Gas prices jump to over $4.00 a gallon. Praise Allah.

[Cooky]

Actually the US flipped on this point. Once the US didn't consider OPEC would be willing to cut supplies for political reasons. When it did the US considered an invasion during the 73 oil crisis as per declassified files released in 2004. Instead the US used its economic power and outright bribery to get OPEC in the ME aligned with US interests. It is the primary reasons the rest of the planet even cares about the ME. Oil. Otherwise it would just be a backwater.

If we had the Keystone pipeline, couldn't we just disregard OPEC and remain unaffected by their disruptive methods?

 

[Cooky]

LOLOL.. KSA doesn't give oil wells to anyone. 86% of oil revenues go to the Saudis people in the form of healthcare, education, desalination facilities and other infrastructure.

So the Saudi government owns the oil wells? And 86% of revenues go toward social services..?

...And they dictate global prices too..?

Well... That seems s*******t-ish.

 

[Shad]

If we had the Keystone pipeline, couldn't we just disregard OPEC and remain unaffected by their disruptive methods?

That is the general idea for many. However the industry itself is tied to such groups in the form of international corporation. Companies which are invested into the American industry are not separate from OPEC industry. So those companies would need to cut ties or they were merely follow the far greater global standard. At best it will reduce the impact but not nullify it. To nullify it would require a quasi-nationalization ans/or isolation policies along with ensuring the nation's industry can supply the nation's demand. I do not think the US is close to such a step.

A nation like Canada could as it's oil supply and reserves outstrip consumption a year by 3000%. Canada could have 300 years of oil with what we export to other nations a year. Obvious this number will decrease depending on population and commercial demands.

 

[Cooky]

That is the general idea for many. However the industry itself is tied to such groups in the form of international corporation. Companies which are invested into the American industry are not separate from OPEC industry. So those companies would need to cut ties or they were merely follow the far greater global standard. At best it will reduce the impact but not nullify it. To nullify it would require a quasi-nationalization ans/or isolation policies along with ensuring the nation's industry can supply the nation's demand. I do not think the US is close to such a step.

A nation like Canada could as it's oil supply and reserves outstrip consumption a year by 3000%. Canada could have 300 years of oil with what we export to other nations a year. Obvious this number will decrease depending on population and commercial demands.

We need to cut ties with OPEC, and make a pact with our own oil producing allies.

Someone call Trump quick! We got a plan!
Tax incentives for purchasing oil from our allies, and tariffs on OPEC oil sounds like the solution.

 

[Shad]

We need to cut ties with OPEC, and make a pact with our own oil producing allies. Someone call Trump quick! We got a plan!

Actually I was thinking of this but didn't feel it would work so didn't comment. The problem with OPEC is not merely control of oil but that it is run by governments which have political agendas. We would just be trading one set political goals for another. Not necessarily a policy/agenda you or I may agree with. More control would obviously shift hands due to elections. So Dems could do the same thing OPEC nations do once power changes hands.IE using the petrol dollar to fund those programs. Keep in mind OPEC nations are not bastions of freedom by any means so do not see radical changes in policy due to elections. This is a factor that makes control different comparing the US or KSA. After all when was the last time a Saud was not in charge of KSA without requiring a war? In the US party control can shift yearly in Congress/House and every 4-8 for POTUS. A POTUS could be weak if Congress is controlled by another party. Saud's are an absolute monarchy with the facade of a House level government.

 

[Cooky]

Actually I was thinking of this but didn't feel it would work so didn't comment. The problem with OPEC is not merely control of oil but that it is run by governments which have political agendas. We would just be trading one set political goals for another. Not necessarily a policy/agenda you or I may agree with. More control would obviously shift hands due to elections. So Dems could do the same thing OPEC nations do once power changes hands.IE using the petrol dollar to fund those programs. Keep in mind OPEC nations are not bastions of freedom by any means so do not see radical changes in policy due to elections. This is a factor that makes control different comparing the US or KSA. After all when was the last time a Saud was not in charge of KSA without requiring a war?

Unless it remained free-market, with incentives for refineries to purchase from the "right" supplier. Tax incentives and tariffs should point them in the right direction. Then they could sell at free-market rates...

Tariffs are an American tradition.
Why Is the GOP Terrified of Tariffs?

 

[Shad]

Unless it remained free-market, with incentives for refineries to purchase from the "right" supplier. Tax incentives and tariffs should point them in the right direction. Then they could sell at free-market rates...

Again the problem is OPEC like organizations are government controlled. Sure it sounds great when someone or majority that supports those views are in office. However do you think Dems will maintain such a policy? After all it is the party of price controls.

