondly, if you believe Exxon would drag it's feet on producing there, then your far fetched enviro disaster scenario wouldn't occur during our lifetime either. Right?

And finally, covering ANWR's 19 million acres in toxic waste with a drilling footprint smaller than LaGuardia Airport is impossible, even if every extracted drop was dumped at the site. Wake up dumbass...

Back to your "Red Herring". One more time you decrepit old fuck.

The Point Thomson Verdict

Quote:

Anyone who is familiar with the history of Point Thomson knows it is a complicated high pressure reservoir and the required investments in infrastructure will be unmatched by anything currently in operation at the North Slope.

Quote:

With Point Thomson being primarily a gas field with an estimated nine trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves, the field plays a critical role in the development of Alaska's natural gas pipeline plans.

Quote:

The governor’s office has stated that they believe that they could get the leases back from the Point Thomson owners within three years. What they haven’t considered is that it will take 15 to 20 years for the Point Thomson leases to be ready to sell gas under their strategy.

The most economically viable project for bringing Alaska’s North Slope Gas to market is a large diameter pipeline through Canada. This can only occur if both Point Thomson gas and Prudhoe Bay gas participate at an open season and commit their gas to the project. Otherwise there will only be enough gas committed at an open season for a much smaller diameter pipeline.

The route the governor has taken will preclude any owner of Point Thomson, whether current owners or future owners, from participating in a future open season until they produce the Point Thomson oil reserves.

Quote:

The Point Thomson Unit owners in their 22nd Plan of Development proposed to perform the appropriate engineering and do whatever was necessary to be ready to participate in an open season if one were to occur. In other words, they are committed to producing the gas in the unit at the first available opportunity.

Quote:

DNR wanted the oil produced prior to the gas being produced. This position would not stall participation in a gas pipeline project so long as the oil project could be permitted, engineered, designed, constructed and produced for at least 5 years prior to the first open season of the gas pipeline project.

The problem is that it will take at least 6 years for someone to permit, design and construct facilities at Point Thomson prior to developing the oil. Then the oil will need to be produced for at least 5 years before gas development can occur. That is 11 years from the point when someone commits to move forward with an oil project until they can commit to sell or ship gas in a gas pipeline.

Quote:

Assuming the governor’s office is correct that it takes only three years to complete the litigation with the Point Thomson Unit owners and they are able to issue new leases within a year, and assuming that the new owners can develop and produce the oil timely, Point Thomson gas may be ready to sell or ship gas sometime around 2025. If anything goes wrong or is delayed either with the litigation or development, gas won’t be available for years beyond 2025.

If the Point Thomson Unit owners win the litigation, they can proceed with the plan of development they proposed and be ready for the first open season, even an open season under AGIA. If the State wins the litigation then a few hundred million barrels of oil will get produced starting around 2020 and the 8 trillion cubic feet of Point Thomson gas will wait its turn until around 2025 to be produced.

Quote:

The governor probably didn’t intend to prevent Point Thomson gas from being produced for 20 years, but sometimes you need to count the cost of your actions before you proceed with your plan.

Badmutha · #23 (**permalink**) 07-26-2008, 01:32 PM

Who was propping again?

StormanNorman · #24 (**permalink**) 07-26-2008, 03:47 PM

This will likely once again fall on deaf ears...but, gas prices have been on the rise since about year 2000....with a temporary down turn in the 9/11 timeframe. The current rising trend in gas prices began in earnest in 2002. And the worst complete year since that time was 2005 where the average price that year (in real dollars) rose by about 24% compared to the prvious year. 2008, however, is on pace to be worse than 2005.

Teak · #25 (**permalink**) 07-26-2008, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

This will likely once again fall on deaf ears...but, gas prices have been on the rise since about year 2000....with a temporary down turn in the 9/11 timeframe. The current rising trend in gas prices began in earnest in 2002. And the worst complete year since that time was 2005 where the average price that year (in real dollars) rose by about 24% compared to the prvious year. 2008, however, is on pace to be worse than 2005.

Real numbers, not trends:

Average price of Gasoline, all grades:

Jan 2000 - $1.31
Jan 2007 - $2.28 (an increase of $0.97 in 6 YEARS)
Jul 2008 - $4.11 (an increase of $1.83 in 19 MONTHS)

JUDGE FOR YOUR SELF.

