Why Democrats don't want to lower gas prices

[jyro]

Senator lets cat out of the bag on Bloomberg TV show

WASHINGTON – A Democratic senator on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee inadvertently explained why her colleagues have no intention of ending the moratorium on offshore oil drilling or increasing the areas open for exploration and production – no matter how popular the idea might be with gas prices soaring.

In an interview with Bloomberg TV's "Money and Politics" last night, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., explained Democrats don't want to increase supplies of oil and gasoline because they want to wean Americans off of petroleum products.

Asked point-blank if Democrats in the Senate would consider how increasing the supply of oil would lower the prices that are pinching U.S. consumers, Cantwell replied: "Oh, we definitely want to move beyond petroleum. And so there will be a supply side offered by the Democrats and it will include everything from battery technology to making sure that we have good home domestic supply, and looking, as I said about moving faster on those kind of things like wind and solar that can help us with our high cost of natural gas."

The point was underlined by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who said Democrats are not even permitting debate on legislation and amendments designed to increase the supply of oil and gasoline to U.S. consumers.

"Today, the appropriations markup that was going to include amendments that would open up the outer continental shelf and maybe even shale in Colorado and Utah was canceled," she told the same Bloomberg interviewer. "It wasn't postponed, it was canceled. So that indicates to me that the majority is not going to try to have an open debate, but I hope I'm wrong. If they have an open debate, and we're allowed to have amendments, and we have a balanced plan that includes production in all the sectors, then I believe we can meet this problem in a bipartisan way, and that's what we should be doing for America."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70337

[gpamp]

Wait... you mean to tell me that Democrats realize that gas prices, in the long run, will never go down even close to where the were a year ago, so rather than spend taxpayer money trying to pass bills to artificially/temporarily lower the cost of fuel, they'd rather look beyond, to the future, and find an energy source that would not only be more cost effective, but harm our environment less?

What are they thinking?!?!?

[Taylor]

Wait... you mean to tell me that Democrats realize that gas prices, in the long run, will never go down even close to where the were a year ago, so rather than spend taxpayer money trying to pass bills to artificially/temporarily lower the cost of fuel, they'd rather look beyond, to the future, and find an energy source that would not only be more cost effective, but harm our environment less?

What are they thinking?!?!?

Short-term relief isn't going to prevent or suspend innovation of a renewable energy source. That's terrible logic for not increasing drilling or at least attempting to bring the prices down until we move on to a different energy source.

[bcoop]

Wait... you mean to tell me that Democrats realize that gas prices, in the long run, will never go down even close to where the were a year ago, so rather than spend taxpayer money trying to pass bills to artificially/temporarily lower the cost of fuel, they'd rather look beyond, to the future, and find an energy source that would not only be more cost effective, but harm our environment less?

What are they thinking?!?!?



LMFAO! Worst response, ever. I'm surprised to see you had time to respond to this thread, with the bitch slapping you are taking in the other thread. Figured you had enough to keep your head in a dictionary for a few days, at least! :eek:

http://www.dfwstangs.net/forums/showthread.php?t=365706

[bcoop]

Short-term relief isn't going to prevent or suspend innovation of a renewable energy source. That's terrible logic for not increasing drilling or at least attempting to bring the prices down until we move on to a different energy source.




It's not like crude oil fell a decent amount when Bush lifted the Executive Ban or anything. I'm sure glad Congress knows what to ignore better than we do.

[Taylor]

It's not like crude oil fell a decent amount when Bush lifted the Executive Ban or anything. I'm sure glad Congress knows what to ignore better than we do.

Right!!

[slow99]

I'm sure glad Congress knows what to ignore better than we do.

Too bad they didn't ignore the "speculator, hedge fund" hype that's been getting so much media play lately. Hell, I think it was a 94-0 vote today.

