In the Summer of 2008, the last hurrah of George W. Bush, gas prices were at $4 a gallon. Talking heads like Glenn Beck blamed "supply and demand" for the price, and not speculators on Wall Street. Of course, in the summer of 2008 we were already in recession.

Now let's look at today. Two months ago, the BP spill began. Soon after, all oil work in the Gulf was shut down. Most U.S. oil comes from domestic sources like the Gulf.

Yet, over six weeks, gas prices have gone...down.

The truth is when Republicans are in charge, they let the petroleum companies and their traders game the market. When the Democrats are in charge, they don't do it because they know the Dems will burn them by releasing oil from the strategic reserve.

This is the truth about gas prices.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Here is why prices have gone down:

• The European debt crisis escalated. This undermined confidence in the strength of the global economic recovery and prompted analysts to lower their energy demand forecasts. The crisis also sent institutional investors flocking to the dollar, a relative safe haven. And, these days, when the dollar goes up http://www.currency-converter.com/articles/us-dollar-goes-up-against-the-euro84666, the price of oil goes down. Oil is traded in dollars.

• Supplies of gasoline have risen steadily. As of April 30, the U.S. had 225 million barrels of gasoline in storage — about 5% more than a year ago. Output from refineries has been growing faster than demand.

• Political unrest in oil-producing nations has been muted. This is a wild card that could change quickly. But lately, violence in Nigeria and tensions in the Middle East have been relatively minor, traders say. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2010-05-12-gasoline-prices-forecast_N.htm

WTL fiction: "Most U.S. oil comes from domestic sources like the Gulf."

Fact: "The massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has had no impact on fuel prices because it's had only minimal impact on petroleum production." http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2010-05-12-gasoline-prices-forecast_N.htm


WTL fiction: "The truth is when Republicans are in charge, they let the petroleum companies and their traders game the market. When the Democrats are in charge, they don't do it because they know the Dems will burn them by releasing oil from the strategic reserve."

You have no evidence for this claim. If you do, let's see it.

Fact of the matter is that a month's worth of crude petroleum reserves is not going to frighten the oil industry into holding down prices. Nor does the history of strategic reserve petroleum sales and loans track with your thesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve

anonymous RV post

WTL Fail Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> WTL fiction: "Most U.S. oil comes from domestic
> sources like the Gulf."


FACT :

43% of the petroleum consumed by the US is from domestic sources.

19% of the imported petroleum consumed by the US is from Canada (#1 import)

11% of the imported petroleum consumed by the US is from Mexico (imposible to say
how much, but most likely most is from Gulf rigs)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/ask/crudeoil_faqs.asp

31% of total US domestic oil production is from the Gulf
http://www.gravmag.com/faq.shtml



so therefore we can conclude that much of our consumed petroleum is in fact domestically produced from the Gulf. And MOST of our consumed petroleum is from other domestic and North American sources.


Dear WTL Fail,

Just because Glen Beck told you it was true doesn't make it so!


EDIT: I do concede that sources from the internet are not known for their stellar reputation. So I tried to get most of my info from the Department of Energy. I consider that to be more accurate then wikipedia WTL Fail.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2010 04:41PM by somepeople.

Oh one more tidbit

Nearly all US domestically produced petroleum is consumed within the US except for very few exports to Canada.

Same sources

somepeople Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WTL Fail Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> > WTL fiction: "Most U.S. oil comes from domestic
> > sources like the Gulf."
>
>
> FACT :
>
> 43% of the petroleum consumed by the US is from
> domestic sources.
>
> 19% of the imported petroleum consumed by the US
> is from Canada (#1 import)
>
> 11% of the imported petroleum consumed by the US
> is from Mexico (imposible to say
> how much, but most likely most is from
> Gulf rigs)
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/ask/crudeoil_faqs.asp
>
> 31% of total US domestic oil production is from
> the Gulf
> http://www.gravmag.com/faq.shtml
>
>
>
> so therefore we can conclude that much of our
> consumed petroleum is in fact domestically
> produced from the Gulf. And MOST of our consumed
> petroleum is from other domestic and North
> American sources.
>
>
> Dear WTL Fail,
>
> Just because Glen Beck told you it was true
> doesn't make it so!
>
>
> EDIT: I do concede that sources from the internet
> are not known for their stellar reputation. So I
> tried to get most of my info from the Department
> of Energy. I consider that to be more accurate
> then wikipedia WTL Fail.

somepeople,

Perhaps you should look up the definition of "most" and get back to us. 43% is not "most." Your other numbers do not even support your claim. Nice Glen Beck dig, but all that really accomplished was making you look like a petty jackass, particularly after your own statistics fail to support your illogical conclusion.