Some Dem will declare 4 USD a gallon is unreasonable and beyond the standard of living to launch of political crusade backed by have me nots and leeches.

 

[exchemist]

Interesting... A liberal defending fossil fuels.

...I don't get it.

The concept of trying to understand the reasons for something, rather than stupidly taking sides on a tribal basis, is alien to you, huh?

This just shows how low the standards of US political discussion have got.

 

[dianaiad]

I hear many people say that prices must be kept low because of
their personal situation or because it would be unfair to the poor.
When I lived in LA, I commuted from the Santa Monica area to
Hawthorne with several other engineers.

There is always a way to cope with high gas prices.
Select whatever works for one....
- Carpool.
- Public transportation.
- Move closer to work.
- Get a car with better fuel economy.
- Combine trips to shop, work, recreate.
- Car share to cut costs.
- Eliminate unnecessary trips.
- Walk or bike. My commute to work is a 3 mile walk. I don't drive unless hauling something.
- Use a cooler for frozen food if trips take long. That's what we do.

You commuted from Santa Monica to Hawthorne. That's a whoppin' 14 miles, m'friend. That's...nothing. That's...a bike ride. Really. I commuted from the Antelope Valley to down town LA. THAT is a hundred mile round trip. Every day. Very typical commute.

Let me go over your list:

Carpool...only works if you have people who live close to you who also work fairly close to where you do. Now the folks up this way actually have 'car pool' lots, where they commute twenty miles or so to a parking lot, and then carpool the rest of the way to their job. We have a bunch of those, but it certainly doesn't solve the problem, does it? When you have to drive 20 + miles to GET TO THE CARPOOL parking lot?

Public Transportation....works if it is available. Please note that it's not available in most places.

Move closer to work....uh huh. You used to live in Santa Monica. Are you aware that the average rent for a studio apartment with one bath (advertised as 'cheap apartments" is over a thousand bucks a month? Add another $250 a month and you can buy a four bedroom, three bath house in the Antelope Valley. Now you tell me what you advise a couple with kids to do?

Get a car with better fuel economy....well, we ARE all trying to do that. I don't know many people who drive 15 mpg cars any more. Do you?

Combine trips to shop, work, recreate....what makes you think that we don't do that when we can?

Car share to cut costs.....with whom?

Walk or bike.... Well, if one's commute to work is a 3 mile walk, that's very doable. While I was in school, I did that a lot. However, in my entire working life I've never lived fewer than forty miles from my job, until I became a teacher who could teach online. Now THAT was a lovely commute! I do not know that many people who work from their computers at home. Those who do love it, but, er....the guy who put new tires on my car last month couldn't do that from his computer, and his commute to home is 35 miles. Don't think he's walking that one.

Use a cooler....well of course. When one goes to Sam's Club for a grocery run, (25 miles) one does take a cooler.


Y'know, I'm really sorry about my attitude today. It's just that I am very tired of being told to do things that I cannot do...like mass transit or car pooling or biking or riding, as if simply telling us to do that stuff is going to solve the problem.

If those things were available to us, sure; we'd do it. For one thing, if I personally had access to mass transit to get to my chemo and dr's appointments ( 14 miles round trip; really close, as things are measured out here) I'd do that in a heartbeat. I would love to take the bus. It would be considerably more convenient for me.

But there is no bus to take.

So don't tell those of us who are in this situation that it's somehow our fault and that everything would be just ducky if we'd only take the bus or the train or bike or whatever. We can't ride transit that isn't available.

....and of course we do the 'cooler' thing and attempt to consolidate trips, etc., However, that really doesn't solve the problem. What WILL solve the problem is to:

1. make electric vehicles affordable. Right now they just aren't.
2. Stop allowing political infighting to determine what we do about producing clean and affordable energy.
3. Nuclear power plants. More of 'em. Solve the whole problem.

And those who have absolutely no idea what it is like to live in areas where there is no mass transit and the distances really do not allow walking/biking unless one is in training for marathons or the Tour de France should stop looking down their noses at us and figuring that if THEY can walk to work or to shop, then surely everybody ELSE can.

But hey. You carpooled a whole 14 miles to work once. You walk three miles to work now.

Now, er, triple the distance and then examine the problem.

 

[Cooky]

The concept of trying to understand the reasons for something, rather than stupidly taking sides on a tribal basis, is alien to you, huh?

This just shows how low the standards of US political discussion have got.

Okay. I made a mistake. I also made another mistake earlier when I falsely said refineries are forced to sell gas at a certain price.

...But I am right that someone is forcing oil extraction companies to sell barrels at a set global price.