[gpamp]

LMFAO! Worst response, ever. I'm surprised to see you had time to respond to this thread, with the bitch slapping you are taking in the other thread. Figured you had enough to keep your head in a dictionary for a few days, at least! :eek:

http://www.dfwstangs.net/forums/showthread.php?t=365706
Haha. You totally discredited my post! You're a genius! :rolleyes:

[mikeb]

Lets move past the drill/no drill argument for a minute and look at what the legislators are doing. Remember that their job is to REPRESENT the people, who clearly want relief at the pump/meter. Instead we have elected eco-nazis following their own strict personal agendas/beliefs ("move past petroleum"); after all, they know what is best for us :rolleyes:

I guess that it has never occurred to them that it doesn't have to be an all or nothing kind of deal. We can work on both the supply side as well as the conservation side while continuing to look for alternative fuel sources. Instead the eco-nazis are rubbing their hands in glee at the opportunity to force their brand of radicalism by way of hard times to the US citizen and business owner. The cost of this approach is unsustainable.

I look for a lot of democrats to get a boot in the ass come the next election.

[black01gt]

Asked point-blank if Democrats in the Senate would consider how increasing the supply of oil would lower the prices that are pinching U.S. consumers, Cantwell replied: "Oh, we definitely want to move beyond petroleum.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70337
Well hell...let's just go ahead and move beyond cancer while we're at it.

[Slowhand]

Wait... you mean to tell me that Democrats realize that gas prices, in the long run, will never go down even close to where the were a year ago, so rather than spend taxpayer money trying to pass bills to artificially/temporarily lower the cost of fuel, they'd rather look beyond, to the future, and find an energy source that would not only be more cost effective, but harm our environment less?

What are they thinking?!?!?

You're fucking insane. You can't even see past your own party lines to see how wrong your representatives are.

[Fox466]

Well hell...let's just go ahead and move beyond cancer while we're at it.


What a fantastic analogy! I say let's move beyond using the sun as a provider of illumination and heat!

[03WhiteGT]

Lets move past the drill/no drill argument for a minute and look at what the legislators are doing. Remember that their job is to REPRESENT the people, who clearly want relief at the pump/meter. Instead we have elected eco-nazis following their own strict personal agendas/beliefs ("move past petroleum"); after all, they know what is best for us :rolleyes:

I guess that it has never occurred to them that it doesn't have to be an all or nothing kind of deal. We can work on both the supply side as well as the conservation side while continuing to look for alternative fuel sources. Instead the eco-nazis are rubbing their hands in glee at the opportunity to force their brand of radicalism by way of hard times to the US citizen and business owner. The cost of this approach is unsustainable.

I look for a lot of democrats to get a boot in the ass come the next election.

So true

[Vertnut]

Well hell...let's just go ahead and move beyond cancer while we're at it.
Quite a reach there, Stretch. Cancer vs. oil? :cool:

It's not the fucking Dems job to "wean us" from petroleum products.

[GT98SVO]

I think the powers against offshore drilling is bunch of bs.

I worked on Prudhoe Bay oilfield in Alaska. The oilfield was clean as can be, generated tons of jobs, and never hurt the environment.

The offshore drill sites can be made to be clean and safe as well, when regulated competently.

The filling and unfilling of the crude reserves give us a small bargaining chip. Not sure if it is much to bargain with.

America needs to get off the oil tit.

[Mr Majestyk]

Lets move past the drill/no drill argument for a minute and look at what the legislators are doing. Remember that their job is to REPRESENT the people, who clearly want relief at the pump/meter. Instead we have elected eco-nazis following their own strict personal agendas/beliefs ("move past petroleum"); after all, they know what is best for us :rolleyes:

I guess that it has never occurred to them that it doesn't have to be an all or nothing kind of deal. We can work on both the supply side as well as the conservation side while continuing to look for alternative fuel sources. Instead the eco-nazis are rubbing their hands in glee at the opportunity to force their brand of radicalism by way of hard times to the US citizen and business owner. The cost of this approach is unsustainable.

I look for a lot of democrats to get a boot in the ass come the next election.


Many voters will still blame the President for high gas prices, oblivious to the fact that it is Congess that has control of setting our policies.

[Vertnut]

Many voters will still blame the President for high gas prices, oblivious to the fact that it is Congess that has control of setting our policies.
At least I'm encouraged by their 9% approval rating...

