Making Gasoline/Diesel More Afforedable

[Pogo]

"According the Energy Information*Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS. EIA predicted that there would be no significant effect on oil production or price until nearly two decades after leasing begins."

Still looking for that on the EIA site

?
Whence cometh this quote? I don't see it on the EIA pages or in the thread

The OCS page actually said,
>> The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017 <<

Given a release date of 2007, that's ten years to production and 23 years to "significant" production.
And in any case it doesn't go to the pump in your town because that kind of intranational supply/demand system is simply not how oil works.

More detail in here--

Why Abundant Oil Hasn't Cut Gasoline Prices

>> Complicating the equation is a 1920 law called the Jones Act, which requires any cargo shipped between U.S. ports to be carried by vessels that are based in the U.S., made in the U.S., and crewed mostly by U.S. citizens. The law was intended to protect U.S. shipping interests but has made it more costly to move fuel between U.S. ports. This in particular hurts the Northeast, which is struggling to meet its fuel needs after several refineries closed in the last two years. According to Ed Morse, chief commodity analyst at Citigroup (C), those constraints add between $6 and $8 a barrel to transport costs. As a result, it&#8217;s often cheaper for a Gulf Coast refiner to send gasoline to Brazil than to New York.

In late 2011 the U.S. quietly surpassed Russia as the largest exporter of such refined products as gasoline and diesel. Canada&#8217;s fuel imports from the U.S. jumped 15 percent in 2012. Brazil&#8217;s demand for U.S.-made fuel rose 6 percent. China&#8217;s leapt 17 percent. Exports to Venezuela and India more than doubled. Without realizing it, U.S. drivers are competing for American-made gasoline with consumers in Latin America and Asia, where demand is rising. <<

Big oil is not scrounging for supply of raw material. It's actually gorging on a glut already. And making a killing. Were we to open up even more fields there would be a lot of head-scratching as to what to do with them.

As noted before, a profit-making venture works for its shareholders, not its base country. They're going to put the product where it makes the most money. That's why this idea that "gummint is in the way" doesn't hold water. Or gas. They choose where to sell it -- not us. That's how the free market works.

 

[itfitzme]

"Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS. EIA predicted that there would be no significant effect on oil production or price until nearly two decades after leasing begins."

Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS.

So if we had started in 2009, production would be coming on line next year.

Wish we had done that, don't you?

You got some magic time machine?

 

[itfitzme]

"According the Energy Information*Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS. EIA predicted that there would be no significant effect on oil production or price until nearly two decades after leasing begins."

Still looking for that on the EIA site

?
Whence cometh this quote? *I don't see it on the EIA pages or in the thread

The OCS page actually said,
>> The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017 <<

Given a release date of 2007, that's ten years to production.*
And in any case it doesn't go to the pump in your town because that kind of intranational supply/demand system is simply not how oil works.

More detail in here--
Why Abundant Oil Hasn't Cut Gasoline Prices

>> Complicating the equation is a 1920 law called the Jones Act, which requires any cargo shipped between U.S. ports to be carried by vessels that are based in the U.S., made in the U.S., and crewed mostly by U.S. citizens. The law was intended to protect U.S. shipping interests but has made it more costly to move fuel between U.S. ports. This in particular hurts the Northeast, which is struggling to meet its fuel needs after several refineries closed in the last two years. According to Ed Morse, chief commodity analyst at Citigroup (C), those constraints add between $6 and $8 a barrel to transport costs. As a result, it’s often cheaper for a Gulf Coast refiner to send gasoline to Brazil than to New York.*

In late 2011 the U.S. quietly surpassed Russia as the largest exporter of such refined products as gasoline and diesel. Canada’s fuel imports from the U.S. jumped 15 percent in 2012. Brazil’s demand for U.S.-made fuel rose 6 percent. China’s leapt 17 percent. Exports to Venezuela and India more than doubled. Without realizing it, U.S. drivers are competing for American-made gasoline with consumers in Latin America and Asia, where demand is rising. <<

Big oil is not scrounging for supply of raw material. *It's actually gorging on a glut already. *And making a killing. *Were we to open up even more fields there would be a lot of head-scratching as to what to do with it.

