Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
That's a very good point, PmU........do it when the costs are low, and also put people to work and stimulate the economy........that infrastructure work needs to be done, so why not now
That's a very good point, PmU........do it when the costs are low, and also put people to work and stimulate the economy........that infrastructure work needs to be done, so why not now
Yes, now would be good.
Unless Congress can find offsetting current spending, or raise additional revenues (taxes), this would be new debt. Which frankly, I would be perfectly fine with.
If you want to separate out refined, that's cool, but did you not then proceed to glom everything together? Including paragraphs on energy, which is yet another category. Sure, we do not consume much crude in the U S directly, it's true. It is almost all refined. I know that to be common knowledge among some. And note it is generally not legal to export crude, so that is a nonissue.
It was you who used that phrase 'not nearly enough', though. You added
>> You seem to want proof of that
which is one rude way of putting it, since the burden is on you to back up your 'not nearly enough' / 'common knowledge' assertion with data.
Yeah, we can both crawl through the E I A site for hours.
You stated:
>> I thought it was common knowledge that the US needs to import oil for our own use! We do a good job of finding and extracting oil, but it's not enough to meet our needs. So we are dependent on foreign sources.
And it is this that appears not to be true, though by the time you got into the paragraphs using 'energy', well, that is another separation-out. Still looking for substantiation of 'not enough to meet our needs'. It seems as though you're still saying that what a working U S-based oil broker stated today is not true:
\\\ We have plenty of domestic production of crude oil for our own use.
Well my third try at your question just might be the charm. My goal is a home run, but I just might strike out again by your assessment. Too bad, but that’s not worrisome to me.
In my original post on this topic, in my opening paragraph, I postulated that “I will likely use more if the price (gasoline) is lowered.”
My entire submittal totals 368 words with several points that I believe contribute to the discussion. Yet you solely glom onto a few words that are innocuous, are a soft projection, and are not pertinent to the primary thrust of the posting. That wastes time and resources.
Note my qualifiers (like “likely”) in that statement. Since it is about the future, I really don’t know how I will precisely react with any certainty.
In my second attempt to answer your question, I recognized conflicting considerations. Price is no longer a primary factor for me. But it is an important factor for many less wealthy citizens. I am more sensitive to environmental impacts, and my future decisions might well be dominated by that consideration. I simply don’t know.
In my second entry, I explored these tradeoffs in terms of buying another car as a practical example. Gasoline prices do impact the decision between a gas efficient auto or an SUV. It just might impact my purchasing decision. I really don’t know. My ultimate decision is hidden by the future.
Additionally, my statement is a personal feeling. It is not a fact like the United States is now composed of 57 States. Oops, that’s only a wrong misstatement voiced by President Obama.
Mistakes happen; folks misspeak; errors occur; interpretations differ. Internal, gut feelings are always part of a final decision. I don’t understand your emphasis on a minor generic comment that is not especially relevant to my main text. It obfuscates the flow of more important ideas.
I purposely violated your attempt to impose a 20 word limit on my reply. It is arrogant on your part to even suggest such a limit. I never tergiversate in my posts, but I always try to document them accurately. That takes words and references.
Although I only fact check a fraction of what I write, it is written without any intent towards evasiveness or misdirection. To reiterate, I do not tergiversate.
I welcome and honor the gut feelings of all MFO participants. I would greatly appreciate a reciprocal acknowledgement. I do not “feel” compelled to preserve a projected “feeling” either. Change happens, and to again quote J.M. Keynes, “When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind. What Do You Do, Sir?”
Thank you for reading my post so promptly. I just added another word to my vocabulary., tergiversate. We get some of those both in the political arena and in the investment world.
It’s good to know that our strategic oil reserve is near capacity. During the Cold War there was talk of converting some of these into missile silos. Fortunately, it never happened.
It is not especially worrisome to me that some of that reserve is sour crude. We get a lot of that high sulfur content crude from numerous sources. US refineries are equipped to process it with their specialized desulphurization units. That’s an extra step, and crude prices reflect it.
I find it far more worrisome that the USA inventory of refineries has been so stagnant over the last several decades. Here is the short list of new facilities that I uncovered from an Internet search:
It’s a small number. It is not impressive, and is not reassuring either.
California doesn’t have many refineries. Recently, the Exxon-Mobil refinery in Torrance, CA. suffered a pollution control precipitator explosion. Since February, the facility is operating at roughly 20% of capacity. The repair will not be completed for an extended period. Why so long puzzles me.
Economists estimate that the production shortfall caused by the failure has driven gasoline prices upward of $1.50 per gallon for Californians. My source is the LA Times.
