Doesn't matter which source you use, notice the correlation of market
moves and world events (or don't you pay any attention to them,
either?) A great deal of the current run up is, as noted previously,
simply speculation against the potential for future events making world
supplies even more tenuous than they currently are. That this
speculation holds up is indicative of the fact that there is a)
worldwide increased demand and b) at least perceived serious potential
for loss of supply either by political instability in the major
producing areas of the world or loss of refining capacity in the US.
Well, to understand anything of oil futures you need at least a minimal
basis in the underlying market mechanics.
OK, here's a <very> short summary and a couple of links that should be
Futures, which are traded on the futures market, are contracts to buy or
sell a fixed quantity and quality of a particular commodity for delivery
at a fixed date in the future at a fixed price. Unlike options, futures
are binding contracts and may therefore entail a potentially unlimited
Futures, which on most exchanges represent the major part of total
transactions, are above all used for speculative and for hedging
purposes. By fixing the price of the underlying commodity in advance,
futures enable users and producers to hedge against spot price
fluctuations, which on commodity exchanges tend to be very high. And for
hedging to be possible there must be speculators willing to offer these
contracts, thus helping to make an active market.
Futures are negotiable instruments. The goods are represented by
documents. Although the documents give a right to physical possession of
the goods, futures
contracts are usually closed out by offsetting a purchase against a sale
(maturing at the same time), and vice versa. This is called an
The settlement of money differences, i.e. the difference between the
price of the original and the price of the offsetting futures contract,
is usually made through a clearing house.
...snip longer info...
You're welcome and given that I hadn't seen this at the time I saw your
other retort I'll retract mine (even though I didn't say nor even
necessarily mean major network news in my previous question--that was an
inference you drew).
I really was only trying to illustrate that the futures prices being
reported are currently more directly related to world events (and yet
even more strongly perceptions/fears of future events) than they are
with respect to actual current supply and demand. I won't say we're
currently in a "panic" mode, but certainly one of heightened concern
combined w/ rising demand coupled to nearly inelastic supply (certainly
in the short term) and this is the fuel for speculation in any economic
That I may have overstepped slightly and added a perhaps unjustified
Both, w/ minor fluctuations. There is some very recent upsurge in
exploration and production owing to the higher prices over the last year
or two, but they're both just now beginning to reach market and very
small increases in terms of overall consumption levels...
Certain amount of truth on both sides of the production issue here
although actual exploration and production has been hampered by low
prices for a long period until the recent run-up so that there have been
only 10's of wildcat rigs in actual use as opposed to 1000's in the
heyday of US exploration. As noted above, that is <beginning> to
change, but there aren't any huge new fields in the continental US
waiting to be tapped--they're going in an reworking old wells and
drilling in areas that were marginal previously or in areas that were
much more expensive to bring into production and thus weren't
economically feasible at low crude prices.
That's on the refined side and there's some truth there as well. The
fastest way to lower consumer prices in the short term would be to add
refinery capacity but there's a reason that crude oil futures are at a
high price and that has to do w/ increased <world-wide> consumption as
well as shortage of refinery capacity.
The effect political events and simple speculation on the futures
markets should not be underestimated, either.
See above...it's occurring although despite what some would try to have
you believe, there simply isn't enough available in the continental US
at even current prices to supply the current demand.
As an example, however, there were a number of wells drilled on our land
and around us back in the 50s and 60s. Very few of these were brought
into production then as they were not high enough producers of oil to
make it worthwhile. Starting about two or three years ago, however,
small independents have renewed the mineral leases and two of these old
capped wells so far have been opened and brought into production as well
as one new well. They're mostly natural gas, however, w/ only a very
small amount of oil being brought up in conjunction w/ the gas (which,
of course, is why they were considered "dry holes" originally).
The Hugoton gas field, the largest natural gas field yet to be
discovered was initially opened in the 20s. While it is still
producing, production rates are now failing every year even with
extensive rework even to the extent of pulling negative pressures on the
wellheads. Nothing that can be done will ever again generate the
amounts of gas that were produced from that field for the last 60 years
and in another 30 or so the production will essentially fall to nothing.
The "new" wells on our place are nothing in terms of daily production as
compared to most wells in the heart of the field but in today's terms
they're pretty darn good...we have about 1500 psi at the well head
whereas as noted above in large areas of the main field they're now to
the point of having to pull vacuum to get any significnt extraction (and
that, of course, is only a tiny fraction of the former production
One more example...our midwest farmers' coop organization had a nice
little refinery at which me made a significant fraction of the refined
products for our members and sold a little outside. This refinery is
now closed owing to the inability to obtain sufficient local crude to
supply its needs. It would be required to buy crude on the open market
and transport it which is simply not economically viable.