As noted before, a profit-making venture works for its shareholders, not its base country. *They're going to put the product where it makes the most money. *That's why this idea that "gummint is in the way" doesn't hold water. *Or gas. *They choose where to sell it -- not us.

That quote remains uncorroberated. *It does support 22 years.**I'm still digging through EIA reports.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf

**I've also got uncorroberated five years just to pump the first barrel of oil out of the ground. *I am not sure if that is from the beginning of the lease,*seismic crews on the ground, or what.

You started me off on an interesting direction.

**I learn a lot taking a statement, as a hypothesis, and researching it. *There seems to be a correlation between who presents facts that play out and who presents facts that are wrong. *It seems to do with re-membering what you believe or believing what you remember.

I treat it all the same. Whatever the data says, it really don't matter what I want to believe. *Never occurred to me that the time frame was so long.*

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS. EIA predicted that there would be no significant effect on oil production or price until nearly two decades after leasing begins."

Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS.

So if we had started in 2009, production would be coming on line next year.

Wish we had done that, don't you?

You got some magic time machine?

No. All I can do is point out liberals whining about how long new production will take.
They use it as an excuse to never open new exploration.
They were whining about it back in 2001.
If we have done it anyway, production would be higher and prices would be lower, right now.

 

[itfitzme]

"Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS. EIA predicted that there would be no significant effect on oil production or price until nearly two decades after leasing begins."

Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS.

So if we had started in 2009, production would be coming on line next year.

Wish we had done that, don't you?

So you think that cars run on crude oil? Or are you still having difficulty with the "supply chain" concept?

The math gets hard when it requires adding more than two numbers.

 

[itfitzme]

Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS.

So if we had started in 2009, production would be coming on line next year.

Wish we had done that, don't you?

You got some magic time machine?

No. All I can do is point out liberals whining about how long new production will take.
They use it as an excuse to never open new exploration.
They were whining about it back in 2001.
If we have done it anyway, production would be higher and prices would be lower, right now.

2001 and 2009 are different "numbers". It is part of that "math" thingy.*

9 is 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1.

See how that works, Sparky?

*You should go back and review that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS. EIA predicted that there would be no significant effect on oil production or price until nearly two decades after leasing begins."

Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS.

So if we had started in 2009, production would be coming on line next year.

Wish we had done that, don't you?

So you think that cars run on crude oil? Or are you still having difficulty with the "supply chain" concept?

The math gets hard when it requires adding more than two numbers.

So you think that cars run on crude oil?

Where do you imagine I said that?

The math gets hard when it requires adding more than two numbers.

That's why I mock liberals and their weak math skills.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You got some magic time machine?

No. All I can do is point out liberals whining about how long new production will take.
They use it as an excuse to never open new exploration.
They were whining about it back in 2001.
If we have done it anyway, production would be higher and prices would be lower, right now.

2001 and 2009 are different "numbers". It is part of that "math" thingy.*

9 is 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1.

See how that works, Sparky?

*You should go back and review that.

2001 and 2009 are different "numbers".

Congrats! You know more than most liberals.
Now tell that we shouldn't increase drilling, because it'll take a few years for production to come on line.

That one always makes me laugh.

 

[tjvh]

"According the Energy Information*Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS. EIA predicted that there would be no significant effect on oil production or price until nearly two decades after leasing begins."

Still looking for that on the EIA site

?
Whence cometh this quote? I don't see it on the EIA pages or in the thread

The OCS page actually said,
>> The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017 <<

Given a release date of 2007, that's ten years to production and 23 years to "significant" production.
And in any case it doesn't go to the pump in your town because that kind of intranational supply/demand system is simply not how oil works.

