Thread: What's up? Gas Prices Down???

Originally Posted by CongressandImmigration

I am suspicious. Has this happened to anyone else

I believe the Oil Companies have a vested Interest that The republicans maintain the majority in congress, and that is their way of contributing for that to happen. If gas prices stayed very high or kept increasing there would have been a very good chance that voters would have tried to punish republicans in the november elections which would have been extremely bad for those oil companies. just my opinion.

My opinion... and just that... If they could they would but they can't. Seems to be just that it happened in their favor. Farmers don't set the price of corn and oil is the most heavily traded commodity out there. A conspiracy to control the price would quite literally require the cooperation of almost all the world's governments. As you can probably tell, that's not going to happen soon.

Like my previous post, the drop is due to

1. The end of Katrina effects.
2. The end of the Israeli/Lebanon conflict for now.
3. A mild 2006 hurricane season
4. The end of the summer driving season
5. Iranian nuclear threat lessened (No oil in NK BTW)
6. Profit taking

Just my opinion. I could be wrong but I don't think this admin has the intelligence to work a conspiracy this large.

Originally Posted by Daculling

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

The first portion of your post was unmitigated bloviation, so I'll address all the errors of the portion you directly address to me:

Why must you start all your post like this? Debate 101: Don't open with an insult.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

The rate of replenishment has no practical meaning in our lifetimes if anything resembling the quantities postulated by the abiogenic model exist. So your claim is without merit.

What about your childrens' lifetime?

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Petroleum remains the least expensive energy source and will continue to remain such until the price permanently reaches several multiples of the cost in places like Europe, where the price is already more than double what it is here.

Which is why some are so concerned. There seems to be few alteratives when you take our lifestyle into concideration.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

HAHAHAHAHA!!! If I have said little, as you claim, then it is even more PATHETIC that you can actually rebut not so much as one iota of it!

Again... what's with the outrage? All I can say is that I'm sure glad that no one has figured out how to punch someone in the face over TCP/IP

1. I call them as I see them. This guy has been strident in his insistence that I provide web links to articles rather than citing stuff that's not available online, then refuses to read or acknowledge any of the evidence provided when I do post links, but rather adds more bloviation.

2. The question is whether we are about to be blindsided by a sudden catastrophic shortage of energy or not. The indicators are that we are not, but rather that declining oil reserves will be visible far in advance of any critical shortage, allowing decades to transition to other forms of energy once they are actually cheaper. Panic-driven attempts to force people to change to more expensive energy sources while oil is still cheap and plentiful will just cause unnecessary economic hardships. I am in fact considering my children's future as well as their children's future, and I happen to think that crippling the economy with fear-mongering is far more dangerous to them than the potential that petroleum will become scarce any time soon.

3. That's crazy talk. If petroleum is cheap and plentiful, it is cheap and plentiful. Only a paranoid would be fearful of something that probably won't happen, and that would be a slow and gradual process that could be dealt with if it did happen. What do you guys think, that one day someone is going to say, "There's no more oil and your cars are useless"? That's nuts. If, and I say "if", oil starts becoming scarce, prices will start rising and stay high until they finally approach the prices of alternate energy sources. At that time, people will begin switching to the alternate sources. There is no cause for panic, jumping off buildings or foaming at the mouth.

4. That sounds like a veiled threat, fella. The outrage is that this guy keeps attempting to pummel his point home by repetitious monologue rather than by factual two-way debate. He has issued challenges and I have repeatedly met them, yet he disingenuously refuses to acknowledge a single of the many errors in his position I have proven.

For what it's worth, I would be interested in seeing someone try to punch me in the face. More specifically, the entertaining part would be the aftermath. You've gotta love the way that dogmatic environuts use cheap tactics in vainly attempting to debate, use insults in lieu of facts yet bristle when anything resembling reciprocal derision comes their way, then resort to veiled threats of violence that they know their pansy arses will never have to make good on. I pity you sad little men so wracked with fear of circumstances beyond your control that you are made to play the fool for powerful interests and their propaganda and then resort to hate for your fellow man when he challenges the dogma you have so internalized that it cripples your intellect and embitters your souls. Sad, sad.

