Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2 ... ump-prices" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The result is that pump prices have jumped 20 cents a gallon in the past month alone, according to data from the Energy Information Administration, and Republicans are beginning to use the energy inflation as a political talking point.
But the pain has been inflicted unevenly across the country, with consumers on the coasts paying much higher prices than those in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain regions, where supplies of oil are plentiful.
One reason crude is so plentiful in the Midwest is that new production technologies have boosted production in oilfields that were once thought to be exhausted or too costly to develop. After two decades of steady decline, total U.S. oil production began rising again in 2009, according to the EIA. Increased production from Canadian tar sands fields also has boosted Midwest supplies.
But as domestic and Canadian production have risen, pipeline bottlenecks have cropped up – especially over the 500 miles from Cushing, Okla., to Houston, the nation’s largest oil shipping port and home to about half its refining capacity.

“We lack infrastructure to catch up with the fact that there's been this big change in oil production,” said Yergin. “Eight years ago, North Dakota was not the fourth-largest oil producing state in the country. So we need new pipelines, and the lack of those pipelines -- the lack of catching up -- is reflected in the disparity (in prices).”
Until last year, the benchmark price of U.S. crude based on Cushing delivery, known as West Texas Intermediate, closely tracked the global benchmark, called Brent North Sea.

But in the past year, as rising supplies of captive Midwest supplies depressed prices, the gap widened to once-unimaginable levels. By last fall, the discount for West Texas Intermediate had widened to as much as $30 a barrel before shrinking back to about half as much.


Conks??

Sure, and if we locked you in a room with 5 pubescent Russian gymnasts, 3 pounds of tart gummy bears, 10 boxes of tissues and a quart of KY...

...you'd take a nap.

Reality and fantasy.

Learn the difference, Cappie.

Cap'n Cat wrote:http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2 ... ump-prices

The result is that pump prices have jumped 20 cents a gallon in the past month alone, according to data from the Energy Information Administration, and Republicans are beginning to use the energy inflation as a political talking point.
But the pain has been inflicted unevenly across the country, with consumers on the coasts paying much higher prices than those in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain regions, where supplies of oil are plentiful.
One reason crude is so plentiful in the Midwest is that new production technologies have boosted production in oilfields that were once thought to be exhausted or too costly to develop. After two decades of steady decline, total U.S. oil production began rising again in 2009, according to the EIA. Increased production from Canadian tar sands fields also has boosted Midwest supplies.
But as domestic and Canadian production have risen, pipeline bottlenecks have cropped up – especially over the 500 miles from Cushing, Okla., to Houston, the nation’s largest oil shipping port and home to about half its refining capacity.

“We lack infrastructure to catch up with the fact that there's been this big change in oil production,” said Yergin. “Eight years ago, North Dakota was not the fourth-largest oil producing state in the country. So we need new pipelines, and the lack of those pipelines -- the lack of catching up -- is reflected in the disparity (in prices).”
Until last year, the benchmark price of U.S. crude based on Cushing delivery, known as West Texas Intermediate, closely tracked the global benchmark, called Brent North Sea.

But in the past year, as rising supplies of captive Midwest supplies depressed prices, the gap widened to once-unimaginable levels. By last fall, the discount for West Texas Intermediate had widened to as much as $30 a barrel before shrinking back to about half as much.


Conks??

Isn't that what Obama wants? Higher gas prices right? Then why did he block it then?

This thread raises gas prices.

Huh? A pipeline that woud relieve a current bottleneck in distributing excess oil to places that don't have excess oil would raise gas prices? Cappy, are you sure you understood the article?

GannonFan wrote:Huh? A pipeline that woud relieve a current bottleneck in distributing excess oil to places that don't have excess oil would raise gas prices? Cappy, are you sure you understood the article?

I did. Did you?

Need infrastructure to accomplish what you're talking about.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Huh? A pipeline that woud relieve a current bottleneck in distributing excess oil to places that don't have excess oil would raise gas prices? Cappy, are you sure you understood the article?

I did. Did you?

Need infrastructure to accomplish what you're talking about.

Wasn't the big stimulus bill supposed to fund infrastructure?

Less than 10% percent funded infrastructure projects.

More than half went to pork and transfer payments to Obama donors and constituent groups.

Thank you, President Obama.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

I did. Did you?

Need infrastructure to accomplish what you're talking about.

Wasn't the big stimulus bill supposed to fund infrastructure?

Less than 10% percent funded infrastructure projects.

More than half went to pork and transfer payments to Obama donors and constituent groups.

Thank you, President Obama.

It was going to roads and cops and teachers and is still being issued.



Nevertheless, you are avoiding, as Conks do. Oil infrastructure is what's needed, a-hole. AND WITH THE MASSIVE PROFITS OIL CO'S ARE REALIZING, THEY CAN SPEND IT ON THEIR OWN DIME, NOT THROUGH TAX BREAKS AND OTHER SUCH CORPORATE WELFARE.

Guess I told you, son.

