Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   In the latest "why gas is so expensive" excuse, oil companies claim that they can't buy crude cheap enough to make money, so they must close down refineries   (foxnews.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, oil companies, American Automobile Association, U.S. Energy Department, Sunoco, refineries, economic recovery, gas prices, limited access  
•       •       •

9187 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Mar 2012 at 3:02 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



277 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-03-18 04:25:47 PM  

I agree with you: See the problem is, they are selling oil for $138.00 a barrel, and buying grain from us at $7.00 a busshel. If we would sell grain to them for $138.00 a bushel, problem solved, after they tried eating the oil prices would come down.


Too bad you aren't in charge. That would make for a couple of months of interesting headlines.
 
2012-03-18 04:25:55 PM  

FOOKIN' MAGNETS!!!!

 
rpm
2012-03-18 04:29:18 PM  

dericwater: You heard it here first: Obama will sign an executive order requiring all federal automobiles to switch to natural gas for fuel. That will take about 500,000 vehicles out from using $4/gal gasoline to $1/gal (or however it's calculated) natural gas. Runs cleaner, better efficiency and much cheaper. The US has about 100 years of natural gas reserves, assuming the current growth.

This will occur around mid-July. The price of gasoline will then drop due to lack of demand after the retrofitting by mid to late September. Gas prices will hit $3.00/gal or less across the nation due to the drop in the fed's demand for gasoline and everyone will cheer on Obama as election comes.


Let's see, demand goes down a quarter of a percent, if that, and prices drop 25%. There's something wrong with your math.
 
2012-03-18 04:30:18 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Nutsac_Jim: DarwiOdrade: Nutsac_Jim: If high gas prices are what is needed to develop outstanding alternatives,
why are not these alternatives being produced, right now, in countries where gas is 10$ a gallon?

Um...they are.

The countries of the European Union are currently the number two global leaders in the development and application of renewable energy. Promoting the use of renewable energy sources is important both to the reduction of the EU's dependence on foreign energy imports, and in meeting targets to combat global warming. (new window)

Who is number one?

In investment ($), the US from what I've been able to find. Apparently China is moving up that list fairly quickly. As a percent of GDP, apparently Denmark is #1.

As a percent of total energy used, Iceland and Paraguay get 100% of their energy from renewable sources (according to wikipedia).


OK, so apparently, the US does not need to slap double the taxes on gas in order to get the extra investment needed in alternatives? It seems that companies do all kinds of investment in it, all by themselves. Companies want to get a leg up on the competition, it seems.

I will probably take a dump on Iceland. Not everyone gets to live on top of geothermal vents.
 
2012-03-18 04:32:31 PM  
A natural gas Civic costs around $5,000 more than a gas model and gets slightly worse fuel mileage. You also lose some trunk space because of the tank. The next problem is having somewhere to fill the vehicle. Retrofitting a vehicle to run on natural gas can cost upwards of $15,000. It's going to be quite a while before natural gas because a viable option for people.
 
2012-03-18 04:32:51 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: OK, so apparently, the US does not need to slap double the taxes on gas in order to get the extra investment needed in alternatives? It seems that companies do all kinds of investment in it, all by themselves. Companies want to get a leg up on the competition, it seems.

I will probably take a dump on Iceland. Not everyone gets to live on top of geothermal vents.


All by themselves? I think not. The government has encouraged the development of renewable, for example through loan guarantees.
 
2012-03-18 04:33:05 PM  

Poison Appleseeds: ConocoPhillips announced its 2011 fourth-quarter earnings, reporting profits of $3.4 billion - a 66 percent gain- bringing total profits in 2011 to $12.4 billion.

ConocoPhillips has spent over $16 million lobbying Congress in 2011, ranking in as the fifth largest spender last year - and number one in the oil and gas industry.

ConocoPhillips has contributed over $200,000 to federal campaigns in 2011, with 90 percent of the contributions going to Republicans.

ConocoPhillips used 88 percent of their 2011 profits - $11 billion - to buy back their own stock. That enriches their shareholders, but it doesn't add to oil supplies or investments in alternative fuels or other new technologies.

