Missed in the offshore oil ...

[Libsmasher]

Bunz's idea: oil, a mystical commodity of the cosmos, is not subject to the laws of economics. What is it subject to, then? The thought waves of Zoltan the Magnificent from the planet Zorxxx.

 

[UShadItComing]

Andy forgot. LOL

 

[Bunz]

Ah Geez,
OK, Andy and Libsmasher let me say a few things. I have been meaning to come to this thread and keep it going, but have been busy with other things.

What I am talking about ultimately is that the price of oil is not simply decided by supply and demand except in its most basic model. There are many reasons for the price of oil and any commodity flucuates. Most of it, in the short term is based on speculation and then throw in the other global factors and it drives the price up with no relief in sight for the consumer. While I have a personal interest in high oil prices, I know that there is a point when that balance tips and it is costing the consumer to much right now.

Oil companies have plenty of domestic areas ready for development where the oil company has avoided development. While it will not make a huge difference or probably not even a small one, I would prefer to develop American oil fields where it is enviromentally responsible. Of which there is specifically the Pt. Thompson field on the north slope of Alaska.

 

[Libsmasher]

Ah Geez,
OK, Andy and Libsmasher let me say a few things. I have been meaning to come to this thread and keep it going, but have been busy with other things.

What I am talking about ultimately is that the price of oil is not simply decided by supply and demand except in its most basic model. There are many reasons for the price of oil and any commodity flucuates. Most of it, in the short term is based on speculation and then throw in the other global factors and it drives the price up with no relief in sight for the consumer. While I have a personal interest in high oil prices, I know that there is a point when that balance tips and it is costing the consumer to much right now.

Oil companies have plenty of domestic areas ready for development where the oil company has avoided development. While it will not make a huge difference or probably not even a small one, I would prefer to develop American oil fields where it is enviromentally responsible. Of which there is specifically the Pt. Thompson field on the north slope of Alaska.

I'll limit myself to this - what you call "speculators" is nothing more than a pure effect of the operation of the market - futures traders operate on nothing other than their perception of future supply and demand. And it's a little bizarre to hear libs complain about oil companies not drilling for oil, since everywhere they WANT to drill, lib environmentalists won't let them. Do you think they ignore huge fields of oil waiting to be tapped on their leased land, but prefer offshore and alaska just because they devilishly see it as an opportunity to screw up the environment?

 

[Bunz]

I'll limit myself to this - what you call "speculators" is nothing more than a pure effect of the operation of the market - futures traders operate on nothing other than their perception of future supply and demand.

Libsmasher, I know the issues surrounding the oil market, and generally how it translates into prices at the pump. My point in the whole argument is that while we are in agreement on the issue of the basic movement of the market, it is that there is more to the equation than simple supply and demand.

And it's a little bizarre to hear libs complain about oil companies not drilling for oil, since everywhere they WANT to drill, lib environmentalists won't let them.

Well its because I am not really a "lib". I am an Independant Democrat. I believe in a strong 2nd amendment, and want to develop ANWR, along with plenty of other places. I dont buy blindly into either party line, because I think there is generally a common sense compromise in the middle in most cases.
I have voted for George W. Bush and Barak Obama, wrap your head around that one.
[qupte]Do you think they ignore huge fields of oil waiting to be tapped on their leased land, but prefer offshore and alaska just because they devilishly see it as an opportunity to screw up the environment? [/QUOTE]

This is an overreaching blanket statement that certainly doesnt apply to me. All I know is that Exxon has been sitting on a considerable amount of KNOWN oil and gas for a few decades now. There is offshore and onshore in other places. Certainly Texas and Pennsylvania and California have reserves along with the marginal quality shale oil found in many places and signifigantly in the mid west.