$30 a Barrel Oil

Published on November 15th, 2008

Gee, how does this work for you? The stuff just keeps coming.

Bloomberg.com: Energy — When you start to see stories like this it means it will never happen and the bottom is near. It may be there now. This was exemplified by all the $200 a barrel predictions followed by a plummet. Give it a couple more weeks. Supply and demand, HAR! And never overlook the fact that oil trades at a relative $25 forever. While the experts predict eventual upward price swings, history indicates the opposite.

Oil traders made their biggest bet yet that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will fail to prevent crude prices from plunging below $30 a barrel. Trades in crude-oil options contracts that would allow the holder to sell oil for February delivery at $30 a barrel reached 1,407 on the New York Mercantile Exchange yesterday, making the contract the day’s second-most active, exchange data show.

OPEC, the supplier of about 40 percent of the world’s oil, plans to meet Nov. 29 in Cairo to discuss another output cut after crude oil touched $54.67 a barrel, a 21-month low, yesterday. The 13-member organization cut production by 1.5 million barrels a day at a meeting in Vienna last month.

“Somebody is buying a little bit of insurance with a very deep out-of-the-money put option,” said Tim Evans, an energy analyst with Citi Futures Perspective in New York. “It’s very exciting to think about $30 oil, but are we going there? Most likely not.”

55 users responded in " $30 a Barrel Oil "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Brett said, on November 15th, 2008 at 7:55 pm

Wait.

Canada?!?

# 2 QB said, on November 15th, 2008 at 8:02 pm

Yup, Canada. We’re the biggest external supplier of energy the US from Oil, Gas, Hyrdoelectric, coal fired generation, and nuclear.

$40 – $60 is reasonable. At $40 production starts tripping off. At $30 it really starts going offline automatically in a big way.

The big problem is producing reserves decline at 9% per year. With rising worldwide demand and dropping supply it’ll bounce back up eventually.

# 3 Auto Industry said, on November 15th, 2008 at 8:04 pm

I guess that the GM Exec Mr. Lutz was correct when he said that we all will all be driving suvs
Guess these auto exec people are worth the big bonuses they are paid for running the auto industry sector so well

# 4 gquaglia said, on November 15th, 2008 at 8:09 pm

The best part of cheap oil is that scumbag nations like Iran and Venezuela, that count on oil for survival, are sucking major wind. Poetic justice I say.

# 5 Mark Derail said, on November 15th, 2008 at 8:16 pm

People have started driving way faster on the highways now.

# 6 Pete said, on November 15th, 2008 at 8:23 pm

#1 Tar sands in Alberta. They have about 300 billion barrels of oil. But with prices of crude rising, production will slow down.

# 7 Malcolm said, on November 15th, 2008 at 8:26 pm

John: You’re really not that dumb, are you?

# 8 McCullough said, on November 15th, 2008 at 8:43 pm

As long as “they” are allowed to continue the manipulation of oil prices…the point is lost on me.

# 9 Someone said, on November 15th, 2008 at 9:18 pm

We love you, Canada! (You know that, right?)

# 10 moss said, on November 15th, 2008 at 9:34 pm

Yup, the IEA cut 2009 estimates to $80 bbl. But, they don’t listen to JCD, either.

# 11 jbenson2 said, on November 15th, 2008 at 9:48 pm

Pardon me if I seem skeptical.

I just finished listening to John C Dvorak’s comments on TWIT 165 (recorded 1 month ago).

At 23 minutes 30 seconds, John’s prediction:

“I think that once the Presidential election is finished, that we are going to have an upswing in the market in general that will eliminate this fear, this short-term freakiness, that is out there.” (10/19/2008)

Ooops!

# 12 Glenn E. said, on November 15th, 2008 at 9:48 pm

When they start buying and selling clean air, the way Al Gore proposes (indirectly), as a luxury commodity, that too will have an greatly inflated price. I think we’re well past the point, in the 21th century, when oil usage came be considered a luxury commodity, like tea, coffee, and bananas, that we can simply just do without it for a while. But all of our leaders and statesmen continue to defend an exploitative market of oil’s import and sales. Is there also such a market for Plutonium and Uranium? And if not (as I suspect), why the hell not?! Isn’t it a luxury commodity too? Or does fueling power plants with it, get a better deal, than oil and coal?

