Contributors

Friday, March 23, 2012

Somehow, In Their World...

A recent article in the New York Times offers an excellent summation of how truly exciting the future will be in regards to energy in this country.

Across the country, the oil and gas industry is vastly increasing production, reversing two decades of decline. Using new technology and spurred by rising oil prices since the mid-2000s, the industry is extracting millions of barrels more a week, from the deepest waters of the Gulf of Mexico to the prairies of North Dakota. 

That's right. And it's simple fact that has driven the right in this country to paranoid fits about the president and the Democrats. How dare they not act like a bunch of granola eating tree huggers?

Taken together, the increasing production and declining consumption have unexpectedly brought the United States markedly closer to a goal that has tantalized presidents since Richard Nixon: independence from foreign energy sources, a milestone that could reconfigure American foreign policy, the economy and more. In 2011, the country imported just 45 percent of the liquid fuels it used, down from a record high of 60 percent in 2005. 

But no, say it ain't so! Somehow they must be plotting and restricting access to energy reserves, right?

Wrong.

The domestic trends are unmistakable. Not only has the United States reduced oil imports from members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries by more than 20 percent in the last three years, it has become a net exporter of refined petroleum products like gasoline for the first time since the Truman presidency. 

The natural gas industry, which less than a decade ago feared running out of domestic gas, is suddenly dealing with a glut so vast that import facilities are applying for licenses to export gas to Europe and Asia. 

National oil production, which declined steadily to 4.95 million barrels a day in 2008 from 9.6 million in 1970, has risen over the last four years to nearly 5.7 million barrels a day. The Energy Department projects that daily output could reach nearly seven million barrels by 2020. Some experts think it could eventually hit 10 million barrels — which would put the United States in the same league as Saudi Arabia. 

Alright, well, what does the energy sector think?

“We’re having a revolution,” said G. Steven Farris, chief executive of Apache Corporation, one of the basin’s most active producers. “And we’re just scratching the surface.”

Today, more than 475 rigs — roughly a quarter of all rigs operating in the United States — are smashing through tight rocks across the Permian in West Texas and southeastern New Mexico. Those areas are already producing nearly a million barrels a day, or 17 percent more than two years ago. By decade’s end, that daily total could easily double, oil executives say, roughly equaling the total output of Nigeria. 

So, why is the right continuing to insist that the president is trying to block energy output? Especially in light of this information?

Mr. Obama’s current policy has alarmed many environmental advocates who say he has failed to adequately address the environmental threats of expanded drilling and the use of fossil fuels.

Well, Paul Krugman has the answer. 

This claim isn’t just nuts; it’s a sort of craziness triple play — a lie wrapped in an absurdity swaddled in paranoia. It’s the sort of thing you used to hear only from people who also believed that fluoridated water was a Communist plot. 

Sadly, I have experienced this in comments with some folks who can't seem to understand this basic fact.

Simple economics suggests that if the nation is producing more energy, prices should be falling. But crude oil — and gasoline and diesel made from it — are global commodities whose prices are affected by factors around the world. Supply disruptions in Africa, the political standoff with Iran and rising demand from a recovering world economy all are contributing to the current spike in global oil prices, offsetting the impact of the increased domestic supply. 

Why it is so difficult to understand the concept of a world market perplexes me.

It must (as is usually the case) the fact that the paranoia about Barack X has taken over. Somehow, in their world, this...

The newfound wealth is spreading beyond the fields. In nearby towns, petroleum companies are buying so many pickup trucks that dealers are leasing parking lots the size of city blocks to stock their inventory. 

Housing is in such short supply that drillers are importing contractors from Houston and hotels are leased out before they are even built. Two new office buildings are going up in Midland, a city of just over 110,000 people, the first in 30 years, while the total value of downtown real estate has jumped 50 percent since 2008. With virtually no unemployment, restaurants cannot find enough servers. Local truck drivers are making six-figure salaries. 

“Anybody who comes in with a driver’s license and a Social Security card, I’ll give him a chance,” said Rusty Allred, owner of Rusty’s Oilfield Service Company. 

is not happening.

Wow.

As Jon Stewart says, "The Republican Party...rooting for America to fail since 2008."

56 comments:

Dr. Froncknsteen said...

Those bloody FOOLS! Don't they know that increasing production in the US is pointless? We have been assured of this by the very best and brightest to the point of argumentum ad nauseum. What possible benefit can there be? Just because it employs Americans, makes for more secure and stable sources of oil for the US, and even if US demand is down for the duration of the Great Recession, the fact that it can be sold (for money!) to others are just meaningless factoids compared to what our betters have told us is the only thing that matters: gas prices at the pump. Never mind wondering what gas prices would be had US production declined as some nitwits projected. We have been well-taught that US production doesn't affect gas prices. So one wonders, just what do those fools in the booming privately-owned fields think they are doing? Don't they know it's twaddle? Well, those red-necked, cousin-humping, wife-beating, gun-clutching, Bible-thumping, unibrow yokels in flyover country are just so backwards and ignorant. You need to do a "Gorillas in the Mist"-type movie in the oil fields, Mark, to tell us what's wrong with these people. You'd be great at it, Mark!

-just dave said...

Quote of the day:
“When it comes to American energy production, President Obama is like a rooster who crows at the sunrise, then imagines that he conjured up the morning,” - Ben Cole, the Institute for Energy Research

juris imprudent said...

Paul Krugman, former mouthpiece for Enron talking about energy?

Mark Ward said...

Not necessarily giving him all the credit, dave. I'm simply pointing out that he's not blocking energy production and holding up energy independence. It's the Barack X stuff that I'm talking about here.