The tree huggers have stopped us from drilling in our own country and then
they piss and moan about how we are so dependent on foreign oil...... the
Also, the reason we haven't built a new refinery in 20 years, is because the
tree huggers stop them from being built.
It seems to me, from my limited study of the industry is that our
as long as we're off topic, let's not forget that every state has their
own personal blend that is the BEST blend, ~ according to that state.
this means refieneries can't just crank away undisturbed at doing ONE
blend. they have to do several. 50 states, 3 blends minimum each,
summer & winter grades...
yet i can drive across country & exhaust that stuff in any state
anywhere i want to drive.
and just what good is that middle blend? not quite the low grade, not
quite the top grade? why bother? cars have been designed for the
basic blend for some 15 years now?
maybe it's time those oldies got off the road?
It's so easy to blame regulation.
The thing is that they have to go deeper and deeper - into the earth, under
the seas - to find new deposits.
But new reserves only delay the inevitable. It's a choice, and people
simply don't want the respoinsibility of making it. We have to choose
between living wastefully, and sucking back oil products like there's no
tomorrow - or we have to buck up, do with a little bit less, and develop
alternative energy more. And start leading the world by example, rather
than just telling the poorer nations to "do as we say, not as we do".
**For now**. People like to wish it's unlimited, but IMO it's rather
stupid to *rely* on that remote possibility.
Sorry but it gripes the bleep out of me to think that we're just blithely
going to destroy the planet just so that some people (who *are* healthy
enough to walk) can drive some 8MPG behemoth three blocks to pick up a loaf
of bread at the 7-11. There is too much waste, period. The US has been
able to get away with being piggish, so as a nation, we think we have the
right to do so. We have the might, but that doesn't make it either right
or healthy or smart.
I'm not a "tree hugger", but I'm also not able to advocate "we can waste
all we want because we *believe* (different from "know") there is more out
Look at the LA to San Bernadino area - the air was getting pretty good, now
it's nearly as bad as it was in the "bad old days of smog". Tell me it's
irrelevant after your children get asthma and/or can't play outside because
if it isn't the smog that gets them, it's the increased UV, or residual
chemicals in the soil that play havoc with their immune or/an reproductive
or/and other physiological systems.
The plan fact is, people don't give a ruddy shit. So the kids gets a
cough, just keep teh inhaler on hand - heaven forbid we should have to give
up driving the F350 blocks to GET that inhaler. Oh, and heaven forbid that
every simple trivial little item isn't entombed in a 1/4"-thick plastic
case (that doesn't get recycled, just trashed).
This isn't merely a matter of "get more oil". The national attitude is on
trial - the issue being, what, and how much, are we willing to, and going
to, destroy in the name of big cars and plastic-wrapped-everything and so
on. Every recent generation has bitched and whines and pissed'n'moaned
about how "the last generation ruined the planet", and then goes on to just
make matters even worse. Good grief. If they shut the f* up and took *one
fifth* of the time and energy they spend mewling, and put it towards
*doing* something constructive, the world would be a much better place.
But nooooooooooo...., it's just so much easier for people to sit on their
ever-widening butts, and whine that it's all somebody else's fault and
somebody else's responsibility. It makes me want to puke.
I'm so sick of that "we just need more of that secret oil" crap. That's
all it is, a load of crap. Heaven forbid we recycle, or cut back on waste
- and no, it's *not* the same as going back to living in mud huts, that's
just a stupid statement made by stupid people who are too selfish and
greedy to bother themselves with trying to conserve anything other than
their own petty, ignoble, ignorant, and in the long run meaningless
delusions of "power". It's just a bloated kindergarten-level ego trip - my
car's bigger than your car, my lawn is greener than your lawn, my stuff is
better than your stuff, blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda blither blither
Meanwhile, the things that are important get ignored. People either treat
one another like garbage, or they get all involved in petty nonsense and
end up isolated from others, and then someone dies, like your sibling, and
all that's left are regrets for having wasted so much time and energy
screwing around with BS that is actually meaningless and irrelevant.
We don't need more bloody f*ing oil, we need more of that *humanity* we
just *love* to claim we posess (but exhibit so very little of). If people
gave a damn, the world wouldn't be in it's present situation to begin with.
What the heck do you think "economics" is? It's a result of human actions
and human choices.
So let's just sit on out fat asses and do nothing to *make* it happen? The
problem with waiting around for "the market" is that it's too much like
saying it's Somebody Else's Responsibility.
