Printable View
So, what do you think about the riots in Egypt?
I personally could not care less about Egypt as a country, but I can see that my gasoline costs are going to go through the roof now. And that sucks.
Which is why we should be drilling for oil and natural gas here in the United States so we are not dependent on petty third world countries like Egypt for anything.
We haven't enough oil to make a difference and natural gas production is so ecologically destructive that it's hardly worth it.
Your gasoline costs are skyrocketing because of speculators- the down and dirty trenchmen of the "free market" you're so fond of, not because of Egypt (or the miniscule amount of oil we may get from them).
Take pride as you fill up your tank...somewhere someone has just profited at your expense, which is exactly how capitalism is supposed to work.
You'll feel even better as gas rises to $6/gallon and higher.
As far as i know (i admit that's not a lot:)) Egypt doesn't have a lot of oil. In fact the egyptian oilreserves seem to decline rapidly, so you don't have be burdened with the troubles in Egypt :whistling
Just for the sake of debate, we open up every source of oil/gas we have and produce enough to supply our demand, we become self sufficient.
How likely do you think it would be that.
Our fuel price would be lower than the world market?
Oil companies would only sell to us and not the more profitable world market?
Oil companies would drill more to keep prices lower when demand rises?
There are many drilling sites available for production that are not opened, it's not in the financial interest of the oil companies to increase supply.
Edit.
As for Egypt, we should keep our noses out.
Don't worry. You'll grow up and eventually understand that what happens in one country can affect another in ways that don't relate to how you get to your slumber parties and back.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
EDIT: My apologies, I thought this was the lounge. Considering this is the drawing room, I'll elaborate (but not edit out the first part of my post; it still stands):
The problem with the Egyptian riots is the fact that they hit a political critical spot. If the country falls, then so does the political stability of half the middle east (not only due other riots/uproars, but also due to Egyptian political influence on other countries in the area). It would be in everyone's best interests that no such thing happens or a world war will be on people's hands. Can't imagine that? Israel finally overpowers Palestine. Iran gets involved since Egypt isn't there to control that situation any longer. The US gets involved. Then both the Russians and Chinese get involved for personal/political issues. There you go, two continents dragged into a war, simply because the people supposedly in charge of maintaining peace talks (even though they never actually do so), and governing a lot of Western influence in the Arab world have been taken out of power.
It's why the V.P. appointed had to be who he is (you can be sure he was sanctioned by the US as such, even before Mubarak thought of him as a possible candidate), and why no one is taking a further active part in giving the people what they "want".
So, let me put this in terms you would understand: If Egypt falls, gas prices will soar even higher (thanks to war, especially with so many parties involved). That is a bad thing. You don't like bad things. You should consider finding a better opinion that worrying about just the gas prices.
True. The main reason Egypt is so important and the reason why we want some sort of stability in that region is because of the Suez Canal. Egypt isn't a huge oil producer but there is a lot of goods that goes through the Suez Canal. That is why oil is spiking on speculation that shipments could be significantly delayed or cut-off, with the worst case scenario being $200/barrel of oil. If oil spikes to that high, everything will rise in price because oil is what moves our goods from point A to B. Here in the USA, we could see $9 loaf of bread or $6-9/gallon of gas. That would be a major shock to our economy and to the world. It is obvious that Mubarak is on the out and that the USA should support the people. If we don't support the people in this situation, a regime could be put in place hostile to the USA and cause all kind of problems for Americans. Not only is it the right thing to do since that guy has been in control for 30 years, but it is the thing to do if we wish to have some sort of economic security in the long run in that particular area.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
On an aside, the main reason gasoline has been rising in the USA is mainly due to the devalued dollar. Look for the Fed to devalue the dollar probably in Q3 of this year and then see oil prices rise even further.
I think the Suez Canal is merely a red herring when considering the price of oil.
Only a tiny fraction of world oil stock actually travels via that route (and about half of that fraction is in a pipeline, not tankers) and on any given day, the amount of oil that crosses Egypt is dwarfed by the amount that is floating the oceans as oil companies jockey to find the best market.
A simple aside...
We've become conditioned to constant price spikes at the pump- you hear on the news that barrel prices on Wall Street went up and sure enough, a few days later the pump price down the street bumps a few pennies.
The obvious implication is that there is a direct link between the Saudi sands and the nearest 7-11.
This is not true.
We ship billions of tons of oil every year and the average (this is important) transit time is 70+ days.
Let's say Exxon fills a ship with oil at $15/barrel and two weeks later fills an identical tanker at $10/barrel.
Depending on prices 6 weeks later (these tankers ain't speedy) it may be more profitable to sell off the second tanker first and sit on the more expensive cargo, hoping prices will rise (this becomes a balancing act between "potential" profit and the inexorable costs -"X" amount for the tanker rental/upkeep, docking/transit fees, etc.).