The problem isn’t just what that the OPEC and non-OPEC oil producing nations conspire to limit their output. But that the international trading market has jacked the price per barrel up to whatever floats their boat. And just like the real estate market in the US, it was way over valued. Not it appears to be either correcting or falling, much faster and lower, than simply could be accounted for by a little belt tightening of US drivers. I’ve also noticed that food is still pretty damn costly, in spite of falling gas prices. And yet more costly gas was the reason give for it’s increase. Well I still paid nearly $4 last week for a gallon of milk. While the gas stations up the road just dropped prices to $1.95 a gallon. Oh let me guess, winter milk costs more. Well it never did before!!

We’re being gouged, there’s little doubt about it. Gouged at the grocery stores, gouged at the pumps (before, we were), gouged at the auto dealers, gouged at the airports. It’s all been a game of “what the market can bare”, as oppose to charging a fair markup over cost. I’ve seen these little ultra-bright LED
devices at our dollar store. But the big hardware chain stores sell the very same thing for $10!! And Radio Shack sells the bulb alone for $4!! How are they justifying a five fold markup? Give me a break.

I think the oil and gasoline industry just got spooked that Hybrid and economy car sales might take off. So they’re bottoming out the price, as they’ve stored away enough profit fat, to last them a while. And they hope to smash another trend, at using less gas. If they can keep it under $2 a gallon, for most of next year, they’ll probably succeed. The US will be back to livin in SUV gas hog heaven.

# 13 Ah-Yea said, on November 15th, 2008 at 9:52 pm

I believe the oil industry jumped the shark when gas hit $4.00/gal.

We saw the prospect of our way of life going to hell in a handbasket, and we couldn’t stop it.

Lower fuel prices may slow the trend to our self-reliance, but not stop it.

Hybrids and electrics. Enough said.

# 14 ECA said, on November 15th, 2008 at 10:18 pm

I want you folks to do alittle math..

In the USA
TAX $0.70 per gallon
Much of the world(inc. Canada)
Tax is 30-50% of the price of gas.

Price of gas at $5 per gallon..
$4.30 to the GAS corp, $0.70 to TAX
Canada and OTHERS..
$2.50-$3 to the corp, $2.00-2.50 to TAX..

What is happening is that N. America is playing POKER, and BLUFFING the other nations to USE/NOT USE their oil..
THINK about the amount of money that ends up in the middle east.
THINK about the STOCK MARKET INFLATION…
The middle EAST didnt change price that much, the MARKET DID.
when the USA gov, threatens to use resources LOCAL, insted of IMPORTs.. It scares the market.

# 15 brian t said, on November 16th, 2008 at 12:01 am

#4 gquaglia: Iran sucking wind? Um… no, they’re #3 behind Saudi and Canada. Very little refining capacity, however. Iraq is #4.

That’s what the US needs to build in Iraq: refineries. It would be some compensation, to the Iraqi people, for trashing their country. I think they are aware of this, it’s one reason Basra is so hotly-contested.

# 16 chris said, on November 16th, 2008 at 12:38 am

Oil could go lower than $30, just don’t invest with that assumption.

I think that the $150 a barrel was because a lot of trading companies had lost big money on derivatives. They goosed the oil market in the same way Enron did when its derivative contracts\theft went bad. California blackouts were supply and demand too, right?

Now all these companies are at the federal teat. The story is out, no reason to risk getting caught rigging the market. If caught, the public might demand that your firm NOT get that bailout.

# 17 Glenn E. said, on November 16th, 2008 at 2:07 am

Actually, I thought that the price of oil, earlier this year, might be the result of the speculators moving from real estate to oil. That was before the mortgage banks began to fail. The biggest speculators were probably already out of mortgages by then, and skewing the oil stock prices. The reason food prices went up. Corn’s price was traded upward, out of speculation that it was an alternative fuel. Not because people were eating more of it, or large crop failures. So everything that depends on corn, cereals, meat production, diary, etc, has become more expensive because of speculation of corn crops as a domestic bio-fuel. Yeah, it fuels people’s tummies, damn it! Stop leaching off of the food supply!