Cappy, I still think you're not getting it, and frankly, the article itself is really just a slapped togther thing. Your assertion that Big Oil is making all the money they do because of tax breaks is just absurd. Even the most optimistic assessment says that cutting tax breaks for the oil companies would only bring in something like $1-2 billion a year in extra revenue. Sure, that's not pennies, but those oil companies have revenues of over $1 trillion a year. So you're talking about something like 0.1% of their revenues. I agree, maybe they should just give that money back because it won't hurt them in the least, but it won't make a dent in our problems in term of revenue either.

And who said taxpayers were going to pay for the construction of this pipeline? TransCanada and Conoco were paying for it.

You're assuming that the good captain reads more than just the headline

Bronco wrote:

OK. I lol'ed.

Gil Dobie wrote:This thread raises gas prices.

Wouldn't surprise me.......they've used every excuse in the book.

GannonFan wrote:Cappy, I still think you're not getting it, and frankly, the article itself is really just a slapped togther thing. Your assertion that Big Oil is making all the money they do because of tax breaks is just absurd. Even the most optimistic assessment says that cutting tax breaks for the oil companies would only bring in something like $1-2 billion a year in extra revenue. Sure, that's not pennies, but those oil companies have revenues of over $1 trillion a year. So you're talking about something like 0.1% of their revenues. I agree, maybe they should just give that money back because it won't hurt them in the least, but it won't make a dent in our problems in term of revenue either.

And who said taxpayers were going to pay for the construction of this pipeline? TransCanada and Conoco were paying for it.

Don't get yourself all upset...

...Cappie was just dropping one in the pool to watch the reaction:



No person with an education actually believes the nonsense in that article.

travelinman67 wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Cappy, I still think you're not getting it, and frankly, the article itself is really just a slapped togther thing. Your assertion that Big Oil is making all the money they do because of tax breaks is just absurd. Even the most optimistic assessment says that cutting tax breaks for the oil companies would only bring in something like $1-2 billion a year in extra revenue. Sure, that's not pennies, but those oil companies have revenues of over $1 trillion a year. So you're talking about something like 0.1% of their revenues. I agree, maybe they should just give that money back because it won't hurt them in the least, but it won't make a dent in our problems in term of revenue either.

And who said taxpayers were going to pay for the construction of this pipeline? TransCanada and Conoco were paying for it.

Don't get yourself all upset...

...Cappie was just dropping one in the pool to watch the reaction:



No person with an education actually believes the nonsense in that article.

People one HELLUVA lot smarter than you wrote that, T. And, they're right. Just not in your world.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Don't get yourself all upset...

...Cappie was just dropping one in the pool to watch the reaction:



No person with an education actually believes the nonsense in that article.

People one HELLUVA lot smarter than you wrote that, T. And, they're right. Just not in your world.

Obama and the extremists are spinning his anti-carbon decision during a political cycle.

Killing the Keystone pipeline ultimately increases energy costs to Americans.

The article is spin, Cappie...

...and you're either selling it, swallowing it, or rejecting it...

...but it's not reality.

travelinman67 wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

People one HELLUVA lot smarter than you wrote that, T. And, they're right. Just not in your world.

Obama and the extremists are spinning his anti-carbon decision during a political cycle.

Killing the Keystone pipeline ultimately increases energy costs to Americans.

The article is spin, Cappie...

...and you're either selling it, swallowing it, or rejecting it...

...but it's not reality.

Sorry, T. The Cap'n respectfully disagrees with you. And I hope Obama keeps protecting the environment from the ravages of oil.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Obama and the extremists are spinning his anti-carbon decision during a political cycle.

Killing the Keystone pipeline ultimately increases energy costs to Americans.

The article is spin, Cappie...

...and you're either selling it, swallowing it, or rejecting it...

...but it's not reality.

Sorry, T. The Cap'n respectfully disagrees with you. And I hope Obama keeps protecting the environment from the ravages of oil.

So tell us about that bicycle you ride to work each morning Cap'n...

Rob Iola wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Sorry, T. The Cap'n respectfully disagrees with you. And I hope Obama keeps protecting the environment from the ravages of oil.

So tell us about that bicycle you ride to work each morning Cap'n...

Bicycle? Fvck. Public transportation, Mugsy.

I don't see what good a new pipeline is as long as we have maxed out our refinery capacity.

Pwns wrote:I don't see what good a new pipeline is as long as we have maxed out our refinery capacity.

We have???? Half of them are always closed or not operating at max capacity.......

mainejeff wrote:

Pwns wrote:I don't see what good a new pipeline is as long as we have maxed out our refinery capacity.

We have???? Half of them are always closed or not operating at max capacity.......

Yeah, the oil companies and their cronies have failed to upgrade their infrastructure. The suspicious Cat in me says it is on purpose, too. Just like most large businesses, don't invest in that shit (with their record profits), but, rather, protect the pile of cash. AND, if you can get credits and loopholes from the public tit, then and only then, doit. S L O W L Y...........I F A T A L L.....