 

[Revoltingest]

And the Americans. Heck, Australians too.
Granted, the levels of violation change, but...
*shrugs*

I judge the Russians & especially the Chinese to be far worse.

 

[Cooky]

There's nothing "low" about this discussion @exchemist.

 

[sooda]

Actually I was thinking of this but didn't feel it would work so didn't comment. The problem with OPEC is not merely control of oil but that it is run by governments which have political agendas. We would just be trading one set political goals for another. Not necessarily a policy/agenda you or I may agree with. More control would obviously shift hands due to elections. So Dems could do the same thing OPEC nations do once power changes hands.IE using the petrol dollar to fund those programs. Keep in mind OPEC nations are not bastions of freedom by any means so do not see radical changes in policy due to elections. This is a factor that makes control different comparing the US or KSA. After all when was the last time a Saud was not in charge of KSA without requiring a war? In the US party control can shift yearly in Congress/House and every 4-8 for POTUS. A POTUS could be weak if Congress is controlled by another party. Saud's are an absolute monarchy with the facade of a House level government.

So the Saudi government owns the oil wells? And 86% of revenues go toward social services..?

...And they dictate global prices too..?

Well... That seems s*******t-ish.

Price is dictated by supply and market demand.

I don't expect you to know anything about the Saudis or the oil business or OPEC. The purpose of OPEC was to keep supply and price steady which they have done unless there was geopolitical interference like invading Iraq or civil war in Libya.

Saudi ARAMCO owns the oil business and it is the biggest and most well integrated oil company in the world. Further, they have a hell of a good safety record dating back to the 1940s.

 

[Revoltingest]

You commuted from Santa Monica to Hawthorne. That's a whoppin' 14 miles, m'friend. That's...nothing. That's...a bike ride. Really. I commuted from the Antelope Valley to down town LA. THAT is a hundred mile round trip. Every day. Very typical commute.

You lived too far from where you worked.
Btw, I was near Santa Monica, but lived in West LA.

Let me go over your list:

Carpool...only works if you have people who live close to you who also work fairly close to where you do. Now the folks up this way actually have 'car pool' lots, where they commute twenty miles or so to a parking lot, and then carpool the rest of the way to their job. We have a bunch of those, but it certainly doesn't solve the problem, does it? When you have to drive 20 + miles to GET TO THE CARPOOL parking lot?

Public Transportation....works if it is available. Please note that it's not available in most places.

Move closer to work....uh huh. You used to live in Santa Monica. Are you aware that the average rent for a studio apartment with one bath (advertised as 'cheap apartments" is over a thousand bucks a month? Add another $250 a month and you can buy a four bedroom, three bath house in the Antelope Valley. Now you tell me what you advise a couple with kids to do?

Get a car with better fuel economy....well, we ARE all trying to do that. I don't know many people who drive 15 mpg cars any more. Do you?

Combine trips to shop, work, recreate....what makes you think that we don't do that when we can?

Car share to cut costs.....with whom?

Walk or bike.... Well, if one's commute to work is a 3 mile walk, that's very doable. While I was in school, I did that a lot. However, in my entire working life I've never lived fewer than forty miles from my job, until I became a teacher who could teach online. Now THAT was a lovely commute! I do not know that many people who work from their computers at home. Those who do love it, but, er....the guy who put new tires on my car last month couldn't do that from his computer, and his commute to home is 35 miles. Don't think he's walking that one.

Use a cooler....well of course. When one goes to Sam's Club for a grocery run, (25 miles) one does take a cooler.


Y'know, I'm really sorry about my attitude today. It's just that I am very tired of being told to do things that I cannot do...like mass transit or car pooling or biking or riding, as if simply telling us to do that stuff is going to solve the problem.

If those things were available to us, sure; we'd do it. For one thing, if I personally had access to mass transit to get to my chemo and dr's appointments ( 14 miles round trip; really close, as things are measured out here) I'd do that in a heartbeat. I would love to take the bus. It would be considerably more convenient for me.

But there is no bus to take.

So don't tell those of us who are in this situation that it's somehow our fault and that everything would be just ducky if we'd only take the bus or the train or bike or whatever. We can't ride transit that isn't available.

....and of course we do the 'cooler' thing and attempt to consolidate trips, etc., However, that really doesn't solve the problem. What WILL solve the problem is to:

1. make electric vehicles affordable. Right now they just aren't.
2. Stop allowing political infighting to determine what we do about producing clean and affordable energy.
3. Nuclear power plants. More of 'em. Solve the whole problem.

And those who have absolutely no idea what it is like to live in areas where there is no mass transit and the distances really do not allow walking/biking unless one is in training for marathons or the Tour de France should stop looking down their noses at us and figuring that if THEY can walk to work or to shop, then surely everybody ELSE can.