Who would have thought that it would come to the point in this country that bearers of good news are almost always treated as some sort of enemy of the people? The powers that be have you guys so screwed into tight little knots that when someone proves that the doom and gloom that darkens your daily lives (or at least some of it) is a load of hooey, you wish violence upon him. For shame.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

For what it's worth, I would be interested in seeing someone try to punch me in the face. More specifically, the entertaining part would be the aftermath.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Daculling

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

The first portion of your post was unmitigated bloviation, so I'll address all the errors of the portion you directly address to me:

Why must you start all your post like this? Debate 101: Don't open with an insult.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

The rate of replenishment has no practical meaning in our lifetimes if anything resembling the quantities postulated by the abiogenic model exist. So your claim is without merit.

What about your childrens' lifetime?

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Petroleum remains the least expensive energy source and will continue to remain such until the price permanently reaches several multiples of the cost in places like Europe, where the price is already more than double what it is here.

Which is why some are so concerned. There seems to be few alteratives when you take our lifestyle into concideration.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

HAHAHAHAHA!!! If I have said little, as you claim, then it is even more PATHETIC that you can actually rebut not so much as one iota of it!

Again... what's with the outrage? All I can say is that I'm sure glad that no one has figured out how to punch someone in the face over TCP/IP

1. I call them as I see them. This guy has been strident in his insistence that I provide web links to articles rather than citing stuff that's not available online, then refuses to read or acknowledge any of the evidence provided when I do post links, but rather adds more bloviation.

2. The question is whether we are about to be blindsided by a sudden catastrophic shortage of energy or not. The indicators are that we are not, but rather that declining oil reserves will be visible far in advance of any critical shortage, allowing decades to transition to other forms of energy once they are actually cheaper. Panic-driven attempts to force people to change to more expensive energy sources while oil is still cheap and plentiful will just cause unnecessary economic hardships. I am in fact considering my children's future as well as their children's future, and I happen to think that crippling the economy with fear-mongering is far more dangerous to them than the potential that petroleum will become scarce any time soon.

3. That's crazy talk. If petroleum is cheap and plentiful, it is cheap and plentiful. Only a paranoid would be fearful of something that probably won't happen, and that would be a slow and gradual process that could be dealt with if it did happen. What do you guys think, that one day someone is going to say, "There's no more oil and your cars are useless"? That's nuts. If, and I say "if", oil starts becoming scarce, prices will start rising and stay high until they finally approach the prices of alternate energy sources. At that time, people will begin switching to the alternate sources. There is no cause for panic, jumping off buildings or foaming at the mouth.

4. That sounds like a veiled threat, fella. The outrage is that this guy keeps attempting to pummel his point home by repetitious monologue rather than by factual two-way debate. He has issued challenges and I have repeatedly met them, yet he disingenuously refuses to acknowledge a single of the many errors in his position I have proven.

For what it's worth, I would be interested in seeing someone try to punch me in the face. More specifically, the entertaining part would be the aftermath. You've gotta love the way that dogmatic environuts use cheap tactics in vainly attempting to debate, use insults in lieu of facts yet bristle when anything resembling reciprocal derision comes their way, then resort to veiled threats of violence that they know their pansy arses will never have to make good on. I pity you sad little men so wracked with fear of circumstances beyond your control that you are made to play the fool for powerful interests and their propaganda and then resort to hate for your fellow man when he challenges the dogma you have so internalized that it cripples your intellect and embitters your souls. Sad, sad.

Who would have thought that it would come to the point in this country that bearers of good news are almost always treated as some sort of enemy of the people? The powers that be have you guys so screwed into tight little knots that when someone proves that the doom and gloom that darkens your daily lives (or at least some of it) is a load of hooey, you wish violence upon him. For shame.