# 18 soundwash said, on November 16th, 2008 at 2:18 am

i wish they’d just stop futzin around with the oil wars and just produce closed loop magnetic/hydrogen generators and the like.

highly efficient tech for this has
been around for decades.. spend some time
doing patent searches..most interesting.

hydrogen and the fight for fresh water will be the end game..watch for activity around large aquifers..locate a few, then see who/what is buying up the land around and above them. your findings will be most intriguing.

low oil $$ right now is just a way to bankrupt
and persuade Iran and a few other oil nations that aren’t playing “nice” with the CFR’s long term goals..

-and if that’s fresh water locked up on mars
well…

-s

# 19 Glenn E. said, on November 16th, 2008 at 2:36 am

BTW, I got to thinking that power plants might be designed to burn crude oil. And so it wouldn’t need to refined into so much gasoline to power cars. If cars just ran off of the electricity stored from the power plants’ output. I’ll bet we’re not hearing about how much energy is wasted by refineries, in reducing crude oil, to useful byproducts like gas. The thing is, no one want a refinery in their backyard. And town of sufficient affluence will be able to block new refinery development. Only the poorest communities get stuck with oil refineries. And usually they’re poor because they often ravaged by bad weather. Like a lot of the gulf coast is. So oil refineries end up in harms way, due to the land’s low real estate value. IOW, there are no refineries in Crawford Texas, and never will be.

But why not just burn crude oil, the way they burn coal now, in some power plants? Apparently this now being done overseas, but in the US, refined oil is still required.
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/riyadh/
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/shoaiba/
http://www.ch-non-food.com/powerpl2.html

# 20 LinusVP said, on November 16th, 2008 at 4:26 am

It’s like the dealer supplying the junkie with some freebies when the dealer heard that the junkie was entering rehab.

# 21 green said, on November 16th, 2008 at 5:04 am

Under $100/barrel for oil and Canadas’ tar sands aren’t economically viable.

# 22 pedro said, on November 16th, 2008 at 5:40 am

#4 Not enough yet, unfortunately. At least in the case of Venezuela. But it’s getting there. Next year’s budget was calculated with an oil price of 50 and it’s already around 46 and counting. And the state’s oil company is so much in debt that no one wants to extend credit to them.

Regardless, we are still paying all of cuba’s current season post-hurricanes rebuild. The congress just approved a 21.77 billion U.S. $ in help. All of this while the countrie’s infrastructure is rotting fast and no one is doing a thing.

This can hint you about two things: 1) If you think venezuela is not run by cuba, think again. 2) What a bunch of sleazebags, freeloaders and ignorant voters can do to a country.

#20 Some of this was done by retrofitting some power plants to do that with modified heavy crude oil. Venezuela (when it was something closer to a real country, not the mess it is today), created something called Orimulsion. http://tinyurl.com/6kmjx8

Some countries were even convinced to switch their power plants to Orimulsion with the promise of low cost constant and reliable supply. Then, the current jackass-in-power killed the thing, most likely ordered by cuba to do so.

I can imagine the faces of the people in those countries who fell for this thing just to be burned by chavez with his decision to let ‘em hanging.

# 23 QB said, on November 16th, 2008 at 5:51 am

#22 Green

The oil sands extraction process makes money at $35-40 a barrel for the companies with established, productive operations.

# 24 Mr. Fusion said, on November 16th, 2008 at 5:56 am

It was the price of oil that broke the economy. When the price of fuel slowed the economy people on the edge couldn’t pay their loans. Then all the new houses couldn’t be sold. Then the carpenters couldn’t get jobs building so they quit buying cars. And the laid off auto workers stopped going to Disney World. And … until we ended up in the mess we are today.

Our economy is based upon oil. Until recently oil was inexpensive and a relatively good way to hold energy. To get off of oil will require replacing it with something equally transportable. Whether that is high density capacitors or batteries or liquefied natural gas or propane I can’t answer. But it won’t be $150 or $200 /bbl oil.