More detail in here--

Why Abundant Oil Hasn't Cut Gasoline Prices

>> Complicating the equation is a 1920 law called the Jones Act, which requires any cargo shipped between U.S. ports to be carried by vessels that are based in the U.S., made in the U.S., and crewed mostly by U.S. citizens. The law was intended to protect U.S. shipping interests but has made it more costly to move fuel between U.S. ports. This in particular hurts the Northeast, which is struggling to meet its fuel needs after several refineries closed in the last two years. According to Ed Morse, chief commodity analyst at Citigroup (C), those constraints add between $6 and $8 a barrel to transport costs. As a result, it’s often cheaper for a Gulf Coast refiner to send gasoline to Brazil than to New York.

In late 2011 the U.S. quietly surpassed Russia as the largest exporter of such refined products as gasoline and diesel. Canada’s fuel imports from the U.S. jumped 15 percent in 2012. Brazil’s demand for U.S.-made fuel rose 6 percent. China’s leapt 17 percent. Exports to Venezuela and India more than doubled. Without realizing it, U.S. drivers are competing for American-made gasoline with consumers in Latin America and Asia, where demand is rising. <<

Big oil is not scrounging for supply of raw material. It's actually gorging on a glut already. And making a killing. Were we to open up even more fields there would be a lot of head-scratching as to what to do with them.

As noted before, a profit-making venture works for its shareholders, not its base country. They're going to put the product where it makes the most money. That's why this idea that "gummint is in the way" doesn't hold water. Or gas. They choose where to sell it -- not us. That's how the free market works.

The goverment has nothing to do with it? So those gas taxes I pay that rise when the price per gallon rises is just a figment of my imagination.

 

[Pogo]

"According the Energy Information*Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS. EIA predicted that there would be no significant effect on oil production or price until nearly two decades after leasing begins."

Still looking for that on the EIA site

?
Whence cometh this quote? *I don't see it on the EIA pages or in the thread

The OCS page actually said,
>> The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017 <<

Given a release date of 2007, that's ten years to production.*
And in any case it doesn't go to the pump in your town because that kind of intranational supply/demand system is simply not how oil works.

More detail in here--
Why Abundant Oil Hasn't Cut Gasoline Prices

>> Complicating the equation is a 1920 law called the Jones Act, which requires any cargo shipped between U.S. ports to be carried by vessels that are based in the U.S., made in the U.S., and crewed mostly by U.S. citizens. The law was intended to protect U.S. shipping interests but has made it more costly to move fuel between U.S. ports. This in particular hurts the Northeast, which is struggling to meet its fuel needs after several refineries closed in the last two years. According to Ed Morse, chief commodity analyst at Citigroup (C), those constraints add between $6 and $8 a barrel to transport costs. As a result, it&#8217;s often cheaper for a Gulf Coast refiner to send gasoline to Brazil than to New York.*

In late 2011 the U.S. quietly surpassed Russia as the largest exporter of such refined products as gasoline and diesel. Canada&#8217;s fuel imports from the U.S. jumped 15 percent in 2012. Brazil&#8217;s demand for U.S.-made fuel rose 6 percent. China&#8217;s leapt 17 percent. Exports to Venezuela and India more than doubled. Without realizing it, U.S. drivers are competing for American-made gasoline with consumers in Latin America and Asia, where demand is rising. <<

Big oil is not scrounging for supply of raw material. *It's actually gorging on a glut already. *And making a killing. *Were we to open up even more fields there would be a lot of head-scratching as to what to do with it.

As noted before, a profit-making venture works for its shareholders, not its base country. *They're going to put the product where it makes the most money. *That's why this idea that "gummint is in the way" doesn't hold water. *Or gas. *They choose where to sell it -- not us.

That quote remains uncorroberated. *It does support 22 years.**I'm still digging through EIA reports.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf

**I've also got uncorroberated five years just to pump the first barrel of oil out of the ground. *I am not sure if that is from the beginning of the lease,*seismic crews on the ground, or what.

