Mark VIII owners, breathe a sigh of relief - unless you're a Bush-basher!

[fossten]

CNN/Money’s $5 Per Gallon Gas Prediction Doesn’t Pan Out
Posted by Noel Sheppard on October 31, 2005 - 23:24.
Do you remember all those predictions in September that gasoline prices were going to $5 per gallon? As a reminder, here’s a report from CNN/Money on September 21:

“Remember when gas spiked to $3-plus a gallon after Hurricane Katrina? By this time next week, that could seem like the good old days.”

“‘We could be looking at gasoline lines and $4 gas, maybe even $5 gas, if this thing does the worst it could do,’ said energy analyst Peter Beutel of Cameron Hanover. ‘This storm is in the wrong place. And it's absolutely at the wrong time,’ said Beutel.”

Well, a report today from Reuters suggests the CNN/Money analysts were a little off: "The national retail price for gasoline fell below $2.50 a gallon for the first time in 12 weeks, while diesel dropped under $3, the government’s top energy forecasting agency said Monday.”

Oil prices on the New York Mercantile Exchange dropped below $60 per barrel today, the first closing price that low since July. Meanwhile, wholesale gas prices also declined to levels not seen since July, a harbinger of possibly even lower prices at the pumps in the near future.

 

[barry2952]

What did Bush Bashing have to do with this article? Are you stating that BuSh is responsible for the oil prices going down?

 

[captainalias]

What did Bush Bashing have to do with this article? Are you stating that BuSh is responsible for the oil prices going down?

What doesn't Bush bashing have to do with anything?

 

[TheDude]

What did Bush Bashing have to do with this article? Are you stating that BuSh is responsible for the oil prices going down?

Barry, you have to remember two simple things:

1) Anything positive that happens, Bush has a hand in it.

2) Anything bad that happens, Clinton and the 'fiberals' had a hand in it.

 

[Calabrio]

Barry, you have to remember two simple things:

1) Anything positive that happens, Bush has a hand in it.

2) Anything bad that happens, Clinton and the 'fiberals' had a hand in it.

Not quite...

Anything bad that happened is Bush's fault.

And anything that happens that is good, actually is bad, and that is Bush's fault.

In the event that the event was undeniably good, you need to remember that it would have happened anyway, despite Bush.

 

[fossten]

Actually, I'm surprised at all of you. Don't you all remember how Bush was blamed for gas prices going up?

I was just illustrating that we as Mark VIII owners should be unified in our relief at gas prices going down, but since the left tended to prefer to blame Bush for gas prices going up, I figured several people would find it difficult to swallow this good news.

Calabrio hits it on the head - I'll bet the MSM finds a way to either spin this as bad news (like BIG OIL PROFITS or some such crap), or show how Bush had nothing to do with the fall of gas prices.

BUSH CAN'T WIN WITH THE LEFT.

Disclaimer: If this doesn't apply to you, consider yourself not included in the 'LEFT' for this topic.

 

[barry2952]

How, and a better question, why would BuSh do anything to defeat oil price increases? Isn't that industry one of his biggest financial supporters. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think you're making something out of nothing. In my opinion the only thing BuSh could have done was release the reserve earlier. I don't even fault him for waiting.

Please show me where BuSh was blamed for the increase in oil prices. I've only stated that the prices are high because the war consumes massive amounts of fuel, effectively driving the price up. I believe that if there were no war there would not have been as drastic a run-up in fuel costs.

 

[Calabrio]

How, and a better question, why would BuSh do anything to defeat oil price increases? Isn't that industry one of his biggest financial supporters. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

There was nothing to be done. There was a market correction based on the simple principles of supply and demand. Supply increases as prices increase.Prices drop as the supply increases.

I think you're making something out of nothing. In my opinion the only thing BuSh could have done was release the reserve earlier. I don't even fault him for waiting.

That wouldn't have made a difference since the refining capacity wasn't available.

Please show me where BuSh was blamed for the increase in oil prices. I've only stated that the prices are high because the war consumes massive
amounts of fuel, effectively driving the price up.

The military engages in training and manuevers all the time. The operation in Iraq is not the cause of increased prices. Growing economies in China and India, however, are a different story.

I believe that if there were no war there would not have been as drastic a run-up in fuel costs.

That's just silly. It's a global market. And we have limited drilling and refining capacity.

