Oil Slick Stuff

Sort by newest Sort by date
All I can say is open your eyes and don't be stupid, read between the lines and figure out for yourself
Click to expand...
Norm, you Can't expect anyone who promotes corn fuel to be very brilliant

Gas here holding at $3.69--E10
 
Dang, why is NG so cheap, oh I know it's because the Government has done everything it could to stiffel Natural Gas production! sick.gif

March 30, 2012, 12:47 p.m. EDT
Oil higher, looks at 4.5% gain for quarter

Investor buy oil ahead of weekend; natural gas keeps at 10-year low

By Claudia Assis, MarketWatch
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Crude-oil futures rose Friday, recouping some of their recent steep losses and looking to end the quarter with gains of around 4.5%.
Oil higher, looks at 4.5% gain for quarter - Futures Movers - MarketWatch
 
Buster said:
Norm, you Can't expect anyone who promotes corn fuel to be very brilliant

Gas here holding at $3.69--E10
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with him promoting corn fuel. I have a problem with him wanting the government to stop his competition and boost his preferred fuel's market share. If it was a better product, not only would it stand on it's own, it would be more in demand. I happen to think ethanol fuel has great potential, but it's not ready to take over Big Oil. When an engine is developed that will work on pure ethanol, with the same or better efficiency as gasoline, and is sold at an affordable price, we might have conditions in place to make a competetive run at Big Oil.

The same can be said of my beloved biodiesel. It typically gets 10% less MPG than traditional diesel, it has a higher gel point than diesel, and it can't be used by itself (B100) in some engines with a diesel particulate filter. On the plus side, it uses waste vegetable oil as a feedstock, so it's not taking away from food sources. It generates less smog producing exhaust than diesel, and it can be made very cheaply. Commercially, it can probably be made for less than $1.50 per gallon. Why isn't more of it being made commercially? Right now it's classified as a fuel additive, so it cannot be sold in California as a primary fuel. There just isn't a demand for it. That's how the market goes.
 
In theory, with appropriate infrastructure, we should be able to produce ethanol from numerous waste products that currently get landfilled. Some places/companies have been able to produce power from the methane at landfills but putting the waste straight into ethanol production would be nice.

There are so many aspects of the waste stream we could be utilizing. Biodiesel is one great example.
 
Mapper said:
In theory, with appropriate infrastructure, we should be able to produce ethanol from numerous waste products that currently get landfilled. Some places/companies have been able to produce power from the methane at landfills but putting the waste straight into ethanol production would be nice.

There are so many aspects of the waste stream we could be utilizing. Biodiesel is one great example.
Click to expand...
Great stuff for heating and drinking!
 
Viva_La_Migra said:
Giving grants and government guaranteed loans to solar companies like Solyndra is a subsidy. Allowing "Big Oil" to keep more of their profits is not. If you think gas prices are high now, take away those tax deductions and see how high gas gets. European gas prices would seem cheap in comparison if they did that. It isn't Big Oil that's getting a break, it's the consumer who benefits from the tax breaks.
Click to expand...

1 to 2 cents per gallon was the calculated effect of eliminating the 2.5 billion in tax breaks. Of course that is assuming the oil companies can't possibly choose to reduce their profits, pay or lobbying efforts. Glad we're all sharing the sacrifice during these lean times. Of course, you know gas would actually go up more than that because the companies could blame it on politics...thanks to those ever useful lobbyists. The Senators voting to keep the tax breaks received, on average, 4x as much money from the industry as those voting against it.

Two words, Corporate Welfare. At least they are not abusing the system and driving fancy cars like all those "welfare queens" out there :rolleyes:
 
Topped off the Gas tank on my vichile before heading to Atlanta Airport tomorrow, Paid $3.85 a gallon.
No Sir, I Don't Like It!:nuts:
 
Mapper said:
1 to 2 cents per gallon was the calculated effect of eliminating the 2.5 billion in tax breaks. Of course that is assuming the oil companies can't possibly choose to reduce their profits, pay or lobbying efforts. Glad we're all sharing the sacrifice during these lean times. Of course, you know gas would actually go up more than that because the companies could blame it on politics...thanks to those ever useful lobbyists. The Senators voting to keep the tax breaks received, on average, 4x as much money from the industry as those voting against it.

Two words, Corporate Welfare. At least they are not abusing the system and driving fancy cars like all those "welfare queens" out there :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
One to two cents per gallon is likely just the literal effect of eliminating the tax credits on oil exploration. Gas prices will go up much more, because the signal will have been sent that the U.S. is not interested in developing it's own oil supply. OPEC then would reduce production, which would further reduce supply and cause oil and gas prices to skyrocket. Limosine Liberals like the POTUS might like that, but I doubt the rest of us little people would.