Oil companies use refineries as "choke points".
Rarely is a refinery running at full capacity, it's only outputting enough to keep the desired profit margin in reach.
Actual, real supply of crude is infrequently the reason for reduced refinery output, there is a huge cushion of excess crude stock floating on the oceans (petroleum- one single commodity- accounts for over a third of all shipped tonnage).
Big Oil has the entire system gamed, which is why the big companies have been posting record quarterly profits regardless of the seemingly important "barrel price".
Besides, by all accounts, the Suez is completely open and unimpeded...all the expressed "uncertainty and fear" about oil supply is currently without basis in fact.
The dilemma for the US is that we want to engineer "democracy" in the Middle East.
It's not enough to have a free election, we need our guy to win and Mubarak has reliably been "our guy" for decades.
How ironic that after spending all the time, money and manpower to inflict American democracy on Iraq and Afghanistan, two countries we left alone seem poised to almost spontaneously democratize themselves.
How do we claim credit for- and reestablish control over- a situation as volatile as that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
I don't know where you are getting your information but that canal is significant to how much of the total world goods that pass through it, just not oil.
Dated 2008Quote:
Some 16,000 vessels already pass through the canal each year, carrying an estimated 14% of world shipping and 30% of world oil supplies. Further work is underway to increase the depth of the canal by 2010, opening it up to fully-laden supertankers with a draught of 22m (72ft) against the current 16m (53ft).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7666877.stm
Not only does a lot of goods pass through the canal, if the canal was closed, goods would have to travel further to get to their destination thus using more fuel and delaying shipments by several days.
Quote:
This thin blue ribbon - just 300m wide at its narrowest point - is one of the world's most vital waterways, a crucial commercial shortcut. A ship that passes along the 162km (101 mile) Suez Canal is saved a 9,654km circumnavigation of Africa; the average journey time cut from 20 days to just 13 hours.
Bloomberg article sort of supports your argument however the other does not.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Quote:
If oil shipments through Egypt were disrupted, European supply—and global prices—would be “affected tremendously,” said Dalton Garis, an associate professor in petroleum-market behavior at the Petroleum Institute, an energy-research center in Abu Dhabi.
From the second link:
"About a million barrels a day of crude and refined products are shipped northward on the Suez Canal, according to estimates from the U.S. Department of Energy. A separate pipeline linking the Red Sea and the Mediterranean carries another 1.1 million barrels a day. Together, that is roughly 2% of global oil production".
2% is significantly less than the 30% you claim.
Furthermore, Dalton Garis and the science of petroleum market behavior are irrelevant.
Essentially comparable to the "expert" commentators at a WWE event, he is studying a script.
There is no way the oil corps lose as the "market" is structured today.
Global oil production, keyword here production, not shipments. The shipments are going to be significantly less than total production. Probably more inline with oil exports.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
http://www.eia.doe.gov/country/index.cfm#countrylist
Yea the professor doesn't know what he is talking about, sure. :rolleyes:
Here are his credentials:
Dr. Dalton Garis
Associate Professor of Economics
Email: [email protected]
Phone: +971 2 607 5297
Office: 2116 (Bu Hasa)
Academic Qualifications
* Ph.D., Resource Economics, University of Florida
* M.Sc., Agricultural Economics, Texas A & M University
* B.Sc., Industrial Engineering, University of Massachusetts
2003 to now Associate Professor of Economics, Petroleum Institute, Abu Dhabi
Dr. Garis has over 20 years experience in commodity price analysis and over 10 years experience in Qur’anic economics. He has been an invited speaker at oil and gas, refinery, and petrochemical conferences in the Gulf region presenting research on cash and futures petroleum market behavior and price formation. Dr Garis has presented research on oil prices and energy alternatives at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers annual conference in Anaheim, California, USA, and the Society of Petroleum Engineers regional conference in Bahrain. He has acted as a consultant on the use of futures and options markets for wet barrel hedging for Gulf producers, and also is a regular contributor to Islamic economics and finance forums in the Middle East, specializing in Shar’iah-compliant commodity based futures and options hedging for producers. His book on Qur’anic economics, Manna From Heaven will be published this winter.
Dr. Garis is a columnist for Oil and Gas News, ADNOC News, Oil & Gas Middle East, and Zawya on oil pricing and marketing issues.
Research Interests
Petroleum market price analysis
Futures petroleum market behavior
Islamic finance and economics
So what are yours since you are so quick to compare him to a WWE commentator?
How many "experts", "professors" and "economists" studied the financial system and foresaw the crisis we are now embroiled in?
How did they stop/mitigate it?
Fie on your experts.
