Posted on 04/25/2006 7:29:28 AM PDT by kellynla
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush will direct the U.S. Energy Department on Tuesday to temporarily halt deliveries of oil to a strategic reserve in order to get more fuel on the market and help reduce rising gasoline prices, a senior administration official said.
The official said Bush in a morning energy speech, will tell the Energy Department to suspend deliveries this summer while supplies are tight "and defer the deposits until the fall, and then you have more oil on the market."
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
I'm looking for legitimate debate, kelly. You're the one who lost your cool and looked......well, kinda stupid.
what is it with you,
Bush has FAILED MISERABLY on this issue and you continue to dismiss yourself and then keep coming back?
find a hobby or dog to knock around with and quit bothering me! LMAO
gezzzzzzzz
Considerable. SA can't hardly give it away. There light oil percentage has dropped to 40% of their production. The High crude prices you are seeing is for sweet crude and is what is required for our refineries. Refineries are going to have to be retooled to handle sour or heavy crude. thats why they say there is a oil surplus. However light has been in decline since 2004.
Yup!
Big policy shift.
"The tank is full so we won't put any more in."
Pfft. You don't seem to understand the way the game is played. When there is competing control of the House/Senate/White, they can point fingers at one another and blame one another. There's no one to blame but Republicans for this fiasco.
With control of all three houses, there's no excuse for failure to move energy independence through the CONSTITUTIONAL process. NONE. Republicans have failed miserably and it's not worth the cost of diesel to turn out to vote. The Republicans are going to lose because of their own ineptitute.
So you're saying that George Bush is utterly, politically impotent? Because if a Republican president has no sway with a Republican Congress, I'm not sure what else to call it.
No its not, what I described is a speculative bubble... There is a second part to it, which is the willful manipulation of the market... which I did not have time to go into before, because you must understand a speculative bubble and how it happens before you can understand how you can then manipulate a market.
Here is how futures get manipulated.
As you know, Oil production is only at so much per day, and it is to the benefit of suppliers and refiners to keep the supply and demand relatively stable too much supply price drops for the supplier, too much demand and the price increase hurting the refiner.
Now, how do you manipulate a futures market 101.
Given the reality of maximum supply per day, you simply begin to buy futures, as I stated before in small enough numbers it hold little sway on the market... if however, you wish to unscrupulously manipulate the market upward for your own fiscal benefit, you buy lots of futures all coming due over a finite period of time.. for example.. I buy a very large number of futures for say September...
Now, market goes along fine, until september rolls around, now because I have bought a huge proportion of futures for this month, I know that that produces will not be able to meet the existing demand on whats left over and be able to fill their futures obligations to me... so what happens? Simple... consumers of crude cannot get enough oil daily from the producers, they have no option but to come and buy my contracts at an inflated price.... Now if I do this for Sept, Oct and Nov... we now have a full fledged bubble going on, because, I can do this for infinity, using my profits to fuel more buying and hte actual consumers will never ever be able to buy enough crude without coming to me... now, I have been purposely unscrupulous manipulating the market... just as an insider trader would do.
Now others see the market going up and they want in, and you wind up with a speculative bubble feeding frenzy.
The energy futures markets can and are easily manipulated.. and that is why oil is 70+ a bbl, it has nothing to do with scarcity of the actual product, or even refiniery limitations of war fears with Iran.. that's all hogwash.
I'm not interested in getting into a war of statistical data with these people. Anyone can post lots of "accurate" or "truthful" data or statistics and then spin them to mislead people. I doubt that the info is "false", but it is probably slanted or presented without the context necessary to make it relevant.
For example, if I were to have earned "record" capital gains last year, you might think that means I should have to pay higher taxes because of my "record" capital gains. Nevermind the fact that in the past I've had such small capital gains as to be negligible, but this last year I sold 1000 shares of a stock that I bought 20 years ago. After paying $1.00 per share 20 years ago, I've held the stock and it has grown by 25% to $1.25 so my 1000 shares of stock netted me a record $250 profit above my original investment of $1000. This is a record profit to me but it's not really all that big of a deal. (In fact, when adjusted for inflation I've actually lost money on the deal.)