>
> somepeople,
>
> Perhaps you should look up the definition of
> "most" and get back to us. 43% is not "most."
> Your other numbers do not even support your claim.
> Nice Glen Beck dig, but all that really
> accomplished was making you look like a petty
> jackass, particularly after your own statistics
> fail to support your illogical conclusion.

Hey, dumbfuck. "Most" is in reference to domestic AND North American sources. Last time I looked, Mexico and Canada were in North America and were not among the 43 percent of domestic sources. Factor that production in before trying to challenge someone, fucktard.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2010 02:50PM by WashingTone-Locian.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Hey, dumbfuck. "Most" is in reference to domestic
> AND North American sources. Last time I looked,
> Mexico and Canada were in North America and were
> not among the 43 percent of domestic sources.
> Factor that production in before trying to
> challenge someone, fucktard.

Perhaps you and somepeople should pool your resources and purchase a dictionary.

do·mes·tic
adj.
4. Of or relating to a country's internal affairs: domestic issues such as tax rates and highway construction.
5. Produced in or indigenous to a particular country: domestic oil; domestic wine.


See where is says country and NOT continent? Therein lies your problem (well, at least one of them).

morepeople Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Hey, dumbfuck. "Most" is in reference to
> domestic
> > AND North American sources. Last time I looked,
> > Mexico and Canada were in North America and
> were
> > not among the 43 percent of domestic sources.
> > Factor that production in before trying to
> > challenge someone, fucktard.
>
> Perhaps you and somepeople should pool your
> resources and purchase a dictionary.
>
> do·mes·tic
> adj.
> 4. Of or relating to a country's internal affairs:
> domestic issues such as tax rates and highway
> construction.
> 5. Produced in or indigenous to a particular
> country: domestic oil; domestic wine.
>
>
> See where is says country and NOT continent?
> Therein lies your problem (well, at least one of
> them).




WTL did say domestic AND North America, you're just splitting hairs at this point.

Blessed are the murderous.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> morepeople Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > Hey, dumbfuck. "Most" is in reference to
> > domestic
> > > AND North American sources. Last time I
> looked,
> > > Mexico and Canada were in North America and
> > were
> > > not among the 43 percent of domestic sources.
> > > Factor that production in before trying to
> > > challenge someone, fucktard.
> >
> > Perhaps you and somepeople should pool your
> > resources and purchase a dictionary.
> >
> > do·mes·tic
> > adj.
> > 4. Of or relating to a country's internal
> affairs:
> > domestic issues such as tax rates and highway
> > construction.
> > 5. Produced in or indigenous to a particular
> > country: domestic oil; domestic wine.
> >
> >
> > See where is says country and NOT continent?
> > Therein lies your problem (well, at least one
> of
> > them).
>
>
>
>
> WTL did say domestic AND North America, you're
> just splitting hairs at this point.

He didn't say that in the first post. He is qualifying his post after being called out on it. in the original post, WTL said:

"Most U.S. oil comes from domestic sources like the Gulf."


There is no mention of North America.


It is hardly splitting hairs.

Good morning everyone!

I clearly said MUCH of our DOMESTIC oil production comes from the Gulf of Mexico.

and MOST of our CONSUMED PETROLEUM is from NORTH AMERICA. Learn to read !


YES you are right WTL did not mention NORTH AMERICA in his OP. I mentioned North America because it was relevant to some of the retarded things the second poster 'WTL FAIL' said.

somepeople Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good morning everyone!

Good morning to you as well.

> I clearly said MUCH of our DOMESTIC oil production
> comes from the Gulf of Mexico.

According to your own statistic, it is not even 1/3.

> and MOST of our CONSUMED PETROLEUM is from NORTH
> AMERICA. Learn to read !

Learn to post clearly. And N. America has no bearing on WTL's original assertion regarding DOMESTIC oil.

> YES you are right WTL did not mention NORTH
> AMERICA in his OP. I mentioned North America
> because it was relevant to some of the retarded
> things the second poster 'WTL FAIL' said.