Just another slough-off.
Yeah, screw them, we're the Big Bad US and can do whatever the f* we want.
More important: Your proof that it isn't ???
Anyhoo, no matter what evidence exists, people who prefer waste aren't
doing to believe anything that says waste is not a good idea.
If that's all you say, then that's all you can see.
YAWN right back at you.
Someone has to take responsibility, be a leader - it obviously isn't you or
(1) Yeah, as tho' your ilk doesn't sound at least as "whiny" as you accuse
others of supposedly sounding (esp. when you're going for the cheap and
petty little inane attempt at an emotional jab because you can't think of
anything real to say)
(2) given that one of my siblings just died, I don't give a shit whether
you snip this or want to piss and moan about tree huggers or whatever
because you think you have the right to wontonly waste whatever your heart
desires to waste. IMO it's stupid. So snip to your heart's content.
"Stop using oil."
"OK, we'll build a nuke plant."
"No, you can't do that."
"OK, we'll build wind turbines."
"How about we'll do what we want and you go live in a cave in the dark as
you seem to want?"
"Don't be rediculous."
like there's no
As you say, it's only a matter of time. Will sucking it up really make the
difference? And can we get the nimbys to suck up a little too?
Leading is just another kind of telling. What say "we" just do for "us" and
let the rest of them worry about them?
I think "remote" is too optimistic a word.
We aren't going to destroy the planet.
I became aware of my surroundings just in the nick of time so this packaging
thing boggles my mind. Guess if it isn't in advertising I might get cooties
Don't let us stop you.
Now we know your stump.
Hopefully your disgust doesn't get this in the way of your practicing what
you preach very often.
Your words. I don't propose "cold turkey", just a slowdown of the obscene
level of wastage in preparation for what I am certian will be an eventual
turnover to non-petroleum energy.
I've never claimed to oppose them. I POed I can't have one in my back
yard, so don't lay that one on me.
Now I lose patience with you, becuase Inknow damn good and well that you
are far more intelligent that that, you *know* there is a difference
between "cut back on the fat" and "eat nothing but watercress". So please
refrain from trying to be stupid, it's ugly.
The nimbys are most of the problem IMO.
Again, i know you are more intelligant than that - you know that "leading
by example" means "living in accordance to one;s own preachings", which is
NOT the same as telling others what to do.
You also know that when most people are *told* to do X, they will dig in
their heels and do the opposite.
Setting an example is different and you know that. And I would hope you
realize that I know "setting a positive example" is not "telling, ordering,
Deny it all you want. The fact is, when everyday people care enough to
decide to improve something, they just do it, and things improve. When
people sit on their butts and say "it's somebody else's responsibility",
nothing gets done. That much is a no-brainer.
Everybody of course cannot do everything, and I'm not saying they should or
need to. But everybody *can* do a couple of small things which, added
together, improve the overall state of things.
It's not obscurata, not rocket science, not some deep mysterious secret.
It's patently obvious, it's happened, and it can happen again. The problem
is all the naysayers who start shrieking about extremes and then start name
calling and otherwise do their damndest to try to keep anyone from doing
Hey, I try. Have to drive now to recycle, which is kid of a "damned if you
do, damned if you don't" situation, but I get good gas mileage at least,
and there is no recycle pick-up so there you go. I try to balance
respiratory function with air condtioning, putting up with poorer of the
former to save more of the latter. I only use CFLs. I tolerate some
suboptimal (but noncritical) health comforts so as to try to avoid total
wastage of resources. Not because anybody knows what I do in my private
life (and I like it that way), but simply because I feel some things are
Yes there is more that I could do, but the point is that, as I said, one
has to choose to do even the smallest things - which is what too many
people don't bother with. AND saying "I'm no saint" does not at all
justify someone else's blase' attitude.
So maybe what you have to say is based on some incorrect assumption or
another; perhaps a failed understanding.
I knew that?
I did not know that I knew that.
It looked to me like "see what I'm doing, you should do that too." And
frankly, so long as the stuff you don't want to have seen stays unseen, you
are perfectly free to "lead by example" while engaging in whatever you want.
You think R.C. priests who have sexual relations are putting their relations
out as an example? Of course not. The example they provide is entirely
different and they expect to lead by that example. What they do behind
closed doors and hushed victims is not their "example" to those they are
"leading". Leading by example may be easier if you aren't a hypocrite but it
isn't any sort of necessary.
Leading is telling other people what to do. Living according to your
principles is a choice you make about how you affect you.
No, I'm pretty well sure that I did not "know that" or that I am "more
intelligent than that."