Source: eia.doe.gov.

StormanNorman · #26 (**permalink**) 07-27-2008, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teak

Real numbers, not trends:

Average price of Gasoline, all grades:

Jan 2000 - $1.31
Jan 2007 - $2.28 (an increase of $0.97 in 6 YEARS)
Jul 2008 - $4.11 (an increase of $1.83 in 19 MONTHS)

JUDGE FOR YOUR SELF.

Source: eia.doe.gov.

I have judged, Teak....in fact, I've ran the numbers several times and used different statistical techniques, linear & exponential regression, etc....and the current increasing trend began in 2000 and began in earnest in 2002 with the worst complete year since 2000 being 2005. Picking out finite discrete data points doesn't tell you very much, Teak...that's a Badmutha tactic. For example, the prices for most of 2005 and 2006 hovered between $3.00 and $3.10...and were up to $3.20 in October 2006 before a substantial dip in prices during the winter. What caused the dip....I don't know...do you? But, by May 2007 they were back up to $3.20.

Anyway, just make a graph, Teak...and don't cherry pick data points. Anyone...and I mean anyone can see from the graph of the data that the increasing trend began in 2000 (maybe even January 1999) or 2002 (if you discount the effects of 9-11) and with a few hick ups has continued up to the current time. Lots of blame to go around, Teak...try not to be so partisan when assessing it. See the graph in the link (post #10).

Democrats set a new record!!!

Badmutha · #27 (**permalink**) 07-28-2008, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

I have judged, Teak....in fact, I've ran the numbers several times and used different statistical techniques, linear & exponential regression, etc....and the current increasing trend began in 2000 and began in earnest in 2002 with the worst complete year since 2000 being 2005. Picking out finite discrete data points doesn't tell you very much, Teak...that's a Badmutha tactic. For example, the prices for most of 2005 and 2006 hovered between $3.00 and $3.10...and were up to $3.20 in October 2006 before a substantial dip in prices during the winter. What caused the dip....I don't know...do you? But, by May 2007 they were back up to $3.20.

Norm cmon....how many times have we been through this....you like to base your argument on gas prices...so lets take a look

But what drives the price of gas....its predominantly the price of oil....

Norm...regardless of what technique you wish to use.....it doesnt change the facts.

Bush/Republican Congress took office with oil around $30/barrel and republicans left Congress at around $50/barrel

Democrats took control of Congress with oil around $50/barrel and then drove the price up to almost $150/barrel

Norm...it seems you dont like my facts and graphs.....but lets put that aside for a moment....and just answer me one question.

Is this the democrats "COMMON SENSE SOLUTION" in action?????

When does the "SOLUTION" start or kick in???....and why do all liberal solutions require the public to bend over and assume the liberal position???

Can the USA afford any more of the democrats "COMMON SENSE SOLUTIONS"?

George O Well · #28 (**permalink**) 07-28-2008, 11:58 AM

"Supply has nothing to do with high gas prices."

>>>Very true, asswax. Right now we're paying a $1.80 per gallon 'speculator' tax.

Badmutha · #29 (**permalink**) 07-28-2008, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George O Well

"
Right now we're paying a $1.80 per gallon 'speculator' tax.

Speculating that the USA will have a tree hugging anti-oil president...and an increasing majority of tree hugging liberals in the Congress and their Sierra Club NO-Energy policies.....

If you were an investor....a speculator if you will....what would you bet that democrats will continue to drive up the price of oil???

Any investor with active brain waves would have the same response.. All In.

George O Well · #30 (**permalink**) 07-28-2008, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Speculating that the USA will have a tree hugging anti-oil president...and an increasing majority of tree hugging liberals in the Congress and their Sierra Club NO-Energy policies.....

>>>Tree huggers have nothing to do with it. The Phil Graham-led speculator/rapists know that the more oil/gas they can withold from the market the greater their profits will be.

Even factoring in the tree huggers, the economic cost of a gallon of gas is $2.20. That includes getting it out of the ground, shipping it to the U.S., refining it, delivering it to the gas stations, and mark-up for the gas station operators. $2.20/gallon.