ouch! anyone else's wallet in pain?

[TexasWSP]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

Jon--dude may be right, but, the damage to the environment is so destructive that it would NOT be worth to drill this oil up. Yes, $4 a gallon. Should we be leaving a Carbon footprint that large when something other fuel source is on the cusp of discovery? I would rather make it "Mother Necessity of Invention"--and guess what, to be competitive, I think the US brain power is intelligent enough to make it a necessity to change how we all, globally use fuel...

Not saying dude is wrong, but I disagree with his tactic. I don't want any more platforms off California's coast... And you definitely won't get them off Washington state's coast--too many Greenpeace/ELF lunatics...

But see......a lot of it isn't. Natural gas, for example, is a clean burning energy and you don't have to completely destroy the environment to get it. The amount of regulatory measures and environmental checks required to even begin drilling a well are incredibly high. Where you used to have to drill a new well every time you wanted to explore in a new location, I can drill one well and explore deposits in tons of areas thanks to horizontal drilling.

Right now, it is worth it in my opinion. The development of alternative fuels is in its infancy, despite the fact that you hear daily about growing numbers of available biofuels, hybrids, etc. To me, we should drill the oil, have us all benefit from it, and then scale it back when alternatives reach a level of usability similar to gasoline. They just aren't there yet. Gas has a very high energy density and is easy to handle at room temperature and pressure, so it presents a very formidable challenge to alternatives at this point, especially in the transportation sector. Take corn for example. If every single acre of corn in our country was used exclusively for ethanol production you would replace less than a quarter of the gasoline used today. The "cleanliness" of it is only slightly less than gasoline anyways.

Something has to be done here, I'll give you that. I was recently talking to a very high up oil executive...everyone here would know the name....and the conversation was scary. He claimed that unless we do something about the energy problem in our country - develop new ones and allow the old ones to thrive for the time being - our economy will be around that of a third world country in the next two to three decades. I'm not saying that it's true, but it is definitely eye opening.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

But see......a lot of it isn't. Natural gas, for example, is a clean burning energy and you don't have to completely destroy the environment to get it. The amount of regulatory measures and environmental checks required to even begin drilling a well are incredibly high. Where you used to have to drill a new well every time you wanted to explore in a new location, I can drill one well and explore deposits in tons of areas thanks to horizontal drilling.

Right now, it is worth it in my opinion. The development of alternative fuels is in its infancy, despite the fact that you hear daily about growing numbers of available biofuels, hybrids, etc. To me, we should drill the oil, have us all benefit from it, and then scale it back when alternatives reach a level of usability similar to gasoline. They just aren't there yet. Gas has a very high energy density and is easy to handle at room temperature and pressure, so it presents a very formidable challenge to alternatives at this point, especially in the transportation sector. Take corn for example. If every single acre of corn in our country was used exclusively for ethanol production you would replace less than a quarter of the gasoline used today. The "cleanliness" of it is only slightly less than gasoline anyways.

Something has to be done here, I'll give you that. I was recently talking to a very high up oil executive...everyone here would know the name....and the conversation was scary. He claimed that unless we do something about the energy problem in our country - develop new ones and allow the old ones to thrive for the time being - our economy will be around that of a third world country in the next two to three decades. I'm not saying that it's true, but it is definitely eye opening.

One of the many reasons out wallets are hurting is that corn, and a few other products, are being taken out of the food chain and "used" for other reasons.
The studies I have seen show a "savings" of less than 15% if ALL US grown products were used to replace gas.
And right now, with all the rain in the Mid-West, less than 1/2 of the crop is even in the ground! Way behind planting season.
Add to that the drought in other parts of the world, we will be feeling even worse.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by jon1856

One of the many reasons out wallets are hurting is that corn, and a few other products, are being taken out of the food chain and "used" for other reasons.
The studies I have seen show a "savings" of less than 15% if ALL US grown products were used to replace gas.
And right now, with all the rain in the Mid-West, less than 1/2 of the crop is even in the ground! Way behind planting season.
Add to that the drought in other parts of the world, we will be feeling even worse.

Never mind the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies paid to farmers, who are reaping record profits on their crops, as well - yet we vilify oil companies. It's unreal.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Never mind the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies paid to farmers, who are reaping record profits on their crops, as well - yet we vilify oil companies. It's unreal.

True, it is unreal.
And that DC just is not able to/unwilling to change the Farm bills to correct that matter.
And remember not all farmers are equal. Some of those "farmers" are companies like AMD et al.

