Date: 01/08/25 - 09:25 AM   48060 Topics and 694399 Posts

Author Topic: $4 gas has come to Kansas  (Read 1415 times)

May 21, 2008, 11:35:08 PM
Read 1415 times

Dirty Sanchez

  • Classless Cat
  • Senior Cub

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 4638
  • Personal Text
    Powertard Un-approved
Granted, this is one of those service stations that focuses more on repairs than selling gas, but Peterson Oil in Lindsborg is now at $4.09


May 22, 2008, 02:45:10 AM
Reply #1

AzCat

  • Classless Cat
  • Scout Team Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 7320
LOL @ $4.09.  Best batten down the hatches folks, this one's about to get ugly.
Ladies & gentlemen, I present: The Problem

May 22, 2008, 10:57:38 AM
Reply #2

PCR

  • Classless Cat
  • Senior Cub

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 2992
Gas was $1.46 a gallon when Bush took office.

May 22, 2008, 11:01:52 AM
Reply #3

AzCat

  • Classless Cat
  • Scout Team Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 7320
Gas was $1.46 a gallon when Bush took office.

Bush = lefty.  Seriously.  They've been telling us for years that we should be paying Europrices for our gasoline.   
Ladies & gentlemen, I present: The Problem

May 22, 2008, 11:03:25 AM
Reply #4

Pete

  • Administrator
  • Scout Team Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ********

  • 6413
  • Personal Text
    Hicks
Gas was $1.46 a gallon when Bush took office.

Bush = lefty.  Seriously.  They've been telling us for years that we should be paying Europrices for our gasoline.   

Bush Family wealth is increasingly nicely. 

May 22, 2008, 12:11:18 PM
Reply #5

The1BigWillie

  • Guest
Quote
On NBC’s May 15 “Today,” host Matt Lauer interviewed ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM) CEO Rex Tillerson. Lauer quizzed Tillerson on oil companies’ profit margins and higher gas prices, but Lauer didn’t ask Tillerson about the potential impact Lieberman-Warner would have on the price of gasoline.

 

     “Well, the problem we have right now, and fortunately we have several months before the election, to make sure the American people know that this is a supply problem that is causing the gas prices to go up,” Inhofe said to BMI. “You know the Democrats, right down party lines – they do not want to drill in ANWR, they do not want to drill offshore. They don’t want the tar sands. They don’t want more energy. And they don’t want refinery capacity.”

 

     The Senate defeated a measure to drill in ANWR on May 13. The vote, an amendment to another bill, was killed by a vote of 42-56, largely along party lines. Only one Democrat voted for the amendment, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), and five Republicans voting against it.

 

     Inhofe blamed Democratic policies going as far back as the Clinton administration.

 

     “The Democrats are the reason we have high prices at the pumps, and we’re not going to be able to alleviate that until we start producing again in America,” Inhofe added. “And I knew this was happening way back, well 10 years ago, when President Clinton vetoed the bill that would have allowed us to drill in ANWR. I said on the Senate floor that day 10 years ago that in 10 years we would regret this. It’s now 10 years later.”

 

May 22, 2008, 12:24:15 PM
Reply #6

Oklahoma_Cat

  • Senior Cub

  • Offline
  • *

  • 4415
  • Personal Text
    ANGRY AS F*CK
Anything that you quoted lost credibility when it talked about anything Inhofe said.

May 22, 2008, 04:47:03 PM
Reply #7

Dirty Sanchez

  • Classless Cat
  • Senior Cub

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 4638
  • Personal Text
    Powertard Un-approved
LOL @ $4.09.  Best batten down the hatches folks, this one's about to get ugly.

I don't see it.  The economy crumbles and collapses the oil market before it hits the $8 mark.

May 22, 2008, 07:46:06 PM
Reply #8

AzCat

  • Classless Cat
  • Scout Team Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 7320
LOL @ $4.09.  Best batten down the hatches folks, this one's about to get ugly.

I don't see it.  The economy crumbles and collapses the oil market before it hits the $8 mark.