1. This is completely false as I directly and thoroughly addressed your position.
Ask anyone who is online - links are good.

2. Consider that we are in resource wars as we speak.
Consider a draft and your children being drafted as it now includes both males and females age 16 to 35.
Consider the last time we had any kind of shortage - a 5% temporary manmade shortage resulted in some prices going up 400% and in general the effect was permanent.
Now we are talking about a decline each and every year with no real replacement - nothing with a decent EROEI - see below.

3. Alternatives?
You havent even begun to scratch the surface if you are going to suggest that we could easily switch to alternatives or that there is any ultimate replacement for oil.
Really you must try to understand EROEI and the feasibilty of biofuels before you say we can do much but displace a small percent of demand.
Energy density and EROEI are just two reasons biofuels and other alternatives will never be more then a supplement.
Climate change will also have some say in how successful our crops will be.
Here is one link to a better understanding of EROEI:

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/2/114144/2387<---LINK

Net energy also can refer to a sum as well as a ratio. For an ethanol process that has an EROI of 1.2:1 -the net energy is just .2, but we can also calculate how much net energy is created for society in a given year or a life-of-resource total. At EROI of 1.2, the 3.9 billion gallons that the US produced in 2005 required 3.29 billion gallons of BTU energy input, resulting in a `net energy' of 610 million gallons.

Hope that makes sense and it is just an example.

4. Anyone can look back and see that this is simply not true.
Also try to imagine the fact that I may be talking to the crowd rather then simply wishing to address "your positions".
I am not here for "you" CG.

The powers that be?
The oil companies deny peak oil - opec denies peak oil etc etc etc... the same people you will admit often deceive us yet ultimately it is you who defends the "official" position.
You prop up mr gold while peak oil has a small army of scientist etc behind it... yours is such a weak position that you must attempt to fill it out with many many words and yes very few links.
Sorry but you read me wrong a few posts back....something else other people may notice about your mannerism.
All apologies but I am not the one who is confused here.
__________________________________________________

Daculing: I liked your list of reasons but I think you may be wrong on a few:

Like my previous post, the drop is due to

1. The end of Katrina effects.
2. The end of the Israeli/Lebanon conflict for now.
3. A mild 2006 hurricane season
4. The end of the summer driving season
5. Iranian nuclear threat lessened (No oil in NK BTW)
6. Profit taking

1. I agree
2. I disagree as I do not see any oil connection there.
3. I disagree as we have plenty of oil in the SPR
4. I agree as this happens in "normal" years in cycles like a analog wave.
5. I diagree and believe we want war with Iran
6. I agree to a small degree yet this cannot amount to much.

Here are two others reasons for the drop in price WITH LINKS pay attention CG

http://www.financialsense.com/Market...2006/0925.html<---LINK
Goldman Sachs [on July 12] tweaked the composition of their “benchmark” Goldman Sachs Commodity Index

Huge smoking gun right there and we have:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/02/news...reut/index.htm<---LINK

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The Energy Department said Monday it will hold off buying replacement oil for the nation's emergency petroleum stockpile through the winter heating season in order to keep more supplies on the market.

This move comes in contrast to the Energy Bill passed in 05' that says the SPR should be increased from 700,000,000 barrels to 1 billion barrel capacity and filled in the next few years.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/10/...ion=cnn_latest<---LINK
China also has a reserve now.

Strategic petroleum reserve or SPR.
Why would countries bother with such things if oil wells never went dry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg...roleum_Reserve<---LINK

and

China has begun development on a 800 million barrel strategic reserve. The current strategic reserve plan calls for the construction of four storage facilities (due to be completed in 200 at Dalian in Liaoning Province, Huangdao in Shandong Province, Zhenhai and Zhoushan in Zhejiang Province.[3] In October 2006, China announced it had begun filling the recently completed 16 storage tank facility at Zhenhai. The other facilities are due to be completed by 2008. [4]

Japan has a SPR with state reserves of petroleum for 92 days of consumption and privately held reserves for another 78 days of consumption, for a total of 171 days of consumption. Interestingly, Japan does not report an actual number of their reserves (millions of barrels) just the amount of consuming days covered by the SPR. Therefore, these reserves could surpass the US SPR, since at current consumption rates 171 days of oil for Japan would consist of roughly 980 million barrels.