Exxon Mobil reported earnings of $9.4 billion in the fourth quarter of 2011

Exxon Mobil maintained the company's aggressive share repurchase program during the fourth quarter of 2011. The company expended $5.4 billion to purchase 69 million shares of its common stock during the quarter, and anticipates a similar repurchase program in the first quarter of 2012

Chevron earned a record net profit of $27 billion in 2011 and holds a net cash position of $10 billion.

BP reported $7.7 billion in profit for the fourth quarter of 2011, a 38 percent increase from a year earlier.

Royal Dutch Shell's fourth quarter 2011 earnings were $6.5 billion compared with $5.7 billion in the same quarter a year ago. Full year 2011 earnings were $28.6 billion compared with $18.6 billion in 2010.

The five biggest oil companies - BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell - are likely to make $130 billion in profits in 2011. Added together, the Big Five oil companies are sitting on cash resources of $59 billion and made nearly $1 trillion in profits over the past decade.


/why won't someone give these oil companies a break?


Thank you for the numbers.

/hug
 
2012-03-18 04:33:12 PM  

Forgot_my_password_again: more proof capitalism failed.


i.qkme.me
 
2012-03-18 04:33:17 PM  

Poison Appleseeds: ConocoPhillips announced its 2011 fourth-quarter earnings, reporting profits of $3.4 billion - a 66 percent gain- bringing total profits in 2011 to $12.4 billion.

ConocoPhillips has contributed over $200,000 to federal campaigns in 2011, with 90 percent of the contributions going to Republicans.


Like I've said before, it's not so much frightening that politicians can be bought, but it's farking scary how little it costs.
 
2012-03-18 04:43:15 PM  
Yeaaa! My Prius just got less gay! Usually happens at 3.50 or so.
 
2012-03-18 04:45:02 PM  

Tiberius Sulla: Sooooo...

The record profits they've been turning out for the last four years or so every quarter don't exist, never happened, and they're not making any money because Obamas instigated energy crunch to force us to look for alternative fuel sources including ethanol which hurts fuel economy and destroys engine parts is a complete ruse?


Businesses in this country are expected to increase profits every quarter. So they made record profits last four years. If their profits are down from that according to wallstreet they are losing money.
 
2012-03-18 04:47:33 PM  

Zombie Butler: alwaysjaded: Hmmm.

repairing cat crackers.
?????
I hope you respond because I'm dying to know what this is and whether or not it's fitting the picture in my head.


A cat cracker is a large tank (100' tall, 75' around?) that is kept heated with super heated steam under high pressure, something like 900 degrees F and I forgot what pressure. A huge pipe feeds crude into this tank and the oil is vaporized. There is a catalytic material blowing around in there (super small ceramic balls) to help keep the temperature even. The vapor heads out to condensers of various sizes to give you different weight 'oils'. It also helps to remove any contaminants which are handled elsewhere, like sulphur.

The above is an over simplicifation and a little crude but that's basically what a cat cracker is. I worked in a refinery in Delaware City, Delaware as a contractor for one of the aforementioned shutdowns about 20 years ago, so I worked on a cat cracker and learned how it works but I'm sure I screwed up something somewhere. I'm senile from oil fumes (you really never smell gas at a refinery) and I glow in the dark from when I worked in a nuclear power plant. Now that I think about it, I wonder if I no longer need to be embalmed when I kick the bucket? All of those chemicals from industry as well as healthy(?) doses of radiation should mean I'll be a comic book hero soon.
 
2012-03-18 04:54:32 PM  
I just paid $0.85 cents a gallon for diesel. You guys just keep on using your petroleum-based products and claim there is no alternative.
 
2012-03-18 04:55:05 PM  
Step 1: FOX News says gas will be $5.00 soon. They just make it up out of thin air.

Step 2: The rest of the MSM catches the story and echoes FOX News.

Step 3: Gas stations see it on the news, and say "Well, why not?" and hike their prices, seeing as people were expecting it, anyway.

Step 4: Americans pay over $4.00 for gas because they're in a financial bind and need to get to work to afford their $130 cable bill and $20 per month for their MMORPG of choice.

Step 5: FOX News snickers wickedly and says "See? We told you so! It's Obama's fault, too!"

Step 6: Obama's camp spins this by saying it's because of unrest in the Middle East, and that there may be a threat of more wars.

