Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 41

Thread: Opec says oil could hit $200

  1. #21
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,480
    Post Thanks / Like
    and your connection of that voluminous data to the claim that we have less information available now was . . . what, exactly? Sorry, but you weren't making any sense in that thread.

    And I noticed you didn't answer a single one of my questions

  2. #22
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;2515564]and your connection of that voluminous data to the claim that we have less information available now was . . . what, exactly? Sorry, but you weren't making any sense in that thread.

    And I noticed you didn't answer a single one of my questions[/QUOTE]

    my connection to that information is that I agree with a lot of it. What connection do you have with information that you agree with?
    I am sorry that the information from those sites are a little too "in the weeds". Later on today I will explain the main points again.

  3. #23
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,477
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2515589]my connection to that information is that I agree with a lot of it.[/QUOTE]

    That's pretty funny, bro.

  4. #24
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,480
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote=intelligentjetsfan;2515589]my connection to that information is that I agree with a lot of it. What connection do you have with information that you agree with?
    I am sorry that the information from those sites are a little too "in the weeds". Later on today I will explain the main points again.[/quote]

    I think you should probably reread my post.

    I am asking what the information about media ownership has to do with your contention that we are in danger of an encroaching monopoly limiting our access to news and information to those pieces of news and information that fit their interests given:

    a) The number of different such media conglomorates with what you admitted were diametrically opposite "agendas" (which makes sense from a profit perspective, as well, given the money to be made from serving distinct niches of the consuming public) - which inherently guarantees access to multiple competing viewpoints even were we restricted only to news and information funnelled through those sources; and

    b) The dramatic explosion of "alternative" news sources [B]not[/B] controlled by those media companies, including individual bloggers, foreign news channels and foreign news services - all of which are available to the general public for little to no cost.

    The idea that Rupert Murdoch's ownership of a number of newspapers, a TV network, a social networking site and a number of local FOX stations constitutes a threat to freedom of expression generally or to the vitality and diversity of our information-market specifically is laughable on its face.

  5. #25
    All League
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,267
    Post Thanks / Like
    $200/bl oil? What a wuss! I say we go for $300!

    It wasn't long ago that the only phrase you would hear is..."after adjustments for inflation, Oil would need to reach $90/barrel...".

    Put any number out there...the predicted price is no longer a warning, but a target.

  6. #26
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    astoria
    Posts
    5,314
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2515558]with respect, in that thread there were specific sites listed with specific information. Just for starters here are some more;

    [url]http://www.takebackthemedia.com/owners.html[/url]

    MediaChannel's Media Ownership Chart
    This is a handy graphic chart of who owns what. This page is one large images, so it may take a long while to load on slower connections.

    Columbia Journalism Review's 'Who Owns What'
    Colombia Journalism Review provides a clickable list of the major media companies and their holdings. This web guide demonstrates the exceedingly far reach of these companies.

    The Nation's 'Big Ten'
    Here's a clickable chart of the world's ten biggest media conglomerates. The 'Big Ten' shows that concentration of media owndership isn't just a problem here - it's happening worldwide.

    The Incredible Shrinking Ownership Group
    In 1985, there were 50 companies who owned media outlets. The graph on this site shows that between then and now, the number has dwindled to only six, and if the planned deregulation goes through it'll decline even further. Includes the major media reform advocacy groups.

    FAIR's List of For-Profit Media
    FAIR points out that most media outlets are owned by for-profit corporations, which by nature makes them more accountable to the stockholders than the public interest.

    NOW's 'Who Controls The Media?'
    This easy-to-read chart breaks it all down - even down to which cable outlets are controlled by which conglomerates.[/QUOTE]thank you,i'll get back to you.

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    $200/barrell? ... bank on it...

    but no, ... crude oil isn't running out... :rolleyes:

    It's just liberals... or, no, wait... OPEC playing games... .or, no, wait... greedy Big Oil here in the U.S. .... or, no, wait... the failing dollar.... or, no, wait... the "War on Terror".... or, no, wait... those damned Chinese and Indians wanting to drive more...

    people can conjure up their flavor of the month for their self-rationalization on rising oil prices all they like.... trot out all the convenient economic models they wish to in order to make themselves believe there's a quick easy fix within man's control.... unfortunately, they'll simply be grasping at straws until they stop the denial and acknowledge the facts.... Hubbert's Peak was right... the age of oil is in decline while world population continues to soar... nations will collide... they already are...

    the evidence is all around us... in every aspect of our lives... no one wants to admit the truth... even though Big Dick himself essentially admitted a supply problem to London Petroleum in 1999. "Where is the oil going to come from?"