Wow - everybody lookin to stock up on oil.

Lots of seemingly natural and cyclic reasons for the price to go down yet still plenty of manipulation seems to be occurring as well.

If it wasnt for things like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEzY2...elated&search=<---LINK
and this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WMG34cv0zM <---LINK

I might believe the price was manipulated to get votes if I did not know what I now know.

Originally Posted by texascowboy911

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Daculling

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

The first portion of your post was unmitigated bloviation, so I'll address all the errors of the portion you directly address to me:

Why must you start all your post like this? Debate 101: Don't open with an insult.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

The rate of replenishment has no practical meaning in our lifetimes if anything resembling the quantities postulated by the abiogenic model exist. So your claim is without merit.

What about your childrens' lifetime?

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Petroleum remains the least expensive energy source and will continue to remain such until the price permanently reaches several multiples of the cost in places like Europe, where the price is already more than double what it is here.

Which is why some are so concerned. There seems to be few alteratives when you take our lifestyle into concideration.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

HAHAHAHAHA!!! If I have said little, as you claim, then it is even more PATHETIC that you can actually rebut not so much as one iota of it!

Again... what's with the outrage? All I can say is that I'm sure glad that no one has figured out how to punch someone in the face over TCP/IP

1. I call them as I see them. This guy has been strident in his insistence that I provide web links to articles rather than citing stuff that's not available online, then refuses to read or acknowledge any of the evidence provided when I do post links, but rather adds more bloviation.

2. The question is whether we are about to be blindsided by a sudden catastrophic shortage of energy or not. The indicators are that we are not, but rather that declining oil reserves will be visible far in advance of any critical shortage, allowing decades to transition to other forms of energy once they are actually cheaper. Panic-driven attempts to force people to change to more expensive energy sources while oil is still cheap and plentiful will just cause unnecessary economic hardships. I am in fact considering my children's future as well as their children's future, and I happen to think that crippling the economy with fear-mongering is far more dangerous to them than the potential that petroleum will become scarce any time soon.

3. That's crazy talk. If petroleum is cheap and plentiful, it is cheap and plentiful. Only a paranoid would be fearful of something that probably won't happen, and that would be a slow and gradual process that could be dealt with if it did happen. What do you guys think, that one day someone is going to say, "There's no more oil and your cars are useless"? That's nuts. If, and I say "if", oil starts becoming scarce, prices will start rising and stay high until they finally approach the prices of alternate energy sources. At that time, people will begin switching to the alternate sources. There is no cause for panic, jumping off buildings or foaming at the mouth.

4. That sounds like a veiled threat, fella. The outrage is that this guy keeps attempting to pummel his point home by repetitious monologue rather than by factual two-way debate. He has issued challenges and I have repeatedly met them, yet he disingenuously refuses to acknowledge a single of the many errors in his position I have proven.

For what it's worth, I would be interested in seeing someone try to punch me in the face. More specifically, the entertaining part would be the aftermath. You've gotta love the way that dogmatic environuts use cheap tactics in vainly attempting to debate, use insults in lieu of facts yet bristle when anything resembling reciprocal derision comes their way, then resort to veiled threats of violence that they know their pansy arses will never have to make good on. I pity you sad little men so wracked with fear of circumstances beyond your control that you are made to play the fool for powerful interests and their propaganda and then resort to hate for your fellow man when he challenges the dogma you have so internalized that it cripples your intellect and embitters your souls. Sad, sad.

Who would have thought that it would come to the point in this country that bearers of good news are almost always treated as some sort of enemy of the people? The powers that be have you guys so screwed into tight little knots that when someone proves that the doom and gloom that darkens your daily lives (or at least some of it) is a load of hooey, you wish violence upon him. For shame.