It really isn't relevant when the word DOMESTIC is used. Mexico and Canada are NOT "domestic" sources of oil.

WTL Fail Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is why prices have gone down:
>

> • Supplies of gasoline have risen steadily. As of
> April 30, the U.S. had 225 million barrels of
> gasoline in storage — about 5% more than a year
> ago. Output from refineries has been growing
> faster than demand.

True, However we have no where near the refinery capacity to keep fuel prices low during a robust and sustained period of economic growth. Escalating fuel costs will act as a governor on our economy when it begins to grow. Unfortunately high fuel prices will also affect inflation in a negative way by causing prices on consumables and virtually everything to increase.
>
> • Political unrest in oil-producing nations has
> been muted. This is a wild card that could change
> quickly. But lately, violence in Nigeria and
> tensions in the Middle East have been relatively
> minor, traders say.

Good point that you can't emphasize enough. Our current "whistling by the graveyard" style of dealing with Iran will eventually backfire with devastating results too numerous to address here.

>
> WTL fiction: "Most U.S. oil comes from domestic
> sources like the Gulf."

The rest of the argument is inconsequential. This, http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_wco_k_w.htm is where crude oil and refined fuels come from. Just a little more complicated then what most people think (Including Glenn Beck). My consultants drive me crazy trying to analyse this type of info. into anything related to a sane investment strategy.

Most of you here know it doesn't really matter where the oil is pumped from as it is traded on a global pool basis.


As far as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or (SPR) it is also somewhat inconsequential in having ability to meaningfully affect the price of crude.
The SPR was meant as an alternative source to make up for a discreet supply disruption, and not as a means of flooding the market in times of high prices. Yet politicians, especially with consumers' anger at the pump in recent years, have been tempted to tap the SPR or to at least criticize the President for refusing to do so. With oil having reached the $100 per barrel mark, and gasoline remaining well above $3.00 per gallon not so long ago, Congressional calls to release oil from the SPR increased.
But the SPR is not up to the task of making oil cheaper--at least not for very long. The world uses about 86 million barrels of oil per day, and U.S. consumption accounts for 21 million barrels of that total. Relative to this, the 700 million barrels in the SPR is not very much. Granted, an extra 3 to 4 million barrels per day would lower prices, but the SPR could maintain that pace for no more than six months. After that, the price of oil would likely return to its previous level, and the SPR would be empty and thus no longer available for its intended purpose as an insurance policy against a supply disruption. It would then take many years to refill the SPR.

The price was inexorably marching upwards again - the Euro debt crisis put the rise on hold for the time being.

I'm not sure Dems or Republicans are gaming the market...but I do think to a degree the oil companies are. For the past several years the petro giants have been reaping their biggest profits ever. When gas prices reached $4 p/gallon and they saw where the tipping point was (~$3.25-$3.50 before people start to really howl), I think they have been working in lockstep to get to that level.

Assuming I'm totally wrong, which I could be, there is the simple supply/demand formula at play also that makes for compelling argument (I don't listen to Beck or any conservatives). Petro stores are not increasing, petro discoveries are increasingly rare or in very difficult to access location. Petro consumption is increasing (especially in rising giants - India/China, rest of the 3rd world).

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a finite (though no one knows exactly how finite - but most agree we've reached/very near/just passed the peak) + an infinite demand = a time when oil costs will go up and continue going up as long as we need it.

We should be converting to NG today - pretty much any new car being built. The stores of NG are more abundant and easier to access than Oil at this point. It is also cleaner, and could serve as an excellent bridge until we perfect some other energy or get more nuclear plants online to supply the electricity needed for electric vehicles.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Like WTL , I thought for the longest time that is was some massive conspiracy controlling the oil markets. I got angry enough with the $4 a gallon while filling my 17mpg weekend driver that I did a little research ..this is what Ive figured out so far..

"WTL fail" is correct about market influences.. But what pissed people off so much was the the seemingly lack of rhyme or reason to the large day to day market fluctuations and asymmetrical pricing .

During the $120 a barrel days, the US dollar was at a new low.. $1.47 to the euro, This prompted hedge fund managers to move the investments from currency to commodities. Specifically crude oil and gold.. The huge influx of cash in the commodities market caused a momentary scarcity and forced the prices up. And to contribute to the trouble, all oil traded in the world is pegged to the dollar. So if the dollar is worth less, it buys less oil .