    Any way you look at it, the geology has spoken... new significant oil pools are no longer being found anywhere on the planet... shale is not the answer.... Tar Sands is not the answer.... and "Clean Coal" is a lie ...

    that president that everyone loved to hate in the late 70s? he was the only one who nailed it... perhaps if we listened a bit more closely to him at the time, we'd be much further along in finding a viable alternative energy source .... fact is, we're WAY, WAY behind now (even if we found a miracle battery tomorrow), thanks to 4 successive gluttonous presidents who've been in bed with Big Oil and corporate profit...

    hooray fiat currency!!
    Last edited by Press_Coverage; 04-29-2008 at 04:49 PM.

  8. #28
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    Wake me when Gasoline prices in the U.S. hit where they are in the U.K.

    It's funny, the same people who want us to drive less, complain the loudest about high Gasoline Prices.

  9. #29
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,202
    Post Thanks / Like
    If these prices don't go down, the American economy is going to be shot down even more. This country is going to go down the drain. Truck drivers and other people that do driving for a living are going to be out of a job because they can't keep up with these gas prices.

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2515981]Wake me when Gasoline prices in the U.S. hit where they are in the U.K.[/quote]

    You are always apparently requesting being "woken" when things here get as bad as they are elsewhere. Wow. That's excellent. Unfortuntely, their rate will continue to get worse, with ours chasing behind, so I suppose we'll be unable to catch Europe's skyrocket. What does that have to do with our own?

    Anyhow, we'll be sure to wake you. But for now, we'll let you sleep through it.

    [QUOTE=Warfish;2515981]It's funny, the same people who want us to drive less, complain the loudest about high Gasoline Prices.[/QUOTE]

    They are? What's funny about that? Even if that's remotely accurate -- that they're "the same people" -- is there some kind of irony there?

    A person unhappy with prices somehow shouldn't be preaching conservation as well?

    :huh:
    Last edited by Press_Coverage; 04-29-2008 at 05:19 PM.

  11. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=k.Rhodes25;2516002]If these prices don't go down, the American economy is going to be shot down even more. This country is going to go down the drain. Truck drivers and other people that do driving for a living are going to be out of a job because they can't keep up with these gas prices.[/QUOTE]

    They're not going to be going down. Period.

    Americans had better start conserving and putting money into innovation. Immediately.

  12. #32
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    History has proven that longer periods of higher oil prices will produce socio-economic crises in the oil producing countries themselves. OPEC has long made it policy to avoid the creation of such a situation such as the 1970's again.

    The 1970's, the last time the Middle East had such a bounty on oil prices, the Shah of Iran created the conditions for the Iranian Revolution and inflation was so rampant in the Middle East that a serious financial crisis plagued the region for about 12 years from 1979- 1992. The producing nations came to see the correlation between oil production, currency flows and socio-economic and political aspects in their own nations.

    The problem is not a decrease in supply, far from it. Rather, it has been the massive speculation that arose after the 2003 invasion of Iraq that has brought about the situation along with various other sundry factors such as Nigerian political instability and the decreasing production of Venezuelan oil due to the inefficiency of the Venezuelan government after it nationalized its oil company.

    The serious lack of refining capacity in the US has really hurt us significantly and the self imposed legal restrictions on exploration within our national territory has contributed significantly to our limitations.

    It is also important to remember that the vast majority of our oil comes from Mexico and Canada. But, since oil is an open commodity traded on global markets, all oil, no matter where its is produced is subject to the mercy of the most unstable producing nations.

  13. #33
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;2515740]I think you should probably reread my post.

    I am asking what the information about media ownership has to do with your contention that we are in danger of an encroaching monopoly limiting our access to news and information to those pieces of news and information that fit their interests given:

    a) The number of different such media conglomorates with what you admitted were diametrically opposite "agendas" (which makes sense from a profit perspective, as well, given the money to be made from serving distinct niches of the consuming public) - which inherently guarantees access to multiple competing viewpoints even were we restricted only to news and information funnelled through those sources; and

    b) The dramatic explosion of "alternative" news sources [B]not[/B] controlled by those media companies, including individual bloggers, foreign news channels and foreign news services - all of which are available to the general public for little to no cost.