# 25 Misanthropic Scott said, on November 16th, 2008 at 6:13 am

The real problem with these enormous price fluctuations is that neither business nor consumers know what to expect, leading everyone to make bad decisions.

One way to get rid of these fluctuations would be for the government to put a floor on the price of oil. Pick a number, $70/bbl, $100/bbl, whatever.

Then tax oil whenever the price drops below that price to keep it at that price. That would create some stability so that people would know that buying that prius really is better than buying that naggravator.

Businesses would know that buying insulation for their buildings to cut their heating costs pays.

It would take a tremendous amount of uncertainty out of the market by at least limiting some of the price swings.

Business hates uncertainty.

Consumers should hate it too. It caused people to end up filling their SUV tanks at %$4/gallon. And, if we let the price drop again for a while, it will cause the same thing again.

We the idiots will not do something just because it makes sense. It has to be the best choice for our wallets too. I have no idea why that is, but it is.

Anyone could have known (and everyone should have) that buying fuel efficient vehicles was a smart thing to do. We’ve known that since 1973. And yet …

# 26 Stars & Bars said, on November 16th, 2008 at 6:57 am

Gee, just a few months ago everyone was predicting $200 for a barrel of oil and now it’s $30. It will decline just a hair below $50 and then begin it’s assent again toward $100 before fluctuating between those two numbers for a while. Then it will shoot up to $250 much like it went to $160 before collapsing well below the $50 mark.

I don’t claim to have a crystal ball, I use a map. It’s called history.

#25 – Mr. Fusion

Re: “It was the price of oil that broke the economy.” Are you kidding me!!?

It was GOVERNMENT forcing banks to make home loans to people who didn’t qualified that crashed the economy.

The depression was going to happen but with GOVERNMENTS’ help it will be much much much worse.

# 27 loconavi said, on November 16th, 2008 at 7:03 am

Oil prices too high = Republicans f@#king us with free market policy.
Oil prices too low = Democrats f#@king us with want to add on more taxes and not invest in national refineries and drilling.

Either way we always get f#@ked!

# 28 Reader said, on November 16th, 2008 at 7:38 am

“Heralding a possible fresh cut in output, Naumam Barakat, of Macquarie Bank in New York, said that the latest downward revision seemed to indicate that Opec would like to withdraw another 1m b/d on top of the 1.5m b/d that the cartel cut about a month ago.

“If crude prices do not hold these price levels, the next test could be all the way down to the 2007 lows of $49.90 a barrel,” he said.” FT.com

Some say it could go back to the 100 range. The trend is down because we see the economic harm when it gets to those levels. It can’t keep enough demand at 100 to keep volume alive and the system lives off of volume.

They are talking about cutting volume now to support rising prices. I guess you could say that price fixing does not work. Killing volume to support higher prices kills prices because volume drops, so demand naturally doesn’t go higher. They need to sell more to make more. It’s like trying to keep a newspaper going by announcing that you are going to print less papers and charge more for the papers. You need to sell as much as people will buy at a price they can afford. A newspaper is 50 cents. If it was a dollar, circulation would drop. It’s dropping now and it’s dirt cheap. Oil was 140 and a paper was still 50 cents. The delivery costs created losses for the newspaper business. I guess at 50, it’s a 50-50 solution. Read the problems and prove them as originals.

# 29 QB said, on November 16th, 2008 at 7:40 am

On the price floor, wait for the dead cat bounce. On the artificial floor set by the government (#26 Scott), this is equivalent to the carbon tax which is supposed to encourage the sustained investment in green technologies.

It’s an interesting idea. Germany guaranteed a price for electricity so small producers could borrow the money to get into market. Currently they are on track to produce 20% of their electricity from renewable energy, mainly solar.

# 30 pedro said, on November 16th, 2008 at 8:26 am

#27 You forgot to add how much cheating the opec members incur. Whenever there’s a new production goal, be it up or down, some members say yes but in reality they start producing more than their accepted quota.

Regardless, due to the current economic situation, that new 1 to 1.5 million barrels cut they plan to do will achieve nothing.

# 31 Reader said, on November 16th, 2008 at 9:20 am

Pedro is right. Somebody will game the system to gain, while the others will cut and cut their own numbers down. People want more for less, it’s just human nature.

