LinkOriginally Posted by bruthaman
Are you saying that Immelt is not the jobs czar? 60 Mintues did a piece on him calling him the jobs czar.
|
|
Link
Are you saying that Immelt is not the jobs czar? 60 Mintues did a piece on him calling him the jobs czar.
I didnt think we had Czars in America.
Maybe you should watch FoxNews ...
The following users like this post: OU48A
pphilfran looks more right on this all the time.
I'm guessing we see the project approved this year, now that Nebraska is satisfied about the reduction of possible ecological impact garnered by the reroute.
The lower part of the Keystone is under construction right now..
There are other large capacity oil pipeline projects that Obama couldn’t block that are moving forward.
But they need to build / plan more east - west pipeline crude capacity and undercut Brent.
This would be a big help for the east coast economy.
Obama can’t block new east bound pipelines but he could order them to be prioritized, saving time.
I heard the senate approved this, the pipeline ...not sure what they approved
It will not reduce price. It will just reduce costs to oil companies. Just like tort reform is supposed to reduce insurance costs. Indiana or Ohio adopted tort reform in the late 80s. Now their insurance rates are higher than non tort reform states. Costs to insurance companies went down rates stayed the same or went up and profits for insurance companies sky rocket. Same here they will sell it as a road to lower pump prices but it will only result in higher oil company profits. Will probably help Oklahoma though trickle down.
Sadly it is still foreign oil but at least it won't be middle east oil ... I am actually OK with axing the pipeline and drilling for our own and getting better use of Natural gas.
The Keystone pipeline adds to our national energy security. More crude on the market can only help hold down or reduce energy product prices. There are several underutilized refineries that are designed to handle the type of crude that the Keystone would carry. Obama’s refusal to approve the Keystone and other major energy projects keeps oil prices higher than they should be.
A prosperous national economy requires energy prices at reasonable cost.
Obama should listen to states that have a huge problem with such projects. Keystone would have been green lighted two years ago if the original plan had put more effort into avoiding the aquifer in Neb which led the state to balk. If Neb had been happy with the original plan, the project would be nearly completed.
Now that the huskers are on board, O will approve.
Not necessarily a comment for or against the pipeline. But don't expect a reduction in pump prices. If we were dealing with pure supply and demand prices would go down. However large oil has always manipulated prices because the can. At times there were extremely high prices tankers full of crude were sitting all iver the world.
This.
As long as energy prices are determined by a derivatives and speculator industry instead of supply and demand, forecasting the cost benefits of infrastructure at the consumer level is a "pipe dream."
Obama wants higher prices, he has said so.
Apparently you don’t remember when OPEC flooded the worlds markets with cheap crude and has also at times slowed it's crude production.
Apparently you don’t know that BIG OIL is really state controlled oil companies that have controlled the vast majority of the world’s oil production for many years and has done so in large part for political reasons.
OPEC has had a lot to say about the price of crude oil for several decades…..A lot more than the traders of crude.
Many of the traders are just trying to figure out what makes OPEC happy.
Won't the Chicoms just buy the oil from Houston instead?
The transportation cost difference gives the US economy a cost advantage over the Chinese.
If we don’t use the crude in our economy the Chinese eventually will.
The Chinese will create a lot more pollution with it than we would.
Obama’s lack of approval fails even on the environmental concerns.
And now that oil will no longer be locked in Cushing, what is going to happen to the price of gas for those of us in the middle of the country?
And to clarify your first statement, are you saying it is our duty as Americans to use so much oil that there won't be any left to sell to Red China?
Once they break a barrier first it was $2 a gallon and now it is $3 a gallon and the public reaction runs its course to the point we are conditioned to accept it, that price will never go down significantly regardless of supply. We are addicted to oil and we can't go without it. So why would I reduce my price to an addict who I know must have my product and I am the only dealer in town. If I find a cheaper product I will sell it to you at the same price. Why in the world would I p**** a savings on to you when I don't have to.
Because of the new oil production coming online in the mid-continent the Cushing bottle neck is likely to continue for some time IMHO.
It will help the nation’s economy if and when WIT and Brent reach similar price ranges. But it will require an improved crude oil transportation situation mostly via more new large DIA pipelines to the coast where the most refineries and the most demand is located. But here too the GOV regulations are slowing pipeline development.