Drive slow here, pay your taxes, storm that bunker, reply to this post, get
a parade permit, put five dollars in the tin to wear shorts on Friday, buy
I may "know that" but I also know that people crave a strong leader to tell
them what to do, how to think...
Be that as it may, it doesn't matter if the telling will fail or succede, it
only matters for purposes here that the telling is telling. When you set out
to lead, you set out to tell.
Nope, it's just one strategy that some people use. Others use different
strategies. I'm sure a management consultant could brief us.
Ah, now you're gonna make me look at old posts to see where "ordering and
dictating" came from.
Well, not in the immediate context and not in the body of the post so I'll
just guess you were playing thesaurus games with "lead" in order to play
straw men with me. "Leading by example isn't a dictator [now, is this
supposed to press my Nazi buttons?] therefore you're wrong." If that's your
intent I'll have to beg you to return to the topic at hand. If not, I'll
have to admit to my cluelessness as to what you are trying to say there.
Happens to the best of us.
"gripes the bleep". I like that.
I wonder if people give more of a damn than you think they do but don't see
how, ranged against government and Giant Multinational Corporations (TM)
they feel they can do anything.
I wonder if people would give more of a damn if they lived 300 years.
Sorry, I was denying that? You expect I'll deny that?
Those are the only two options/explanations you see?
Just the other day I ran across somebody ranting "why do you care about that
small stuff? Why aren't you fighting The Patriot Act?" one presumes... 'like
I was thinking more along the lines of the appeal to *humantiy*. You were
coming off very ranty and hateful and people suck you all need to do what I
sayey in that post. Very ... human.
I've noticed that people talk about "return" on alternative electric or
hybrid cars or.. any number of things. As if that were the only available
analysis. And in the end, it will be. We aren't so under the thumb yet that
it probably won't be the market that makes the day. But there are people who
choose to go PV or what have you because... they want to. "But you'll only
barely break even in twenty years." Yeah, so what?
Well, I never pretended that my social skills are any better than those of
a turnip, so it's entirely possible that I'm wrong on all counts.
I'm not positing hypocrisy. I assume (no doubt simplistically) that "lead
by example" only works when one practices what one preaches.
I guess I must have a different philosophy regarding the meaning of
"leader" and "leading". Silly me, I still think of small-scale cultures
(sorry, I don't know the technical term) wherein the chief/chieftan/clan
leader/whatever was only in power as long as his actions were focused upon
trying to benefit the village, the people.
In more civilized places, the "leader" (regardless of whatever means were
used to get the person into that position) generally has as little to do
with The People as is humanly possible, separated from them by many layers
(and sub layers) of bureaucracy, physical barriers/cordons, ranks of armed
and uniformed guards, and so on and so forth.
OK, sorry. Don't feel bad, it wouldn't be the first time I've made that
error (i.e. burdening people with my over-expectations).
Again, my definition of "leader" (as opposed to "ruler" or "oligarchy" or
"despot" and so on) is obviously based upon a different philosophy.
I'm probably wrong anyway, given the stubbornly-surviving remnents of my
stupid tendency towards idealism.
Management consultant? Oh Good Grief! Yeah, we had some of those Bozos
come in to the Agency to "fix" things - the result being a *total*
clusterf*ck. I've also seen their handiwork elsewhere. It typically
results in more bureaucracy and more paperwork. Bunch of silly pop-psyche
crap that doesn't work on anyone with an IQ over 120.
Thanks but no thanks.
I don't need the Thesaurus for such simple words. At the same time, I'm
not clever enough for most "games", given my lack of social instinct. I'm
rather simplemnded in that I try to say simply what I'm thinking. OTOH
since I don't think verbally, as I've noted in the past, I don't always
verbalize in a way that others find readily accessible.
No, I'm not celver enough to be that manipulative.
I'm trying to use fewer cusswords. Also, it leaves it up to the reader's
imagination...sort of like an interactive web site.
Again, there is a difference, and avast one at that, between sayig "these
faults exist in the curent situation", and saying "bring down the system".
More to the point, if they could live 300 years in an improved environment.
What would they choose, long life, or luxurious wastefuless?
Expect? Nothing to do with expect. It simply seemed to be an
extrapolation of your statements.
(1) someone does something
(2) someone does nothing
Is there a third? You do, or your don't do.
There are many problems, but again, one does something, or one does
nothing. If someone fights the P.Act (as I call it, the Pee Act), but
throws lit cigarettes out of their car in a tinder-dry fire zone, is that a
great thing? The "small stuff", in terms of one's day-to-day life, are
simply habits. For one example, it's a habit to either leave all the
lights blazing and use incandescent (or other energy-hungry) light bulbs -
just as it can become a habit to instead use CFLs or even better, low
wattage lighting, and switch the lights off in rooms you're not using.
