Fuel Prices Climbing

[Rob Lister]

I don't think it was dishonest. Personally, I compare the cheapest gas prices in recent memory to the highest ones that we have now.

To those who complain (like me) of rising gas prices, that complaint started after 98, not after we reached the average price of the last 50 years.

I don't think it's cherry-picking as much as proving this point: Crude oil prices fluctuate widely.

emphisis mine. If that was the point you were trying to make then, true, it was not dishonest or a mistake but you should have your pee-pee whacked for not more clearly making it. Given the content and context of your post, the only way anyone would know you were making that point is to read your most recent post.

Still, I like you, kinda, for a lefty.

 

[Silicon]

Given the content and context of your post, the only way anyone would know you were making that point is to read your most recent post.

And I should thank you for calling me on the data, because it caused me to make a better supported point. Especially my graph on gas prices in California, which corrolates much more strongly with worldwide oil prices than with the 1996 reformulation of California gasoline, for example.




I notice in adjusted dollars, $2.42 a gallon is the magic number that gets us circa 1980 levels of gasoline prices.

We're currently at 2.22. What I remember about the 80's is that people were really really pissed off at Jimmy Carter, and the energy crisis, and the economy and everything back then.

Are we 20 cents a gallon away from 1980's style American outrage?

And to address Roadtoad's original post:

do you get the feeling that because of the actions of Environmentalists, we're going to wind up with drilling in the ANWR, anyway?

I'd rephrase that: Do you get the feeling that because of the actions of the Bush Administration, we're going to wind up with drilling in the ANWR, anyway?


There's a word for that. Ironically, the word isn't "irony."

 

[Silicon]

Sorry, dumba$$ correction.

Replace '80's in my post above with "Late 70's." Doh.

 

[CapelDodger]

Capel, let me start by saying I honestly haven't a clue as to the point you are trying to make.

Forgive me for not ignoring this, but I'm asking a question, not making a point. In what practical sense do you share ownership in this oil? My tentative opinion is that you identify with the US, and thus see US ownership as making you a part-owner. But when it comes out of the ground, you're going to have to pay for it at the pumps just like any tourist or illegal immigrant. Unless you get issued vouchers as a citizen, or some such.

I note (now) that your post location is Wales. Are you at all familiar with the state/federal distinction in the U.S. I ask because both of your posts strongly indicate that you are not.

Even in Wales, the literate elite has masses of information available. One thing I know is that the state/federal arrangement wasn't conclusively settled by the Civil War. That's still a work-in-progress. An Alaskan might choose to identify with Alaska, and regard the oil as belonging to Alaskans. I don't expect the future to be quite as entertaining as that, but the future is a foreign country.

I guess I should start here: ANWR stands for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The N-word (one not spelled out in proper state forums) is the clue to answering all of your questions and implications.

And shanek things the Nazis were Socialists because, there's the word, National Socialist Party. The W- and R-words (Wildlife Refuge, not Oil reserve) might be more relevant legally.

 

[CapelDodger]

Capel, please ignore my last post. Here’s how it (might) work:

Situation: Pesky Alaskans decide to drill in ANWR without congressional approval.

Solution: Pesky Alaskans are arrested, indited, tried in federal court, convicted, sent to prison.

Meanwhile, pipelines are being sabotaged. Maybe the test-ground in Iraq will provide a solution to that problem. A fleet of UAV's riding shotgun, for instance. Or corralling the natives into Protected Villages. And all for six months' oil?

Situation: Alaskans don't want the oil pumped now, but the gumment does. Alaskans see it as an appreciating asset which they don't need to cash in just now, US gumment sees it as a way of keeping their army in the field for another six months.

Solution : Something ugly.

Situation: Crisis Requires Drilling in ANWR.

Solution: Congress approves appraisal (probably already done but not [accurately] reported), and a budget is cut for the Department of Energy (DOE). DOE issues a Request for Information (RFI) in the best case, a Request for Quote (RFQ) in a medium case, or in a worse case simply outright awards a contract to Halliburton to drill the oil and get it refined yesterday. The resulting fuel is sold to distributors under contract and with restrictions to sell only to approved outlets, whomever they (they being the government) in their oh-so infinite wisdom decide should get it. Meanwhile, congress approves embargos on all (unapproved) foreign exports of oil/oil products while the president is kept busy lining up tanks along the boarders of prospective importers.

What, you didn’t already know all that?

I know such behaviour is Un-American. Is it worth that for so little oil?

 

[Rob Lister]

Meanwhile, pipelines are being sabotaged. Maybe the test-ground in Iraq will provide a solution to that problem. A fleet of UAV's riding shotgun, for instance. Or corralling the natives into Protected Villages. And all for six months' oil?

Situation: Alaskans don't want the oil pumped now, but the gumment does. Alaskans see it as an appreciating asset which they don't need to cash in just now, US gumment sees it as a way of keeping their army in the field for another six months.

Solution : Something ugly.

[/B]I know such behaviour is Un-American. Is it worth that for so little oil? [/B]

Well, I tried to explain it to you and I think I did a fair enough job of it. You seem to not like the explaination. Sorry you feel that way.