Step 7: Mitt Romney gets the GOP nomination, but loses the election because moderates and undecided voters don't want an untested President to lead us into war with the Middle East, while they have heard for the past several months about how Obama's administration was responsible for getting us out of Iraq, and finally catching Osama Bin Laden-- Something Republicans couldn't do.

Step 8: Things go back to "normal". FOX News spends another four years finding ways to say "We hate the Black President" without saying "We hate the Black President".
 
2012-03-18 04:56:12 PM  

superdave300: I just paid $0.85 cents a gallon for diesel.


???
 
2012-03-18 05:01:28 PM  

9beers: superdave300: I just paid $0.85 cents a gallon for diesel.

???


Biodiesel...made from waste vegetable oil. Runs better than diesel, less particulates, 60% cleaner, fumes smell like french fries, and 100% of the CO2 released was sucked out of the air by plants within the last three months. Did I mention it cost me 85 cents a gallon?
 
2012-03-18 05:07:04 PM  

superdave300: Biodiesel...made from waste vegetable oil. Runs better than diesel, less particulates, 60% cleaner, fumes smell like french fries, and 100% of the CO2 released was sucked out of the air by plants within the last three months. Did I mention it cost me 85 cents a gallon?


The only reason biodiesel works is because almost nobody uses it.
 
2012-03-18 05:09:44 PM  

superdave300: Biodiesel...made from waste vegetable oil.


That particular fuel is never going to have a large market share, and you don't want it to. There's simply not enough supply, and if a lot of people converted to it, demand would raise your $0.85/gal fuel to $20/gal, and armed gangs would be raiding every McDonalds in town.

If you're just bragging, well, that's cool.
 
2012-03-18 05:16:06 PM  

sethstorm: austin_millbarge: Buy off? With what? They are allegedly dirty lazy hippies with no jobs.
This environmentalism excuse is another one of the big lies floated around by the rightwing in this nation.


Then explain Aspen, Colorado, a decidedly non-hippie Mecca of the kind of environmentalism leading to high oil prices. That is, the kind of environmentalism that leads to an elite that drive high-pollution cars while they make sure it's too expensive for normal people to drive anything but a shoddy golfcart.


Those are't the kind of people that the average person complains about when whining about environmentalists. The environmentalism excuse is a lie for the right to have their cake (oil profits) and eat it too (stomping environmentalists in the process).
 
2012-03-18 05:20:55 PM  

vodka: superdave300: Biodiesel...made from waste vegetable oil. Runs better than diesel, less particulates, 60% cleaner, fumes smell like french fries, and 100% of the CO2 released was sucked out of the air by plants within the last three months. Did I mention it cost me 85 cents a gallon?

The only reason biodiesel works is because almost nobody uses it.


The oil industry has done a good job keeping this technology out of your pumps. The biggest move the oil industry has made against biodiesel was prohibition. You need alcohol in the biodiesel-making process, so just make booze illegal and you can only use petroleum-based fuel. They directly funded the womens organizations that took on America's love for booze. Why else would Standard Oil give them millions of dollars? Because old white men don't want booze? Prohibition held up Ford from building a whole new line of diesel vehicles, as the diesel engine was built specifically for biodiesel. Their idea was that farmers accross the country could fuel the nation. Big Oil holds up prohibition for years, Ford finally gives in, changes it's factory over to unleaded-fuel engines, and prohibition is lifted.
 
2012-03-18 05:22:13 PM  
Doesn't biodiesel have problems with cold weather?
 
2012-03-18 05:30:51 PM  

ImpendingCynic: superdave300: Biodiesel...made from waste vegetable oil.

That particular fuel is never going to have a large market share, and you don't want it to. There's simply not enough supply, and if a lot of people converted to it, demand would raise your $0.85/gal fuel to $20/gal, and armed gangs would be raiding every McDonalds in town.

If you're just bragging, well, that's cool.


You're right...powering the country on french fry grease is not feasible. It's not good to use food products, either.

The answer is algea. It doubles in mass every day, only needs water (any kind, even industrial waste water), the sun and carbon dioxide to grow. It doesn't take much imagination to envision gigantic algae operations that consume the carbon dioxide from their own diesel pumps and emit only oxygen. No modifications to your diesel vehicle needed, no food off people's table, no wars, no fluxuating prices, cleaning the air...gosh, sounds too good to be true.
 