    The idea that Rupert Murdoch's ownership of a number of newspapers, a TV network, a social networking site and a number of local FOX stations constitutes a threat to freedom of expression generally or to the vitality and diversity of our information-market specifically is laughable on its face.[/QUOTE]

    look, we are going to agree to disagree on this issue. But just for clarification, here is the basic argument from an author through wikipedia;

    Concentration of media ownership is very frequently seen as a problem of contemporary media and society. When media ownership is concentrated in one or more of the ways mentioned above, a number of undesirable consequences follow, including the following:

    Commercially driven, ultra-powerful mass market media is primarily loyal to sponsors, i.e. advertisers and government rather than to the public interest.
    For the general public, there are less diverse opinions and voices available in the media.
    If only a few companies representing the interests of a minority elite control the public airwaves of 300 million Americans, then calling them "public airwaves" is only lip service.
    For minorities and others, fewer opportunities are available for voicing their concerns and reaching the public.
    Healthy, market-based competition is absent, leading to slower innovation and increased prices.
    It is important to elaborate upon the issue of media consolidation and its effect upon the diversity of information reaching a particular market. Critics of consolidation raise the issue of whether monopolistic or oligopolistic control of a local media market can be fully accountable and dependable in serving the public interest. If, for example, only one or two media conglomerates dominate in a single market, the question is not only that of whether they will present a diversity of opinions, but also of whether they are willing to present information that may be damaging to either their advertisers or to themselves.

    If it is in the best interests of the media conglomerates not to run a story or allow a particular opinion, but in the best interests of the public interest to run it, it arguably makes better business sense to opt for the former over the latter. On the local end, reporters have often seen their stories refused or edited beyond recognition, in instances where they have unearthed potentially damaging information concerning either the media outlet's advertisers or its parent company. For example, in 1997, the Fox affiliate in Tampa, Florida fired two reporters and suppressed a story they had produced about one of the Fox network's major advertisers, Monsanto, concerning the health effects of Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH). Fox took action after Monsanto threatened to sue over the story.

    Another example would be the repeated refusal of networks to air "ads" from anti-war advocates to progressive groups like MoveOn.org, or conservative groups like United Church of Christ, regardless of factual basis. A recent famous case was Super Bowl XXXVIII wherein CBS refused to air an ad criticizing the growing federal budget deficit but aired a spot celebrating the White House National Drug Control Policy.

    Consequently, if the companies dominating a media market choose to suppress stories that do not serve their interests, the public suffers, since they are not adequately informed of some crucial issues that may affect them. If the only media outlets in town refuse to air a story, then the question becomes, who will?

    Critics of media deregulation and the resulting concentration of ownership fear that such trends will only continue to reduce the diversity of information provided, as well as to reduce the accountability of information providers to the public. The ultimate consequence of consolidation, critics argue, is a poorly-informed public, restricted to a reduced array of media options that offer only information that does not harm the media oligopoly's growing range of interests.

    For those critics, media deregulation is a dangerous trend, facilitating an increase in concentration of media ownership, and subsequently reducing the overall quality and diversity of information communicated through major media channels. Increased concentration of media ownership can lead to the censorship of a wide range of critical thought.

    Another concern is that consolidated media is not flexible enough to serve local communities in case of emergency. This happened in Minot, North Dakota, in 2002, after a train filled with anhydrous ammonia derailed. None of the leading radio stations in Minot carried information on the derailment or evacuation procedures, largely because they were all owned by Clear Channel Communications and received automated feeds from the corporate headquarters in San Antonio, Texas. Scores of people were injured and three people died[citation needed].

    Some typical counter-arguments to the criticisms above include the following:

    Increased competitiveness due to the larger capital of the owners, especially to compete against some of the global, giant media conglomerates
    Reduced cost of operations as a result of consolidation of some functions
    More segmented or differentiated products and services to respond to a wider variety of demands better

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_consolidation[/url]
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 04-29-2008 at 06:31 PM.

  14. #34
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;2515740]I think you should probably reread my post.