 

[CapelDodger]

Well, I tried to explain it to you and I think I did a fair enough job of it. You seem to not like the explaination. Sorry you feel that way.

The only explanation you've given is about how the oil is US oil not Alaskan oil (tanks and lawyers), not why any of it is your oil. You did use the term "our oil", subsequently clarified as "ours, not theirs", which indicates a sense of ownership on your part, however communal. I don't yet see what practical effect you see that ownership as having.

I can play around with scenarios as well as the next guy, which is not to say that I see an Alaskan secession on the horizon. Not without Sino-Jap, Canadian and French backing, anyway, and that's got to be a few years down the line. Maybe decades. But why is Asaskan oil more yours than Mexican or Venezuelan oil?

 

[Rob Lister]

The only explanation you've given is about how the oil is US oil not Alaskan oil (tanks and lawyers), not why any of it is your oil. You did use the term "our oil", subsequently clarified as "ours, not theirs", which indicates a sense of ownership on your part, however communal. I don't yet see what practical effect you see that ownership as having.

I can play around with scenarios as well as the next guy, which is not to say that I see an Alaskan secession on the horizon. Not without Sino-Jap, Canadian and French backing, anyway, and that's got to be a few years down the line. Maybe decades. But why is Asaskan oil more yours than Mexican or Venezuelan oil?

Is it your contention that a national asset (owned/controlled/reserved/protected/defended by the federal government) cannot be said to belong to the members of that nation any more than it can be said to belong to members of other nations?

 

[Frank Newgent]

Is it your contention that a national asset (owned/controlled/reserved/protected/defended by the federal government) cannot be said to belong to the members of that nation any more than it can be said to belong to members of other nations?

United States or United States of America (Abbr. U.S. or US or U.S.A. or USA)

A country of central and northwest North America with coastlines on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. It includes the noncontiguous states of Alaska and Hawaii and various island territories in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. The area now occupied by the contiguous 48 states was originally inhabited by numerous Native American peoples and was colonized beginning in the 16th century by Spain, France, the Netherlands, and England. Great Britain eventually controlled most of the Atlantic coast and, after the French and Indian Wars (1754–1763), the Northwest Territory and Canada. The original Thirteen Colonies declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776 and formed a government under the Articles of Confederation in 1781, adopting (1787) a new constitution that went into effect after 1789. The nation soon began to expand westward. Growing tensions over the issue of Black slavery divided the country along geographic lines, sparking the secession of the South and the Civil War (1861–1865). The remainder of the 19th century was marked by increased westward expansion, industrialization, and the influx of millions of immigrants.

A PITY (Alaskan Petroleum Isn't Yours) is the United State's state-owned, nationalized petroleum company. In 2005, President George W Bush sided with 2,230,611 Ford Excursion owners against world oil companies and the law of supply and demand for a decrease in world oil prices. Unfortunately, Mexico, Venezuela, the United Kingdom, Iraq, Russia, Angola, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Norway, Canada, the United Arab Emirates, Nigeria, Kuwait, Columbia, Egypt, Oman, Libya, Brazil and Indonesia all declined this proposal. In turn, Bush declared Alaskan oil to be US owned and state governed and embarked on the expropriation of the Alaskan resources and facilities.

 

[CapelDodger]

Is it your contention that a national asset (owned/controlled/reserved/protected/defended by the federal government) cannot be said to belong to the members of that nation any more than it can be said to belong to members of other nations?

Pretty much. It's one of the major frauds of nationalism that national benefit is presented as being the benefit of the populace in general, when all the benfit goes to an influential elite. Another great fraud is patriotism.

"It's Tommy this, and Tommy that,
And Tommy here's my boot.
But it's Tommy you're a hero
When the guns begin to shoot".

As Rudyard Kipling put it. I don't think you'll see the slightest benefit out of that oil personally, but some families will see a lot.



And thank you, as ever, Frank Newgent, for putting some perspective on things. Alaskans will have to accept the fact they were bought outright, top-to-toe and tickly bits, in 1867 by the Feds.

 

[Rob Lister]

Pretty much.

Well, if that's your view then I fear we are far enough apart in rational idealism that no amount of debate is going to find common ground. Feel free to continue on your quest to be free from nationalism, however. Just don't bump your head against the white cliffs of reality while swimming in your sea of platitudes*.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*Ripped from a poet I don't have the motivation to properly credit or accuratly quote. Shame that.

 

[CapelDodger]

Well, if that's your view then I fear we are far enough apart in rational idealism that no amount of debate is going to find common ground. Feel free to continue on your quest to be free from nationalism, however. Just don't bump your head against the white cliffs of reality while swimming in your sea of platitudes.

I don't need to seek freedom from nationalism, I am free of it, and always have been. I didn't fall for it in my youth, and I'm hardly likely to fall for it now, despite the white-haired reality of my 50 years. I can't speak for what might follow the onset of senility; perhaps our world-views may then become a little closer.