2012-03-18 05:34:06 PM  

fireclown: Yeaaa! My Prius just got less gay! Usually happens at 3.50 or so.


www.corpsman.com

Until that happens.

/closing in on an all-time snow record for Anchorage
//my 15 MPG Wrangler just pitched a tent in a park and got pepper sprayed
 
2012-03-18 05:35:15 PM  

9beers: Doesn't biodiesel have problems with cold weather?


Yeah, it clouds up around 25-30 degrees compared to 0-5 degrees F for regular diesel. You use additives, or run a blend. I live in northern AZ and don't have problems, even in the winter.
 
2012-03-18 05:36:03 PM  

superdave300: The oil industry has done a good job keeping this technology out of your pumps. The biggest move the oil industry has made against biodiesel was prohibition. You need alcohol in the biodiesel-making process, so just make booze illegal and you can only use petroleum-based fuel. They directly funded the womens organizations that took on America's love for booze. Why else would Standard Oil give them millions of dollars? Because old white men don't want booze? Prohibition held up Ford from building a whole new line of diesel vehicles, as the diesel engine was built specifically for biodiesel. Their idea was that farmers accross the country could fuel the nation. Big Oil holds up prohibition for years, Ford finally gives in, changes it's factory over to unleaded-fuel engines, and prohibition is lifted.


Nice conspiracy theory, got any proof?

So, prohibition was just an oil company plot to destroy biodiesel by banning alcohol used in the refining process?

Never mind that prohibition didn't restrict industrial uses of ethanol, and you need methanol to produce biodiesel (which is quite undrinkable). "Big Oil" had enough political power to get a Constitutional Amendment passed way back in 1919 (with it being first proposed and passed by Congress in 1917)?

Never mind that Prohibition can be traced through contemporaneous sources to a social movement thinking that alcohol was the root of all social ills and by abolishing it they could perfect society, never mind that the repeal movement started when it was clear that that didn't work.

Do you have sources for this claim that the 18th Amendment was all an elaborate oil-industry plot to force Henry Ford to use unleaded fuel instead of diesel fuel? . . .or is your tinfoil on too tight.
 
2012-03-18 05:37:27 PM  

superdave300: The answer is algea. It doubles in mass every day, only needs water (any kind, even industrial waste water), the sun and carbon dioxide to grow. It doesn't take much imagination to envision gigantic algae operations that consume the carbon dioxide from their own diesel pumps and emit only oxygen. No modifications to your diesel vehicle needed, no food off people's table, no wars, no fluxuating prices, cleaning the air...gosh, sounds too good to be true.


Except no one has yet figured out a way to remove the water without using large amounts of heat where it can be scaled up and cost competitive. Sure, you can use drift wood to heat your home but first how much heat are you going to need to dry it out?
 
2012-03-18 05:37:49 PM  

Silverstaff: superdave300: The oil industry has done a good job keeping this technology out of your pumps. The biggest move the oil industry has made against biodiesel was prohibition. You need alcohol in the biodiesel-making process, so just make booze illegal and you can only use petroleum-based fuel. They directly funded the womens organizations that took on America's love for booze. Why else would Standard Oil give them millions of dollars? Because old white men don't want booze? Prohibition held up Ford from building a whole new line of diesel vehicles, as the diesel engine was built specifically for biodiesel. Their idea was that farmers accross the country could fuel the nation. Big Oil holds up prohibition for years, Ford finally gives in, changes it's factory over to unleaded-fuel engines, and prohibition is lifted.

Nice conspiracy theory, got any proof?

So, prohibition was just an oil company plot to destroy biodiesel by banning alcohol used in the refining process?

Never mind that prohibition didn't restrict industrial uses of ethanol, and you need methanol to produce biodiesel (which is quite undrinkable). "Big Oil" had enough political power to get a Constitutional Amendment passed way back in 1919 (with it being first proposed and passed by Congress in 1917)?

Never mind that Prohibition can be traced through contemporaneous sources to a social movement thinking that alcohol was the root of all social ills and by abolishing it they could perfect society, never mind that the repeal movement started when it was clear that that didn't work.