Dr. F, you make some good points but you are still ignoring the fact that increasing supply doesn't necessarily correlate to a drop in prices because of world demand. Oil is a world market commodity that sadly right now is also the "victim" of speculators.

GuardDuck said...

I'm glad you came up with the correct answer for Washington's birthday.

So, let's try to stay on topic here.

Heh, well if you gave me a chance you'd see how this fits in - it does have relevance.

You have to answer my questions as well.

And as I've said before - we have to work on 1+1 before we work on particle physics. I could give you my analysis but since you are still working on a set of 'facts' that I disagree with, then we have to put that straight first.

So, to actually get back on topic.

If you asked George Washington's parents what day he was born you'd get the answer of February 11, 1731. If you asked most people today what his birthday was you get the answer of February 22, 1732. Unless you asked someone who knew about the change of the Julian to the Gregorian calendar and took the effort to convert or explain the change you would get conflicting answers.

That's what happens when you change the standard by which something is measured, in this case the calendar - which measures the date.

Going to your link in previous post, and as asked but not answered, the data was presented as "36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil". I asked by what formula that 'inflation adjustment' was calculated. The manner in which the federal government calculates the consumer price index, or inflation has be changed twice over the last 36 years. Since your link did not provide a source for how they calculated their 'inflation adjustment' I was curious whether they used a mix of pre-1980 pre-1990 and current CPI calculations for their adjustment. I had to do my own math to figure out which US BLS chart they were using - but I'm still not sure if the BLS has recalculated back prior years with the current formula or if they stick with early year numbers as figured at that time.

So I'm curious if those "36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices" are calculated using the 'Julian' calendar, the 'Gregorian' calendar or a mix of the two.



So, the second question is - if you say the price of a barrel of oil is $100/bbl, would it also be correct to say the price of the US dollar is 1 bbl/$100 - and why?

Mark Ward said...

You have to answer my questions as well.

And as I've said before - we have to work on 1+1 before we work on particle physics. I could give you my analysis but since you are still working on a set of 'facts' that I disagree with, then we have to put that straight first.

Yeah, let's dispense with the faux arrogance that's masking avoidance, alright?

Discussions of this nature are supposed to be an equal give and take. We really aren't going to get anywhere if you continue to ask questions, I answer them, and then you answer none of mine. But you have correctly identified the problem here. You don't like certain facts. I'm sure that because they come from the federal government you like them even less. I don't like or dislike your facts. I simply think the ones that you are sharing only tell part of the story...not so coincidentally the ones that support your argument.

And you still haven't admitted that oil is a world commodity and that increasing supply doesn't directly correlate to lowering prices, as listed in the AP study. You don't even have to look at the 36 year model if you question their method for measuring inflation. Look at the increase in production between February and November of last year (25 million barrels) and compare that to what will come out of Keystone. Prices still went up a dime last year. Why?

So, the second question is - if you say the price of a barrel of oil is $100/bbl, would it also be correct to say the price of the US dollar is 1 bbl/$100 - and why?

I guess I'm not really sure where you are going with this-comparative advantage and relative gains from trade?

I would rather that you just make your point and present your case. I suppose you're trying to lead me to what you perceive to be a "logical place" but from where I sit you are ignoring key facts and playing the weasel question game in the hopes of saving face from some of your original, inaccurate assertions energy policy.

juris imprudent said...

And you still haven't admitted that oil is a world commodity and that increasing supply doesn't directly correlate to lowering prices

You claim to have taken economics. This is pretty fundamental to any understanding of economics. If you have a theory (and substantiation) that says otherwise you should submit it to the Nobel committee.

GuardDuck said...

Are you really saying I'm trying to make you dance like a monkey already? That didn't take long now did it?


Yeah, let's dispense with the faux arrogance that's masking avoidance, alright?


I'm really trying to be patient with you - so stop being a fucking asshole.


What I am trying to do - as I've said so many times before - (perhaps if you actually listened you'd understand) is for us to discuss and agree on the basic building blocks of a complex argument before we can tackle the more complex ideas.

It would do no good to try to answer your question - if the president opened all available areas to drill. Your contention is that gas prices would drop, correct? And that we would become less dependent on foreign oil, right? until we've mutually defined what "opening all available areas to drilling means, what gas prices are, what a drop in gas prices is, and what dependence on foreign oil means. Until we've agreed on those items my answer would be greek to you because you'd be defining the basic building blocks differently.

I suppose you're trying to lead me to what you perceive to be a "logical place" but from where I sit you are ignoring key facts and playing the weasel question

We've been involved in this 'discussion' for one god damned question - how the hell do you know where I am going and what facts I am ignoring? You haven't even given it a chance to go anywhere yet. You get to present your case in post after post after post. We only get to reply to the posts you put up. If you really want me to present my case you have to let me go from start to a finish. I do that step by step - sorry if you don't like it.

So I guess I have to ask if you are refusing to answer the question?

So, the second question is - if you say the price of a barrel of oil is $100/bbl, would it also be correct to say the price of the US dollar is 1 bbl/$100 - and why?


Can't go any further until you answer that..

Mark Ward said...

Well, juris, I'm sure that you know as well as I do that the law of supply states that (other things equal), the quantity supplied of a good rises when the price of a good rises. With the price of oil being as high as it is, being in the oil business is profitable so the quantity supplied is going to be larger as is detailed in this article. People are making a lot of money in the oil business, juris, with more and more people entering the market so I guess I'm not really sure what you are saying here.

The other thing to consider is that supply doesn't exist in a vacuum. Demand should also be considered as well as who the suppliers are...in this case, a cartel that colludes. Throw in speculators and you have several factors that affect price.

Mark Ward said...

Are you really saying I'm trying to make you dance like a monkey already? That didn't take long now did it?