[ISUKappa]

Originally Posted by jon1856

One of the many reasons out wallets are hurting is that corn, and a few other products, are being taken out of the food chain and "used" for other reasons.

Sweet Jebus I hate the food/fuel debate. Yes, an increasing amount of corn is being used for biofuels, but is only a small part of the overall increase in costs. There is so much more to the process than OMGYOURETAKINGAWAYFOODFROMSTARVINGBABIESINAFRICA!

And right now, with all the rain in the Mid-West, less than 1/2 of the crop is even in the ground! Way behind planting season.
Add to that the drought in other parts of the world, we will be feeling even worse.

It's predicted this year will be worse than 1993 for flooding in many areas of the Midwest and that was a very bad year for floods.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Never mind the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies paid to farmers, who are reaping record profits on their crops, as well - yet we vilify oil companies. It's unreal.

Rob, I really respect your opinion on most all subjects, and considering you actually live in the state, you have a better understanding of the situation than most. I understand the point you're making, but because of my personal and family attachments to agriculture, I can't agree with you 100%. I hate the fact that the vast majority of the subsidies are going to companies like ADM and Cargill, but even small farmers are benefiting from the recent prices.

Originally Posted by jon1856

True, it is unreal.
And that DC just is not able to/unwilling to change the Farm bills to correct that matter.
And remember not all farmers are equal. Some of those "farmers" are companies like AMD et al.

It will take a few years to actually tell, but I think the most recent farm bill (passed in May) made some decent strides in changing the way subsidies are paid out. And subsidies are only about 14% of the total farm bill. Subsidies and crop insurance together still make up just under 25% of the bill article from yahoo

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by ISUKappa

Rob, I really respect your opinion on most all subjects, and considering you actually live in the state, you have a better understanding of the situation than most. I understand the point you're making, but because of my personal and family attachments to agriculture, I can't agree with you 100%. I hate the fact that the vast majority of the subsidies are going to companies like ADM and Cargill, but even small farmers are benefiting from the recent prices.

The real issue, in my mind, is that it is essentially impossible under the current agriculture system to separate the true "family farmer" from ADM/Cargill and others on the "take" (as it were), leading to a pretty rough system in general - and that's what I'm speaking on, the overall system, since I have no real qualms with the concept of aid for farmers (although that may change once consumption makes market prices high enough to sustain farming as profession on its own).

My first step would be to lower the earnings cap - I believe it's currently set at $1.5 million, which seems insane, but I'd guess you have a much better idea than myself and can correct me if I'm missing some key piece of this.

Next, crop insurance fraud needs to be addressed, as it is somewhere between excessive and rampant, depending on who you believe.

Still, the comparison with Big Oil is really kind of hilarious, especially using the ADM-type situations.

[ISUKappa]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

My first step would be to lower the earnings cap - I believe it's currently set at $1.5 million, which seems insane, but I'd guess you have a much better idea than myself and can correct me if I'm missing some key piece of this.

From what I'm reading in the new farm bill, the caps have been lowered to $500,000 for non-farm income and $750,000 for farm income. source. But I don't know if there are other factors that come into play with those figures.

Crop insurance is going to be a *huge* issue after this summer. Again, from what I'm reading in the new farm bill, there seems to be an improvement in this area as well from previous bills. I will admit I'm not familiar with the specifics of the previous bills. I'm just now starting to educate myself in these areas as the husband and I would eventually like to take over our respective family farms if possible.

[windinthewillow]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

It clearly shows the deficit increased exponentially under Clinton, just as it did under Bush. That's my point - that you're twisting one "fact" to fit an argument that doesn't exist.

Now, by avoiding the topic entirely, you're clearly hiding from the light of reason - keep crawling under the rock though.

Tsk, tsk. How you twist things around. Don't you recall that you ended your argument with these words, "We could continue if you'd like, but I think this is more than enough." It wasn't "more than enough." In fact, you still never addressed the chart you posted which pointed out the exact opposite of the point you were attempting to make.

I'll continue the discussion with you, but a few ground rules?

- please stop with the Readers Digest "Expand Your Vocabulary" words. I'm not in the least bit impressed. I see people throwing around these "intellectual" words on message boards when they don't have the substance to back up their points.

- if you're going to make a statement as a "fact," please back it up with attribution. You screwed up royally with the chart you copied and pasted.

[nittanyalum]

LOL, our good friend Chuck Norris is takin' it to Congress: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=66557

He's got 535 a$$es to kick and names to take.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by windinthewillow

Tsk, tsk. How you twist things around. Don't you recall that you ended your argument with these words, "We could continue if you'd like, but I think this is more than enough." It wasn't "more than enough." In fact, you still never addressed the chart you posted which pointed out the exact opposite of the point you were attempting to make.