You started me off on an interesting direction.

**I learn a lot taking a statement, as a hypothesis, and researching it. *There seems to be a correlation between who presents facts that play out and who presents facts that are wrong. *It seems to do with re-membering what you believe or believing what you remember.

I treat it all the same. Whatever the data says, it really don't matter what I want to believe. *Never occurred to me that the time frame was so long.*

I still don't know who made that quote (?) but I do remember this imaginary time frame has been all over the map, especially in 2008 when the presidential campaign was on and gas prices were at record highs. We heard variously seventeen years, ten years, then five years, then two years, then one year... it was like an auction in reverse. I believe McCain had it down to two months (!)

All lies anyway; as outlined earlier, "our" resources do not make "our" gasoline, regardless what the timetable is, so even if we had opened up ANWR and OCS in 1990 (23 years ago), that end product would now be fueling the Chinas and Indias of the world. Not to mention what might have been lost in those areas that were the whole point of defending when George H.W. Bush ordered them protected in that very year.

 

[Pogo]

"According the Energy Information*Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS. EIA predicted that there would be no significant effect on oil production or price until nearly two decades after leasing begins."

Still looking for that on the EIA site

?
Whence cometh this quote? I don't see it on the EIA pages or in the thread

The OCS page actually said,
>> The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017 <<

Given a release date of 2007, that's ten years to production and 23 years to "significant" production.
And in any case it doesn't go to the pump in your town because that kind of intranational supply/demand system is simply not how oil works.

More detail in here--

Why Abundant Oil Hasn't Cut Gasoline Prices

>> Complicating the equation is a 1920 law called the Jones Act, which requires any cargo shipped between U.S. ports to be carried by vessels that are based in the U.S., made in the U.S., and crewed mostly by U.S. citizens. The law was intended to protect U.S. shipping interests but has made it more costly to move fuel between U.S. ports. This in particular hurts the Northeast, which is struggling to meet its fuel needs after several refineries closed in the last two years. According to Ed Morse, chief commodity analyst at Citigroup (C), those constraints add between $6 and $8 a barrel to transport costs. As a result, it&#8217;s often cheaper for a Gulf Coast refiner to send gasoline to Brazil than to New York.

In late 2011 the U.S. quietly surpassed Russia as the largest exporter of such refined products as gasoline and diesel. Canada&#8217;s fuel imports from the U.S. jumped 15 percent in 2012. Brazil&#8217;s demand for U.S.-made fuel rose 6 percent. China&#8217;s leapt 17 percent. Exports to Venezuela and India more than doubled. Without realizing it, U.S. drivers are competing for American-made gasoline with consumers in Latin America and Asia, where demand is rising. <<

Big oil is not scrounging for supply of raw material. It's actually gorging on a glut already. And making a killing. Were we to open up even more fields there would be a lot of head-scratching as to what to do with them.

As noted before, a profit-making venture works for its shareholders, not its base country. They're going to put the product where it makes the most money. That's why this idea that "gummint is in the way" doesn't hold water. Or gas. They choose where to sell it -- not us. That's how the free market works.

The goverment has nothing to do with it? So those gas taxes I pay that rise when the price per gallon rises is just a figment of my imagination.

Your state raises taxes when the market price of gas goes up? What state is that?

No, those gas taxes have nothing to do with drilling, exploration, refining, shipping or marketing. They're for building and maintaining those roads and bridges you need to drive the car on.

Everybody wants a free ride...

 

[itfitzme]

No. All I can do is point out liberals whining about how long new production will take.
They use it as an excuse to never open new exploration.
They were whining about it back in 2001.
If we have done it anyway, production would be higher and prices would be lower, right now.

2001 and 2009 are different "numbers". *It is part of that "math" thingy.*

9 is 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1.

See how that works, Sparky?

**You should go back and review that.

2001 and 2009 are different "numbers".