Thus far, I think you are using these tactics to avoid certain truths and possibly mask some ignorance you have about this issue. As I said when we started this, I'm happy to continue talking about this with you but it has to be a give and take.

I'm really trying to be patient with you - so stop being a fucking asshole.

No, that's not it and you know it.

until we've mutually defined what "opening all available areas to drilling means, what gas prices are, what a drop in gas prices is, and what dependence on foreign oil means. Until we've agreed on those items my answer would be greek to you because you'd be defining the basic building blocks differently.

I seriously doubt it. I think you are being intellectually lazy here and you should just make your points. Granted, you did make a good point above about inflation calculation being different so I guess what I'm saying is I'd like to see more of that and less of the questions. I've presented you with quite a bit of evidence that you have yet to seriously address. Perhaps in making your points you can also talk about why you don't agree with the evidence that I have presented.

If you really want me to present my case you have to let me go from start to a finish. I do that step by step - sorry if you don't like it.

Then do it. How am I stopping you? Really, the mis-characterization you have of me is way past tiresome at this point. I realize that you right wing blog types have no respect for folks like me but I'm not a "boy" that you need to coddle along. The condescending attitude you are exhibiting here is unwarranted. Lay it all out, dude. Don't let misconceptions hold you back.

Can't go any further until you answer that..

Yes, you can. Actually, I asked for clarification on this question and you didn't answer it so until I get some more information from you, I can't really answer it. I don't mean to spoil your "big reveal" here but I'd like to see some relevance as to where this is going. Otherwise, it seems like just more game playing.

juris imprudent said...

so I guess I'm not really sure what you are saying here.

That you apparently don't understand one of the most fundamental points of economics. You try very hard to throw a lot of irrelevant side points in to what is a very straight forward bit of the theory as if that makes a difference. It doesn't. I just can't quite figure out if you actually understand the economics and are being disingenuous/dishonest or you honestly don't understand the actual economics.

GuardDuck said...

Thus far, I think you are using these tactics to avoid certain truths and possibly mask some ignorance you have about this issue.

Last time asshole - I said I was being patient with you - stop being an asshole because I won't play your game. Stop insulting, and stop trying to analyze me - you don't know because you won't let me walk you through it.


granted, you did make a good point above about inflation calculation being different so I guess what I'm

Holy Christ! I made a good point?! Since I've only made one point so far I'm batting 100% - why don't you stop being an asshole and let's get on to making the next point - and quit throwing in all the other shit.


Then do it. How am I stopping you?

Jesus Mark. Look, you asked a question and the said the answer couldn't be the exact same thing I would give you as an answer. With that as a baseline I have to either assume you are an idiot or somewhere in the steps of logic you took to get from A to Z there is a difference from the steps I took. So I could spend hours writing about W+X+Y=Z just to have you disagree because you and I have different ideas on what T+U+V=W is. And that's all because we have a different formula to get to Q+R+S=T.

So unless we start at A+B+C we ain't getting anywhere. Leave out the rest of the psychobabble bullshit.


I asked for clarification on this question and you didn't answer it so until I get some more information from you, I can't really answer it.

Really? This?

I guess I'm not really sure where you are going with this-comparative advantage and relative gains from trade?

That doesn't even make sense. I don't even know what kind of clarification you are asking for. Knowing where I'm going is irrelevant. The question is rather simple - actually it starts as a yes or no answer.

I'll make it even easier and leave out the why part - so it's a simple question - if you say the price of a barrel of oil is $100/bbl, would it also be correct to say the price of the US dollar is 1 bbl/$100.

Mark Ward said...

juris, nowhere in your comment did I see YOUR understanding of economics. Just more silliness about me. I really don't understand what you are saying so you better explain to me how the law of supply doesn't apply to gasoline...if that's what you are saying...again, not sure, because you are back to being preoccupied with me. Speaking of which...

GD, I've been more than fair here. You asked me a question about George Washington. I answered it and wondered why it was relevant. You said it was but we have yet to see the particulars on that one. You asked me another question and I asked for clarification and relevance and now you keep asking the same question over and over again which, by the way, is a really lousy way to teach someone something. It's honestly not necessary (really) to teach me anything and I wish you'd just get to your points but, for future reference, direct instruction goes a long way, dude:)

And you still haven't responded to any of my evidence which is decidedly not fair. In fact, this is what I am trying to understand about you.

With that as a baseline I have to either assume you are an idiot or somewhere in the steps of logic you took to get from A to Z there is a difference from the steps I took

So, if you took different steps to get to your conclusion, show me. Why the big mystery? Lay out your argument one step at a time. I'm certain I can follow along with you just fine.

I know you guys bring stubborn to a new art form and any sort of relenting in your eyes is tantamount to Chamberlain appeasing Hitler but seriously, just fucking get on with it.

GuardDuck said...

So, if you took different steps to get to your conclusion, show me. Why the big mystery? Lay out your argument one step at a time. I'm certain I can follow along with you just fine.


Because I don't fucking know where your stupid excuse for a brain went off course you idiot. I truly don't know if I can talk about fiat currency as a market commodity if I don't know if you know what a fiat currency is, what a market is or what a commodity is. That goes for every subject here - I've seen you confuse US gov't debt with US trade deficit - so I'm not really off base with trying to figure out what you are talking about before talking about it.

It's a yes or no question Mark, and you just can't do it can you? I've asked two separate questions, the first one you answered (thank you) and it took 32 words. The second one requires a yes or no answer. Instead you've spent four different posts and over 1200 words arguing with me about you answering a fucking question. If you'd have just answered it we would be beyond it and working down the line - but you really can't can you?

Mark Ward said...