“However, inefficiency should not be associated with immorality. A utility function for a player is supposed to represent everything that player cares about, which may be anything at all. As we have described the situation of our prisoners they do indeed care only about their own relative prison sentences, but there is nothing essential in this. What makes a game an instance of the PD is strictly and only its payoff structure. Thus we could have two Mother Theresa types here, both of whom care little for themselves and wish only to feed starving children. But suppose the original Mother Theresa wishes to feed the children of Calcutta while Mother Juanita wishes to feed the children of Bogota. And suppose that the international aid agency will maximize its donation if the two saints nominate the same city, will give the second-highest amount if they nominate each others’ cities, and the lowest amount if they each nominate their own city. Our saints are in a PD here, though hardly selfish or unconcerned with the social good.

To return to our prisoners, suppose that, contrary to our assumptions, they do value each other’s well-being as well as their own. In that case, this must be reflected in their utility functions, and hence in their payoffs. If their payoff structures are changed, they will no longer be in a PD. But all this shows is that not every possible situation is a PD; it does not show that the threat of inefficient outcomes is a special artifact of selfishness. It is the logic of the prisoners’ situation, not their psychology, that traps them in the inefficient outcome, and if that really is their situation then they are stuck in it (barring further complications to be discussed below). Agents who wish to avoid inefficient outcomes are best advised to prevent certain games from arising; the defender of the possibility of hyper-rationality is really proposing that they try to dig themselves out of such games by turning themselves into different kinds of agents.”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/#IP

Price fixing ensures inefficient outcomes because markets are avoided or subverted to control that which is best left to markets. Oil at $140.00 clearly did not produce good results and oil at $40.00 is a result of market efficiency. The price fixing puts the consumer in a PD and prisoners do not make good consumers, so prices collapse. $40.00 a barrel is better for the consumers and there are more consumers voting than there are cartel members manipulating prices. People vote with their wallets so they will always win in the long-term. Winning consumers ensure winning suppliers. Demand will be met because there’s no shortage of oil, only a synthetic shortage. Let’s create shortages and then charge prices as if they are real. Stupid strategy. Oil is good and plenty, so it should not be inflated to reduce demand while raising prices. That will produce huge losses as recent history has proven. Gasoline should be under $2.00 a gallon soon, which will reduce price pressure on foods and other commodities which depend on fuel to get to market. Great news for older people on fixed incomes, some of which have seen huge ($2 trillion estimate) losses in retirement investments thanks to Wall Street shenanigans. The government is giving Wall Street more cash for more shenanigans. They’re bailing out the same people who gamed the system and lost. They’re rewarding immoral behavior. Wall Street was efficient, just not moral. The bailout is neither, because the market produces winners and losers without prejudice. You win some, you lose some. With gas at two bucks a gallon, you can’t complain.

# 32 MikeN said, on November 16th, 2008 at 10:12 am

Yes OPEC members will cheat any production cuts especially with revenue falling.

Also, Iran hasn’t acted up in awhile, so some of the war premium has disappeared.

I would say $45 is the right price, and perhaps things will shoot past that with so much extra production coming on line.

By the way what does the $30 price in the article mean? Is the seller required to sell at that price, or is he merely guaranteed a buyer if he chooses to sell?

# 33 MikeN said, on November 16th, 2008 at 10:14 am

#25, that doesn’t prevent fluctuations above your price floor. You just don’t like cheap oil.

To prevent fluctuations, they should fix the dollar to gold, and it would add some stability.

# 34 pedro said, on November 16th, 2008 at 10:41 am

Meanwhile, OPEC president says he sees a production cut unlikely.

http://tinyurl.com/6hz26q

# 35 pedro said, on November 16th, 2008 at 10:43 am

Oops, clicked too soon.

The reasons he cites is the failure of OPEC members to uphold the previous production cuts goal.

Ha!

# 36 jealousmonk said, on November 16th, 2008 at 10:58 am

If oil and gas rise it will have more to do with artificially low interest rates, deficit spending and industry bailouts and other inflationary practices.