Is it the War in Iraq that make concrete so much more damned expensive too, or perhaps it's the Chinese?

 

[captainalias]

There was nothing to be done. There was a market correction based on the simple principles of supply and demand. Supply increases as prices increase.Prices drop as the supply increases.



That wouldn't have made a difference since the refining capacity wasn't available.

Chinese and Indian demand for oil is barely a fraction of what the US uses; the big problem is not enough refineries. They'd better fix that this time.

 

[fossten]

Chinese and Indian demand for oil is barely a fraction of what the US uses; the big problem is not enough refineries. They'd better fix that this time.

Well, you better talk to your friends the environmentalists. They are the ones who have prevented more refineries from being built. Check it out. The regulations placed on oil companies make it financially impossible to build new refineries.

Bush calls for more refineries [snip]

October 4, 2005: 1:17 PM EDT

President Bush called for more refineries Tuesday to help bring down gas prices. He also spoke on the search for a new head of the Federal Reserve and said he'll keep his push to reform Social Security alive.
President Bush called for more refineries Tuesday to help bring down gas prices. He also spoke on the search for a new head of the Federal Reserve and said he'll keep his push to reform Social Security alive.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - President Bush called Tuesday for the construction of new refineries to help alleviate the recent record high gas prices, and said any person he chooses as the next head of the Federal Reserve will be independent from politics.

Speaking at a press conference at the White House, Bush asked Congress to send a bill to his desk that allows refineries to expand and new refineries to be built.

"It ought to be clear to everybody that this country needs to build more refining capacity to be able to deal with the issues of tight supply," he said.

Easing the regulations on refinery construction has been part of Bush's energy plan for the last several months. He noted that a new refinery hasn't been built in the country since the 1970s.

Crude oil has reached record prices over the last several months, driven by soaring worldwide demand and a belief that easily extractable oil reserves are nearing or past their peak production years.

That has translated into higher prices for refined products such as gasoline and heating oil. Prices went higher yet following hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico that knocked out key oil refineries and stretched an already overburdened worldwide refinery system.

 

[captainalias]

Well, you better talk to your friends the environmentalists. They are the ones who have prevented more refineries from being built. Check it out. The regulations placed on oil companies make it financially impossible to build new refineries.

Do you have a non-partisan source for that? I've heard many reasons- OPEC, environmentalists, exorbitant costs, Bush, etc...

fossten, if you've haven't 'personally investigated' and gone down to Texas as to why there aren't more refineries, then it's not convincing. (to quote you).

 

[fossten]

Do you have a non-partisan source for that? I've heard many reasons- OPEC, environmentalists, exorbitant costs, Bush, etc...

Sure. Have fun. See ya in a week, if you bother to actually read this stuff. I have.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/special/enviro.html

http://www.refineryreform.org/about_us.htm

http://api-ep.api.org/industry/index.cfm?bitmask=002007004005000000

 

[captainalias]

Sure. Have fun. See ya in a week, if you bother to actually read this stuff. I have.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/special/enviro.html

I've read it, where does it say anything about environmentalists?

 

[Calabrio]

I've read it, where does it say anything about environmentalists?

Let me ask something-
are you trying to say that enviromentalist policy HAS NOT resulted in the policy that has limited the construction of oil refineries in the U.S? If so, why do you think the oil companies have spent the last 30 years refraining from building one of these refineries, despite a growing demand for gas and the fact they've been running at full capactity for several years now?

This is a well known fact. Regulation has made either cost prohibative to build refineries or impossible to obtain the necessary permits to do so. Would you like me to find an article that also demonstrates to you that enviromentalist, who probably watched to many propoganda movies from the 70s, are also preventing the construction of new nuclear power facilities as well?


And while the Asian countries don't use AS MUCH fuel as we do, they are using a lot more. That increase in demand is aiding in the increased oil prices. They don't have to equal our consumption in order to squeeze the supply.

 

[captainalias]

Let me ask something-
are you trying to say that enviromentalist policy HAS NOT resulted in the policy that has limited the construction of oil refineries in the U.S? If so, why do you think the oil companies have spent the last 30 years refraining from building one of these refineries, despite a growing demand for gas and the fact they've been running at full capactity for several years now?

This is a well known fact. Regulation has made either cost prohibative to build refineries or impossible to obtain the necessary permits to do so. Would you like me to find an article that also demonstrates to you that enviromentalist, who probably watched to many propoganda movies from the 70s, are also preventing the construction of new nuclear power facilities as well?


