..

[Falcon + 222]

.

Edited July 30, 2019 by Falcon

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Eeeeeep!  CNN ! ? ! ?

Please, no, ... I go out of my way to avoid CNN, please don't bring their stuff here.  Please.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

So America's 'oil boom' is kicking OPEC in the tail...and the price of oil is falling. Isn't this the epitome of 'shooting yourself in the foot' or 'killing the goose that lays the golden egg'?

[Falcon + 222]

On ‎6‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 12:50 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Eeeeeep!  CNN ! ? ! ?

Please, no, ... I go out of my way to avoid CNN, please don't bring their stuff here.  Please.

Sorry Tom.  

Nothing new in CNN article.  The point is Oil Supply is on CNN  a general mainstream  news station.  

What does that mean.

 

Edited June 14, 2019 by Falcon

[Falcon + 222]

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

So America's 'oil boom' is kicking OPEC in the tail...and the price of oil is falling. Isn't this the epitome of 'shooting yourself in the foot' or 'killing the goose that lays the golden egg'?

Some good may come out of lower oil prices.  Good for consumer spending thus good for economies 

[wrs + 893]

21 minutes ago, Falcon said:

Some good may come out of lower oil prices.  Good for consumer spending thus good for economies 

So how does that work?  No additional money is spent, it's just reallocated.  Are you suggesting the oil industry doesn't create jobs or re-circulate the money it takes in?  That old story is specious, fuel purchases are consumer spending, they count as part of inflation so they are consumer spending.

[Falcon + 222]

3 hours ago, wrs said:

So how does that work?  No additional money is spent, it's just reallocated.  Are you suggesting the oil industry doesn't create jobs or re-circulate the money it takes in?  That old story is specious, fuel purchases are consumer spending, they count as part of inflation so they are consumer spending.

The old "create job" argument. How come every discussion turns into a defense of high oil prices blog. 

Self interest. Denial. 

It will get a lot worse for those that over leveraged . The next 2 years will be hell.  

But Shale oil production and exports will thrive.  Just the reality.

Those posters that are collecting royalties, small independent producers or small drilling or fracing companies or invested in small independents aren't happy.

That doesn't mean the US SHOULD LEGISLATE:

 "OIL PRODUCER WELFARE SYSTEM"

Cowboy up.  You made some good money.  Party is over.

Edited June 11, 2019 by Falcon

[wrs + 893]

1 hour ago, Falcon said:

The old "create job" argument. How come every discussion turns into a defense of high oil prices discussion. 

It will get a lot worse for those that over leveraged . The next 2 years will be hell.  But Shale oil production and exports will thrive.  Just the reality.

Those posters that are collecting royalties, small independent producers or small drilling of fracing companies aren't happy.

That doesn't mean the US SHOULD LEGISLATE:

 "OIL PRODUCER WELFARE SYSTEM"

Cowboy up.  You made some good money.  Party is over.

It's not a defense of anything, I am questioning your rationale and you failed to answer the question.  The question is, how does lowering the price of gasoline increase consumer spending if the consumer has the same amount of money to spend?  In addition, since fuel and food are both consumer spending, how does an increase in the price of meat work?  The same way?  As a tax on consumers? 

Who says discretionary purchases such as entertainment or vacations are any more positive for the economy than a purchase of fuel or food?  This has nothing to do with the price of oil but everything to do with the specious argument that says reduced gasoline prices are a boost for the economy.  Stick to the topic.

Edited June 11, 2019 by wrs

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

14 minutes ago, wrs said:

It's not a defense of anything, I am questioning your rationale and you failed to answer the question.  The question is, how does lowering the price of gasoline increase consumer spending if the consumer has the same amount of money to spend?  In addition, since fuel and food are both consumer spending, how does an increase in the price of meat work?  The same way?  As a tax on consumers? 

Who says discretionary purchases such as entertainment or vacations are any more positive for the economy than a purchase of fuel or food?  This has nothing to do with the price of oil but everything to do with the specious argument that says reduced gasoline prices are a boost for the economy.  Stick to the topic.

