WELCOME TO RIVER DAVES PLACE

Gas Prices

Christopher Lucero

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2018
Messages
1,021
Reaction score
587
05-04-2020 $2.63
in the midst of lockdown AND during a period when oil was less than worthless...

quoting the article: "The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic hammered the oil industry in 2020, forcing U.S. oil prices to go negative for the first time on record. In a matter of hours on April 20, the May 2020 contract futures price for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) plummetted from $18 a barrel to around -$37 a barrel. "

-negative thirty seven dollars per barrel-

05-05-2021 $4.09
reopening, prices returning to long term average, on Cinco de Mayo, in anticipation of mucho tequila y salsa y tacos al carbon ๐ŸŒฎ

you whackjob... don't be daft...be whack, but not daft....
 
Last edited:

regor

Political Whack Job
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
27,816
Reaction score
67,336
in the midst of lockdown AND during a period when oil was less than worthless...

quoting the article: "The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic hammered the oil industry in 2020, forcing U.S. oil prices to go negative for the first time on record. In a matter of hours on April 20, the May 2020 contract futures price for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) plummetted from $18 a barrel to around -$37 a barrel. "

-negative thirty seven dollars per barrel-


reopening, prices returning to long term average

you whackjob... don't be daft...be whack, but not daft....

The numbers are the numbers Luchuro, kinda like Obama's job gains after a collapse!!!! ๐Ÿ˜
 

was thatguy

living in a cage of fear
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
41,341
Reaction score
61,749
in the midst of lockdown AND during a period when oil was less than worthless...

quoting the article: "The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic hammered the oil industry in 2020, forcing U.S. oil prices to go negative for the first time on record. In a matter of hours on April 20, the May 2020 contract futures price for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) plummetted from $18 a barrel to around -$37 a barrel. "

-negative thirty seven dollars per barrel-


reopening, prices returning to long term average, on Cinco de Mayo, in anticipation of mucho tequila y salsa y tacos al carbon ๐ŸŒฎ

you whackjob... don't be daft...be whack, but not daft....
That is NOT the primary driver.
 

Lavey29

Floatin Dirty
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
3,926
Reaction score
5,157
Lets just say I live in the western US.
Your afraid to say what state you live in? That's some weak shit. It must be one of those wonderful socialist utopias that you are so proud of but hesitant to admit you reside there because it's a shithole dem controlled mess.
 

GRADS

Nonessential Mod
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
18,432
Reaction score
21,903
We drive maybe 100 miles a month on our 5 cars. I'd pay $10 a gallon to see Trump out of office. ๐Ÿ‘
 

Christopher Lucero

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2018
Messages
1,021
Reaction score
587
Obama's job gains after a collapse
yeah, you whackjob. politicians and their followers will always spin the story to their advantage. its ludicrous.
you are entirely self aware that you are so inclined, and I appreciate that.
the numbers ARE the numbers. yes. we live from day to day.
economists knew that futures markets and dozens of economic stats would be distorted in y-o-y stats, and we are seeing those numbers being tossed like romaine in media left and right. they are BS numbers and awareness of why they are BS helps everyone calm the f down.
unless, of course, they don't WANT to calm the f down. there really are people who thrive on the combative negativity, intentionally pursue it. meh.

some people might try to point to government policy, or to specific political causes that would defame or indict some ideology, but those are not capitalist arguments. They mistake a global market in a commodity for some arbitrary political actions in a hypothetical vacuum that is not even close to a true representation of who plays in that sandbox (Cartels, oligarchs, frackers, etc.)
you can help yourself by visiting sites like oilprice.com... global commodities are intensely competitive and politics is hardly a direct cause for any immediate price change. too many other ways to get the commodity.
the current $60/bbl price benefits Permian frackers, and other producers like those in California (#3, with 465k bbl/day just a bit behind Alaska - #2, 477k bbl/day).
a high WTI or Brent price benefits the USA, which thanks to fracking is the world's largest producer.
Special interest projects like Keystone XL are controversial for their lopsided benefit to Texas refiners, as well a brief construction effort.
 
Last edited:

RCDave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
9,071
Reaction score
13,956
The reason gas and oil prices are high is simple. Government manipulation of markets. Shut down of the keystone pipeline. Intentional reduction in global supply. Result, sharply higher prices.