Well, you should know that you can talk about money being traded as a market commodity as I made the following comment above.

I guess I'm not really sure where you are going with this-comparative advantage and relative gains from trade?

Maybe you missed it but that should have been an indicator that the dollar, like oil, can be traded. So, the answer to your question is not necessarily because the value of a dollar fluctuates as does oil. And it wouldn't have take all these extra posts if you had simply clarified your question for me and answered mine way up there. Give and take, GD, give and take.

This is your problem, GD, and it needs to be corrected now. Stop assuming that I'm a moron just because you don't like my facts. The arrogant attitude you have is inhibiting our ability to have a a reasonable discussion about this issue. And your obstinate attitude and rigid communicative methods compound the problem.

So, again, enough with the condescending questions. Get on with it. Lay out your whole argument and if I have any questions, I'll ask. I'm asking you kindly, in your response, to address the questions that I have asked of you.

Oh, and the whole debt and deficit debate was not at all the way you characterized. If you recall, I was making the point that debt and deficits (regardless of their origin and nature) are not necessarily a bad thing. And that both US debts and deficits and trade debts and deficits are connected. juris et al chose to maintain the usual arrogant rigidity in the hopes of being able to "prove me wrong." (let's please not get back on this and stay on oil).

GuardDuck said...

You think that was an answer? That was about as clear as mud - and then you wonder why I insist on having a simple answer up front before going on?

I guess you just can't do it. I'm done Mark.

It's impossible to talk to you.

Mark Ward said...

As I suspected, there really isn't much to your argument unless you are playing games. I think that the mountain of evidence that has been coming out since some of the ridiculous claims have been made about energy have arisen...claims that you support...makes it tough to make a convincing argument. To put it simply, you don't have the facts on your side and now you are backing out.

And obviously you can't carry on a discussion unless it's done exactly in the manner (a very arrogant and condescending one, I might add) that you order. I answered your question about Washington's birthday. You answered none of my questions. I answered your second question about oil and the dollar. You answered none of my questions and refused to lay out your argument. Did you even have one? Or wait, this is somehow all my fault...sort of like it was Katie Couric's fault that she asked Sarah Palin (gasp!) questions? So much for personal responsibility.

If you change your mind, you know where to find me.

Serial Thrilla said...

But Mark, of course it's all your fault. You have to answer the questions they way he wants you to answer them. Otherwise, you are disobeying his vill! Seig Heil!!!!

Guard Duck: so it's a simple question - if you say the price of a barrel of oil is $100/bbl, would it also be correct to say the price of the US dollar is 1 bbl/$100.

Mark: Maybe you missed it but that should have been an indicator that the dollar, like oil, can be traded. So, the answer to your question is not necessarily because the value of a dollar fluctuates as does oil.

Guard Duck: You think that was an answer?

Yes, and it was a good one. Now comes the part where you say it really wasn't one and Mark's an idiot and a communist.

GuardDuck said...


Guard Duck: You think that was an answer?

Yes, and it was a good one. Now comes the part where you say it really wasn't one and Mark's an idiot and a communist.


Thank you Serial, you unwittingly make my point for me. Mark wants me to lay out a whole series of points at once - I demur because I want those points addressed one at a time and settled before we move on. Mark thinks he can handle it. I disagree. It doesn't matter - because with one question and one answer at stake you come along and show that it's already been mis-communicated.

Yes, I saw that Mark answered the question - and in doing so he castigated me for not having seen that he had already answered it... My reply was that his so-called previous answer was as clear as mud.

Can't even communicate one idea without it going all off track - and I'm the one playing games. Please.

GuardDuck said...

(a very arrogant and condescending one, I might add)

I said thank you when you answered the questions - you play games and games and games.

I ask a simple yes or no question - you require a thesis.

These are not comparable.

You spend thousands of words to avoid saying one.

sort of like it was Katie Couric's fault that she asked Sarah Palin (gasp!) questions?

Yeah! Apparently it's my fault that I asked you questions.

As a self reflective individual Mark, why don't you ask yourself why so often your conversations here end with the other side frustrated at you and not with your ideas. How come so many times the conversations here end with you refusing to answer a question? Ask yourself why so many times it gets to the point where someone here has to get to the point where they cannot go further until you answer a question.

There still is the hanging question from 2 years ago. There still is the hanging question you said you answered but didn't.

Don't put it on me - you are the one who keeps being in this position. You are the one who is so predictable that I called the ending to this conversation last week.

Mark Ward said...

Mark thinks he can handle it. I disagree.

Ah, so you know what is in my best interests..tsk tsk:)

Can't even communicate one idea without it going all off track

Take off the "without it going all off track" part and you got it just about right. Communicating an idea involves making a point and supporting it with evidence. It does not involve asking condescending questions and being an arrogant prick (especially when the arrogance is really out of place). Here's an example of making a point and supporting it with evidence.

Sometimes prices increase as American drilling ramps up. That's what has happened in the past three years. Since February 2009, U.S. oil production has increased 15 percent when seasonally adjusted. Prices in those three years went from $2.07 per gallon to $3.58. It was a case of drilling more and paying much more.

As I stated above, the law of supply states that (other things equal), the quantity supplied of a good rises when the price of a good rises. With the price of oil being as high as it is, being in the oil business is profitable so the quantity supplied is going to be larger.


See? No questions...no games...none of your silliness. A point, supported by facts.

I ask a simple yes or no question - you require a thesis.

No, I require a point with supporting evidence, just like the one above. Can you do it? You say you want to make your points one at a time. Make one.

why don't you ask yourself why so often your conversations here end with the other side frustrated at you and not with your ideas.

