Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (36346)	7/25/2008 5:53:09 AM
From: tonto	Respond to of 224729

Kenneth, do not post about issues that you have no understanding of...you are simply wasting space. Most of the price increase from 2006 was caused by the falling dollar.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (36346)	7/25/2008 9:36:38 AM
From: Ann Corrigan	Respond to of 224729

Excuses, excuses Ken. Be an adult and admit when you're wrong. Obama suffers from the same misapprehension of his own infallibility.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (36346)	7/25/2008 10:15:05 AM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

Your Wallet: Only Place Democrats Want to Drill michellemalkin.com, July 25 2008 Not in ANWR. Not offshore. Where? Yep: Your wallet. Gotta get me one of those bumper stickers. Meantime, another failure from Nancy Pelosi and the 14 percenters: The House of Representatives on Thursday failed to pass legislation intended to cool off gasoline prices by requiring the government to sell 70 million barrels of light sweet crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the national stockpile. Democrats had pushed the legislation, hoping to lower surging oil prices by putting more of the reserve’s light sweet crude, sought by refiners, on the market. Sweet crude is desirable because it has less sulphur and is more easily refined into gasoline, diesel fuel and other petroleum products. The White House had threatened to veto the measure, arguing that Congress should work toward increasing domestic supply rather than tap into a strategic reserve. Although the House voted 268 to 157 in favor of the legislation, the measure fell short of obtaining the two-thirds “yes” vote that is required when the chamber suspends its rules to act quickly on a bill. Michael Franc at Heritage says public pressure is working: For the first time in a while, House Republicans are on the offense on an issue of national importance: removing obstacles to the production of more American energy. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey abruptly shut down his committee indefinitely rather than allow Republicans to offer an amendment to open more areas to drilling for new sources of oil and natural gas. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid concur. According to the New York Times, she and Reid “appear intent on holding the line against calls to approve drilling in areas now off limits.” Obey fears that the amendment, by drilling advocate Rep. John Peterson (R., Penn.), would win. As many as eight of the committee’s Democrats have supported similar amendments in the past, while only a couple of the committee’s Republicans (who represent well-heeled suburban districts) have stood with the environmental lobby. Democratic defections, moreover, likely would spread beyond the Appropriations Committee. A careful analysis of previous floor votes on a wide array of energy production issues indicates that as many as 40 House Democrats would join the overwhelming majority of House Republicans in support of an agenda to increase American energy production dramatically… …Quietly, in recent weeks House Republican leaders have adopted precisely this strategy. Rank-and-file Republicans have been filing one discharge petition per week (five thus far), demanding floor action on a far-reaching energy agenda. The agenda includes bills to construct new oil refineries; drill for oil and natural gas offshore as well as on a tiny portion of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge; repeal regulations that needlessly increase the price of gasoline; produce energy from alternative sources such as oil shale, tar sands and coal-to-liquid; and explore the next generation of oil and natural gas fields in deep-sea regions far off our coasts. With little media coverage, and lacking the visible support of business groups, conservative organizations or talk radio, these petitions have nevertheless garnered as many as 153 signatures, with one Democrat — Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D., Hawaii) — even risking the wrath of his leadership by signing on. An informal head count suggests there are an additional 75 to 100 House members, including those 40 Democrats, who, based on their previous support for proposals to increase American energy production, could be open to signing these petitions, thereby pushing the number of signatures over the required 218. Should the conservative media, the conservative movement, and, yes, the president (his soapbox still carries weight) catch on to this strategy, pressure would increase on pro-energy lawmakers to sign on. Voters would learn that the Speaker’s word isn’t final. And we just might get a real debate on the merits of producing more American energy.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (36346)	7/25/2008 12:56:58 PM
From: DizzyG	Respond to of 224729

Wrong again, Kenneth... You state: Most of the price increase from 2006 was caused by the falling dollar. Here is the real truth: 2005–2006 increases In the United States gasoline prices reached a record high during the first week of September 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The average retail price was nearly $3.04 per U.S. gallon.[63] The previous high was $1.42 per gallon in March 1981, which would be $3.20 per U.S. gallon after adjustment for inflation. In comparison, the average retail price of a litre of petrol in the United Kingdom was 86.4p on October 19, 2006.[64] This equates to USD 6.13 per U.S. gallon. On January 17, 2006 crude oil for February delivery rose by USD 2.38 (3.7%) to USD 66.30 a barrel. This was the highest increase since early October 2005. Observers believe that violence in Nigeria, and the increasing tension between USA and Iran are responsible for this price increase. Continued tension between Iran and USA raised the price to $68.38 on January 31.[65] However, due to rising stockpiles of crude oil and an abnormally warm northern winter, on February 14 the price of crude hit a 2006 low of $59.60.[66] Oil production in Iraq continued to decline as result of the ongoing conflict, decreasing to an output of just 1 million barrels per day (160,000 m³/d).[67] Mid-2006 increase Regular gasoline prices were averaging USD3.036 per U.S. gallon across the U.S. in August, 2006, slightly below the post-Katrina peak of USD 3.057.[68] Adjusted for inflation, these U.S. prices were the highest in 25 years. The all-time U.S. inflation-adjusted record is approximately $3.20 per U.S. gallon, set in March 1981.[69] In July 2006, crude oil for August delivery traded over USD 79 per barrel (bbl),[70] an all-time record. The mid-2006 runup is attributable to increasing gasoline consumption, up 1.9% year over year in the U.S., and geopolitical tensions as North Korea launched missiles, the tension between Iran and USA drags on, and Israel and Lebanon went to war. The early 2006 runup in prices has been attributed to a number of factors, including continuing supply disruptions from the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season (18% of Gulf Coast supplies were still off-line in early 2006),[citation needed] supply disruptions from the changeover from MTBE to ethanol, lingering concerns over Iran and Nigeria, and anticipation of higher summer demand in the Northern Hemisphere. Hostilities in Nigeria alone have caused a supply disruption of 675,000 bbl per day.[71] On August 7, BP shut down its Prudhoe Bay, Alaska field due to pipeline corrosion, bringing supply down by up to 400,000 bbl/day or about 8% of total U.S. production.[72] The higher price of oil substantially cut growth of world oil demand in 2006, including an outright reduction in the oil demand of the OECD.[73] en.wikipedia.org Do try to keep up Kenneth. Your talking points are getting very stale. Diz-

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (36346)	7/25/2008 1:01:18 PM
From: DizzyG	Respond to of 224729

You should also read this, Kenneth... Effect of U.S. dollar value on oil prices In discussing the effect of the changing value of the U.S. dollar on the real price of oil, however, it is important to include a calculation of effective exchange rates of the currencies in question, to separate the real and nominal values of those currencies. This method accounts for the amount that a dollar can buy (of electronics or food for example) compared to the amount another currency, such as a Euro or pound sterling, can purchase. While the U.S. dollar has lost nominal value to other major currencies from 2001 to 2007, its change in real value has not differed significantly from other currencies.[54] In addition, by comparing the price of oil in various currencies to the fluctuations in the exchange rates of those currencies it is clear that oil price is no more significantly correlated to the value of the dollar than to any other currency. This also holds true in a comparison of oil price to gold price.[55] Similarly, since the early 1970s, the price of oil has been negatively correlated to the value of the dollar, suggesting that the price of oil has more of an effect on the value of the dollar than vice versa. As developed economies depend heavily on oil for transportation, petrochemical feedstock, and industrial agriculture, this correlation would affect most currency values.[56] en.wikipedia.org I hate to burst your DNC bubble, Kenneth, but you are wrong again. :) Diz-