This causes am increase in the cost and selling price of every product.

Great job harris biden. Another huge step in government controls and socialism
 

Runs2rch

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Messages
7,487
Reaction score
5,744
yeah, you whackjob. politicians and their followers will always spin the story to their advantage. its ludicrous.
you are entirely self aware that you are so inclined, and I appreciate that.
the numbers ARE the numbers. yes. we live from day to day.
economists knew that futures markets and dozens of economic stats would be distorted in y-o-y stats, and we are seeing those numbers being tossed like romaine in media left and right. they are BS numbers and awareness of why they are BS helps everyone calm the f down.
unless, of course, they don't WANT to calm the f down. there really are people who thrive on the combative negativity, intentionally pursue it. meh.
Oh boy. You fit right in with Jenny, and Squeefer.
 

FROGMAN524

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2013
Messages
2,656
Reaction score
3,643
California has the highest gas tax per gallon at $0.505/gallon. Pete Budajudge wants to raise the federal gas tax and then these idiots pull all the permits for drilling and exploration and shut down the pipelines. But as the resident libs say, itโ€™s only because of COVID reopening that prices are spiking.

My theory is they want to drive demand for solar snd EVs by their own manipulation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Christopher Lucero

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2018
Messages
1,021
Reaction score
587
Oh boy. You fit right in with Jenny, and Squeefer.
I do my best to put a reasoned apolitical position out there. But I also know the stimulus-response cycle that some get caught in, and some try to engineer against the unwitting, and I try to avoid it.
if someone is about data, I can get on board. but polemic for the sake of confrontation is a waste of time.
 

LargeOrangeFont

Steering RDP Towards Political Moderation ๐Ÿ˜
Staff member
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
28,507
Reaction score
39,199
California has the highest gas tax per gallon at $0.505/gallon. Pete Budajudge wants to raise the federal gas tax and then these idiots pull all the permits for drilling and exploration and shut down the pipelines. But as the resident libs say, itโ€™s only because of COVID reopening that prices are spiking.

My theory is they want to drive demand for solar snd EVs by their own manipulation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Of course they do. Cheap energy is not in the Democrat playbook.
 

LargeOrangeFont

Steering RDP Towards Political Moderation ๐Ÿ˜
Staff member
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
28,507
Reaction score
39,199
...harms good American oil ranchers. is that what the republican playbook really wants?
How does no gas powered cars sold after 2035 help them?

Again, Democrats want all energy and commodities expensive to discourage their use and force people back into dense urban living.

California IS the Democrat playbook.
 

Christopher Lucero

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2018
Messages
1,021
Reaction score
587
How does no gas powered cars sold after 2035 help them?
...
California IS the Democrat playbook.
thanks for the reply.
there are lots of dimensions to this discussion
one is the primary benefactor from eliminating petroleum use by consumers would be the US government itself. The US military is the world's largest consumer of petroleum. freeing up the US resources for that use (~4.6B gallons/yr, 12.6 M gallons per day) puts USA at advantage.
do you have a feeling about the potential savings USA would garner or the practical tactical and strategic advantage we would gain if petroleum were reduced or eliminated from the consumer fleet in California (where there are more cars than people) especially in our pursuit of warfare?
I mean, we are the world's largest producer of petroleum, and its largest consumer is the military. Let's get those kids together. :)
this is but one positive development...let's work though this one first. let's hear your feeling.
 
Last edited:

hallett3

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
774
Reaction score
1,651
Haha California no gas cars after 2035. California gets rolling black outs when people use air conditioners. So if everyone charges their cars what the hell do think is going to happen to the electric grid. So just remember about all this green energy shit. How do farmers get electric tractors?How do we get electric planes to travel ? How do we get trucks to deliver our products ? How do we get full electric container ships and trains ? And donโ€™t tell me that they can build all this in 15 years. Plus it cost way to much. Truckers and farmers canโ€™t afford to purchase new vehicles. I can name a lot more why we are depended on oil. All this green new deal is a bunch of bullshit.
 