I'm of the persuasion that we cannot avoid another major war. What part in history makes that seem possible. We do all we can to prevent hostilities from spilling over and will just invent a new kind of multinational conflict somewhere in the process. We'll call it WWIII but it'll be a whole different monster.
Your professor has EVERY reason (highlighted in bold) to say things that will help (spread fear and) raise the price of oil. Extremely biased commentators typically have minimally valuable information to offer- regardless of their resumes.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman_1
@Sandman:
I'm not sure why we're even arguing about this.
Whether the Canal handles 2% or 30% matters not...it's open for business and there's no delay, so whatever was flowing before is flowing now.
Thus, there should be no change in crude barrel prices (at least no changes because of "fear" or "uncertainty" regarding the Suez).
The Suez is undeniably an important piece of the worldwide shipping network and Egypt makes a lot of money off it, so no one in Egypt has incentive to throttle it.
In the unlikely event that it does become impeded, Big Oil will snap it's fingers and start using alternative routes (and building new ones) and/or call for military intervention.
Petty concerns like democracy, jihad and social unrest will not stop the flow of oil and money.
I think the main concern is if there was a hostile regime put in place, like Iran, to the USA. Also I think you will find that we have agreement on more things than not. We just slightly differ in opinion. I do agree that they purposely do things to artificially raise oil prices. Things can happen just by a word/rumor on Wall Street.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
@megabyteme
He is not my professor. And do you have proof to back up your argument in regards to this professor? I mean what you pointed out wasn't proof and was pretty weak. Also the guy works for a college so it isn't like the guy is in the private sector here. http://www.pi.ac.ae/PI_ACA/cor/index.php
Irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman_1
We've spent billions installing (or at least, attempting to install) a "friendly" democratic regime in Iraq so we could access their oil (remember that Rumsfeld promised that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for the war?) and have nothing to show for it.
The type of government that happens to be perched above oil supplies is simply window dressing- a sop to the masses- and totally irrelevant to the corporations who actually wield power.
Arrangements can and have been made with the full spectrum of political expression...money is money, it knows no borders and brooks no conscience.
Edit:
Belatedly addressing the thread title:
The Pharoahs would consider Mubarak a gigantic pussy.
They would have considered Hitler and Stalin to be lightweights.
The Pharoahs would have considered their thoughts about anything to be none of your goddamn business.
I agree. These riots would have been put down immediately.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
....Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
....Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth RingsDon't worry. You'll grow up and eventually understand that what happens in one country can affect another in ways that don't relate to how you get to your slumber parties and back.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
My slumber parties???
EDIT: My apologies,
Your apology is accepted, Darth :)-- please don't strangle me!
I thought this was the lounge. Considering this is the drawing room, I'll elaborate (but not edit out the first part of my post; it still stands):
The problem with the Egyptian riots is the fact that they hit a political critical spot. If the country falls, then so does the political stability of half the middle east (not only due other riots/uproars, but also due to Egyptian political influence on other countries in the area).
But you see, maybe we shouldn't be in a position where we need to care about what happens in these parts of the world?
It would be in everyone's best interests that no such thing happens or a world war will be on people's hands.
I doubt this.
Can't imagine that? Israel finally overpowers Palestine.
Israel is going to eventually gets its ass kicked by the surrounding Arabs and Persians at some point with or without our support. We need to cut them loose and cut our losses on them.
Iran gets involved since Egypt isn't there to control that situation any longer. The US gets involved. Then both the Russians and Chinese get involved for personal/political issues. There you go, two continents dragged into a war, simply because the people supposedly in charge of maintaining peace talks (even though they never actually do so), and governing a lot of Western influence in the Arab world have been taken out of power.
It's why the V.P. appointed had to be who he is (you can be sure he was sanctioned by the US as such, even before Mubarak thought of him as a possible candidate), and why no one is taking a further active part in giving the people what they "want".
So, let me put this in terms you would understand: If Egypt falls, gas prices will soar even higher (thanks to war, especially with so many parties involved). That is a bad thing. You don't like bad things. You should consider finding a better opinion that worrying about just the gas prices.
And that is what I am most worried about!
Interesting that you consider three of the most destructive and polluting energy sources to be our only path to self-sufficiency.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
I'm hardly surprised.
Most of the people contributing in this thread are full of shit.
Guys , you know nothing about Egypt , I don't care what you know , you obviously don't care about what happens so I suggest you all shut the hell up and find something else to talk about.
999969999 obviously has too much free time.
Especially the last one.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
Without government mandates how likely do you think this will happen? I mean simply raising the CAFE standards resulting in accusations of government tyranny. If it were a profitable idea it would already be happening with more than just a few farmers.
Look at the outrage about efficiency standards for light bulbs.
Oh go on, hazard a guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
You answered in a different thread that you are against nationalizing energy industries. Word is that government regulation is the cause of all ills. We also know that industry runs for profit and not the national good.