    I am asking what the information about media ownership has to do with your contention that we are in danger of an encroaching monopoly limiting our access to news and information to those pieces of news and information that fit their interests given:

    a) The number of different such media conglomorates with what you admitted were diametrically opposite "agendas" (which makes sense from a profit perspective, as well, given the money to be made from serving distinct niches of the consuming public) - which inherently guarantees access to multiple competing viewpoints even were we restricted only to news and information funnelled through those sources; and

    b) The dramatic explosion of "alternative" news sources [B]not[/B] controlled by those media companies, including individual bloggers, foreign news channels and foreign news services - all of which are available to the general public for little to no cost.

    The idea that Rupert Murdoch's ownership of a number of newspapers, a TV network, a social networking site and a number of local FOX stations constitutes a threat to freedom of expression generally or to the vitality and diversity of our information-market specifically is laughable on its face.[/QUOTE]

    and here is one more to help you;

    [B][SIZE="4"]Orwell Rolls in His Grave[/SIZE][/B]

    Orwell Rolls in His Grave is a 2004 documentary film written and directed by Robert Kane Pappas. It examines the current and past relationships between the media, the US government and corporations, analyzing the possible consequences of the concentration of media ownership. Making references to George Orwell's novel 1984, the film argues that reality has met and in some ways exceeded Orwell's expectations about a society dominated by thought control, which is made possible by the media. [B]According to the film, the mass media no longer report news, but manage them, deciding what makes the headlines and what is conveniently ignored, thus ultimately defining the framework upon which most other issues are discussed by the society. As an example, it is claimed that since the late 1980s there's been an agenda pursued by the major media corporations regarding the deregulation of the media market, by which news reports sell all its benefits while neglecting its disastrous results.[/B]

    The film features discussions from, amongst others, Bernie Sanders, Charles Lewis, Michael Moore, Danny Schechter, Robert W. McChesney, Mark Crispin Miller, Mark Lloyd, Greg Palast, Aurora Wallace and Vincent Bugliosi. Covered topics include political corruption, the controversy over the US presidential election of 2000 and the October Surprise Conspiracy.

    The film has previously aired on Free Speech TV.

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwell_Rolls_in_His_Grave[/url]

  15. #35
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,565
    Post Thanks / Like
    Screw the polar bears, drill in Alaska! My SUV is mighty thirsty.

  16. #36
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Equilibrium;2516116]It is also important to remember that the vast majority of our oil comes from Mexico and Canada. But, since oil is an open commodity traded on global markets, all oil, no matter where its is produced is subject to the mercy of the most unstable producing nations.[/QUOTE]

    Mexico is pumping less and less Oil and so is Venezula mostly because of neglect and Union and State control that doesn't have the expertise to get the max out of their reserves. Canada while our biggest oil supplier is a huge importer of foreign oil from the ME. Canada runs pipelines directly south to the US and not to their own Eastern Provences. If they ever decide to build their own lines East to reduce their own dependence on foreign oil they could cut us back dramatically increasing our dependence on the ME, African and Russian oil. The US oil companies are controlling less and less of World oil and the current reserves are being fully explotied. At the current price every producer is trying to pump full out regardless of what OPEC dictates, the supply and delivery system can't keep up with growing demand.

    We need to use less which is both a Conservative value and an environmental value. I really don't understand the Conservative attack on the environmental concept of not wasting resources.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 04-29-2008 at 06:34 PM.

  17. #37
    All League
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,267
    Post Thanks / Like
    [url]http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html[/url]

    Massive Oil Deposit Could Increase US reserves by 10x

    America is sitting on top of a super massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost Americaís Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, giving western economies the trump card against OPECís short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant.

    In the next 30 days the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) will release a new report giving an accurate resource assessment of the Bakken Oil Formation that covers North Dakota and portions of South Dakota and Montana. With new horizontal drilling technology it is believed that from 175 to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil are held in this 200,000 square mile reserve that was initially discovered in 1951. The USGS did an initial study back in 1999 that estimated 400 billion recoverable barrels were present but with prices bottoming out at $10 a barrel back then the report was dismissed because of the higher cost of horizontal drilling techniques that would be needed, estimated at $20-$40 a barrel.