Congrats! You know more than most liberals.
Now tell that we shouldn't increase drilling, because it'll take a few years for production to come on line.

That one always makes me laugh.

Which is more than you.

Oh, I didn't know you worked for EXXON. *You should start drilling.

So when are you gonna start?

 

[itfitzme]

?
Whence cometh this quote? *I don't see it on the EIA pages or in the thread

The OCS page actually said,
>> The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017 <<

Given a release date of 2007, that's ten years to production.*
And in any case it doesn't go to the pump in your town because that kind of intranational supply/demand system is simply not how oil works.

More detail in here--
Why Abundant Oil Hasn't Cut Gasoline Prices

>> Complicating the equation is a 1920 law called the Jones Act, which requires any cargo shipped between U.S. ports to be carried by vessels that are based in the U.S., made in the U.S., and crewed mostly by U.S. citizens. The law was intended to protect U.S. shipping interests but has made it more costly to move fuel between U.S. ports. This in particular hurts the Northeast, which is struggling to meet its fuel needs after several refineries closed in the last two years. According to Ed Morse, chief commodity analyst at Citigroup (C), those constraints add between $6 and $8 a barrel to transport costs. As a result, it’s often cheaper for a Gulf Coast refiner to send gasoline to Brazil than to New York.*

In late 2011 the U.S. quietly surpassed Russia as the largest exporter of such refined products as gasoline and diesel. Canada’s fuel imports from the U.S. jumped 15 percent in 2012. Brazil’s demand for U.S.-made fuel rose 6 percent. China’s leapt 17 percent. Exports to Venezuela and India more than doubled. Without realizing it, U.S. drivers are competing for American-made gasoline with consumers in Latin America and Asia, where demand is rising. <<

Big oil is not scrounging for supply of raw material. *It's actually gorging on a glut already. *And making a killing. *Were we to open up even more fields there would be a lot of head-scratching as to what to do with it.

As noted before, a profit-making venture works for its shareholders, not its base country. *They're going to put the product where it makes the most money. *That's why this idea that "gummint is in the way" doesn't hold water. *Or gas. *They choose where to sell it -- not us.

That quote remains uncorroberated. *It does support 22 years.**I'm still digging through EIA reports.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf

**I've also got uncorroberated five years just to pump the first barrel of oil out of the ground. *I am not sure if that is from the beginning of the lease,*seismic crews on the ground, or what.

You started me off on an interesting direction.

**I learn a lot taking a statement, as a hypothesis, and researching it. *There seems to be a correlation between who presents facts that play out and who presents facts that are wrong. *It seems to do with re-membering what you believe or believing what you remember.

I treat it all the same. Whatever the data says, it really don't matter what I want to believe. *Never occurred to me that the time frame was so long.*

I still don't know who made that quote (?) but I do remember this imaginary time frame has been all over the map, especially in 2008 when the presidential campaign was on and gas prices were at record highs. *We heard variously seventeen years, ten years, then five years, then two years, then one year... it was like an auction in reverse. *I believe McCain had it down to two months (!)

All lies anyway; as outlined earlier, "our" resources do not make "our" gasoline, regardless what the timetable is, so even if we had opened up ANWR and OCS in 1990 (23 years ago), that end product would now be fueling the Chinas and Indias of the world. *Not to mention what might have been lost in those areas that were the whole point of defending when George H.W. Bush ordered them protected in that very year.

Yeah, I also have that the refineries haven't built a new refinery since 1976 or even indicated the plan to build one four years ago. The process was streamlined but goes unused.

Still, uncorroberated. *It may require digging through Congressional testimony to see what those "liberal" oil companies were whining about, and why they didn't start drilling in the socialist state of Alaska.