It's funny. We hear all this talk about drilling OUR oil, yet it's considered the oil companies oil. We take hardly any royalties in fact we give the oil companies tax breaks to drill our oil and sell it to us.
It's not that I object to this wonderful fantasy of us being self sufficient. I'm just being realistic that the free market system we have will not produce the utopia you desire.
So the question is.
Are you prepared to have government mandate these changes.
Countries like China can do these things because they give their people no choice.
Free countries have a much harder time doing these things because we give everyone a choice and they tend to want to do the complete opposite of what government suggests is a good idea.
There is an old Egyptian blessing that I feel you deserve to be placed upon you.Quote:
Originally Posted by YoYoY
قد البراغيث من الإبل ألف تتفشى إلى الأبد الأحمق الخاص
And your credentials are...?Quote:
Originally Posted by YoYoY
One of the weakest positions possible in a debate. You would have to take a random snipit from one of 9's posts to get any weaker.Quote:
Originally Posted by YoYoY
Quote:
Originally Posted by YoYoY
Yea sure...:wacko:
Yeah! Take that Mr. YoYo!Quote:
Originally Posted by megabytemeOne of the weakest positions possible in a debate. You would have to take a random snipit from one of 9's posts to get any weaker.Quote:
Originally Posted by YoYoY
:)
...Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocateEspecially the last one.
Without government mandates how likely do you think this will happen? I mean simply raising the CAFE standards resulting in accusations of government tyranny. If it were a profitable idea it would already be happening with more than just a few farmers.
Look at the outrage about efficiency standards for light bulbs.
Oh go on, hazard a guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
My guess is you're probably right about this. But you don't offer any solutions to this problem, either. We must find some way to become self-sufficient, so that in the future, we won't care at all when stuff like this happens in places like Egypt. Even you said we should stay out of this, and I agree.
We should have never been involved in Iraq or Afghanistan, either.
It is time to pull our military back home from places like Germany, Bosnia, South Korea, etc., and focus on our own problems. One of those problems is becoming energy self-sufficient.
You answered in a different thread that you are against nationalizing energy industries. Word is that government regulation is the cause of all ills. We also know that industry runs for profit and not the national good.
It's funny. We hear all this talk about drilling OUR oil, yet it's considered the oil companies oil. We take hardly any royalties in fact we give the oil companies tax breaks to drill our oil and sell it to us.
It's not that I object to this wonderful fantasy of us being self sufficient. I'm just being realistic that the free market system we have will not produce the utopia you desire.
So the question is.
Are you prepared to have government mandate these changes.
Countries like China can do these things because they give their people no choice.
Free countries have a much harder time doing these things because we give everyone a choice and they tend to want to do the complete opposite of what government suggests is a good idea.
France uses nuclear generation for most of their electricity needs. It is doable.Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerInteresting that you consider three of the most destructive and polluting energy sources to be our only path to self-sufficiency.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
I'm hardly surprised.
We have enough coal right here to last for hundreds of years.
The same thing for natural gas.
All three of these forms of energy have a proven track record. They work and they are cheap.
I'm sorry but your green energy-- solar and windmills-- just don't work. The sun eventually sets at night, and the wind stops blowing from time to time.
If your side could come up with something that actually worked and was cheap then we would get behind it. But so far, all you offer us is more expensive and less reliable energy.
All three forms of energy are only "cheap" when you ignore the environmental impact of producing them...which you seem completely willing to do.Quote:
All three of these forms of energy have a proven track record. They work and they are cheap.
As for "reliable", explain this, please.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999Yeah! Take that Mr. YoYo!Quote:
Originally Posted by megabyteme
:)
...Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
And you forgot to mention what you think of France using nuclear power for their electricity needs.
I know! It made me laugh, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by megabyteme:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
Now, where is Mr. YoYo?
I admit to being conflicted about nuclear power.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
Given the absolutely horrific ecological record of normal public utilities, I sure as hell wouldn't let private industry have anything to do with it, so we're talking about government control...is that something you're good with?
I've yet to hear any solution to the waste issue either.
Apparently, Nevada isn't real hot on being the waste dump for the nation...maybe Eagar would like to step up?
And there is still the water issue- reactors need a LOT of water for cooling, so access to a reliable supply, either the ocean or rivers is required and that seriously restricts available locations.
This would require a major upgrade of transmission capability, again this means a coordinated national (i.e., gubmint) program.
So, as I said, conflicted.
Don't forget about those sneeky, sneeky terrorists, clocker. We must "never forget" about the terrorists.
If I were a terrorist, intent on screwing up America, I'd sit in my cave and write checks to Republicans.
I'm fairly certain that is common practice.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
It's working, so I'm sure it is.
Every $1000 is a virgin in Paradise.