    It was not until 2007, when EOG Resources of Texas started a frenzy when they drilled a single well in Parshal N.D. that is expected to yield 700,000 barrels of oil that real excitement and money started to flow in North Dakota. Marathon Oil is investing $1.5 billion and drilling 300 new wells in what is expected to be one of the greatest booms in Oil discovery since Oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in 1938.

    The US imported about 14 million barrels of Oil per day in 2007 , which means US consumers sent about $340 Billion Dollars over seas building palaces in Dubai and propping up unfriendly regimes around the World, if 200 billion barrels of oil at $90 a barrel are recovered in the high plains the added wealth to the US economy would be $18 Trillion Dollars which would go a long way in stabilizing the US trade deficit and could cut the cost of oil in half in the long run.

    There's this one too:

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation[/url]

    Sorry Peakers, move on to something else like Y3K.

    Of course, I'm all for alternatives. I hate everyone's lives and livelihoods are so negatively affected.

  18. #38
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2516010]You are always apparently requesting being "woken" when things here get as bad as they are elsewhere. Wow. That's excellent. Unfortuntely, their rate will continue to get worse, with ours chasing behind, so I suppose we'll be unable to catch Europe's skyrocket. What does that have to do with our own?

    Anyhow, we'll be sure to wake you. But for now, we'll let you sleep through it.



    They are? What's funny about that? Even if that's remotely accurate -- that they're "the same people" -- is there some kind of irony there?

    A person unhappy with prices somehow shouldn't be preaching conservation as well?

    :huh:[/QUOTE]

    You'd like lower prices? Here's a few suggestions:

    --Cut Taxes at the Pump.

    --Allow Additional Drilling/Exploration. Parts of the Gulf of Mexico, and the ubiquitous ANWAR, being two examples of many.

    --Allow additional refining facilities to be built.

    --Allow additional nuclear facilities ot be built.

    --Let Mexico know that their illegal border invasion is over, but if they'd like, we'd be happy to NOT give back all those than have come in, if we get some of their oil rights. If they want their citizens in America, using American service, fine....but Mexico will pay for it.

    Thats a start. All of these could help lower the price in the middle-term, whilst other options are explored. I look forward to your wholesale support of these vital progams.

    Or will you just tell me I'm dumb again, and part of the Great Evil Right-Wing Neo-Con Oil Conspiracy (tm)?

  19. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=frostlich;2516163]
    There's this one too:

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation[/url]

    Sorry Peakers, move on to something else like Y3K.

    Of course, I'm all for alternatives. I hate everyone's lives and livelihoods are so negatively affected.[/QUOTE]

    Very little has been concluded about the Bakken Oil Formation -- neither the totals, nor the feasibility of recovering a fraction of those totals, nor the timeframe any of it could occur in time to offset Peak. So, I wouldn't pat yourself on the back as if you're spiking a football in celebration at the 5-yardline.

    [url]http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2008/04/bakken-oil-formation-big-or-boondoggle.html[/url]

    [INDENT]* Bakken seems to have an undeniably large amount of oil in place, approximately 400 billion barrels.

    * The amount of that oil that's technically recoverable is open to wildly varying estimates, from 3% to 50%, or 12 to 200 billion barrels.

    *As for what Bakken means in the context of the peak oil discussion, it is what it is, as they say on at least one reality TV show. If in the coming years it turns out not to produce much oil per day, then it will have no discernible effect on projections of when the peak arrives or how tightly the oil crunch will squeeze us. If we are indeed on path for a 2011/2012 peak, then it's very hard to imagine how Bakken could come into play in a significant way before then.[/INDENT]

  20. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2516192]
    Or will you just tell me I'm dumb again, and part of the Great Evil Right-Wing Neo-Con Oil Conspiracy (tm)?[/QUOTE]

    When did I say the oil crisis was a "conspiracy?" You're not reading what I'm saying, at all, are you? Oil deplection is completely out of mankind's hands. If there's any "conspiracy," it's merely the global effort to dismiss Peak Oil and never speak of it.

    I didn't call you dumb. You portrayed yourself as dumb by insinuating you're sleeping through a global crisis until our problems match those of an island nation.

    The prices at the pump will affect far more than the affordability of your Sunday drives with the family. All your debatable solutions would be really nice on the conservation side of things, but they're not offsetting the fact that we are not finding viable, significant oil fields anymore.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us