 

[itfitzme]

Empirical data has the Alaska North Slope Badami and North Slope oil fields at a minimum of 8-10 years from discovery to first barrel. *This doesn't include leasing, collecting and interpreting seismic data or exploratory drilling. *There is an additional
3-4 years to reach peak production. *

Source sited in*http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf

 

[itfitzme]

Also, the real dollar price for gasoline at the pump was flat for decades. It was in about 1998 that China exports and the real dollar cost of gasoline, in the US, began rising simultaneously. The obvious relationship is the increase in global demand as China began demanding more fossil fuel product. The real dollar pump price crashed with global demand during the great recession. When the global economy stabilized, prices returned to the pre-recession levels. Clearly prices are the result of GLOBAL demand.

 

[RKMBrown]

Also, the real dollar price for gasoline at the pump was flat for decades. It was in about 1998 that China exports and the real dollar cost of gasoline, in the US, began rising simultaneously. The obvious relationship is the increase in global demand as China began demanding more fossil fuel product. The real dollar pump price crashed with global demand during the great recession. When the global economy stabilized, prices returned to the pre-recession levels. Clearly prices are the result of GLOBAL demand.

Ayup demand is flat with production. The cost increases then are mainly due to devaluation of the dollar resulting in inflation. If anything one could argue our governments through the managed oligarchy, has forced a quasi monopoly on production and consumption thus managed to keep the prices (and profits) artificially high.

 

[itfitzme]

Also, the real dollar price for gasoline at the pump was flat for decades. It was in about 1998 that China exports and the real dollar cost of gasoline, in the US, began rising simultaneously. The obvious relationship is the increase in global demand as China began demanding more fossil fuel product. The real dollar pump price crashed with global demand during the great recession. When the global economy stabilized, prices returned to the pre-recession levels. Clearly prices are the result of GLOBAL demand.

Ayup demand is flat with production. The cost increases then are mainly due to devaluation of the dollar resulting in inflation. If anything one could argue our governments through the managed oligarchy, has forced a quasi monopoly on production and consumption thus managed to keep the prices (and profits) artificially high.

Uh, no DEMAND. I used the word four times.

 

[RKMBrown]

Also, the real dollar price for gasoline at the pump was flat for decades. It was in about 1998 that China exports and the real dollar cost of gasoline, in the US, began rising simultaneously. The obvious relationship is the increase in global demand as China began demanding more fossil fuel product. The real dollar pump price crashed with global demand during the great recession. When the global economy stabilized, prices returned to the pre-recession levels. Clearly prices are the result of GLOBAL demand.

Ayup demand is flat with production. The cost increases then are mainly due to devaluation of the dollar resulting in inflation. If anything one could argue our governments through the managed oligarchy, has forced a quasi monopoly on production and consumption thus managed to keep the prices (and profits) artificially high.

Uh, no DEMAND. I used the word four times.

Uhmm... hello McFly ... hello anyone in there? What happens to the price of a commodity in which supply and demand are controlled by storage facilities storing the product when demand is low and selling the stored product when demand is high?

What happens to the price of a commodity when the value of the dollar falls due to unequal quantitative easing of the dollar as compared to the monetary system of the primary producers of said commodity?

Are you trying to say the people selling the commodity can't up their price based on devaluation of the dollar? Are you saying oil should be less valuable than the dollars generated by quantitative easing? Yeah all they do is say here you go more money no drilling required, just add zeroes to the balance sheet. Here's our dollars give me more oil?

Further the law of supply and demand goes out the door when the seller is an oligarchy that is allowed to set price.

 

[itfitzme]

Ayup demand is flat with production. The cost increases then are mainly due to devaluation of the dollar resulting in inflation. If anything one could argue our governments through the managed oligarchy, has forced a quasi monopoly on production and consumption thus managed to keep the prices (and profits) artificially high.

Uh, no DEMAND. I used the word four times.

Uhmm... hello McFly ... hello anyone in there? What happens to the price of a commodity in which supply and demand are controlled by storage facilities storing the product when demand is low and selling the stored product when demand is high?

What happens to the price of a commodity when the value of the dollar falls due to unequal quantitative easing of the dollar as compared to the monetary system of the primary producers of said commodity?