1. This is completely false as I directly and thoroughly addressed your position.
Ask anyone who is online - links are good.

2. Consider that we are in resource wars as we speak.
Consider a draft and your children being drafted as it now includes both males and females age 16 to 35.
Consider the last time we had any kind of shortage - a 5% temporary manmade shortage resulted in some prices going up 400% and in general the effect was permanent.
Now we are talking about a decline each and every year with no real replacement - nothing with a decent EROEI - see below.

3. Alternatives?
You havent even begun to scratch the surface if you are going to suggest that we could easily switch to alternatives or that there is any ultimate replacement for oil.
Really you must try to understand EROEI and the feasibilty of biofuels before you say we can do much but displace a small percent of demand.
Energy density and EROEI are just two reasons biofuels and other alternatives will never be more then a supplement.
Climate change will also have some say in how successful our crops will be.
Here is one link to a better understanding of EROEI:

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/2/114144/2387<---LINK

Net energy also can refer to a sum as well as a ratio. For an ethanol process that has an EROI of 1.2:1 -the net energy is just .2, but we can also calculate how much net energy is created for society in a given year or a life-of-resource total. At EROI of 1.2, the 3.9 billion gallons that the US produced in 2005 required 3.29 billion gallons of BTU energy input, resulting in a `net energy' of 610 million gallons.

Hope that makes sense and it is just an example.

4. Anyone can look back and see that this is simply not true.
Also try to imagine the fact that I may be talking to the crowd rather then simply wishing to address "your positions".
I am not here for "you" CG.

The powers that be?
The oil companies deny peak oil - opec denies peak oil etc etc etc... the same people you will admit often deceive us yet ultimately it is you who defends the "official" position.
You prop up mr gold while peak oil has a small army of scientist etc behind it... yours is such a weak position that you must attempt to fill it out with many many words and yes very few links.
Sorry but you read me wrong a few posts back....something else other people may notice about your mannerism.
All apologies but I am not the one who is confused here.
__________________________________________________

Daculing: I liked your list of reasons but I think you may be wrong on a few:

[quote:2ddo42zy]Like my previous post, the drop is due to

1. The end of Katrina effects.
2. The end of the Israeli/Lebanon conflict for now.
3. A mild 2006 hurricane season
4. The end of the summer driving season
5. Iranian nuclear threat lessened (No oil in NK BTW)
6. Profit taking

1. I agree
2. I disagree as I do not see any oil connection there.
3. I disagree as we have plenty of oil in the SPR
4. I agree as this happens in "normal" years in cycles like a analog wave.
5. I diagree and believe we want war with Iran
6. I agree to a small degree yet this cannot amount to much.

Here are two others reasons for the drop in price WITH LINKS pay attention CG

http://www.financialsense.com/Market...2006/0925.html<---LINK
Goldman Sachs [on July 12] tweaked the composition of their “benchmark” Goldman Sachs Commodity Index

Huge smoking gun right there and we have:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/02/news...reut/index.htm<---LINK

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The Energy Department said Monday it will hold off buying replacement oil for the nation's emergency petroleum stockpile through the winter heating season in order to keep more supplies on the market.

This move comes in contrast to the Energy Bill passed in 05' that says the SPR should be increased from 700,000,000 barrels to 1 billion barrel capacity and filled in the next few years.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/10/...ion=cnn_latest<---LINK
China also has a reserve now.

Strategic petroleum reserve or SPR.
Why would countries bother with such things if oil wells never went dry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg...roleum_Reserve<---LINK

and

China has begun development on a 800 million barrel strategic reserve. The current strategic reserve plan calls for the construction of four storage facilities (due to be completed in 200 at Dalian in Liaoning Province, Huangdao in Shandong Province, Zhenhai and Zhoushan in Zhejiang Province.[3] In October 2006, China announced it had begun filling the recently completed 16 storage tank facility at Zhenhai. The other facilities are due to be completed by 2008. [4]

Japan has a SPR with state reserves of petroleum for 92 days of consumption and privately held reserves for another 78 days of consumption, for a total of 171 days of consumption. Interestingly, Japan does not report an actual number of their reserves (millions of barrels) just the amount of consuming days covered by the SPR. Therefore, these reserves could surpass the US SPR, since at current consumption rates 171 days of oil for Japan would consist of roughly 980 million barrels.