Personally I don't either, I'd imagine that "the dean of oil analysts" probably runs a hedge fund that has billions tied up in futures.
Ladies & gentlemen, I present: The Problem

May 22, 2008, 09:22:29 PM
Reply #9

sys

  • Second String Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 10936
  • Personal Text
    gmafb
ANWR - estimated 5.7 to 10.4 billion b. oil "technically recoverable" (not proven reserves, just guestimates).

iraq - 112 bb oil in proven reserves, with huge fields still to be adequately explored.



judge for yourselves which one would make a dent in the global price of oil if extraction had been allowed without disruption at both sites.
"these are no longer “games” in the commonly accepted sense of the term. these are free throw shooting contests leavened by the occasional sprint to the other end of the floor."

May 22, 2008, 09:33:02 PM
Reply #10

chum1

  • Scout Team Wildcat

  • Offline
  • **

  • 6944
When are we getting all of that free oil in exchange for helping out the Iraqi people?

May 22, 2008, 10:07:17 PM
Reply #11

pissclams

  • Administrator
  • All American

  • Offline
  • ********

  • 16026
  • Personal Text
    (worst non-premium poster at ksufans.com)
I don't know what's going on but was really drunk a couple of weeks back and talking with a friend of mine who manages a hedge fund and is into this crap.  he said- and I'm not quoting- that it had something to do with dudes controlling oil futures.  not sure but it made sense at the time.  my guess is that the longterm snowball effect that oil prices will start to have on our entire economy will force something to dislodge, either good or bad


Cheesy Mustache QB might make an appearance.

New warning: Don't get in a fight with someone who doesn't even need to bother to buy ink.

May 23, 2008, 02:42:36 AM
Reply #12

AzCat

  • Classless Cat
  • Scout Team Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 7320
ANWR - estimated 5.7 to 10.4 billion b. oil "technically recoverable" (not proven reserves, just guestimates).

iraq - 112 bb oil in proven reserves, with huge fields still to be adequately explored.

judge for yourselves which one would make a dent in the global price of oil if extraction had been allowed without disruption at both sites.

Bakken Formation (ND) - 200 bb
Green River Basin, etc. (CO, WY, UT) - 700 bb
Alberta Tar Sands (Great White North) - 1000 bb (import blocked by lefty Congress in US)

There's a couple trillion barrels that could easily be made available, think that might make a difference?  And there's plenty more where that came from but the trouble is where it's being produced lefties want to block the imports and where it is yet to be produced lefties want to block exploration and development.  As for ANWR, your estimates are almost certainly based on what is recoverable from the approximately 2400 acres oil companies are currently seeking to have opened for exploration.  That, by the way, is 2400 acres or around 4 square miles in an area the size of North Carolina.
Ladies & gentlemen, I present: The Problem

May 23, 2008, 03:37:26 AM
Reply #13

sys

  • Second String Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 10936
  • Personal Text
    gmafb
Bakken Formation (ND) - 200 bb
Green River Basin, etc. (CO, WY, UT) - 700 bb

 :curse:  those goddamned sneaky lefties!  they hid all our oil in shale fields!


no particular restrictions on extraction though.  just marginally feasible technically, and only recently economically viable.


Alberta Tar Sands (Great White North) - 1000 bb (import blocked by lefty Congress in US)

um, actually no.  the us imports most of the canadian tar sand oil currently produced.  and even if the goddamned lefties did ban it, it would be a meaningless gesture, with little impact on price.  oil is a global market.  global supply and global demand impact prices, not provincial hissy fits about which particular oil some retard country prefers to buy or sell.
"these are no longer “games” in the commonly accepted sense of the term. these are free throw shooting contests leavened by the occasional sprint to the other end of the floor."

May 23, 2008, 09:29:38 AM
Reply #14

AzCat

  • Classless Cat
  • Scout Team Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 7320
Bakken Formation (ND) - 200 bb
Green River Basin, etc. (CO, WY, UT) - 700 bb

 :curse:  those goddamned sneaky lefties!  they hid all our oil in shale fields!


no particular restrictions on extraction though.  just marginally feasible technically, and only recently economically viable.
 

Over 90% of the shale reserves lie under federal land.  Exploration on federal land, as we've seen recently and repeatedly with ANWR, is a political hot potato that's likely to be kept in the air for many years to come.  If Congress refuses to open 4 square miles of a remote Arctic wilderness few will ever see do you really believe they're going to throw open tens of thousands of square miles of wild lands far closer to their loud lefty constituents?  If you do I have a very nice bridge for sale, just outside NYC, I'll let it go cheap.