Doc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
485
Reaction score
647
thanks for the reply.
there are lots of dimensions to this discussion
one is the primary benefactor from eliminating petroleum use by consumers would be the US government itself. The US military is the world's largest consumer of petroleum. freeing up the US resources for that use (~4.6B gallons/yr, 12.6 M gallons per day) puts USA at advantage.
do you have a feeling about the potential savings USA would garner or the practical tactical and strategic advantage we would gain if petroleum were reduced or eliminated from the consumer fleet in California (where there are more cars than people) especially in our pursuit of warfare?
I mean, we are the world's largest producer of petroleum, and its largest consumer is the military. Let's get those kids together. :)
this is but one positive development...let's work though this one first. let's hear your feeling.
The problem has always been tech. The switch can't be made because the tech isn't there yet. You talk about the military so let's start with that. If we are at war in another country, were are we getting our power from to charge our Jeeps, tanks and so forth. We start posting up solar panels in the desert and plan our moves based on charging times? How do you think that's going to work out. With fuel, you can carry extra and transfer fuel in minutes.

You brought up California (good example) you see already the faults in our power grid, supply vs demand is already and issue. Consumers here have embraced EV and that's fine but power is the issue and will continue to be as more consumers switch to EV and the power grid stays the same.

Now, how about all the money wasted in fines and regulations to make petroleum cars more efficient over the last 50 years? Overnight that basically went to shit when politicians started pushing the new agenda/green new deal ect. Years of R&D, millions of dollars companies have spent to take the internal combustion engine that made 1/3 of the power that consumed 3 times the fuel and reverse those stats that basically got pissed away over night.

See the problem is the left can't pull a notion out of their ass and say we just need to do it or let's try this first without a serious plan. A plan that actually has data that tells them everything they need to know and if that plan will work if implemented. Instead they say things like here is a basic idea let's push it and see how it pans out. Perfect example good ol Nancy talking about obama care bill and how they just needed to pass it to see what's in the bill scenario. You want to be more efficient, you want to be cleaner no problem but lets be realistic about it, don't just set a date of implementation and hope for the best.
 

LargeOrangeFont

Steering RDP Towards Political Moderation ๐Ÿ˜
Staff member
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
28,507
Reaction score
39,199
thanks for the reply.
there are lots of dimensions to this discussion
one is the primary benefactor from eliminating petroleum use by consumers would be the US government itself. The US military is the world's largest consumer of petroleum. freeing up the US resources for that use (~4.6B gallons/yr, 12.6 M gallons per day) puts USA at advantage.
do you have a feeling about the potential savings USA would garner or the practical tactical and strategic advantage we would gain if petroleum were reduced or eliminated from the consumer fleet in California (where there are more cars than people) especially in our pursuit of warfare?
I mean, we are the world's largest producer of petroleum, and its largest consumer is the military. Let's get those kids together. :)
this is but one positive development...let's work though this one first. let's hear your feeling.
We don't need to rely on anyone else for petroleum, but in this country we outsource everything, including our pollution and environmental impact. We don't have an oil shortage, and if access to petroleum is a problem for the military, that is a government and regulation problem, not a supply problem.

California already can't keep its lights on in the summer, what is going to happen to electricity when it is all electric cars? If we were taking an all of the above approach, that had reliable backup power that would be one thing, but we are not. Governments are making power a binary choice, which will end up bad for everyone. CA has not built any new power plants in decades, and some existing ones have been taken offline. Solar works less than 50% of the time, wind is unreliable and inconsistent.

The net result is lower quality of life and less mobility for people.
 

Ragged Edge

Man in the Box
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
1,744
Reaction score
1,778
Some valid points but we are not actually far off from 2019 prices, which is a more relevant comparison.
True and good point. Going to be interesting to see if we are at a plateau or the bottom of the mountain.
 

regor

Political Whack Job
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
27,816
Reaction score
67,336
yeah, you whackjob. politicians and their followers will always spin the story to their advantage. its ludicrous.
you are entirely self aware that you are so inclined, and I appreciate that.
the numbers ARE the numbers. yes. we live from day to day.
economists knew that futures markets and dozens of economic stats would be distorted in y-o-y stats, and we are seeing those numbers being tossed like romaine in media left and right. they are BS numbers and awareness of why they are BS helps everyone calm the f down.
unless, of course, they don't WANT to calm the f down. there really are people who thrive on the combative negativity, intentionally pursue it. meh.