Trickle down doesn't work. I learned this on LT.
Apparently you don’t remember when crude crashed all the way to the $30’s after reaching over $140 in 2008/2009….
At a time when the economy crashed gasoline was commonly well under $2.
Before, gasoline had been over $5 on the coast.
Supply and demand does matter a great deal!
Last edited by OU48A; 03-25-2013 at 02:08 PM.
We are about half way to the ten year mark on the pipeline.
Crude Oil prices
Gasoline PricesJune 27, 2008 $140.21
July 4, 2008 $145.29
July 11, 2008 $145.08
July 18, 2008 $128.88
July 25, 2008 $123.26
August 1, 2008 $125.10
August 8, 2008 $115.20
August 15, 2008 $113.77
August 22, 2008 $114.59
August 29, 2008 $115.46
September 5, 2008 $106.23
September 12, 2008 $101.18
September 19, 2008 $104.55
September 26, 2008 $106.89
October 3, 2008 $93.88
October 10, 2008 $77.70
October 17, 2008 $71.85
October 24, 2008 $64.15
October 31, 2008 $67.81
November 7, 2008 $61.04
November 14, 2008 $57.04
November 21, 2008 $49.93
November 28, 2008 $54.43
December 5, 2008 $40.81
December 12, 2008 $46.28
December 19, 2008 $42.36
December 26, 2008 $37.71
December 31, 2008 $44.60
January 2, 2009 $46.34
January 9, 2009 $40.83
January 16, 2009 $36.51
January 23, 2009 $46.47
January 30, 2009 $41.68
February 6, 2009 $40.17
February 13, 2009 $37.51
February 20, 2009 $40.03
February 27, 2009 $44.76
March 6, 2009 $45.52
March 13, 2009 $46.25
March 20, 2009 $52.07
March 27, 2009 $52.38
April 3, 2009 $52.51
April 10, 2009 $52.24
April 17, 2009 $50.33
April 24, 2009 $51.55
May 1, 2009 $53.20
May 8, 2009 $58.63
May 15, 2009 $56.34
May 22, 2009 $61.67
May 29, 2009 $66.31
June 5, 2009 $68.44
June 12, 2009 $72.04
June 19, 2009 $69.55
June 26, 2009 $69.16
July 3, 2009 $65.63
July 10, 2009 $59.89
July 17, 2009 $63.56
July 24, 2009 $68.05
July 31, 2009 $69.45
August 7, 2009 $70.93
August 14, 2009 $67.51
August 21, 2009 $73.89
August 28, 2009 $72.74
September 4, 2009 $68.02
September 11, 2009 $69.29
September 18, 2009 $72.04
September 25, 2009 $66.02
October 2, 2009 $69.95
October 9, 2009 $71.77
October 16, 2009 $78.53
October 23, 2009 $80.50
October 30, 2009 $77.00
November 6, 2009 $77.43
November 13, 2009 $76.35
November 20, 2009 $77.47
November 27, 2009 $76.05
December 4, 2009 $75.47
December 11, 2009 $69.87
December 18, 2009 $73.36
December 24, 2009 $78.05
December 31, 2009 $79.36
The following users like this post: OU48A
If Big Oil was in charge, I'd expect them to increase their profit margin. They operate pretty low relative to other producers if I'm not mistaken.
Don't forget the price of gasoline is also partially determined by the cost to refine the crude oil and the supply they can produce. Hasn't it been something like 20 years since a new significant refinery was built?
That pipeline will change very little except petroleum industries bottom line.
Sell more for less or less for more. Which is the better business model?
That is not what they are doing....in fact just the opposite....they sell more for more or less for less....
When prices are high, demand is high so they are selling more due to higher usage
When prices are low, demand is low so they are selling less at "bargain" prices...
Now OPEC will regulate supply to some extent....they actually try to maximize profit by keeping prices somewhat in check so they can see growth...now that their fields are getting old (for the most part) they are going to concentrate more on price growth instead of production growth....
The reason for the pipeline is to get the crude more economically to refineries that can process heavy crude which are located on the Gulf. It is also a problem for a lot of oil being transported in the Bakken field. It is far more efficient to transport crude by pipeline rather than by rail or truck. Would you prefer the more inefficient methods?