And while the Asian countries don't use AS MUCH fuel as we do, they are using a lot more. That increase in demand is aiding in the increased oil prices. They don't have to equal our consumption in order to squeeze the supply.

Refineries haven't been built for the past 25 years because the profit margin is too slim. Why is that? It's not just to environmental policies, there are many confounding factors.

It's simple- why not invest more in alternative fuels? Might save us another war down the road.

 

[barry2952]

What a concept. The only problem is that big oil and the auto companies are against it.

 

[Calabrio]

And why is that? What motivation would an automaker have to impede the development of alternative fuels?

To the contrary, don't you think the first automaker to develop a truely efficient and realistic alternative would stand to make billions of dollars? Look at how popular those silly hybrid cars are now.

 

[captainalias]

And why is that? What motivation would an automaker have to impede the development of alternative fuels?

To the contrary, don't you think the first automaker to develop a truely efficient and realistic alternative would stand to make billions of dollars? Look at how popular those silly hybrid cars are now.

Yep, and look how far behind Ford and GM are from Toyota. We won't be getting a hybrid Aviator or Zephyr (yeah, let's bring up Lincoln stuff!) until 2007-08. In the meantime, Toyota is developing sport hybrid cars. We really missed the ball on this one.

 

[barry2952]

When the development costs are figured into the hybrids none of them add to the bottom line. Most end sale prices are at a loss for the auto maker. Look at GMs electric car for example of a failed technology.

GM and Ford and everyone else are in the business of building what they know best and that's the internal combustion engine. I believe I read that gas would have to be $5.00 a gallon before the auto makers would be forced to increase mileage or provide substitute fuel vehicles.

 

[captainalias]

When the development costs are figured into the hybrids none of them add to the bottom line. Most end sale prices are at a loss for the auto maker. Look at GMs electric car for example of a failed technology.

GM and Ford and everyone else are in the business of building what they know best and that's the internal combustion engine. I believe I read that gas would have to be $5.00 a gallon before the auto makers would be forced to increase mileage or provide substitute fuel vehicles.

That's also true, hybrids are probably mostly hype now, but in a few years, they have the potential to be a large part of the market. The large markup in hybrid price isn't worth purchasing, unless gas went up to, as you said, $5 a pop.

 

[Calabrio]

Yep, and look how far behind Ford and GM are from Toyota. We won't be getting a hybrid Aviator or Zephyr (yeah, let's bring up Lincoln stuff!) until 2007-08. In the meantime, Toyota is developing sport hybrid cars. We really missed the ball on this one.

So you undermine your argument.
Automakers are infact developing alternative ways of powering their vehicles.

Why? because gas is more expensive and consumers are becoming interested in buying more efficient vehicles. If the public wants alternative fueled vehicles, all of the automakers will work to get them to market. But this won't happen unless the investment is safe, and there are enough people interested in buying them.

And at $1.50 a gallon, no one cares how much gas they burn. At $3, they start to reconsider.

But it's not a conspiracy. It's just short-term thinking and basic economics.

 

[TheDude]

Viable alternative fuels are out there for the taking. Here's just one 'Biodiesel' it made mostly from soybean oil and a small amount of fossil fuel extracts. Imagine how well our economy would do if American farmers where selling the base of this fuel back to American companies to refine it into fuel. Its also environmentally friendly, it burns close to 85% cleaner than gasoline and it could be made in America. Why hasn’t this been looked into more? Why hasn’t Ford or GM invested money into making more compression (diesel) engine cars? Simple, BIG OIL has the money and the power to say what we buy.

 

[MonsterMark]

Chinese and Indian demand for oil is barely a fraction of what the US uses; the big problem is not enough refineries. They'd better fix that this time.

Oil demand by country (in millions of barrels/day)

Country...2000...2001...2002...2003...2004
USA.......19.70..19.65...19.76..20.03..20.52
China.......4.80....4.92....5.16...5.55....6.63
India........2.05....2.10....2.10...2.20....2.30

USA up about 4% since 2000
China up about 30% since 2000
India up about 12%

Everybody else is pretty much flat.

China demand is Bush's fault.:Bang

 

[fossten]

Hey, gas in Louisville fell to $2.14 today!!! Hooray! Sorry you libs can't celebrate with us!