Do you have sources for this claim that the 18th Amendment was all an elaborate oil-industry plot to force Henry Ford to use unleaded fuel instead of diesel fuel? . . .or is your tinfoil on too tight.


I thought it was a nice story.
 
2012-03-18 05:37:58 PM  
thanks for the info, energy analyst from goldman sachs...thanks a lot
 
2012-03-18 05:38:14 PM  

alwaysjaded: Hmmm.

I'm a crane operator that works refinery shutdowns. I've been getting a lot of calls lately to go to jobs in the Northeast that will start in the next 2 to 4 months. The jobs are long too ( about 4 to 8 months). But my understanding is they're just scheduled every 4 year repairs like replacing valves, re-welding weak spots in pipes and repairing cat crackers. Could be unrelated but this is Fox News so who knows. It is true though that work slows down big time during election years.

/ yes, even when there's a Republican president


Sunoco is shutting down ther Marcus Hook refinery. There's been talk of cutting it into little pieces and sending it to China.
 
2012-03-18 05:40:08 PM  

Twitch Boy: Until that happens.


I live in heavy snow county (well not this winter) and having a prius was never an issue since the city, county and state tend to plow roads.
 
2012-03-18 05:44:13 PM  

alwaysjaded: Hmmm.

I'm a crane operator that works refinery shutdowns. I've been getting a lot of calls lately to go to jobs in the Northeast that will start in the next 2 to 4 months. The jobs are long too ( about 4 to 8 months). But my understanding is they're just scheduled every 4 year repairs like replacing valves, re-welding weak spots in pipes and repairing cat crackers. Could be unrelated but this is Fox News so who knows. It is true though that work slows down big time during election years.

/ yes, even when there's a Republican president


So I guess with a four year schedule is just a coincidence in that it just happens during the election cycle. And whoever is running is also running against high gas prices and whoever who wants to win most will have to kowtow and promise the most to the oil cartels or otherwise the economy crash.

Isn't that considered extortion, or am I just being paranoid.
(But isn't paranoia natures response to threating stimulus)
 
2012-03-18 05:57:38 PM  
If only you libtards would let us build that Keystone Pipeline invade Iraq.

FTFY. Though I understand the Cheney bullshiat is now "If only you libtards would let us invade Iran".
 
2012-03-18 06:01:29 PM  

Tiberius Sulla: I'm waiting for someone to explain why I'm wrong instead of just saying I'm wrong then tossing out an insult.

I don't know about you guys but that's never been a functional argument in any of the circles I've run in.


When you say that you don't follow politics in a discussion on oil markets or even just any thread on economics or trade, you say that you don't have anything to contribute. Nothing is more politicized than economics, for example; there is a polarity that starts with personal bias that informs whether one supports "free market capitalism" or "socialism" on a theoretical level. Both of those concepts started out with basic assumptions around which data were assembled, rather than being derived from real world data. Therefore, if you don't follow politics, you lack a critical understanding of how the markets work. International markets in the real world are controlled through political systems and agreements. For example, any oil producing country has agreements to engage in commerce within a common market. These agreements are rooted in political decisions; any country could decide to simply stop exporting oil and keep it for their future domestic use. This decision could be met with the political decision to be invaded by whomever their primary customers are. Both decisions would affect oil prices far more than market manipulation and are rooted entirely in domestic politics. Therefore, if you don't follow politics you have nothing to really contribute on matters of international trade. Trade is politics. Economics is most certainly politics-- certainly the most politicized academic subject I saw in college. Markets is politics. Politics is what determines policy.

What that means is whether anyone agrees with you or not is a matter of chance, not because you have relevant comments to add to the discussion. Anyone who professes ignorance of politics simply has no real contributions to make. It's like offering a firm opinion about Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" and then closing with "of course I don't understand science."

At which point, there is no need to engage whatever opinion you held up, except to point out that you have already rendered your opinions worthless to the overall conversation. If the circles you run in accept as valid and worthwhile all opinions on complex subjects regardless of the level of ignorance professed by the opinionator, then that just re-affirms the irrelevance your views hold to the room in general. Your insistance that your opinions are worthwhile despite your professed ignorance reinforces this notion. Get some education, learn how the systems we are discussing work, and then you will earn a voice at the grownup table.
 