So once that pipeline is finished we see no change in price since supply matters not.
Price is rarely the issue and even if the US becomes energy independent it will only marginally affect oil prices given it is a global commodity. However, WTI consistently sells for considerably less than Brent.
The goal is energy independence and eliminating OPEC from being an oil importer to the US. Canadian Oil would help in that regard as well as pump revenues into our refineries.
I think like 1978 the year I was born and I am 34
These are long term projects...
It was proposed in 2005
Construction started in 2008
Expected to be fully operational in 2015
So a decade just for the frigging pipeline...a pipeline that is going to help tap new, large deposits...deposits that will help lower (only so slightly) long term world fuel prices...
You are wrong, supply matters a lot….!
Tight oil supplies and its fear have caused previous crude price spikes and economic turmoil….
If nothing else having more oil on the market and not in the hands of OPEC reduces impact of price spikes.
8 of the previous 9 USA economic recessions were first preceded by rising crude oil prices…..
Now wouldn’t it be smarter to reduce the impacts of these price shocks that are sure to come again and again.
All for energy independence, but when alternative energies are proposed, people like Obama and even Pickens are skewered. Is oil the only source of energy independence that is acceptable.
First, let's discuss Pickens...he bought up a vast amount of water rights from the texas Panhandle aquifer...he also planned a huge wind turbine project....the wind turbine project would require new transmission lines to the Metroplex...he wanted to use the right of way on the transmission line to build a water pipeline...he was going to make a fortune...again...
Now, lets talk about Obama...solar and wind...we could cover the US in solar panels and wind turbines and our usage of crude won't drop any measurable amount...less of one half of one percent of our electrical generation comes from oil fired plants...and those plants are old and expensive to operate ane will be the first shut down....wind and solar are CO2 related only...
The following users like this post: Tundra
How much do those alternatives cost?
How economically successful have most of the alternatives been in other nations?
Most of the alternatives have a hard time economically running a vehicle and they lack a great deal in scalability.
Around the world there is only a very thin margin of spare capacity to pump more oil.
We see price spikes any time there is unrest in North Africa such as in Libya 2 years ago or in the Middle East.
This volatility isn’t going away….. Increasing the world’s spare capacity would only increase our national security and lower the impact of price spikes...... But Obama hinders this effort in several ways.
barrister, what do you want to happen? What time frame?
I haven't seen Pickens skewed nor did I see Pickens pursue cap and trade...as Obama did. Pickens teamed with Aubrey to fund CNG/LPG refueling stations along the west coast for Truckers even though there was no help from Obama or the government.
Obama's approach is to force green/alternative energy sources on America even when it is not economically viable nor sufficient in capacity/quantity to replace coal/oil/NG through policies like cap and trade.
I have no problem subsidizing R & D for those energy alternatives but it would have been economic suicide for the US had Obama installed cap and trade.
This pipeline will get built eventually. However, I feel the practical effect is very little. I think it is more of a political football than an actual issue. If it is about lack of refineries then how does getting more oil to storage tanks where it cant be refined going to help. We need to continue to push ahead with alternative energy technologies. We need to focus on diminishing demand. Increase gas mileage better education etc.
The following users like this post: OnlyOneOklahoma
They are correlated to crude consumption in a more meaningful way as plug in hybrids and fully electric cars demand a larger market share, as they trade generated electricity directly for gasoline.
Hopefully most charging will take place at night when demand is low....
Electrics can be charged using electricity from any electrical source....natural gas an coal (both plentiful) could be brought on line far cheaper than solar and wind....
Wind and solar are high cost CO2 reduction devices....
Yeah. The wife and i are contemplating a switch this year to Green Mountain Energy. Our usage will be supplanted by 100% wind generated electricity for 12.9cents/kWh. It's a bit more expensive (about 20-25% more), but I like the idea of personally directly subsidizing renewables.
PSO has Wind Choice...you can buy monthly blocks of wind power...10 or 12 blocks of wind energy will power a home...each block will add about $2 per month to the bill...I buy two blocks a month...
It's cost increases w/the cost of oil though if I'm not mistaken. At least it used to.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