Well, it's obvious why...this is how you guys operate and it's honestly all you have. When you don't like certain facts, you have to resort to these kind of tactics.

And I do answer the questions. I answered both of yours here. You have answered none of mine. You just don't like the way that I answer them so that's a complete lie and(naturally) part of your tactics. That's most certainly the case with whatever two years ago was about. Perhaps you ought to do some reflection and wonder why it is you remember something like that.

Don't put it on me

So, none of this is your responsibility? Good Lord, the delusion...

I'm not going anywhere, GD. You have a point to make about the topic at hand? Make it. Continue with the obsessive focus on me and it's pretty damn obvious that you're full of hot air.

juris imprudent said...

As I stated above, the law of supply states that (other things equal), the quantity supplied of a good rises when the price of a good rises.

And that's it? What happens when supply goes up? Is there something that typically happens then? What happens when supply exceeds demand (at a given price) - or vice-versa? Do you even know why I am asking you these very basic questions? Because if you don't give the answer that every standard economics text would, you either a) have a brilliant theory that should win you a Nobel in econ, or b) you don't know a fucking thing except how to splatter a bunch of words on a webpage without a real thought behind it.

GuardDuck said...

Better watch out juris - we're not allowed to ask him questions anymore.

GuardDuck said...

It does not involve asking condescending questions and being an arrogant prick (especially when the arrogance is really out of place)

Really? Where? Where did I do that Mark?

I asked two questions - neither of which were condescending or arrogant.

You're continued refusal to answer those simple (actually just the second - although in answering the first you were quite the asshole as well) questions were what prompted my frustration and any perceived arrogance or condescension. You don't even see that do you? You have no idea that you obstinate and stupid fucking refusal to just answer a simple question would make someone think and say that maybe, just maybe your brain is somehow defective? No? Funny - you seem to make that type of comment about others about once a week. Get a mirror dude.


My, my, my we have another example that you have unwittingly proved my point - you spent so much time and effort hand waving about answering TWO FUCKING SIMPLE QUESTIONS that you can't even recall where the snark started and why.

Again - that is why I was asking one question and making one point at a time.

Mark Ward said...

Better watch out juris - we're not allowed to ask him questions anymore.

Now you're behaving like an hysterical old lady. It's not asking questions that's the problem. It's ONLY asking me questions, obsessively keeping the focus on me, never making your own points and hoping that I make some sort of mistake because you guys can't stand the fact that I actually have above average knowledge in this area. That would mean (gasp!) that I'm right about stuff and we can't have that, can we?

And, even if you know I've offered the right answer, you can pretend that it's wrong, tap into your inner rage, and make up whatever you want. This is usually when the personal insults start flying. This is why we have problems. It's your fault. Own it and change.

Take juris's latest round of questions as a great example of this.

First of all, he hasn't explained his understanding of the law of supply and how it relates to oil. I have in the bolded statement above. Instead, he continues the focus on me and, by intimating that I don't understand fundamental economics, he hides his own possible lack of knowledge. It's the constant redirect rather than make his own point.

As I have explained to you many times, juris, you have to also consider the nature of demand as well as the good involved. If demand is elastic when supply goes up, the price will fall. But if demand is relatively inelastic, more suppliers will enter the market as there is money to be made and the price will not go down. This is the case with oil as it is a world commodity with high and inelastic demand. Every "standard economics text" has a chapter on elasticity and its application.

The other thing to consider is cartel behavior and collusion and how that affects price. Obviously, the manipulation of supply is a factor here.

By your questions, I would assume that you think that the price of oil is going to fall when supply increases but I don't know this for sure because all you are doing is asking questions. Make your points and defend them with evidence.

Mark Ward said...

You don't even see that do you?

No, I don't because my answer to your second question was not necessarily because oil and dollars are both commodities that are in a market that dictates their value. This was well after I asked you to elaborate on your question and explain where you were going. Instead, you chose to play the game and be rigid. Anytime you want to elaborate and continue, I'm right here.

Again - that is why I was asking one question and making one point at a time.

No, you weren't. And you know all the reasons why. This is why you need to give up this game (if you can) and have a reasonable discussion with me. Once your opponent has discovered your tactics, GD, they aren't effective anymore.

Tess said...

I haven't posted in some time but I'm still a regular reader. This thread is an example of why I haven't posted.

Mark has tried time and again with both of you to have a reasonable discussion about oil and energy issues. He's being an adult and both of you are behaving like children. I chalk up this behavior to insecurity because neither one of you has done much to stand on your own views. Rather, you have put Mark on the hot seat with bright lights shining in his eyes and peppered him with questions.

That's not a discussion and that's why I stopped engaging in the comments thread. I simply had to say something here because, Mark, you have the patience of a saint with these two and a few others!!

Maggie said...

Hi folks, I'm a regular reader as well and have always been afraid to post here for another reason. I thought I would bring it up since Tess here decided to chime in but the comments section is very boyish and like a pissing contest. I usually read them for the occasional good link but it's not very conducive to a discussion that any woman I know would want to a be a part of. This is too bad because I would love to talk about these issues but not with all the bullying.

John said...

To GuardDuck and juris imprudent, I don't get why neither one of you can't just make an argument in a paragraph or two. All you do is ask questions. That's not an argument. That's a police procedural.

Mark Ward said...

Tess, it's nice to see that you are still reading the site. In fact, while my comments have gone down of late (other than this thread) my readership has gone up to around 300 page views a day. Partly this is because it's an election year but it's also because I'm putting up more posts. Nikto's posts usually bring in new and numerous readers (according to the stats) as well so that's cool.

Maggie (and Tess), I suppose you girls are right about the pissing contest. Thanks for the kind words, though. This stuff is important to me so I do have a lot of patience.