Interestingly, the inflation index last year was around 2.5% and right now, even with higher gas pump prices it's around 1.8% which is even more interesting when you consider the 1.8 comes in the face of the tariffs that weren't in force yet last year. 

There are lots of arguments about what items go in the inflation basket, but fuel is Always a component as opposed to say, butter. I'm convinced that as the population ages, driving goes down, and with millions of baby boomers retiring every year now, not all of them are buying big motorhomes and touring the country. I bought one brand new a decade ago and only put about 15,000 miles on it before I essentially gave it away. It was (sorta) fun but after I'd been to all the national parks nearby I'd kinda been there, done that and didn't keep doing it. The most fun I had with it was touring wineries, but you don't drink a bunch of wine then try to navigate a 42 foot beast on windy roads. What I did was climb into the sack and leave in the morning. But I digress. 

People on this forum should ask themselves if they're driving like they used to? If not, where has that "demand" gone? 

The IEA and the global warming enthusiasts have been assuming this linear progression of increasing oil consumption. It ain't happening, if anything it's gone down instead of up. And that, as they say, is that. Silly supply demand…

[wrs + 893]

Auto manufacturers are finding lower demand too so I think the less driving hypothesis is probably correct.  The millenials don't drive as much as boomers did at the same age and cars are more efficient today so it makes sense that demand in the US is probably not increasing as it used to.  India and China are definitely still on the increasing side of the demand equation.

My wife and I are raising our 11 year old grand son and so we drive a fair amount still but then we are unusual for our age group.  There are younger families with kids around us that are certainly driving big SUVs and consuming lot's of gasoline though.  There are multiple Suburbans and an Infinity QX80 on this street.  Those people have school age kids and are in their 40s so they are Gen Xers who drive about like boomers did.

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

For the boomers buying a car was the way for young people to be free to travel and meet friends (boyfrends and girlfriends also).

Now the millenials meet online on social networks and the smartphone has replaced the car as the freedom symbol for teenagers.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

20 hours ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

For the boomers buying a car was the way for young people to be free to travel and meet friends (boyfrends and girlfriends also).

Now the millenials meet online on social networks and the smartphone has replaced the car as the freedom symbol for teenagers.

To quote John Mellencamp, "debutante back seat, of Jackie's  car". 

Cars definitely had their place, back in the day, and frankly the bigger the better…  

Edited June 12, 2019 by Ward Smith
Song was Jack and Diane

[t566480 + 4]

Al-Falih is cocky Saudi sompleton. Guy thinks he is oversmart but in fact programmed to talk in some of US universiry, under the skin remail Saudi, whic is close to sex machine only.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

54 minutes ago, t566480 said:

Al-Falih is cocky Saudi sompleton. Guy thinks he is oversmart but in fact programmed to talk in some of US universiry, under the skin remail Saudi, whic is close to sex machine only.

You win my "most unusual comment of the day award" and it's only 10 AM.

[butasha + 123]

On 6/11/2019 at 2:50 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Eeeeeep!  CNN ! ? ! ?

Please, no, ... I go out of my way to avoid CNN, please don't bring their stuff here.  Please.

Thought of you Tom when I read this article a few minutes ago.

Nolte: Death spiral continues as CNN loses one-third of primetime audience

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/06/12/death-spiral-continues-cnn-loses-one-third-primetime-audience/

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, butasha said:

Thought of you Tom when I read this article a few minutes ago.

Nolte: Death spiral continues as CNN loses one-third of primetime audience

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/06/12/death-spiral-continues-cnn-loses-one-third-primetime-audience/

Heh heh, I'm happy to be a bad influence on you, Butasha.  CNN is reaping what it sows...

You’re more likely to own a chicken as a pet than watch CNN in Primetime

[CanadianCrude1 + 6]

11 hours ago, butasha said:

Thought of you Tom when I read this article a few minutes ago.

Nolte: Death spiral continues as CNN loses one-third of primetime audience

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/06/12/death-spiral-continues-cnn-loses-one-third-primetime-audience/

Quoting Breitbart as a news source; I love the satire on this forum..