If alternative energy gains traction, it will drive oil and gas prices down. This will unhinge the greenies because each time oil and gas go down, it makes alternatives less advantageous, economically speaking.

# 37 brendal said, on November 16th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Only for you ECON grads out there:

And why do we call it the line of equilibrium? Because a horse isn’t a horse of course!

# 38 Mr. Fusion said, on November 16th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

#26, Confederate Traitor,

#25 – Mr. Fusion

Re: “It was the price of oil that broke the economy.” Are you kidding me!!?

It was GOVERNMENT forcing banks to make home loans to people who didn’t qualified that crashed the economy.

Can you provide a link (other than Rush Limbaugh or O’Reilly) that shows the government “forced” banks to make loans? Not that they couldn’t discriminate in their loans, but that they had to make loans to unqualified people that they wouldn’t make to other people. Then provide some numbers that lower income people are in a higher default rate than other borrowers.

Until then shut the eff up with the “government forcing those nice bankers to make loans they didn’t want to”.

# 39 MikeN said, on November 16th, 2008 at 3:13 pm

The anti-discrimination push was the very force he is talking about. The government claimed that banks weren’t lending to minorities, while the banks decided they were not as credit-worthy and others decided was racism. But of course you knew that already.

# 40 eddie said, on November 16th, 2008 at 3:14 pm

#24 Mr. Fusion

Nailed It. I would go back one step further, though. Supporting our out of control government spending requires smokin’ hot GDP growth. So the Fed responded to political pressure by turning up the oven and now we’re (over) cooked.

# 41 pedro said, on November 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pm

#38 Use Da Google, Luke.

# 42 Stars & Bars said, on November 16th, 2008 at 4:30 pm

#38 Mr. CommieFusion

I can do better then that! Here it is from the Bitch’s Mouth!!!

“We have also focused on the problem of redlining by lenders and insurance companies. This past August we reached an agreement with Allbank of New York. We alleged that the bank had carved out and refused to make loans in urban minority enclaves within the bank’s lending areas in Connecticut and Westchester County, New York. The settlement with Allbank requires it to make $55 million in loans at below-market rate in the areas previously redlined.”

http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/ag/speeches/1998/0320_agcom.htm

Assault on the mortgage lenders: in the name of racial justice, the Clintonites want the power to decide who gets a home of his own – efforts to impose regulations on banks to make loans even if applicants are not creditworthy.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n25_v45/ai_14779796

Here is a speech by Puppet-elect Obama.
http://tinyurl.com/4y866x

# 43 deowll said, on November 16th, 2008 at 8:31 pm

If the farmer already spent his money on high priced feed due to high priced fuel last summer you aren’t going to get cheap food instantly. Get over it.

What scares me is that the tar sands of Canada aren’t worth mining at $30.00 a barrel. If that closes… we are back to middle east oil and the price will go up even in a down economy.

Besides its the world economy that matters not just you own local pond.

# 44 pedro said, on November 17th, 2008 at 4:13 am

#43 Sorry for Canada, but I really hope it falls below 30. Although I must admit I don’t think is gonna happen.

# 45 Misanthropic Scott said, on November 17th, 2008 at 9:47 am

#33 – MikeN,

#25, that doesn’t prevent fluctuations above your price floor. You just don’t like cheap oil.

To prevent fluctuations, they should fix the dollar to gold, and it would add some stability.

Fixing the dollar to gold might be a good idea. However, setting a price floor quite obviously does take away a lot of the range of the fluctuation. If the floor is set at $100, then the range of prices may be from $100 – $140 or so. If there is no floor, then the range is $25 – $140. Of course the latter is more of a fluctuation.

And, yes, I don’t like cheap oil because there’s no such thing as cheap oil. The price per barrel is low because the vast majority of the costs are externalized. If some butthead is driving around in a Humper, Naggravator, Land Bruiser, or whatever, I am subsidizing the majority of the cost of said butthead’s fuel in my tax bill.

Tell me why I should be happy about that?

http://tinyurl.com/6y847h

# 46 Paddy-O said, on November 17th, 2008 at 9:57 am

# 45 Misanthropic Scott said, ” I am subsidizing the majority of the cost of said butthead’s fuel in my tax bill.”

And how does THAT work exactly? Unless, you are talking about Oil companies not paying mineral rights payments like Palin enforced and raised in AK.