I'll continue the discussion with you, but a few ground rules?

- please stop with the Readers Digest "Expand Your Vocabulary" words. I'm not in the least bit impressed. I see people throwing around these "intellectual" words on message boards when they don't have the substance to back up their points.

- if you're going to make a statement as a "fact," please back it up with attribution. You screwed up royally with the chart you copied and pasted.

Can I get confirmation from other people that this is nonsense?

You even quoted the point I was making, and the chart clearly shows that point - am I missing something? Seriously - could I get a tutor?

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

But see......a lot of it isn't. Natural gas, for example, is a clean burning energy and you don't have to completely destroy the environment to get it. The amount of regulatory measures and environmental checks required to even begin drilling a well are incredibly high. Where you used to have to drill a new well every time you wanted to explore in a new location, I can drill one well and explore deposits in tons of areas thanks to horizontal drilling.

Right now, it is worth it in my opinion. The development of alternative fuels is in its infancy, despite the fact that you hear daily about growing numbers of available biofuels, hybrids, etc. To me, we should drill the oil, have us all benefit from it, and then scale it back when alternatives reach a level of usability similar to gasoline. They just aren't there yet. Gas has a very high energy density and is easy to handle at room temperature and pressure, so it presents a very formidable challenge to alternatives at this point, especially in the transportation sector. Take corn for example. If every single acre of corn in our country was used exclusively for ethanol production you would replace less than a quarter of the gasoline used today. The "cleanliness" of it is only slightly less than gasoline anyways.

Something has to be done here, I'll give you that. I was recently talking to a very high up oil executive...everyone here would know the name....and the conversation was scary. He claimed that unless we do something about the energy problem in our country - develop new ones and allow the old ones to thrive for the time being - our economy will be around that of a third world country in the next two to three decades. I'm not saying that it's true, but it is definitely eye opening.

Thanks for the previous post. I will work on getting the reference for you.

I heard what you said that about "biofuels" for ethanol production--we still will not have enough fuel... Most US oil companies say mixed fuels are better. And I remember from 25 years ago during Carter administration, that the Oil Companies did not see profit in self-producing some crude (like it use to) to get more abundant sources from you know who...

The irony is that these ELF freaks think ANY destruction of the environment by human hands is too much. Even after the environmental impact reports, etc. have been completed.

@ bolded--he's right... If something is not done like he said, our economy is going to be worse off. R&D budgets can be increased at area Universities or make it an Gates Grand Challenge/Ansari Prize/Etc. Someone somewhere will come up with a VIABLE realistic solution that has a timetable for a phase out over 20+ years. Not making worse... My Uncle is a VP at a major Energy company in OK. He's saying the same thing...

[TexasWSP]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

Thanks for the previous post. I will work on getting the reference for you.

I heard what you said that about "biofuels" for ethanol production--we still will not have enough fuel... Most US oil companies say mixed fuels are better. And I remember from 25 years ago during Carter administration, that the Oil Companies did not see profit in self-producing some crude (like it use to) to get more abundant sources from you know who...

The irony is that these ELF freaks think ANY destruction of the environment by human hands is too much. Even after the environmental impact reports, etc. have been completed.

@ bolded--he's right... If something is not done like he said, our economy is going to be worse off. R&D budgets can be increased at area Universities or make it an Gates Grand Challenge/Ansari Prize/Etc. Someone somewhere will come up with a VIABLE realistic solution that has a timetable for a phase out over 20+ years. Not making worse... My Uncle is a VP at a major Energy company in OK. He's saying the same thing...

Oh I know, haha. They definitely freak out about everything. Look, I am a proponent of environmental conservation, not screwing up the land, etc., but at some point we need to use a little common sense. But that's just me. I'm of the mindset that if there is anything that can be done to help this country's people then it should be done. When you drive around East Texas and Fort Worth (with the Barnett Shale) for a small example, you can't help but notice the GOOD that is coming from exploration. Too many people think that guys in our profession just sit back and enjoy the profits that come rolling in when it is quite the opposite. We are just as concerned as everyone else.

Yes. I would agree that mixed fuels are better. One of the reasons why your gas is high right now is because of the switchover to ethanol based gasoline, which burns cleaner than the old MTBE.

Do you mind me asking what energy company in Oklahoma? I had a couple internships in the past with Newfield Exploration and Chesapeake...Tulsa and OKC respectively...and met a lot of good people from quite a few different companies.