2012-03-18 06:06:03 PM  
Nationalization. Fark them in the eye. Twice.
 
2012-03-18 06:12:31 PM  

beer4breakfast: superdave300: The answer is algea. It doubles in mass every day, only needs water (any kind, even industrial waste water), the sun and carbon dioxide to grow. It doesn't take much imagination to envision gigantic algae operations that consume the carbon dioxide from their own diesel pumps and emit only oxygen. No modifications to your diesel vehicle needed, no food off people's table, no wars, no fluxuating prices, cleaning the air...gosh, sounds too good to be true.

Except no one has yet figured out a way to remove the water without using large amounts of heat where it can be scaled up and cost competitive. Sure, you can use drift wood to heat your home but first how much heat are you going to need to dry it out?


Joule Unlimited (http://www.jouleunlimited.com/) are doing interesting things with algae, creating strains which excrete fuel rather than requiring harvesting and processing if the algae itself.

However, my new favourite alternative fuels company is Cool Planet (http://www.coolplanetbiofuels.com/) who claim to be making cellulosic fuel with yields high enough that production at meaningful scales seems like it might be practical. They also claim that it's a drop-in replacement for regular gasoline, and that their tech is modular so can be rolled out quickly. There's a great talk on what they're doing here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkYVlZ9 v_0o
 
2012-03-18 06:15:30 PM  

themeaningoflifeisnot: I just paid $4.08 gallon for regular. Sucks.


£1.48 per litre.

Or £75 a tank. For an estate car.
 
2012-03-18 06:24:35 PM  

superdave300: I live in northern AZ


How are you getting biodiesel so much cheaper than the national average? According to this it's close to $4 a gallon in AZ. Even where it's cheap, it's still close to $2 a gallon. Other sources confirm that the national average is close to $4 a gallon.
 
2012-03-18 06:31:49 PM  

Craptastic: Fact: Our reliance on foreign oil imports was at 57% in 2008. Our current reliance on foreign oil currently stands at 45%.

[www.energyroundup.com image 520x354]

"Drill baby, drill"? We are, baby. And that is having ZERO influence on the price of oil in the USA. Perhaps (this is going to sound crazy, I know), but PERHAPS the price of oil has little to do with the level of domestic production.


Facts have no place here!!! Now good day to you, sir!
 
2012-03-18 06:41:16 PM  
Why won't Obama use his time machine to go back and make oil prices cheaper??
 
2012-03-18 06:52:15 PM  

Mrtraveler01: 9beers: DarwiOdrade: Typical derp from the "drill baby drill" set. Tell me, genius, how much do you think domestic oil production could offset foreign oil imports. Difficulty: use actual numbers and reliable data.

Since you seem to be such an expert, how about you show facts that more domestic production wouldn't have an effect on prices.

From an earlier link

- The volume of fuel exports is rising. The U.S. is using less fuel because of a weak economy and more efficient cars and trucks. That allows refiners to sell more fuel to rapidly growing economies in Latin America, for example. In 2011, U.S. refiners exported 117 million gallons per day of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other petroleum products, up from 40 million gallons per day a decade earlier.
There's at least one domestic downside to America's growing role as a fuel exporter. Experts say the trend helps explain why U.S. motorists are paying more for gasoline. The more fuel that's sent overseas, the less of a supply cushion there is at home.
Gasoline supplies are being exported to the highest bidder, says Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service. "It's a world market," he says.
Refining companies won't say how much they make by selling fuel overseas. But analysts say those sales are likely generating higher profits per gallon than they would have generated in the U.S. Otherwise, they wouldn't occur.
The value of U.S. fuel exports has grown steadily over the past decade, coinciding with rising oil prices and increased demand around the globe.
Developing countries in Latin America and Asia have been burning more gasoline and diesel as their people buy more cars and build more roads and factories. Europe also has been buying more U.S. fuel to make up for its lack of refineries.
And there's a simple reason why America's refiners have been eager to export to these markets: gasoline demand in the U.S. has been falling every year since 2007. It dropped by another 2.5 percent in 2011. With the economy struggling, motorists cut back. Also, cars and trucks have become more fuel-efficient and the government mandates the use of more corn-based ethanol fuel.