The wide fluctuations were caused by a couple things, and Im sure several more.
- hedge fund traders buying up as many contracts as they could to cover past currency investments. Then figured they could buy on speculation, with out real money ever trading hands..and this would drive the price up even faster. Some even went as far as buying entire tanker ships and holding them out of port.

- Electronic trading, would auto buy or auto sell huge amount of oil contracts at the whiff of a market change or geo/political problems, even if none actually existed. Such as monthly Chinese productions reports showing a slight increase, or a blip in the dollar exchange rate and many other inaccurate near-term indicators.

Due to the high $/barrel, and wide fluctuations, the refiners could not meet the crack spread that allowed them to make enough money on 1 barrel of oil. Combined with this and the price swings, they were no longer buying contracts in 90-120 days but now buying less oil on 30-60 day contracts. This created a scarcity on the wholesale supply side, effectively removing the cushion we normally see between oil price changes and the price at the pump.

All of these contributed to the price at the pump jumping up 10-15 cents in a day After some tensions were relieved in the market and the speculators moved on to catch the end of the Mortgage backed securities train. The oil market corrected downward and is at a more normal level.

We are seeing the price inch up again, However at a much more predictable and way.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We should be converting to NG today - pretty much
> any new car being built. The stores of NG are more
> abundant and easier to access than Oil at this
> point. It is also cleaner, and could serve as an
> excellent bridge until we perfect some other
> energy or get more nuclear plants online to supply
> the electricity needed for electric vehicles.



I don't think roads filled with vehicles that have pressurized fuel tanks is such a great idea.

Blessed are the murderous.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think roads filled with vehicles that have
> pressurized fuel tanks is such a great idea.

The trucks and buses are already moving that way. And I can't see how that is much worse than a car full of large batteries and a gasoline tank.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> The trucks and buses are already moving that way.
> And I can't see how that is much worse than a car
> full of large batteries and a gasoline tank.



I wonder how much battery acid spills out when hybrids crash...

geeze Glen - sorry for upsetting you and your little chalk board.

All I ever stated were facts. Facts that are on the department of energy website. There is nothing political about the percentages I quoted. They were just plain old numbers. I didn't even try to politicize the numbers with some kind of conspiracy theories about hedge funds, republicans, democrats, GW Bush, ExxonMobil, or god knows what. I don't understand why you are getting your panties in a bunch. Was it the dig at that drop out Beck? I think that's what got you so heated. Sorry it was just a joke, the dude only has a high school diploma, and constantly says radical things. And is usually wrong.

my statement that MUCH of our oil production comes from the Gulf (31%) is true.

much:
1. A large quantity or amount
2. Something great or remarkable

31% is alot, it's the plurality of US domestic oil sources so I felt the word MUCH was in order.



My statement that MOST of our oil comes from North America is also true. Because MOST meas over 50% and over 50% of our oil does come from North America.
http://www.eia.doe.gov



Now the context: WashingTone-Locian & WTL Fail had a dispute about where our oil was coming from - whether it was near by or in some far off war torn land and if that had anything to do with prices of gasoline. I gave no speculation of why gas costs go up and down. I just presented numbers, true numbers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2010 12:43AM by somepeople.

somepeople Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> geeze Glen - sorry for upsetting you and your
> little chalk board.

Good attempt to divert, but, just as your previous attempt it fails. I realize it is the intellectual dishonest way to attempt to prove your point by making a Glenn Beck joke. Really, all you have done is proven you are pretty much a less intellectual person than he is, and that is a pretty low bar by any standards. But, hey, good luck with that.

> All I ever stated were facts. Facts that are on
> the department of energy website. There is
> nothing political about the percentages I quoted.

Well, you don't really understand how those percentages add up. Ever hear of apples and oranges? Here is a clue - you can't add up Mexico's oil extraction and Canada's and call them "domestic." It just doesn't work that way. I'm sorry if you think it does. One thing about your "facts" does add up, you just can't seem to understand how.


> They were just plain old numbers. I didn't even
> try to politicize the numbers with some kind of
> conspiracy theories about hedge funds,
> republicans, democrats, GW Bush, ExxonMobil, or
> god knows what. I don't understand why you are
> getting your panties in a bunch. Was it the dig
> at that drop out Beck? I think that's what got you
> so heated. Sorry it was just a joke, the dude
> only has a high school diploma, and constantly
> says radical things. And is usually wrong.