Alberta Tar Sands (Great White North) - 1000 bb (import blocked by lefty Congress in US)
um, actually no.  the us imports most of the canadian tar sand oil currently produced.

Ummm yes, or at least they've established a beachhead and will work feverishly towards a complete ban. 

Quote
Although President George W. Bush has publicly welcomed production of Canadian tar sands oil, Congress last year passed legislation that prohibits the government from using alternative fuels that have a larger carbon footprint than conventional oil.

As a result, the U.S. Defense Department is unable to use jet fuel made from tar sands oil even though greenhouse gas emissions per barrel of tar sands oil have fallen 32% since 1990.

Now California is moving to disallow the use of tar sands oil under a recently approved low-carbon fuels standard sought by environmental groups, and Illinois is among a dozen states also considering such a standard. Environment Illinois has vowed to challenge any refinery expansion or modification permits that would facilitate greater use of tar sands oil, and has asked the Great Lakes state governors to impose such a ban.

A wholesale ban on the importation of oil derived from tar sands would have at least a transient impact on the global market.  If you don't believe it try to find enough tanker capacity to replace that oil from overseas sources (hint: it doesn't exist and building it will take time, probably measured in years). 

And if you believe that blocking expansion or modernization of US refineries will have no impact on the price of hydrocarbon based products in the US you're a bigger fool than I'd imagined.  You lefties wouldn't look so dumb if you'd at least start considering things beyond the first-order effects of your fantasies.
Ladies & gentlemen, I present: The Problem

May 23, 2008, 12:14:48 PM
Reply #15

jeffy

  • Scout Team Wildcat

  • Offline
  • **

  • 7000
  • Personal Text
    ku Swallows
The large increase in the price of oil has more to do with the value of the dollar than anything else.  There's no question that prices of oil are rising, but not entirely.  I guess we can put some/a lot of the blame on the Fed.



From AGI: (4/15/08)
Record oil prices tied to dollar depreciation

Oil reached another all-time high today, topping $114 a barrel in global trading. The reasons for the rise are manifold, including new concerns from the International Energy Agency about supply shortages. But one cause of the high price is the depreciating dollar, which dropped again today in trading. When the dollar falls, oil prices rise because investors are more likely to use their money to buy hard commodities that won't lose as much value such as oil and gold. 

In fact, much of the rise in oil prices is due to a weakening U.S. dollar. This chart shows the price per barrel of oil in dollars and euros over the last five years. The widening gap between the two lines indicates that 35 percent of the increase in the price of oil could be attributed to currency devaluation. Of course, the falling dollar is due, in part, to the rising price of oil.

Meanwhile, the national average for gasoline prices in the United States also hit record highs of nearly $3.40 per gallon, with diesel fuel prices rising to $4.12 per gallon. Analysts say prices are unlikely to fall anytime soon, especially as the summer driving season gets under way in the United States.

May 23, 2008, 01:57:20 PM
Reply #16

sys

  • Second String Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 10936
  • Personal Text
    gmafb
Over 90% of the shale reserves lie under federal land.  Exploration on federal land, as we've seen recently and repeatedly with ANWR, is a political hot potato that's likely to be kept in the air for many years to come.

lol @ "federal land".  blm land is so far from a nwr, it isn't even relevant.  you can explode a nuke on blm land if you wish.  they'll charge you $1.22 per acre exploded, but, bfd.


Congress last year passed legislation that prohibits the government from using alternative fuels that have a larger carbon footprint than conventional oil.

Now California is moving to disallow the use of tar sands oil under a recently approved low-carbon fuels standard sought by environmental groups, and Illinois is among a dozen states also considering such a standard.

A wholesale ban on the importation of oil derived from tar sands would have at least a transient impact on the global market.

a california ban and a gov't vehicle ban are ridiculously far from your "banned from the us" claim.  and neither has any impact on the price of hydrocarbons in the us.

you're correct about the last part though.  a us ban on tar sand oil would have a transitory impact on us oil prices.  and a marginal long-term impact to include increased transportation costs.  it would be very stupid.  but not significant.

"these are no longer “games” in the commonly accepted sense of the term. these are free throw shooting contests leavened by the occasional sprint to the other end of the floor."

May 28, 2008, 01:30:46 AM
Reply #17

pwrcat1

  • Cub

  • Offline

  • 2420
time to break out the ol' sooter... aka does anyone have a cheap electric scooter for sale?