some people might try to point to government policy, or to specific political causes that would defame or indict some ideology, but those are not capitalist arguments. They mistake a global market in a commodity for some arbitrary political actions in a hypothetical vacuum that is not even close to a true representation of who plays in that sandbox (Cartels, oligarchs, frackers, etc.)
you can help yourself by visiting sites like oilprice.com... global commodities are intensely competitive and politics is hardly a direct cause for any immediate price change. too many other ways to get the commodity.
the current $60/bbl price benefits Permian frackers, and other producers like those in California (#3, with 465k bbl/day just a bit behind Alaska - #2, 477k bbl/day).
a high WTI or Brent price benefits the USA, which thanks to fracking is the world's largest producer.
Special interest projects like Keystone XL are controversial for their lopsided benefit to Texas refiners, as well a brief construction effort.
Did you mention BS numbers? ๐Ÿ˜

38F425CF-3D41-4615-ACEE-A3B5D15A17C0.jpeg
 

HTMike

OG
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
366
Reaction score
335
California already can't keep its lights on in the summer, what is going to happen to electricity when it is all electric cars?

The net result is lower quality of life and less mobility for people.
Most likely a social credit score ( like chyyna ) will give you the ability to hook into the grid and depending how good of a citizen you are the more they will allow to travel and charge at the best times. OR, you will have to obtain a special permit which I am sure will be thousands of dollars a year to charge your car with an extra charge if you want to charge during peak usage times.

Not one single thing GOOD will come of this.
 

HTMike

OG
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
366
Reaction score
335
I have read a few pieces from different economists that feel we will fall into a 90/10 wealth split. No more top 1%. You will either be rich or you will be poor, like how it is in the rest of the world.
 

LargeOrangeFont

Steering RDP Towards Political Moderation ๐Ÿ˜
Staff member
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
28,507
Reaction score
39,199
Most likely a social credit score ( like chyyna ) will give you the ability to hook into the grid and depending how good of a citizen you are the more they will allow to travel and charge at the best times. OR, you will have to obtain a special permit which I am sure will be thousands of dollars a year to charge your car with an extra charge if you want to charge during peak usage times.

Not one single thing GOOD will come of this.
I completely agree. Electricity to fully charge your car will be more than an tank of gas in 20 years. They will start going after people with solar that is not hooked to the grid getting "tax free" power.
 

HTMike

OG
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
366
Reaction score
335
I completely agree. Electricity to charge your car will be more than an tank of gas in 20 years.
Look how much income the government gets from fuel tax. Does anyone think they will just give up that revenue ??? LOL

It will be the fuel tax +++++. Electricity will cost a lot more than a tank of fuel once enough people switch to all electric.
 

LargeOrangeFont

Steering RDP Towards Political Moderation ๐Ÿ˜
Staff member
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
28,507
Reaction score
39,199
I have read a few pieces from different economists that feel we will fall into a 90/10 wealth split. No more top 1%. You will either be rich or you will be poor, like how it is in the rest of the world.
Yep.
 

LargeOrangeFont

Steering RDP Towards Political Moderation ๐Ÿ˜
Staff member
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
28,507
Reaction score
39,199
Look how much income the government gets from fuel tax. Does anyone think they will just give up that revenue ??? LOL

It will be the fuel tax +++++. Electricity will cost a lot more than a tank of fuel once enough people switch to all electric.
Yea I edited my post, but outlaw solar panels not hooked to the grid will become a thing they go after.
 

HTMike

OG
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
366
Reaction score
335
Yea I edited my post, but outlaw solar panels not hooked to the grid will become a thing they go after.
No doubt. And there wont be an easy way to hide solar panels either. It wont make any difference when cars become autonomous and suddenly you're out on the road and the government wants to know where you got your tank of electricity from since they didn't allow you to charge up.
 

Christopher Lucero

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2018
Messages
1,021
Reaction score
587
access to petroleum is a problem for the military, that is a government and regulation problem, not a supply problem
how so? Please explain. How does the gov't grant the US Armed forces greater access to petroleum resources? Asset seizure?

Your signal got skewed to a different frequency.

does this mean you concur that relief from competition for petroleum resources between the US armed forces and its own consumers is a strategic and tactical advantage when waging war, or not?

also
California already can't...
^^^ speculation and redirection.^^^
please stick to the knitting.
 