But, that would be very little as most of our oil is from foreign sources

# 47 MikeN said, on November 17th, 2008 at 10:31 am

He means that he is paying taxes that that guy could have been paying in gas taxes.

I’d rather have $25 oil sometimes with fluctuations than a fixed $100.

# 48 Paddy-O said, on November 17th, 2008 at 10:38 am

# 47 MikeN said, “He means that he is paying taxes that that guy could have been paying in gas taxes.”

That’s hilarious and assumes you WANT a gov’t with run away spending.

# 49 Misanthropic Scott said, on November 17th, 2008 at 12:18 pm

#46 – Paddy-O,

# 45 Misanthropic Scott said, ” I am subsidizing the majority of the cost of said butthead’s fuel in my tax bill.”

And how does THAT work exactly?

I knew that you did not know how to post a link. I assumed you’d know how to read one. My mistake. The answer is in the link in the post. I’m not going to post the entire text of a large PDF.

#47 – MikeN,

He means that he is paying taxes that that guy could have been paying in gas taxes.

No. I mean that I am literally paying about 80% of the cost of the gallon of gasoline. Read the link.

#48 – Paddy-O,

That’s hilarious and assumes you WANT a gov’t with run away spending.

No. It means I want the government to STOP run away spending of my money on oil. It means I want the costs paid for on the spot by the consumer, rather than in my income tax bill after filtering it through a corrupt government hell-bent on burning as much oil as possible because they get kickbacks from the oil companies.

# 50 Paddy-O said, on November 17th, 2008 at 12:24 pm

# 49 Misanthropic Scott said, “I knew that you did not know how to post a link. I assumed you’d know how to read one. My mistake. The answer is in the link in the post.”

What an idiot. Here’s the result of your link…

The page – http://www.google.com/url%3Fsa%3Dt&source%3Dweb&ct%3Dres&cd%3D1&url%3Dhttp:%2F%2Fwww.icta.org%2Fdoc%2FReal%2520Price%2520of%2520Gasoline.pdf&ei%3DFq4hSeykFofcer2o1dIG&usg%3DAFQjCNHqvQpmGxj5plGuZA0LHFx192gcKw&sig2%3D7GoqNYCs6plhH2906GvgNw – does not exist.

# 51 MikeN said, on November 17th, 2008 at 12:32 pm

A link that actually works would help. Most of those studies are bogus, taking tax credits used by all companies as special subsidies for oil companies. I’ve even seen one study that claimed spending money on roads and bridges was a subsidy for the oil companies.

# 52 MikeN said, on November 17th, 2008 at 3:37 pm

#50, laugh out loud, he blames you for not knowing how to post a link!

# 53 Misanthropic Scott said, on November 17th, 2008 at 5:18 pm

#50 – Paddy-O,

Yay me!! I finally taught you to post a link. It happens to be my own failed link. But, you posted a link.

Here. Try it without the tinyurl.

http://www.icta.org/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf

# 54 Misanthropic Scott said, on November 17th, 2008 at 5:59 pm

#51 – MikeN,

How about the war in Iraq. Surely you’re not going to claim that there’s some other reason we’re there, right? How about all of the money we spend around the world to keep the oil wells safe so that ExxonMobil can get to the oil?

Do those count? Does the money from Ex/Im bank count? Even if other corps get it too, corporate welfare is corporate welfare.

# 55 Mister Mustard said, on November 17th, 2008 at 6:24 pm

#53 – Scottie

>>It happens to be my own failed link.
>>But, you posted a link.

Paddy O’Pinocchio is very derivative. He can only follow someone else’s lead, even if his leader makes a mistake. I’ve been waiting with bated breath for him to ever post a link of his own, but I got light-headed from hypoxia and and to give up. He has no links anyway. He just makes up all that shit he posts. No need to tell the truth when you’re Paddy O’Pinocchio. That 4mpg stretch limo he rides in back and forth to his job at Radio Shack has plenty of room for his nose, no matter how long it grows.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!