In other words, it doesn't matter how much oil we produce here if other countries are willing to pay more for it.

Are you done embarrassing yourself yet?


Please stop replying to him. He's a troll, and a poor one at that.
 
2012-03-18 06:57:25 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: Craptastic: Fact: Our reliance on foreign oil imports was at 57% in 2008. Our current reliance on foreign oil currently stands at 45%.

[www.energyroundup.com image 520x354]

"Drill baby, drill"? We are, baby. And that is having ZERO influence on the price of oil in the USA. Perhaps (this is going to sound crazy, I know), but PERHAPS the price of oil has little to do with the level of domestic production.

Facts have no place here!!! Now good day to you, sir!


Sorry, sir. I'm going to go watch some funny cat videos now.
 
2012-03-18 06:58:48 PM  

BolloxReader: Tiberius Sulla: I'm waiting for someone to explain why I'm wrong instead of just saying I'm wrong then tossing out an insult.

I don't know about you guys but that's never been a functional argument in any of the circles I've run in.

When you say that you don't follow politics in a discussion on oil markets or even just any thread on economics or trade, you say that you don't have anything to contribute. Nothing is more politicized than economics, for example; there is a polarity that starts with personal bias that informs whether one supports "free market capitalism" or "socialism" on a theoretical level. Both of those concepts started out with basic assumptions around which data were assembled, rather than being derived from real world data. Therefore, if you don't follow politics, you lack a critical understanding of how the markets work. International markets in the real world are controlled through political systems and agreements. For example, any oil producing country has agreements to engage in commerce within a common market. These agreements are rooted in political decisions; any country could decide to simply stop exporting oil and keep it for their future domestic use. This decision could be met with the political decision to be invaded by whomever their primary customers are. Both decisions would affect oil prices far more than market manipulation and are rooted entirely in domestic politics. Therefore, if you don't follow politics you have nothing to really contribute on matters of international trade. Trade is politics. Economics is most certainly politics-- certainly the most politicized academic subject I saw in college. Markets is politics. Politics is what determines policy.

What that means is whether anyone agrees with you or not is a matter of chance, not because you have relevant comments to add to the discussion. Anyone who professes ignorance of politics simply has no real contributions to make. It's like offering a firm opinion about Einst ...


You're making the assumption that I have eliminated politics and economics completely from my life when in fact it's not that extreme. I don't seek politics out. They exist, I know they exist, and I glean what I need to know from random sources, usually regurgitated from other random sources such as text, classwork, coworkers, or the MSM. From this I can constitute a functional cross section consisting of fact and bullshiat. Do I have a full and spotless view of everything that's going on? No, but neither do you. You bias toward your own beliefs, ignoring other points of view. I don't bend one way or another politically therefore I don't have as much information sum total as you do but I have it from a wider range of sources. At this point basic logic weeds out the stuff that makes no sense like "Obama wants to kill your grandmother with a steak knife" or "Rich people get paid taxes because of walruses." At the same time I'm weeding out things that make too much sense. The too good to be true principle. "None of the bailout money will be earmarked", for example.

Now. At this point we can hypothesize that while my opinion may not carry as much weight because I don't post meaningless drivel on a constant basis, we can also posit that because I haven't been biased by the psychosis that is general politics my opinion might not be quite as bent as some others. The flip side to that coin is I'm always going to bias in a certain direction anyway due to the way my brain works.

So.

We have an assumption, made by you, that because I'm not here constantly spouting Glenn Beck or Bil O'reilly or some other overpaid dimwit that I can't know what's going on. You're creating a strongarm standpoint based on the same basic concept that you think I'm putting my opinions out with.

A lack of facts or proof.

/having fun now.
 
2012-03-18 07:02:49 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: Please stop replying to him. He's a troll, and a poor one at that.


Name calling online is the sign of a troll. Guess what that means for you?
 
2012-03-18 07:04:51 PM  

Dougie AXP: Zombie Butler: alwaysjaded: Hmmm.

repairing cat crackers.
?????
I hope you respond because I'm dying to know what this is and whether or not it's fitting the picture in my head.

A cat cracker is refining shorthand for one of several catalytic crackers in refineries.