"Rational idealism"? Presumably the "idealism" derives the idea that patriotism is a virtue, rather than a self-inflating indulgence that leaves one vulnerable to being led by the nose. You've come up a little short on the rational when your explanation of a national asset being in some measure yourasset amounts to "It just is". I'm bound to suspect that you've never even questioned the idea before.

 

[Rob Lister]

I don't need to seek freedom from nationalism, I am free of it, and always have been. I didn't fall for it in my youth, and I'm hardly likely to fall for it now, despite the white-haired reality of my 50 years. I can't speak for what might follow the onset of senility; perhaps our world-views may then become a little closer.

"Rational idealism"? Presumably the "idealism" derives the idea that patriotism is a virtue, rather than a self-inflating indulgence that leaves one vulnerable to being led by the nose. You've come up a little short on the rational when your explanation of a national asset being in some measure yourasset amounts to "It just is". I'm bound to suspect that you've never even questioned the idea before.

I was gonna' just let this go but I felt compelled to correct you. I never said it was mine, I said it was ours. Sure, that excludes you but if you want I can give you the URL to our immigration department.

 

[CapelDodger]

I was gonna' just let this go but I felt compelled to correct you. I never said it was mine, I said it was ours.

And thus, surely, "in some measure" your own.

Sure, that excludes you but if you want I can give you the URL to our immigration department.

Take on all that other crap for a purely vicarious share in Alaskan oil? I think not. I've seen the US rugby team in action; fine chaps, no doubt, and enthusiastic, but hardly comparable to the boys in red.

 

[Frank Newgent]

I never said it was mine, I said it was ours.

ROANOKE - On Tuesday, March 15, 2005, Virginia SUV owners marched to save their last national treasure: A PITY (Alaskan Petroleum Isn't Yours). Variously estimated from about a dozen or so up to 1,000,000 people, they were undisciplined, appropriately dressed, and in high spirits. The amount of organization necessary to call for, bring in, launch and evacuate such crowds boggles the mind.

In conjunction with the march, United States President George W Bush announced that "A PITY is safe in my hands" but avoided any references to the proposed sale of petroleum subsidiaries to "private investors", some of whom are believed to be foreigners.

 

[Brown]

I remember well the very first time in my life that I paid $20 for a tank of gasoline. At the time, I thought it was steep.

But during the "administration" of little Bush:
I paid $25 for a tank of gasoline for the first time in my life.
I paid $30 for a tank of gasoline for the first time in my life.
I paid $35 for a tank of gasoline for the first time in my life.
I fully expect that, the next time I go to the pump, I will be pretty darn close to $40 for a tank.

(In case you're wondering, I've driven three cars in that time, all made by the same manufacturer and all having the same size tanks. The latter two cars, however, used premium fuel, which is more expensive than regular fuel.)

While Little Bush was still fouling things up in office, I went from the US to Canada. Before moving, I paid $40 for a tank of gasoline for the first time in my life. One of the last things I did in the US was pay $45 for a tank of gas (in Michigan, on my way to Ontario), for the first time in my life.

I subsequently got a new (fuel-efficient) car in Canada, a car that uses regular gas. While Little Bush was still in office,
I paid $50 for a tank of gasoline for the first time in my life.

Thereafter, Barack Obama became president, and
I paid $55 for a tank of gasoline for the first time in my life.
I paid $60 for a tank of gasoline for the first time in my life.

Now, let it be remembered that Canadian gas prices are higher than US prices, in large part due to the taxes, and that the Canadian dollar is not the same as the US dollar. (When I checked the market two days ago, the Canadian dollar was worth more by about 2 cents, I believe.) Nevertheless, the US and Canadian markets track one another; when prices rise or fall in one country, they rise or fall in the other as well.

The reason I resurrect this thread is that there are now rumblings that a certain political party will try to convince voters that high gas prices are Obama's fault. This assumes, of course, that the electorate has no memory, or that it is made up of idiots (or both). When an oilmen-butt-smooching Texan dung-head held the office, gas prices rose more than just a wee bit. Is someone going to argue, seriously, that putting another oilmen's buddy in the White House is going to make gas prices more manageable for the consumer?

 

[Dymanic]

The reason I resurrect this thread is that there are now rumblings that a certain political party will try to convince voters that high gas prices are Obama's fault. This assumes, of course, that the electorate has no memory, or that it is made up of idiots (or both).

Oh, there's a long shot. What could those members of that political party be thinking?

 

[DavidJames]

I blame the President now as much as I blamed the President then.

Not at all.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Add that a dollar isn't worth more than 2/3 of what it was five years ago ....

Someone should probably stop printing a trillion of them per year then.

 

[AlexW]

The Saudi's to the rescue! From Slate:

In a matter of days, Saudi Arabia has hired the largest number of super-tankers in years. When the tankers load their cargo in Ras Tanura, the world’s largest oil terminal, in the next couple of weeks and start a 40-day voyage towards the US Gulf coast, they will deliver a wall of oil with a single aim: to bring prices down.




“This is the first time in several years for [Saudi Arabia] to hit the market with such volume – and in such a short time frame,” says Omar Nokta, a shipping expert at specialist investment bank Dalham Rose & Co.