[AKA_Monet]

The article is here

Independent experts, however, said that government could take at least three other steps that could force oil and gasoline prices down immediately. Neither Bush nor McCain nor Obama endorse any of them.

Perhaps the quickest action, the experts said, would be ordering curbs on financial speculation. Financial industry heavyweights have acknowledged in recent testimony before Congress that such speculation is driving oil prices higher.

Pension funds, endowments and other big institutional investors are pumping big money into index funds linked to commodities, including oil, driving up demand — and prices. The popular Goldman Sachs Commodities Index attracted $260 billion in investment last year, compared to $13 billion five years earlier.

Complicating any effort to harness that, about 30 percent of the trading in crude oil is done in "dark areas" — markets in London and Dubai — that aren't regulated by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

President Bush could order the CFTC to regulate U.S. investments in those markets with a snap of his fingers, said Michael Greenberger, a law professor at the University of Maryland and a former director of trading for the CFTC.

"Essentially this could be ended this afternoon if the Bush administration had the stomach to do it," he said. "Those abdications of responsibility and allowing these exchanges to trade in 'dark' markets ... provides an environment for speculators to thrive."

The CFTC is investigating the link between speculation and oil prices but hasn't scheduled any action.

A second partial solution would be to boost the supply of oil available on the market by releasing as much as 1 million barrels a day of oil now held in the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That step is being pushed by, among others, the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank run by several former Clinton administration officials.

Do that for 90 days — through the summer driving season when consumer demand for gasoline is highest — and the reserve would lose less than 15 percent of the oil held in case of national emergency.

"Put that on the market, and the price of oil will fall," said Daniel J. Weiss, a senior fellow at the center.

It's not entirely clear that U.S. refineries could handle all that extra oil, but it would signal to traders of oil contracts that the U.S. market is adequately supplied.

Finally, the Federal Reserve could act to boost the weak dollar, which has led oil producers to demand higher prices for oil, because oil generally is traded in dollars. Oil producers want higher prices to offset the cost of converting dollars into euros and other currencies that have grown stronger against the dollar.

The best way to bolster a currency is to boost interest rates, but the Federal Reserve has been reluctant to do that with America teetering on the brink of recession. The central bank in Europe, where growth is more robust, is poised to raise rates, however. That could weaken the dollar further, and drive oil prices even higher.

So 3 things we can do. The first one--I bet that is part of our problem--I just learned about what happened when there were leveraged loans...

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

Oh I know, haha. They definitely freak out about everything. Look, I am a proponent of environmental conservation, not screwing up the land, etc., but at some point we need to use a little common sense. But that's just me. I'm of the mindset that if there is anything that can be done to help this country's people then it should be done. When you drive around East Texas and Fort Worth (with the Barnett Shale) for a small example, you can't help but notice the GOOD that is coming from exploration. Too many people think that guys in our profession just sit back and enjoy the profits that come rolling in when it is quite the opposite. We are just as concerned as everyone else.

Yes. I would agree that mixed fuels are better. One of the reasons why your gas is high right now is because of the switchover to ethanol based gasoline, which burns cleaner than the old MTBE.

Do you mind me asking what energy company in Oklahoma? I had a couple internships in the past with Newfield Exploration and Cheasapeak...Tulsa and OKC respectively...and met a lot of good people from quite a few different companies.

I use to live in Dallas for a year. Anyway, up in Seattle--whew. It's gets frustrating sometimes... Folks get nervous when I tell them the Texans concept of "gun control"... LOL And I am originally from SoCal...

The betterment of the people needs to be weighed vs. that of the environment. That was difficult to do in Dallas when I was there--because the concept of recycling was absent at best. It may have to do with how much land you all have vs. a smaller state (like Washington)--resources are precious where we are.

And from a SoCalian's perspective--we might lose our land due to an Earthquake, but then all the geologist I have spoken to tell us differently. Land is more COSTLY in like Boulevard, California--or hayle in off Xzzyxx Road LOL... So even if we find an Extraterrestrial Space ship in the middle of nowhere California STILL will cost more that some beachfront properties in some areas...

As far as my Uncle goes he is with the Williams Company...

[TexasWSP]

Good article. I had no idea about the "dark areas" trading crude and how we are simply not involved in it, haha, which just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

I will say, it is very clear to me at least that our refineries couldn't handle an increase in oil. They can barely handle what we are producing now. Not saying it wouldn't help...it would absolutely drive the price down. We just don't have the refineries to do it....haven't built one since the 1950s I believe.

I agree about the first point as well.