Ever hear of percentages of percentages? Well, it is obvious you haven't. Beck, again, I could give a flying fuck. Although, you seem a bit obsessed with the guy.

> my statement that MUCH of our oil production comes
> from the Gulf (31%) is true.
>
> much:
> 1. A large quantity or amount
> 2. Something great or remarkable
>
> 31% is alot, it's the plurality of US domestic oil
> sources so I felt the word MUCH was in order.

ever hear of the term weasel?

> My statement that MOST of our oil comes from North
> America is also true. Because MOST meas over 50%
> and over 50% of our oil does come from North
> America.
> http://www.eia.doe.gov
>
>
>
> Now the context: WashingTone-Locian & WTL Fail
> had a dispute about where our oil was coming from
> - whether it was near by or in some far off war
> torn land and if that had anything to do with
> prices of gasoline. I gave no speculation of why
> gas costs go up and down. I just presented
> numbers, true numbers.


Not really, but you can pretend you did, and I won't say anything.

I just don't understand why you are so mad about generally accepted information that is on the Department of Energy's own website.

And I do understand percentages of percentages. That was taken into account in the very first post I made. Go look at the website, take out your calculator and get back to me.



Edit: thank you Hal for the proofread



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2010 04:20AM by somepeople.

@somepeople, "generally excepted" means it is viewed by most with serious objections. "Generally accepted" is what I think you meant, but that's not what you wrote.

@op,

Your original post is just a part of the truth.

Unfortunately, you can never say "truth" to people who don't understand their own beliefs or why they believe them, it scares them.

Mention either political party, and you are sure to cause great discomfort for at least half of the still-faithful, because you are attacking their dear leader and saying nice things about the enemy.

Just look at all the "yeah but" excuses -- yeah, but Europe. yeah, but recesssion, yeah but this, yeah but that.

I still have a small scrap of faith in mankind and intelligence, so I have to assume that some people know they are spouting out random excuses to avoid acknowledging cognitive dissonance, but the rest are just aping what they heard over and over again on their favorite party-approved cable news outlet, and could not use those same excuses, where applicable, in other contexts, unless they heard someone else apply it to that new context on one of their approved outlets.

To put it more succinctly, these people don't necessarily believe or even understand any of what they are talking about. All they know is that they feel like part of some "in crowd", and therefore are simply happy to go along with whatever that crowd says (over and over again.)

Hal I. Burton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @somepeople, "generally excepted" means it is
> viewed by most with serious objections.
> "Generally accepted" is what I think you meant,
> but that's not what you wrote.
>
> @op,
>
> Your original post is just a part of the truth.
>
> Unfortunately, you can never say "truth" to people
> who don't understand their own beliefs or why they
> believe them, it scares them.
>
> Mention either political party, and you are sure
> to cause great discomfort for at least half of the
> still-faithful, because you are attacking their
> dear leader and saying nice things about the
> enemy.
>
> Just look at all the "yeah but" excuses -- yeah,
> but Europe. yeah, but recesssion, yeah but this,
> yeah but that.
>
> I still have a small scrap of faith in mankind and
> intelligence, so I have to assume that some people
> know they are spouting out random excuses to avoid
> acknowledging cognitive dissonance, but the rest
> are just aping what they heard over and over again
> on their favorite party-approved cable news
> outlet, and could not use those same excuses,
> where applicable, in other contexts, unless they
> heard someone else apply it to that new context on
> one of their approved outlets.
>
> To put it more succinctly, these people don't
> necessarily believe or even understand any of what
> they are talking about. All they know is that
> they feel like part of some "in crowd", and
> therefore are simply happy to go along with
> whatever that crowd says (over and over again.)



I completely agree with what you've stated. As I said earlier I try to avoid getting into never ending debates about things such as what causes gas prices to go up. There is no end to a debate like that. I just put the numbers out that I read from the most unbiased source I could find. And my statements are correct about the percentages.. I don't want to go back and explain it. But go to the DOE site and use a calculator for 10 min and you will figure it out. All the numbers were off the same two charts. I just don't get why it infuriates people, I never publicly pondered what the numbers meant; I never speculated what they would mean for the future. I just stated the percents since the original numbers in the OP were challenged. I thought id just clear some stuff up.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2010 04:33AM by somepeople.

somepeople Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I completely agree with what you've stated. As I
> said earlier I try to avoid getting into never
> ending debates about things such as what causes
> gas prices to go up. There is no end to a debate
> like that. I just put the numbers out that I read
> from the most unbiased source I could find. And
> my statements are correct about the percentages..
> I don't want to go back and explain it. But go to
> the DOE site and use a calculator for 10 min and
> you will figure it out. All the numbers were off
> the same two charts. I just don't get why it
> infuriates people, I never publicly pondered what
> the numbers meant; I never speculated what they
> would mean for the future. I just stated the
> percents since the original numbers in the OP were
> challenged. I thought id just clear some stuff
> up.