Have you seen "The Hunger Games" yet? I couldn't help but think that this is exactly what the leftists want our country to get to. I could totally see them setting up such an event if they ever won total control of the U.S. and was able to beat back a rebellion in those "Districts" that didn't bow to their will and accept their "Generosity." That, and the fact that everyone living at the capital dressed like Lady GaGa!:D
 
VLM, was that some dripping venom in your post? Not sure what "the POTUS" refers to but it all sounds like you got up on the wrong side of a bed. I've not seen the movie you reference, but if I do, I'll try not to confuse it with reality or conjure "evil plotting leftists". Are you decended from "Joseph Raymond McCarthy"? :sick:
Really, I do appreciate reading many of your posts about markets and economy. Good luck.;)
 
FAAM said:
VLM, was that some dripping venom in your post? Not sure what "the POTUS" refers to but it all sounds like you got up on the wrong side of a bed. I've not seen the movie you reference, but if I do, I'll try not to confuse it with reality or conjure "evil plotting leftists". Are you decended from "Joseph Raymond McCarthy"? :sick:
Really, I do appreciate reading many of your posts about markets and economy. Good luck.;)
Click to expand...

Just for reference and not an endorsement, POTUS refers to the President Of The United Status.
 
FAAM said:
Thx RMI for the quick definition.
Has the accronym changed (tongue in cheek) - as during the prior administration I thought it was DOOFUS (no indorsement intended).
Click to expand...

Not that I know of, but then again, I don't pay attention to the DOOFUS' that used it... pun not intended
 
FAAM said:
Thx RMI for the quick definition.
Has the accronym changed (tongue in cheek) - as during the prior administration I thought it was DOOFUS (no indorsement intended).
Click to expand...
No, you got it wrong again..it is the other way around administationally speaking..

Let's keep your political opinions to the www.Beltwaytalk.com site..there you can worship and spew all the liberal support you want for your socialistic messiah and chief.
 
Last edited:
Buster said:
No, you got it wrong again..it is the other way around administationally speaking..

Let's keep your political opinions to the www.Beltwaytalk.com site..there you can worship and spew all the liberal support you want for your socialistic messiah and chief.
Click to expand...

I don't think this forum has an official policy against liberals...though you and some member's might prefer that approach. Sorry, but making a baseless reference to the POTUS as a "socialist messiah and chief", especially in the manner used IS the type of political comment more geared toward beltway talk.

On that, you really better check your definition of Socialist.

Thinking Obama is a Socialist or Hunger Games is the "ideal" world of lefties is indicative of lacking perspective. Even Hollywood (liberally biased as it is) refers to the Hunger Games scenario as a Distopia. If Obamacare is the reason the current POTUS is a Socialist you need to realize that it's completely based on work from the Heritage Foundation (an openly Republican think tank). Fellas, I would strongly encourage stepping out of the echo chamber for a bit.
 
Last edited:
Mapper said:
I don't think this forum has an official policy against liberals...though you and some member's might prefer that approach. Sorry, but making a baseless reference to the POTUS as a "socialist messiah and chief", especially in the manner used IS the type of political comment more geared toward beltway talk.

On that, you really better check your definition of Socialist.

Thinking Obama is a Socialist or Hunger Games is the "ideal" world of lefties is indicative of lacking perspective. Even Hollywood (liberally biased as it is) refers to the Hunger Games scenario as a Distopia. If Obamacare is the reason the current POTUS is a Socialist you need to realize that it's completely based on work from the Heritage Foundation (an openly Republican think tank). Fellas, I would strongly encourage stepping out of the echo chamber for a bit.
Click to expand...
Every attempt to create a Utopian society has failed and has devolved into a dystopian society. This is the fundamental problem with socialism/Marxism/communism/statism/liberalism. No such society can be created on this earth, because mankind has free will. There will always be someone who receives more riches than others. There will always be someone who wants to control the lives of others. There will always be someone who is forced, by fear or by necessity, to do the work of others. There will always be someone who does not wish to work, but expects to live a rich and comfortable lifestyle. There will always be strife and inequality in this world. This is why socialism will fail in America. There is no way to create a truly equal society and not have someone seek to have a higher station than everyone else. It's just human nature.

Bringing this back to the original thread topic, oil, I see oil futures rallied. More pain at the pump!:mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top