John, welcome. And, yes.

Serial Thrilla said...

Guard Duck-You're wasting a lot of words when you could be simply getting on with your argument. Mark answered both of your questions. If you don't like the answers, then explain why and move on.

Juris-When was the last time you took an economics course? I seem to recall Mark saying he took one a few years ago and got an A. Your questions are pointless as Mark has already demonstrated on a number of occasions that he has more than a fundamental grasp of economics. In the past, you have not. The last time this was discussed you said there was no such thing as inelastic demand.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/inelastic_demand.htm

GuardDuck said...

I don't get why neither one of you can't just make an argument in a paragraph or two. All you do is ask questions.

Socratic questioning.

It's the only way to debate with a sophist such as Mark.

GuardDuck said...

Serial - Two questions that could have been answered with a minimum of words took a god awful number of responses to get an answer that technically wasn't an answer within the context of the question. Do you really think I could get anywhere with that kind of 'cooperation'?

But fine - I'll give it one more try.

GuardDuck said...

OK Mark,

So if the dollar is a commodity and it's value can fluctuate, and oil is a commodity and it's value can fluctuate - then when you posit that the 'price' of oil has increased, before you can make an assumption about the supply or demand of oil causing or not causing that increase you need to rule out that the value of the dollar has not decreased.

Gas prices are not rising, the dollar is falling.

With that in mind, if we compare your AP story about high gas prices to US oil production - where you conclude that producing domestic oil does not lower gas prices - and we compare the historical prices of gas to the historical price of gold we get:

http://quotes.post1.org/historical-crude-oil-price-chart/


Then we can posit that the increase in domestic oil production has just as much relation to the devaluation of the dollar as it does to the relative increase in the price of oil.

So, what I have to ask is, why? Why would US domestic oil production increase as the value of the dollar decreases and therefore the relative price of oil increases?

Take a look at this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/19/us-energy-refineries-idUSBRE82I15C20120319

In 2011, Sunoco shuttered its 178,000 bpd refinery in Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania after it said it received no bids. The refinery, which began operation in 1902, is being evaluated by a regional board as to what the best use will be.

Sunoco has said it will close down its 335,000 bpd Philadelphia refinery, the nation's longest continuously running plant, by July 1 if there are no buyers.

ConocoTrainer also idled its 185,000 bpd refinery in nearby Trainer, Pennsylvania in late September. The company says it continues to seek a buyer.

All three refineries are in a 12-mile radius.


700,000 bpd of refining capacity have been idled. With gas at $4/gal there were no bidders? How come?

Perhaps, to answer both questions - the cost to produce domestic oil in terms of actual operating costs (labor etc) and governmental cost (epa etc) mean that it is only profitable to produce domestic oil when the relative costs of oil is high, or alternatively the value of the dollar is low.


Now, I have a question because I need to be clear on what you are claiming. You said:

If the drill-now theory were correct, prices should have soared. Instead they went down by nearly a dollar.

Are you claiming that when supply decreases prices also decrease, and conversely that when supply increases prices also increase?

juris imprudent said...

First of all, he hasn't explained his understanding of the law of supply and how it relates to oil.

I don't have an "understanding" that needs explaining. I grok the basics. I'm not giving that to you because then you will just say "oh yeah, that is what I meant all along". It is dishonest and childish and you have done it more than once.

That said: increases in price (above the cost of production) tend to induce increases in supply (which is close but not quite what you said). Increases in supply above demand (at a given price) tend to induce reductions in price to clear the excess supply. It is very dynamic, and you have been attempting to treat it as some kind of static process (that only generates profits for oil companies). You ignored when demand fell as a result of price increases (even though this was documented and put right before you).

As for external factors, including supply cartels, you left out a very significant one - the value of the dollar vis-a-vis oil. The price of oil can surely go up in dollar terms even if in other terms (or currencies) it doesn't. Naturally you wouldn't want to talk about the dollar dropping in value during the administration of your holy hero.

juris imprudent said...

Ah good ol' serial asshole:

When was the last time you took an economics course? I seem to recall Mark saying he took one a few years ago and got an A.

Well it has been a longer time since I took any economics, but rather than a single community college class I got a B.A. in the subject. I would be happy to help M better grasp the subject - but I won't be lectured by someone who doesn't have half the knowledge in it that I do.

Mark Ward said...

Now, I have a question because I need to be clear on what you are claiming. You said:

If the drill-now theory were correct, prices should have soared. Instead they went down by nearly a dollar.


Well, I didn't say that. Let's be clear that was a quote from the AP article and not me. I'm sort of stickler about credit where it is due. But I do support the general idea which is that there are a number of factors to consider when throwing out the "drill baby drill" argument.

For example, I would agree with your analysis above regarding the various factors one must consider as to why there were no bidders. I think you would agree that there are other factors as well (input prices, technology, expectations, number of sellers etc).

Are you claiming that when supply decreases prices also decrease, and conversely that when supply increases prices also increase?

I think here it's important to set up a distinction between quantity supplied and supply.

I'm saying that the quantity supplied rises as the price rises and falls as the price falls. Essentially, the quantity supplied is positively related to the good. This is the law of supply (all else equal).

But what happens if the price of oil (an input price in gasoline rises) rises? This would reduce the supply of gasoline, resulting in a higher price of gasoline and a lower quantity sold. Conversely, what if the price of oil falls? Now selling gasoline is more profitable and the supply is raised. Gasoline sellers are willing to produce a large quantity at any given price. This would result in a lower price and a large quantity sold.

So, a decrease in supply (not quantity supplied) could result in an increase in price and an increase in supply could result in a decrease in price. Of course, we aren't even considering demand here which throws other factors into the mix as well as all the other issues that affect supply and price so to say this is ALWAYS the case isn't accurate.