[GT Dan]

Wait... you mean to tell me that Democrats realize that gas prices, in the long run, will never go down even close to where the were a year ago, so rather than spend taxpayer money trying to pass bills to artificially/temporarily lower the cost of fuel, they'd rather look beyond, to the future, and find an energy source that would not only be more cost effective, but harm our environment less?

What are they thinking?!?!?

I dont think I've ever seen anyone as ignorant as you. :eek:

[gpamp]

I dont think I've ever seen anyone as ignorant as you. :eek:
That TOTALLY discounts my point! Again! You're so smart!!

:rolleyes:

[Sean88gt]

That TOTALLY discounts my point! Again! You're so smart!!

:rolleyes:

What point? You ask a loaded rhetorical question that blows.

[gpamp]

What point? You ask a loaded rhetorical question that blows.
No, my "loaded" question was making a great point. I was pointing out that just because someone isn't looking for the same way out of a problem as you, doesn't mean they're not working toward a better solution.

[Ktulu]

No, my "loaded" question was making a great point. I was pointing out that just because someone isn't looking for the same way out of a problem as you, doesn't mean they're not working toward a better solution.

I think the point is they are not doing what they were voted in to do, represent the American people.

or somthing

[bcoop]

No, my "loaded" question was making a great point. I was pointing out that just because someone isn't looking for the same way out of a problem as you, doesn't mean they're not working toward a better solution.



As others have said a million fucking times, I don't give a shit what they are looking at. Constituents want relief NOW. The fucktards that make up the Dem controlled Congress, are ignoring what the very people that voted them in to office want, need, and are demanding. They can take their alternative energy and shove it up their fucking asses. I want relief NOW, not 20 years down the road.


But honestly, I'm ok with it. I guaran fucking tee you Congress won't be Dem controlled the next go round. In fact, I'd say less than 25% remain in Congress after the next round of voting. It's time for change alright. But Obama, and you bleeding liberals aren't the answer, period.

[Magnus]

No, my "loaded" question was making a great point. I was pointing out that just because someone isn't looking for the same way out of a problem as you, doesn't mean they're not working toward a better solution.
It's extremely easy for someone with their kind of money to afford to hold out until whatever great new means of energy rolls around.
Meanwhile, we cut pennies in half just to make ends meet.

They aren't doing their fucking job, and are ignoring the people.

If you don't feed your pet for a month because you know there will be some great new food out next month, and you don't want to waste money this month. . . . what good does it do to buy the new food when your pet is dead?

Yes, i said "pet", because that is more than likely the mindset those liberal nut fuck tools use.

[Nate]

Lets move past the drill/no drill argument for a minute and look at what the legislators are doing. Remember that their job is to REPRESENT the people, who clearly want relief at the pump/meter. Instead we have elected eco-nazis following their own strict personal agendas/beliefs ("move past petroleum"); after all, they know what is best for us :rolleyes:

I guess that it has never occurred to them that it doesn't have to be an all or nothing kind of deal. We can work on both the supply side as well as the conservation side while continuing to look for alternative fuel sources. Instead the eco-nazis are rubbing their hands in glee at the opportunity to force their brand of radicalism by way of hard times to the US citizen and business owner. The cost of this approach is unsustainable.

I look for a lot of democrats to get a boot in the ass come the next election.
Mike...you should start a company that teaches people to be logical and intelligent...

If you can figure out how to do this you would make millions.

[Gripenfelter]

Drilling isn't going to provide relief NOW. We won't see the impact of a lift on ANWR or offshore drilling for years.

The relief NOW is dealing with the speculators driving these prices.

If you want relief in a couple of years, sure lift the bans on ANWR and offshore. If you want relief in a couple of years, lift the nazi rules and regs on refineries.
If you want relief in a couple of years, lift the nazi rules on nuclear plants.

Curbing the speculation is the only relief you will see now, but the politicians don't want to upset the money makers on wall street. That's a problem on both sides of the aisle.