Wow - everybody lookin to stock up on oil.

Lots of seemingly natural and cyclic reasons for the price to go down yet still plenty of manipulation seems to be occurring as well.

If it wasnt for things like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEzY2...elated&search=<---LINK
and this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WMG34cv0zM <---LINK

I might believe the price was manipulated to get votes if I did not know what I now know.[/quote:2ddo42zy]
1. BS. I stand on the previous statement. Anyone can go back and check my earlier posts.

2. That's just alarmism for the most part, but if you are worried about shares of reseources, you should be far more worried about aluminum and copper. The reasons (among others) that the US has no pressing issue with petroleum reserves is that we have vast amounts of untapped reserves right here in our own country, and the only thing standing between the consumer and that petroleum are a few moonbat environuts who have somehow managed to muster sufficient resources to block their reasonable exploitation. This includes many offshore fields and of course the ANWR reserves.

3. First off, you are talking about the currently available hand-me-down alternatives, not serious alternative energy sources big oil has bought up. Even so, these alternatives like biodiesel and ethanol (as an additive to gasoline) could provide a reasonable cushion should unanticipated shortages occur. If there is a real shortage of petroleum in our lifetimes, I can guarantee that the alternatives that big oil has been sitting on will emerge like magic. In each case you appear to desire to cite the most unreasonable nightmare scenario as the likely occurrence. That's just plain old-fashioned alarmism, and it's not a tactic used by level-headed people who don't have an agenda or haven't been scared witless by the purveyors of this nonsense who have their own agendas.

4, It is most certainly true, as anyone who wishes to slog back through this thread can readily see. As for whether you are here "for me," maybe or maybe not. I think that you have got a bug up your arse about peak oil and are enraged that anyone would dispute your dogma that you spew with near religious zeal. Maybe that's why you insisted that we rehash this dead horse in another thread and why you even sent me a PM yesterday trying to rehash it. Why the PM and the challenge in another thread if this is not about your frustration with me over denying the enviro-extremist scare tactics you have fallen for hook, line, and sinker?

Yes, the oil companies and OPEN deny "peak oil." That's because they are the people in the best position to see what a load of hooey it is. They employ the best geologists on the planet. The guys that the government employs (and whose drivel you favor) are second-rate agenda driven types who aren't capable enough to earn the top dollar offered by the private sector. That's pretty much the case in all the sciences. NASA was once an exception, but it has slid down the bureaucratic rabbit hole as well, and is struggling to keep up with European and Asian space programs.

You claim that "peak oil" has a "small army" of scientists behind it while pretending that the only proponent of abiogenic petroleum is Gold. You're going right back to the deceitful tactics you employed before of refusing to acknowledge the evidence that you demanded I produce. There are thousands upon thousands of propnents of gold's model, including the majority of Russian geologists, as previously demonstrated. Perhaps you repeat this cheap tactic in the hopes that someone new to this thread will fall for it. I can easily counter it by asking that any such reader simply review the facts and links previously provided.

Your "smoking gun" is a dead link. Your other article is interesting (almost), but does not provide anything that can account for a price drop of about 40%. the bottom line is that the high oil prices were clearly a panic-driven and speculative bubble that had to burst eventually. Relative to your article, heck yeah some of the funds got out of oil speculation. That's par for the course when a given commodity has become wildly unpredictable and is driven by irrational speculation, or didn't you know that aobut commodities trading?

The bottom line is that you are providing nothing whatsoever in the way of new material or fresh and enlightened rebuttal. You're just being argumentative at this point, and so I will allow my previou well-contructed argument to stand on its own merit.