Mark Ward said...

You ignored when demand fell as a result of price increases (even though this was documented and put right before you).

I'll agree that demand fell here and still is down but it didn't fall around the world and that's one of the main reasons why we haven't seen a drop in gas prices.

GuardDuck said...

I think here it's important to set up a distinction between quantity supplied and supply.

What? Can you define that distinction for me?


if the price of oil (an input price in gasoline rises) rises? This would reduce the supply of gasoline

How? You just said that the "quantity supplied rises as the price rises".

resulting in a higher price of gasoline and a lower quantity sold.

Well, yeah - higher price reduces demand.

if the price of oil falls? Now selling gasoline is more profitable and the supply is raised

How is it more profitable to sell at a lower price?

a decrease in supply (not quantity supplied) could result in an increase in price and an increase in supply could result in a decrease in price.

Which supports the 'drill baby drill' theory - What point are you trying to make?

we aren't even considering demand here which throws other factors into the mix

How can you not consider demand? Supply and demand cannot stand alone - demand for a product is largely dependent upon price.

Mark Ward said...

What? Can you define that distinction for me?

Good Lord, here we go again. I thought we might be getting back to a reasonable discussion.

I defined the distinction above by showing that supply includes the totality of the relationship between price and quantity supplied and the variables that can change this. The law of supply (AKA the "all else equal" part) excludes that and simply looks at a point on the supply curve or, as I mentioned above, the simple movement that occurs with an increase or decrease.

You should probably be aware that I essentially cut and pasted my comment from a Microeconomis assignment (from just a few years ago) on which I got an "A." The only thing I didn't include was the diagrams I drew showing shifts in the supply curve to the right (if supply is increased) and to the left if supply is decreased (as is the case here) as well as the points and movement along the supply curve.

Now, GD, you have stated repeatedly that you are skilled in economics. So either you genuinely did not understand what I was saying or you did and are being a fucking prick again with the games. Which is it? Or is that warped perception that you guys seem to have about me? The one where I'm an idiot because you don't like facts. I assure you, I'm a very intelligent person so you don't need to gauge my knowledge before you (snoring now) lay out the rest of your argument.

Took the class, got an A. Move on, dude.

How? You just said that the "quantity supplied rises as the price rises".

Answered above. And above.

Well, yeah - higher price reduces demand.

No, that's not always true. If demand is inelastic, sellers can sell at higher prices. And, if there are only a smaller number of sellers (as is the case here), they can collude and keep the price high regardless of demand.

How is it more profitable to sell at a lower price?

Because their input prices are lower and they are selling more of it.

Which supports the 'drill baby drill' theory - What point are you trying to make?

Only if you consider the input price of oil and NO other factors at all. That's why the DBD theory is bunch of shit because it doesn't consider the various other factors involved in price-including the value of the dollar as you mentioned above.

How can you not consider demand? Supply and demand cannot stand alone - demand for a product is largely dependent upon price.

Uh, I agree. That was the point I was trying to make with mentioning the other factors and with elasticity. I've wondered why people who support DBD ignore world demand in their thinking. It makes no sense.

I've been more than fair in answering your questions. It's time to hear the rest of your argument and to answer all of the questions that I have asked of you, thus far, have not answered. Let's start with one.

What the fuck is YOUR point?

No more games, no more questions for me and especially no more obsessive focus on me (aka avoiding putting up your own points for discussion). You have the floor, sir. If you have a comment to make on what I have said above, explain why you do in your argument.

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

Took the class, got an A. Move on, dude.

You still don't fucking understand it you arrogant ignoramus. Now I'm not even sure you took that class at a community college. I believe that GD probably does understand economics better than you - that isn't a very high bar.

Mark Ward said...

What cracks me up about your comment, juris, is how it is exactly the kind you used to criticize and very much YDP, no? You're always welcome to join the discussion and share your economic intelligence with us.

And I'm not really certain what Guard Duck's background is regarding economics as he has not presented much with which to judge. So far, it's all been about me. Gee, I wonder why. Perhaps if he did share, we would know.

Oh, and I took Microeconomics at LSU.

juris imprudent said...

M, I already explained that you are not accurately describing the supply function in a market. You have a part of it almost (but not quite) right, then instead of following that, you leap to irrelevant polemical points. If you really don't understand what you've got wrong, then I will offer to explain it further. But I won't accept you arguing with me about the straight-forward economic theory.

Mark Ward said...

If you really don't understand what you've got wrong, then I will offer to explain it further.

Don't let the erroneous thinking that I'm wrong stop you. You guys crack me up. I've offered you plenty of chances to put forth your economic understanding of the oil market...heck, of very basic economic principles. Yet, it's back to me every time. Hmm, I wonder why that is...?

Here's great chance to strut your stuff. Let's hear your views on the difference between quantity supplied and supply. You should probably do the same for the difference between quantity demanded and demand. For example, how would an increase in demand result in a higher price?

Before you answer, take note of Guard Duck's question from above...

Are you claiming that when supply decreases prices also decrease, and conversely that when supply increases prices also increase?

Align the answer with your response.

juris imprudent said...

First off, let's get this straight - any quantity of supply or demand is based on price. You keep approaching it from the wrong end.

As I trust you know (maybe), demand curves slope down left to right. This reflects the general rule that as price drops quantity demanded will rise. Supply curves have the opposite orientation, as price increases the quantity supplied will rise. In both cases price is the independent variable and Qty (either of S or D) is dependent.