Are you trying to say the people selling the commodity can't up their price based on devaluation of the dollar? Are you saying oil should be less valuable than the dollars generated by quantitative easing? Yeah all they do is say here you go more money no drilling required, just add zeroes to the balance sheet. Here's our dollars give me more oil?

Further the law of supply and demand goes out the door when the seller is an oligarchy that is allowed to set price.

That sets the market price above the free market equilibrium. The standard models are the Carnout and Nash models. The market price then fluctuates on demand. The major driver is demand, with China increasing that demand. They aren't mutually exclusive. Which is why I find amusing to see the oiln execs before Congress saying then price is set by supply and demand. They are the supply.

You do get the concept of "and"? Supply "and" demand? Or in this convo, demand and supply. I said demand, you said supply.

You should see my other post where I detailed the ologopoly and talked about market power. Got called a liberal for that.

Yep, I think we nailed it. Good work. I think we nailed it. It's about F'in time two people nailed the fact that its SUPPLY AND DEMAND.

No, really, you should see my other posts. Though it's been a while since I've mentioned speculation, the commodity market.

Still, I can't find data on the tankers, just some comment that some one once made about actually seeing them off the coast.

I'll see if I can find my post on the major suppliers. It leaves an open question about how much they can raise market price above then ideal market equulibrium. The clue is profit per gallon. In a perfect market with perfect competition tbere is no profit.

Oil refineries have economies of scale and barriers to market entry, ergo not an ideal free market. The major companies number less than ten.

Thanks, I've had the demand side one day, the supply side the next. Just could't get them together.

 

[RKMBrown]

Uh, no DEMAND. I used the word four times.

Uhmm... hello McFly ... hello anyone in there? What happens to the price of a commodity in which supply and demand are controlled by storage facilities storing the product when demand is low and selling the stored product when demand is high?

What happens to the price of a commodity when the value of the dollar falls due to unequal quantitative easing of the dollar as compared to the monetary system of the primary producers of said commodity?

Are you trying to say the people selling the commodity can't up their price based on devaluation of the dollar? Are you saying oil should be less valuable than the dollars generated by quantitative easing? Yeah all they do is say here you go more money no drilling required, just add zeroes to the balance sheet. Here's our dollars give me more oil?

Further the law of supply and demand goes out the door when the seller is an oligarchy that is allowed to set price.

That sets the market price above the free market equilibrium. The standard models are the Carnout and Nash models. The market price then fluctuates on demand. The major driver is demand, with China increasing that demand. They aren't mutually exclusive. Which is why I find amusing to see the oiln execs before Congress saying then price is set by supply and demand. They are the supply.

You do get the concept of "and"? Supply "and" demand? Or in this convo, demand and supply. I said demand, you said supply.

You should see my other post where I detailed the ologopoly and talked about market power. Got called a liberal for that.

Yep, I think we nailed it. Good work. I think we nailed it. It's about F'in time two people nailed the fact that its SUPPLY AND DEMAND.

No, really, you should see my other posts. Though it's been a while since I've mentioned speculation, the commodity market.

Still, I can't find data on the tankers, just some comment that some one once made about actually seeing them off the coast.

I'll see if I can find my post on the major suppliers. It leaves an open question about how much they can raise market price above then ideal market equulibrium. The clue is profit per gallon. In a perfect market with perfect competition tbere is no profit.

Oil refineries have economies of scale and barriers to market entry, ergo not an ideal free market. The major companies number less than ten.

Thanks, I've had the demand side one day, the supply side the next. Just could't get them together.

Ah... now I get your point. FYI... when I said "demand is flat with production" I meant I was agreeing with your point to equilibrium cost being a matter of supply and demand, production being the supply side in my phrasing.

If there is no profit there is no reason for investment... if there's too much competition the narrow profit margin will chase the investment money to better returns. Supply and demand also applies to investments, and monetary valuation.