But hey. You carpooled a whole 14 miles to work once. You walk three miles to work now.

Now, er, triple the distance and then examine the problem.

I've run across a lot of resistance from many people to letting gas
prices rise. It comes up because I advocate a higher fuel tax.
There are always reasons why they oppose it....the poor need to
drive, it's impossible for many to reduce consumption, & they
just cannot afford it.
I'll wager @BSM1's left one that if prices rose, they'd figure out
some ways to save on gas. Society would greatly benefit from
changing to be less wasteful.
Europeans manage to raise families despite paying about $8/gal.

Btw, LA was just one place where I carpooled. And it was
the shortest of my carpool commutes in various states. If
one really tries, one finds a way to save money & be green.

Our Pontiac Vibe gets around 35 mpg (around town).
Mr Van varies from 8-10, depending upon how much he's
hauling (up to 26,000#). But he drives only about 5,000 mi/year.
And I combine trips hauling for other people too, so they avoid
driving. Keeping their vehicles off the road greatly increases
efficiency.

 

[Cooky]

Price is dictated by supply and market demand.

I don't expect you to know anything about the Saudis or the oil business or OPEC. The purpose of OPEC was to keep supply and price steady which they have done unless there was geopolitical interference like invading Iraq or civil war in Libya.

Saudi ARAMCO owns the oil business and it is the biggest and most well integrated oil company in the world. Further, they have a hell of a good safety record dating back to the 1940s.

You should support the "NOPEC" bill that Congress has proposed. All good Americans should!

"The "No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act," or NOPEC, would subject the group of oil producers to possible antitrust action by the Justice Department. Opponents warn that its passage would hurt U.S. diplomatic interests and provoke retaliation against U.S. producers. But a new white paper written on behalf of Securing America’s Future Energy, which advocates for curtailing oil dependence, argues that those fears are overblown."
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[Revoltingest]

...But I am right that someone is forcing oil extraction companies to sell barrels at a set global price.

Evidence for the conspiracy?

 

[Cooky]

Evidence for the conspiracy?

"OPEC controls oil prices through its pricing-over-volume strategy. According to Foreign Affairs magazine, the oil embargo shifted the structure of the oil market from a buyer's to a seller's market. In the magazine's view, the oil market was earlier controlled by the Seven Sisters or seven Western oil companies that operated a majority of the oil fields. Post 1973, however, the balance of power, however, shifted towards the 12 countries that comprise OPEC. According to them, “What the Americans import from the Persian Gulf is not so much the actual black liquid but its price.”

OPEC vs the U.S.: Who Controls Oil Prices?

 

[Revoltingest]

"OPEC controls oil prices through its pricing-over-volume strategy. According to Foreign Affairs magazine, the oil embargo shifted the structure of the oil market from a buyer's to a seller's market. In the magazine's view, the oil market was earlier controlled by the Seven Sisters or seven Western oil companies that operated a majority of the oil fields. Post 1973, however, the balance of power, however, shifted towards the 12 countries that comprise OPEC. According to them, “What the Americans import from the Persian Gulf is not so much the actual black liquid but its price.”

OPEC vs the U.S.: Who Controls Oil Prices?

OPEC doesn't control prices outside of its members.
The don't tell non-members what to do. Of course, they can
influence prices elsewhere, but that's how competition works.

 

[sooda]

If we had the Keystone pipeline, couldn't we just disregard OPEC and remain unaffected by their disruptive methods?

Keystone has a lousy track record for safety.

 

[sooda]

"OPEC controls oil prices through its pricing-over-volume strategy. According to Foreign Affairs magazine, the oil embargo shifted the structure of the oil market from a buyer's to a seller's market. In the magazine's view, the oil market was earlier controlled by the Seven Sisters or seven Western oil companies that operated a majority of the oil fields. Post 1973, however, the balance of power, however, shifted towards the 12 countries that comprise OPEC. According to them, “What the Americans import from the Persian Gulf is not so much the actual black liquid but its price.”

OPEC vs the U.S.: Who Controls Oil Prices?

OPEC Gains the Upper Hand
The 1973 oil shock swung the pendulum in OPEC's favor. That year, in response to U.S. support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War, OPEC and Iran stopped oil supplies to the United States. The crisis had far-reaching effects on oil prices. They have remained at high levels since.

Yeah .. Frank Jungers was my neighbor and Zaki Yamani was a friend of my parents..

US domestic producers had been in an awful slump .. just limping along until the Obama administration.. then rig counts shot up for the first time in 40 years.