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

20 minutes ago, CanadianCrude1 said:

Quoting Breitbart as a news source; I love the satire on this forum..

Breitbart, unlike CNN, tells you WHO they are quoting and where the numbers come from. 

I suppose the sattire is the abject lazyness/ignorance of certain posters flaming themselves ...

[MaxNix + 12]

On 6/11/2019 at 7:43 PM, wrs said:

It's not a defense of anything, I am questioning your rationale and you failed to answer the question.  The question is, how does lowering the price of gasoline increase consumer spending if the consumer has the same amount of money to spend?  In addition, since fuel and food are both consumer spending, how does an increase in the price of meat work?  The same way?  As a tax on consumers? 

Who says discretionary purchases such as entertainment or vacations are any more positive for the economy than a purchase of fuel or food?  This has nothing to do with the price of oil but everything to do with the specious argument that says reduced gasoline prices are a boost for the economy.  Stick to the topic.

It's generally assumed that in addition to consumers, a lot of businesses will benefit from having their costs go down - think airlines, truckers, railroads.  Also, chemical operations that use petroleum based raw materials.  So yes, consumer spending will drop by the amount not spent directly on gasoline, diesel, etc., but the rest of the economy is bigger.

[wrs + 893]

23 minutes ago, MaxNix said:

It's generally assumed that in addition to consumers, a lot of businesses will benefit from having their costs go down - think airlines, truckers, railroads.  Also, chemical operations that use petroleum based raw materials.  So yes, consumer spending will drop by the amount not spent directly on gasoline, diesel, etc., but the rest of the economy is bigger.

Same argument though, those other businesses still have the same cash flow, they will just spend it elsewhere.  Just means the money goes somewhere else in the economy.  No increase in the economy as a result.  

[MaxNix + 12]

Hello WS -

You've made me think harder.  When I took economics, a drop in oil prices was good since so much of the money spent on oil went overseas to pay for imports.  Now that the U.S. is somewhere between breakeven and an exporter, your argument is much stronger.  I need to get used to the "new" scenario.  I agree that moving money among domestic companies is about a wash for the US economy, although maybe not for employment - oil is above average in revenues per employee.

An interesting topic would be to discuss if anyone is willing to bet on strong oil demand for enough years to justify major E&P expense in new "frontiers".

[Boogieman + 2]

3 hours ago, wrs said:

Same argument though, those other businesses still have the same cash flow, they will just spend it elsewhere.  Just means the money goes somewhere else in the economy.  No increase in the economy as a result.  

Simple I think to understand. If the money goes overseas, it shrinks the amount being spent domestically. If instead that money is diverted locally, it increases gpd. What's so hard to understand?

 

Edited June 13, 2019 by Boogieman

[wrs + 893]

17 minutes ago, Boogieman said:

Simple I think to understand. If the money goes overseas, it shrinks the amount being spent domestically. If instead that money is diverted locally, it increases gpd. What's so hard to understand?

 

The money was already here, it was in the pockets / accounts of those purchasing gasoline which is the main interest of politicians.  The money was either going to be saved or spent. The assumption is that if it's not spent on gasoline and not saved, it's spent on something else and that is somehow more beneficial to the economy than buying gasoline. 

The US is producing most of the oil we use on a daily basis so the money spent on gasoline is staying here at home, how is that hard to understand?  Money spent on tech widgets is more likely to go offshore and if the money not spent on energy goes to tech widgets, it's not so good for the economy.  

Edited June 13, 2019 by wrs

[CNN 0]

Dag Nabit 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/10/business/oil-boom-production-opec/index.html

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

31 minutes ago, CNN said:

Dag Nabit 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/10/business/oil-boom-production-opec/index.html

Ya know, back on the old Oilpro forum, I had the newsdesk accounts of both Reuters and Bloomberg upvote some of my mouthy comments about international oil & gas.

This new "CNN" sock would be amusing if it was the actual newsdesk account of CNN posting here, because I would enjoy dueling online with CNN.  Pity.  Anyway, have fun posting here, newcomer.