I don't doubt the numbers. It doesn't appear that anyone is actually refuting the numbers, they are more or less just trying to maintain a grasp on the poorly formed understanding of the real world that these numbers appear to shatter.

People get really mad when you point out hypocrisy, either in their heroes or in their beliefs. Some people are completely invested in a politcal party, and even though their political beliefs are handed to them and they don't fully understand them, they will hold on tight anytime those beliefs appear to be threatened. Too much information is a threat, because their belief was built on very little information. Life's everyday contradictions threaten their beliefs, because simple people need simple explanations like "it was the bad guy that did it. The good guys saved the day. You're one of the good guys."

Shit, I could do an entire PhD dissertation on the anthropology of the politically manipulated within a society and how they will fight to the death to defend even those things that are actually against their best interests, because the information they have has been given to them by the very people doing them the most harm.

somepeople Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just don't understand why you are so mad about
> generally accepted information that is on the
> Department of Energy's own website.
>
> And I do understand percentages of percentages.
> That was taken into account in the very first post
> I made. Go look at the website, take out your
> calculator and get back to me.
>
>
>
> Edit: thank you Hal for the proofread


First of all, I am not mad. Second of all, I don't have an issue with the info on the DoE website. I have an issue with your distortion of that information.

morepeople Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> somepeople Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I just don't understand why you are so mad
> about
> > generally accepted information that is on the
> > Department of Energy's own website.
> >
> > And I do understand percentages of percentages.
>
> > That was taken into account in the very first
> post
> > I made. Go look at the website, take out your
> > calculator and get back to me.
> >
> >
> >
> > Edit: thank you Hal for the proofread
>
>
> First of all, I am not mad. Second of all, I
> don't have an issue with the info on the DoE
> website. I have an issue with your distortion of
> that information.


Information can be distorted? It can be misrepresented?!?!

Fuck! Who should I trust? Glenn Beck? Keith Olbermann?

Please, tell me which one I should trust.

The truth is the gas prices go UP because speculators WANT them to go up. It has NOTHING to do with Supply and demand. Its a commodity that gets traded and bet on with futures. If a Nigerian oil well or refinery gets taken over should that make the price of a barrel of Oil really go up$5 dollars? NO, ONE nigerian oil refinery being taken offline wouldnt BUT speculators and future contract byers THINK it will so they put money into oil then the HERD of buyers goes along with it. That and Oil is bought and sold in dollars and when the Dollar is weaker against the Euro its a better investment to buy oil cheaper with dollars. Then when the dollar strengthens its a worse investment so people SELL SELL and it goes down. Its not about fundamentals its about perception of the buyers and sellers.

Last I heard, oil prices were controlled by a cartel.

Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or something like "OPEC".

Don't forget that one of the precursors to the last oil price run-up was our invasion of one member of OPEC's neighbor and mortal enemy, and a representative of that oil producing sheikdom, the former Ambassador from that nation, is a close and personal friend of the Bush Family. They even gave him a nickname, "Bandar Bush", and he had unrestricted access to the Oval Office when our Boy George was residing there.

The members of OPEC also meet Quarterly to discuss matters of OIL production. If the prices get too high or low that hurts their bottom line as well. Among other things they discuss how much output their pumps and refineries should produce. This can sometimes affect the price of oil but that takes all the OPEC nations to actually implement restriction and that doesnt always happen. (im lookin at YOU Venezuela!) THese meetings and the decision to UP or restrict the flow of Oil Sometimes causes the price of a barrel of oil to fluctuate but is also ignores by traders.

With this last recession, I think OPEC is going to look really hard at keeping prices below $100/barrel - that keeps the money flowing, and good profit margins. While $140/barrel is fun, it will eventually cause more hardship than it is worth.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University