[AL P]

Wait... you mean to tell me that Democrats realize that gas prices, in the long run, will never go down even close to where the were a year ago, so rather than spend taxpayer money trying to pass bills to artificially/temporarily lower the cost of fuel, they'd rather look beyond, to the future, and find an energy source that would not only be more cost effective, but harm our environment less?

What are they thinking?!?!?

You sound like an expert in the oil & gas industry....

[AL P]

Drilling isn't going to provide relief NOW. We won't see the impact of a lift on ANWR or offshore drilling for years.

The relief NOW is dealing with the speculators driving these prices.

If you want relief in a couple of years, sure lift the bans on ANWR and offshore. If you want relief in a couple of years, lift the nazi rules and regs on refineries.
If you want relief in a couple of years, lift the nazi rules on nuclear plants.

Curbing the speculation is the only relief you will see now, but the politicians don't want to upset the money makers on wall street. That's a problem on both sides of the aisle.

I disagree. It is all about perception. If Congress opened up drilling today prices would drop. Reasoning being that in the long term oil is worth less, the people who want to hold it as an asset (like gold) would view any potential new supply negatively. How much it would drop is anyone's guess.

[Vertnut]

Drilling isn't going to provide relief NOW. We won't see the impact of a lift on ANWR or offshore drilling for years.

The relief NOW is dealing with the speculators driving these prices.

If you want relief in a couple of years, sure lift the bans on ANWR and offshore. If you want relief in a couple of years, lift the nazi rules and regs on refineries.
If you want relief in a couple of years, lift the nazi rules on nuclear plants.

Curbing the speculation is the only relief you will see now, but the politicians don't want to upset the money makers on wall street. That's a problem on both sides of the aisle.
The fact that oil has fallen $15 a barrel since Bush lifted tha "ban" on his side, should say something. I think if the senate decided to lift the ban today, oil would fall $10 a barrel tomorrow. Remember, "speculation" would come into play, knowing that "new" oil was coming onto the market.

[AL P]

Lets move past the drill/no drill argument for a minute and look at what the legislators are doing. Remember that their job is to REPRESENT the people, who clearly want relief at the pump/meter. Instead we have elected eco-nazis following their own strict personal agendas/beliefs ("move past petroleum"); after all, they know what is best for us :rolleyes:

I guess that it has never occurred to them that it doesn't have to be an all or nothing kind of deal. We can work on both the supply side as well as the conservation side while continuing to look for alternative fuel sources. Instead the eco-nazis are rubbing their hands in glee at the opportunity to force their brand of radicalism by way of hard times to the US citizen and business owner. The cost of this approach is unsustainable.

I look for a lot of democrats to get a boot in the ass come the next election.

An excellent point.

If you want to see how leftist regimes gain power simply read this post then read the second post in this thread, made by Gpamp.

[cannonball996]

even if they drill and find oil, they still have to get permission to pump it.
even if they could pump it, China would end up getting it anyway, they are willing to pay more for it on the open market.
because Chinas ever increasing demand grows faster then the rate of production, the price will still increase.

[bcoop]

Drilling isn't going to provide relief NOW.


Wrong. Bush lifting the ban IMMEDIATELY dropped crude oil prices. Have you been paying attention?


We won't see the impact of a lift on ANWR or offshore drilling for years.


Wrong again, see above. It may not be as cheap as we'd like it to be, but it WILL be cheaper. You absolutely can not argue that. Granted, it will be cheaper in coming years if the US was drilling and producing more, but Bush's move is proof positive there WILL be immediate relief. I know what you're saying, and I agree to a point. But you're ignoring what happened in the market last week.

The relief NOW is dealing with the speculators driving these prices.

That's one way to help, and I'm sounding like a broken record here, but so is lifting the ban.

If you want relief in a couple of years, sure lift the bans on ANWR and offshore. If you want relief in a couple of years, lift the nazi rules and regs on refineries.
If you want relief in a couple of years, lift the nazi rules on nuclear plants.

You mean the ones the Dems put in place? Yeah, good luck with getting those overturned, considering it's a Dem controlled Congress at the moment.