The slope of either curve can be relatively flat or very steep - that depends on many conditions. In any case it indicates that price changes can either cause large swings in qty or small ones. This is elasticity (in general) and again depends on price. Price is always the signal to producers and consumers. If you talk about any 'market' without discussion of price signalling - it ain't a market in any meaningful sense.

So, if price goes up, that signals producers to increase production. Conversely as price goes up, consumers trim purchases. (Both to the extent they can - that gets back to elasticity). In theory there is a price at which the quantity supplied matches the quantity demanded and the market is perfectly balanced. Of course as soon as you hear the word "perfect" you know it is theory not reality. However, the theory works well enough to still be descriptive.

Are you with me so far? Shall I continue?

Mark Ward said...

Yep. This is pretty basic stuff, juris. Please do go on.

juris imprudent said...

OK. So producer and consumer behavior are driven by price, from which you get quantities supplied and demanded. Price is key. If the quantities are out of balance (either surplus or shortage), price will move to find balance - of course neither smoothly, perfectly or instantaneously, but in time and within reason. If price falls, suppliers will stop ramping up production (because inventory unsold is building up). If demand continues to outrun supply at a given price, more supply is called forth (assuming there aren't obstacles to doing so).

So, let's look at gasoline - which of course is only one refined product of crude oil. Say I find a new field of a trillion barrels of oil - is there an obstacle that might keep the price of gas high in the face of such a new supply? Perhaps refining capacity (and processing time and transport)? And that is still speaking worldwide, not just domestically.

Another reason supply increases may not reduce price is currency. If your country's currency is being devalued, then any commodity priced in that currency will appear to be going up (but having nothing to do with supply or demand issues).

I would say these might be the lead issues in sustaining high U.S. gas prices even as new crude comes into production. All that without OPEC concern or other MidEast FUD or corporate or govt malfeasance (any of which would be detrimental of course).

You see? No screaming about Exxon-Mobil or Obama or dirty Arabs or stupid consumers with gas-guzzling cars. Maybe a little boring in comparison to spleen-venting.

Mark Ward said...

I'd say that this is an accurate analysis. I'd add the concept of world demand and not just local demand. I don't bitch that much about gas guzzling cars anymore because if Americans stopped driving them, it wouldn't make much of a difference. It's only a small part of the overall demand in the world much of which comes from BRIC.

And I think including speculation, given how much they are now a part of the market, is necessary in discussing price. So many of the people in the oil market aren't actually trading in the actual commodity.

On the subject of the dollar, what's your view the value of it? Sometimes it's good to have a lower valued dollar, sometimes it's bad. I guess I've always leaned towards the former but perhaps I'm wrong. Or is there even a right or wrong answer?

juris imprudent said...

I'd add the concept of world demand and not just local demand.

OK, it doesn't really change anything. Nor does speculation - which is not a lot more than legalized gambling (and that actually is a zero sum game). Now if you go back and read what you said earlier, do you understand the mistake you were making?

On the subject of the dollar, what's your view the value of it?

Stability is probably the most important thing. Sure there are benefits (at least temporary ones) to manipulating its value - but that also imposes costs, some of which can be very painful and very long lasting.

Mark Ward said...

do you understand the mistake you were making?

Which part, juris? There so many criticisms that you have of everything I say that it's hard to keep track.

Stability is probably the most important thing.

That makes sense. I guess I've always been of the lower value dollar so it be a force in the world. Perhaps that's not such a great idea now, though, considering the fallout.

juris imprudent said...

Which part, juris?

What started this subthread - about supply. Since you agree with me on the basics down here, you ought to be able to go back - read what you said - and see the mistake. I'm not trying to berate you, I want to make sure you understand. That could help avoid future misunderstandings and useless recriminations.

Mark Ward said...

I want to make sure you understand.

Well, I see quite a bit of criticism here so you're going to have to be more specific. The first thing I see is an apparent disagreement with this comment from me...

And you still haven't admitted that oil is a world commodity and that increasing supply doesn't directly correlate to lowering prices

followed by this one from you...

You claim to have taken economics. This is pretty fundamental to any understanding of economics. If you have a theory (and substantiation) that says otherwise you should submit it to the Nobel committee.

I demonstrated above that my statement is accurate. Increasing supply doesn't necessarily lead to lowering prices when you consider the total market, including demand and other factors. In fact, price remains ambiguous if demand is increased along with an increase in supply.

But I'm not sure if this is what you are talking about. Really, you need to stop "teaching me" and reiterate your point of critique if this indeed was it. I'll make this easy for you....fill in the blanks...

Mark said____________

That's not true because basic economics states_____________

And this all relates to oil in that______________

juris imprudent said...

And you still haven't admitted that oil is a world commodity and that increasing supply doesn't directly correlate to lowering prices


That's the part you got wrong, and if you go back and read through this lower part of the discussion you should see why. You agree with me on the basics - that statement does not.

Mark Ward said...

Explain to me how it's wrong, juris. Oil is a world commodity and increasing supply here in our country won't necessarily lower price at the pump. The demand side is one example that must be considered...demand from around the world. That's why DBD isn't really a valid.

juris imprudent said...

Explain to me how it's wrong, juris.

I did and you agreed with what I said about "the basics". This is why you drive people nuts - up is down, when you want it to be. I won't play that stupid fucking childish game with you.

Mark Ward said...

Alright, cut the shit, juris. If you are bored with this thread or simply don't want to offer a more insightful answer, just say so. You haven't really addressed the issue of world demand and the analysis you offered above actually supports what I am saying. If you think differently, explain.

The other thing to take note of is how silly this conversation is considering that economists disagree all the time hence President Truman's call for a one armed economist. As I find myself often explain to the "people that I drive nuts," there isn't always one exact,scientific, dyed in the wool RIGHT way for issues like this.