LargeOrangeFont

Steering RDP Towards Political Moderation ๐Ÿ˜
Staff member
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
28,507
Reaction score
39,199
how so? Please explain. How does the gov't grant the US Armed forces greater access to petroleum resources? Asset seizure?

Your signal got skewed to a different frequency.

does this mean you concur that relief from competition for petroleum resources between the US armed forces and its own consumers is a strategic and tactical advantage when waging war, or not?

also

^^^ speculation and redirection.^^^
please stick to the knitting.
I mistyped that.. Access to petroleum is not regulated by the military, it is regulated by the government. There is no advantage or disadvantage as long as there is supply for the military. The military is not paying retail prices for petroleum products anyway. also they are not paying taxes on it.

We are talking about retail fuel prices here, the redirection about the military's use of petroleum started with you.

The fact that CA cant keep its lights on with the grid it has today is proven fact. It happens every summer. It is pointless to say it is a tactical advantage for our military to have "more" petroleum if citizens cant' even keep their electric cars charged because the electrical grid in the country's most populous "nation state" is woefully inadequate and unprepared to deliver "renewable energy" in any sort of consistent way unless it is constantly sunny and windy.
 

500bbc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
22,130
Reaction score
28,355
I have read a few pieces from different economists that feel we will fall into a 90/10 wealth split. No more top 1%. You will either be rich or you will be poor, like how it is in the rest of the world.
That is their ultimate goal, complete control of the unwashed masses...
 

500bbc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
22,130
Reaction score
28,355
I mistyped that.. Access to petroleum is not regulated by the military, it is regulated by the government. There is no advantage or disadvantage as long as there is supply for the military. The military is not paying retail prices for petroleum products anyway. also they are not paying taxes on it.

We are talking about retail fuel prices here, the redirection about the military's use of petroleum started with you.

The fact that CA cant keep its lights on with the grid it has today is proven fact. It happens every summer. It is pointless to say it is a tactical advantage for our military to have "more" petroleum if citizens cant' even keep their electric cars charged because the electrical grid in the country's most populous "nation state" is woefully inadequate and unprepared to deliver "renewable energy" in any sort of consistent way unless it is constantly sunny and windy.
Fire season, major utilities shut down power so they don't get sued when power lines cause a fire.
Fire starts anyway, you're fucked.
 

Christopher Lucero

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2018
Messages
1,021
Reaction score
587
Access to petroleum is not regulated by the military, it is regulated by the government.
how so? What controls does the US government implement upon the supply incoming or outgoing to the nation or from/to suppliers/refiners? I honestly am trying to follow which CFRs you believe control that.

For now I am going to ignore the redirection attempt. what happens in CA under various scenarios can perhaps be discussed (in some other thread specifically about CA elec grid problems) after we clear the air on domestic supply of a global commodity.
 
Last edited:

Christopher Lucero

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2018
Messages
1,021
Reaction score
587
were are we getting our power from to charge our Jeeps, tanks and so forth.
this is an error. I stated that US consumer fleet (starting in CA) would migrate to electric (as it is evidently already doing, as is already under way) and thus relieve competiton between consumers and the US Armed forces. the armed forces MAY follow (there are already initiatives in place), but it is not a proposition that I put forth. you did.
Please remain calm while these technological innovations spread. Maybe you can originate the new thread on the problems you and LOF bring up regarding grid supply.
 
Last edited:

LargeOrangeFont

Steering RDP Towards Political Moderation ๐Ÿ˜
Staff member
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
28,507
Reaction score
39,199
how so? What controls does the US government implement upon the supply incoming or outgoing to the nation or from/to suppliers/refiners? I honestly am trying to follow which CFRs you believe control that.

For now I am going to ignore the redirection attempt. what happens in CA under various scenarios can perhaps be discussed after we clear the air on domestic supply of a global commodity.
Frankly at this point I don't see what the military's fuel consumption has to do with the price I pay at the pump. The military is not short on petroleum, they have all they need. We have a government induced supply problem. We have all the petroleum we need here on this continent, we just don't go get it for political reasons.

I live 30 miles from the local refineries, I should have the cheapest gas in the country, and yet I have on average the most expensive gas in the country.
 
Top