Comments
Ummm, Congress??
Unless Congress can find offsetting current spending, or raise additional revenues (taxes), this would be new debt. Which frankly, I would be perfectly fine with.
What are the odds of any of those happening?
If you want to separate out refined, that's cool, but did you not then proceed to glom everything together? Including paragraphs on energy, which is yet another category. Sure, we do not consume much crude in the U S directly, it's true. It is almost all refined. I know that to be common knowledge among some. And note it is generally not legal to export crude, so that is a nonissue.
It was you who used that phrase 'not nearly enough', though. You added
>> You seem to want proof of that
which is one rude way of putting it, since the burden is on you to back up your 'not nearly enough' / 'common knowledge' assertion with data.
Yeah, we can both crawl through the E I A site for hours.
You stated:
>> I thought it was common knowledge that the US needs to import oil for our own use!
We do a good job of finding and extracting oil, but it's not enough to meet our needs. So we are dependent on foreign sources.
And it is this that appears not to be true, though by the time you got into the paragraphs using 'energy', well, that is another separation-out. Still looking for substantiation of 'not enough to meet our needs'. It seems as though you're still saying that what a working U S-based oil broker stated today is not true:
\\\ We have plenty of domestic production of crude oil for our own use.
I will take his informed word.
Well my third try at your question just might be the charm. My goal is a home run, but I just might strike out again by your assessment. Too bad, but that’s not worrisome to me.
In my original post on this topic, in my opening paragraph, I postulated that “I will likely use more if the price (gasoline) is lowered.”
My entire submittal totals 368 words with several points that I believe contribute to the discussion. Yet you solely glom onto a few words that are innocuous, are a soft projection, and are not pertinent to the primary thrust of the posting. That wastes time and resources.
Note my qualifiers (like “likely”) in that statement. Since it is about the future, I really don’t know how I will precisely react with any certainty.
In my second attempt to answer your question, I recognized conflicting considerations. Price is no longer a primary factor for me. But it is an important factor for many less wealthy citizens. I am more sensitive to environmental impacts, and my future decisions might well be dominated by that consideration. I simply don’t know.
In my second entry, I explored these tradeoffs in terms of buying another car as a practical example. Gasoline prices do impact the decision between a gas efficient auto or an SUV. It just might impact my purchasing decision. I really don’t know. My ultimate decision is hidden by the future.
Additionally, my statement is a personal feeling. It is not a fact like the United States is now composed of 57 States. Oops, that’s only a wrong misstatement voiced by President Obama.
Mistakes happen; folks misspeak; errors occur; interpretations differ. Internal, gut feelings are always part of a final decision. I don’t understand your emphasis on a minor generic comment that is not especially relevant to my main text. It obfuscates the flow of more important ideas.
I purposely violated your attempt to impose a 20 word limit on my reply. It is arrogant on your part to even suggest such a limit. I never tergiversate in my posts, but I always try to document them accurately. That takes words and references.
Although I only fact check a fraction of what I write, it is written without any intent towards evasiveness or misdirection. To reiterate, I do not tergiversate.
I welcome and honor the gut feelings of all MFO participants. I would greatly appreciate a reciprocal acknowledgement. I do not “feel” compelled to preserve a projected “feeling” either. Change happens, and to again quote J.M. Keynes, “When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind. What Do You Do, Sir?”
What Do You Do, Sir?
Best Wishes.
Thank you for reading my post so promptly. I just added another word to my vocabulary., tergiversate. We get some of those both in the political arena and in the investment world.
Best Wishes.
>> a few words that are innocuous, are a soft projection, and are not pertinent
Very good.
It’s good to know that our strategic oil reserve is near capacity. During the Cold War there was talk of converting some of these into missile silos. Fortunately, it never happened.
It is not especially worrisome to me that some of that reserve is sour crude. We get a lot of that high sulfur content crude from numerous sources. US refineries are equipped to process it with their specialized desulphurization units. That’s an extra step, and crude prices reflect it.
I find it far more worrisome that the USA inventory of refineries has been so stagnant over the last several decades. Here is the short list of new facilities that I uncovered from an Internet search:
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=29&t=6
It’s a small number. It is not impressive, and is not reassuring either.
California doesn’t have many refineries. Recently, the Exxon-Mobil refinery in Torrance, CA. suffered a pollution control precipitator explosion. Since February, the facility is operating at roughly 20% of capacity. The repair will not be completed for an extended period. Why so long puzzles me.
Economists estimate that the production shortfall caused by the failure has driven gasoline prices upward of $1.50 per gallon for Californians. My source is the LA Times.
Literally, that’s money we’re just burning away.
Best Wishes.