There are hydrocatalytic crackers aka HydroCrackers that use Hydrogen and Catalysts to "Crack" large molecule hydrocarbons into smaller molecules in order to optimize "Molecule management" in order to make specific type of hydrocarbon molecules in excessive quantities.

There is also a Fluidized Catalytic Cracker or FCC for short and a standard Catalytic Cracker (Stationary bed as opposed to the fluidized bed, these usually called the Cat Cracker in most refineries) it does almost the same thing as the HydroCracker but uses platinum based catalysts in most cases and handles a wider range of hydrocarbon molecules to make specific cuts. It is usually one of the garbage cans of the refinery (the Cokers being the other) because they can take almost anything and turn it into a usable intermediate feed for consumption internally or for sale on the open market.

Hoped this helped, I know I'm not the original commenter but I worked in refining for 3+ years and I'm still in the Oil & Gas industry.


This is why I read fark threads.
 
2012-03-18 07:30:36 PM  
Clearly, the solution is to retrofit our cars to run on whale oil.
 
2012-03-18 07:31:12 PM  
"---well, I work in the petrochemical industry so I am really getting a kick, etc. . . . "

Actually, I was indeed the quality inspector on the last refinery ever built in the United States----and if you had told me that at the time, I would have laughed in your face, but alas it was true.

Now there is oil, and there is coal---but there is also something caught right in the middle, which sort of didn't know what it wanted to be when it grew up. Called "Bottoms," it is thick, hard to handle and loaded with sulfur. But it is plentiful---and also cheap.

Mexico is loaded with it, and so are Canada and Alaska.

Unfortunately, the present administration makes no secret of the fact that it hates the energy industry, wants it to die and reduce the standard of living caused by abundant cheap power to roughly that of a turd-world nation.

Quite a few people in America support this policy, and also hate anyone who works productively to produce a product people want. It is not limited to oil and energy; some time back when corn hit $6.00 a bushel, they were screaming about "---those horrible greedy corn farmers, starving those poor people to death!---"

What a bunch of hogwash.

Look Farkers: If you want to run around in the forest and chase your dinner with a sharp stick, go ahead; the rest of us like the idea of having light and heat for our homes, fuel for our motor vehicles and fertilizer for our farms.

All the rest of you ingrate parasites, feel free to freeze in the dark. And good riddance.
 
2012-03-18 07:43:36 PM  
Actually the new EPA MANDATES prevent refineries from functioning at full capacity. But that is not why gas is completely expensive. It might help however, if we had the pipeline and looser EPA regulations. But ya know think of the planet. I like Dino Juice unless someones going to buy me an electric car I don't wanna hear it. LOL
 
2012-03-18 07:50:06 PM  

Cup_O_Jo: Actually the new EPA MANDATES prevent refineries from functioning at full capacity. But that is not why gas is completely expensive. It might help however, if we had the pipeline and looser EPA regulations. But ya know think of the planet. I like Dino Juice unless someones going to buy me an electric car I don't wanna hear it. LOL


Except we're still producing more than what is on demand in the US, and more than that overage is being exported. Because they can sell it at a higher price than they can here. Businesses are in business to make money. So they are. They don't actually care about anything else. They make token displays and donations to seem like they're not completely evil but profit is what drives them. People getting hurt kills profits, so they keep people safe. Destroying the environment kills profits. So they try to keep the joint clean. Accidents happen because they are trying to maximize profits. If they can keep the environment clean and their people safe for a bare minimum then they will because that is what makes them visually appealing to people who don't actually know what they're looking at, and don't care to find out.
 
2012-03-18 08:02:57 PM  

billstclair.com



When Bush #43 was in office, everyone hated those "greedy oil companies" and their "obscene profits."

Well, gasoline was $1.48 in my home town the day Omamavich was immaculated, and it is $3.62 today.

How's all this hopey-changey stuf workin' out for ya?
 
2012-03-18 08:09:14 PM  

Generation_D: Since the free market is failing, I say we nationalize the oil industry. And send in troops to occupy oil company executive offices if needed. The oil companies are acting in ways that are against America. Take them over as a patriotic necessity.


Please move to Cuba.
 
Displayed 50 of 277 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report