On the other hand, consider the oil companies cited, which had record profits on enormous investments. When you consider the scope of their capital investments, these record profits which sound huge because of their sheer nominal size but which only reflect about an 8% return on capital investment, are not the huge "windfall" that everybody thinks. Also not reflected in those numbers are the large confiscatory losses that Exxon just incurred when the communist dictator of Venezuela (probably a hero to the owners of that website) just took over the the oil production in that country with no compensation to the companies that owned it. Exxon bailed out to cut their losses. Other companies might not be so lucky.
By that logic no one should ever save for retirement because it's years away. This is right out of that old Grasshopper and the Ant story.
If we had started drilling in ANWAR 7 years ago, we'd have it now. If we had started 6 years ago, it would be a year away at most.
ANWAR is not a solution for the next three weeks, but if we had started 6 years ago it might be.
It sure will we won't have any roads to drive on. Thus no need for gas.
Most would have no problems getting the Feds out of the road building business. I'd rather each state decide which roads to build without being blackmailed by matching funds.
Dearest kelly, You asked me 'when and where' the President had campaigned for a more expanded energy policy. You implied that the only time he had done it was.....and I quote......"a passing mention in some state of the union speech."
I proceded, with very little difficulty to come up with two early speeches (I said he had been doing what YOU said he hadn't done since early 2001, and I PROVED it), and you went ballistic and nonsensical on me.
NOW, you say that I have failed in this discussion, when the truth is that YOU, dear kelly, have failed.
I'm not going to go and find every speech he has ever made (and there are MANY), because I found two and you dismissed them. (You find the rest. They're out there because I've heard them, but I'm not going to do any more of your homework for you).
Your accusation that he has not spoken up about new energy sources and drilling in ANWAR, etc. was patently FALSE.
YOU lost this debate, kelly. It's not even close. Good day.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1621174/posts
Bush Eases Environmental Rules on Gasoline
Yahoo! News ^ | 4/25/06 | NEDRA PICKLER
Posted on 04/25/2006 8:36:15 AM PDT by libertarianPA
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Tuesday ordered a temporary suspension of environmental rules for gasoline, making it easier for refiners to meet demand and possibly dampen prices at the pump. He also halted for the summer the purchase of crude oil for the government's emergency reserve.
These restrictions passed during the Clintoonian years are so restrictive, they would prevent any gasoline not made to California's restrictive standards from being sold in California.
California has more people and more cars than any other state. Just allowing us to use gasoline that can be used Oregon, Nevada or Arizona would be a big help and would bring down cost to the consumers.
And I have said it already, but I also blame the Republicans in Congress for their weakness in getting a good energy bill to the President for 4 years, and their wimping out on ANWAR.
But I also understand that leftist environmental wackos have owned the debate for 30 years, and that the American people need to be educated that it is environmentally sound policy to drill for oil and build refineries.
The President is doing his part. Now let's have our Republican Congressmen show some spine and stand up with him against the Democrat obstructionism. (THEY, btw, are the ones 'playing the game').
And that there is no significant demand on oil. Even though world demand for oil is expected to increase by 54 per cent in the first 25 years of the 21st century, according to the Energy Information Agency of the U.S. government. To meet that demand, the world's oil-producing countries will have to pump out an additional 44 million barrels of oil each and every day by 2025.
Global oil demand has grown from 70 million bpd to over 82 million bpd in the last ten years.
.....hmmmmm
Yep, this is just pure market manipulation. Not one economic factor here at all. [/sarcasm]
Take the *billions* in totally unnecessary *pork earmark projects* away from the gutless, spineless worthless 535 congresscritters, and use that US Taxpayer dough for roads, CN.
What? No courage to say it right here and get yourself banned??
No, my assertion comes from the fact that oil has been skyrocketing for quite a while now, long before this latest pissing contest with Iran.
And that there is no significant demand on oil. Even though world demand for oil is expected to increase by 54 per cent in the first 25 years of the 21st century, according to the Energy Information Agency of the U.S. government. To meet that demand, the world's oil-producing countries will have to pump out an additional 44 million barrels of oil each and every day by 2025.
No, I never said there was no significant demand for oil, I said there was no SHORTAGE of oil.. even with predicted increases we, without finding another drop of oil (IE oil exploration compeletely stopped) know where enough oil is for the next 250 years. The production can boost its output to meet demand, there is no shortage of oil, that is an abject myth.. what you have going on, as I have said repeatedly and you wish to just ignore, is simple futures manipulation of the market.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.