The think about ignoring the "small stuff" is that it adds up, for good or
ill. On a personal level - if you have 40K to spend on a vehicle, do you
max that out and take a loan to spend even more, or do you choose to spend
24K and invest what's left over? In larger terms, do you take 5 seconds to
rinse a tin and put it into the recycle bin, or is it "just easier" to
throw it away and contribute to both resource depletion (with subsequent
increased mining and refining costs) and ever-growing landfills. In the
immediate moment, yes, recycling can be an annoyance. In the long term,
i.e. not only one's own old age but also the quality of life for one's
children and grandchildren (or neices and nephews, whatever the case may
be), the result of not recycling are a bigger pain.
Thinking in the long term versus the short term is also something that can
fairly easily become a habit. It doesn;'t mean one is "perfect", o that
one absolutely must have a perfect track record. It just means that one
tries to do something positive.
I've never claimed to be all warm'n'fuzzy. OTOH, given that 15 yrs ago I'd
tested as having 8 out of 10 indicators for becoming a psycho serial
killer, it's a big step upwards to having times when I do feel that people
suck and leaving it at that. I still contribute to charity, because even
when I'm in a crappy state of mind (such as now, still in a bit of
shock/disbelief), I know intellectually that, in the end, it's better to
help even a little, than to hinder. So I did, and do, continue to work on
self-improvement in that area, as well as in the other areas (such as
recycling, charity, and so on). It's a daily process. The point of all
that blither being that, once again, it's either do, or don't do.
Either one works on self-improvement, or one doesn't. The easy way is to
give up, and give in to bad or destructive or even just lazy forces or
habits or impulses. Eh, it's too much bother to rinse out this can, eh,
it's too much bother to turn the AC to a couple degrees warmer, and so on.
It's not a matter of being "perfect", it's merely a matter of stopping to
think once in a while, and of doing even a few things here and there to
improve oneself and develop better habits. ANYone can do that much.
What would be interesting would be to know their financial habits. Just
going by the people I've known/met personally in my meanderings across the
continent, the ones who kvatch about that return are typically the ones who
waste money hand-over-fist in most or all other areas of their lives.
So the "return" argument doesn't impress me, not one iota.
It's one thing if you have a family in the Working Poor esgment, and they
can't muster the money to even get the smaller things, never mind full
alternative-energy options. But they aren't the people who consider it in
the first place. If someone can afford to have a custom home built, then
some alternative energy options or at the minimum energy-saving options are
simply not beyond their grasp. Again, it's a choice. Do I want a $5000
stove and a $2000 fridge (and so on and so forth), or would I be as well
off with less expensive options, and put that $$ towards lowering my energy
useage? In our culture, as it currently exists, I'd bet that 95% or more
go for the "conspicuous <?sp?> consumption" options. After all, you never
see Solar billed as "making you the envy of your neighbors". Unless, of
course, you are able to save enough from the lower bills to "upgrade" to a
Lincoln Navigator or some such thing.
At the same time, if people choose conspicuous material wealth over energy
efficiency, then, as I've said before, they shouldn't kvetch about certain
things as though it's somebody else's fault or responsibility. If one gets
a vehicle that requires a $700/month payment and only gets 11 MPG, one got
what one wanted and IMO shouldn't p'n'moan about how "the gov.t should
drill the preserves" just so that one's own bad choices can be mitigated
without any effort at all on one's own part. After all, it's great to have
all the other taxpayers pay for one's own choices. And currently, it seems
to also be "The American Way"...
And IMO is the core of it all. People currently being unwilling to make
any changes so as to mitigate the cumulative results of their own choices.
It was not all that many years ago, after all, that we had Public Service
"commercials" about turning off lights in rooms that aren't being used.
None of that now. Why is that? Well, because it seems that certain people
are making more money as poeple burn more energy, and those moneyed people
have more influence than do "a few penniless tree-huggers" (as though
ANYone who thinks waste is irresponsible is a "tree hugging hippie" or some
such thing, and fit only to be ignored, because after all, "all animals are
equal - but some animals are more equal than others".)
Well my brain hurts and I'm tired and have to call and see whether anyone
knows whetehr there will be a funeral service, so enough of this -
Wonder if this theory is popular with creationists. Err sorry, ID fans.
As much as the environmental tree hugger climate cooling/warming people
harbour their own bunch of happy useless kooks, the they're all wrong
everything will be just fine crowd has their own.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.