[black01gt]

Quite a reach there, Stretch. Cancer vs. oil? :cool:

It's not the fucking Dems job to "wean us" from petroleum products.
Ya think?
Sarcasm = a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual
:rolleyes:

[Vertnut]

even if they drill and find oil, they still have to get permission to pump it.
even if they could pump it, China would end up getting it anyway, they are willing to pay more for it on the open market.
because Chinas ever increasing demand grows faster then the rate of production, the price will still increase.
Wow. Just...wow. :cool:

[bcoop]

Ya think?
Sarcasm = a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual
:rolleyes:



Honestly Randy, that's what I took from black01gt's post. I read it as being sarcastic, not a stretch at all.

[Vertnut]

Honestly Randy, that's what I took from black01gt's post. I read it as being sarcastic, not a stretch at all.
Cool. It was early... :o

[The Punisher]

Wait... you mean to tell me that Democrats realize that gas prices, in the long run, will never go down even close to where the were a year ago, so rather than spend taxpayer money trying to pass bills to artificially/temporarily lower the cost of fuel, they'd rather look beyond, to the future, and find an energy source that would not only be more cost effective, but harm our environment less?

What are they thinking?!?!?
go back to school and learn about supply and demand.. idot! Looking to the future is great if you have a plan. But your congress that you swing off the nuts from, are looking to the future with no plan to stop the current crisis... meanwhile the economy goes to hell and a handbasket.. Man, we have some genius elected officials :rolleyes:

[The Punisher]

Haha. You totally discredited my post! You're a genius! :rolleyes:
I think you discredit your own post! Everyone knows its the koolaid talking...

[Gripenfelter]

Wrong. Bush lifting the ban IMMEDIATELY dropped crude oil prices. Have you been paying attention?




Wrong again, see above. It may not be as cheap as we'd like it to be, but it WILL be cheaper. You absolutely can not argue that. Granted, it will be cheaper in coming years if the US was drilling and producing more, but Bush's move is proof positive there WILL be immediate relief. I know what you're saying, and I agree to a point. But you're ignoring what happened in the market last week.



That's one way to help, and I'm sounding like a broken record here, but so is lifting the ban.

The prices dropped because the speculators speculated a possibly increase in supply. If speculation was taken out of the conversation, then it would rely on true supply/demand. ANWR and offshore drilling would not offer any new supply for years.

Hence take care of the speculation and let's get it truly based on supply/demand. You are pretty much guaranteed a price drop because supplies are at a good level.

[Vertnut]

The prices dropped because the speculators speculated a possibly increase in supply. If speculation was taken out of the conversation, then it would rely on true supply/demand. ANWR and offshore drilling would not offer any new supply for years.

Hence take care of the speculation and let's get it truly based on supply/demand. You are pretty much guaranteed a price drop because supplies are at a good level.
There is no proof of the assumption that ANWAR and off-shore drilling would take "years". To the contrary, depending on where they are drilling, 10-12 months is possible in some area's.

[01WhiteCobra]

High oil prices benefit both the Democrats and the Republicans.

Democrats get to push Al Gore's agenda and the Republican backers make a shit load of money.

If oil prices drop, Al Gore go to the wayside and the Republican backers don't make as much money.

[GT Dan]

That TOTALLY discounts my point! Again! You're so smart!!

:rolleyes:

I wasn’t trying to discount your point. You post up stupid shit trying to show how smart you are but when one of these guys shoots your theory down, you ignore them or focus on some small detail that is totally unrelated to the topic...

Let’s see if I can get this right...

Your point was, the Dems want to encourage alternative energy.

I agree with you, that it is a great thing. The problem is, MOST Americans, want (and need) relief from energy prices, NOW, not 5 years from now.

Regardless of party, each one of those dumbasses in Washington is elected to represent the people. They aren’t doing that by burying their head in the sand and refusing to try and provide some relief.

There are people a lot smarter than me about this issue but it would seem to me, they should be discussing the effects of the speculators. The effects of drilling off shore, the effects of opening up the national reserves, the effects of opening up new refineries, even the effects of repealing the stupid gas tax.

In my opinion, everything should be put on the table and EVERYTHING should be done to lower current energy prices. At the same time, they need to encourage alternative energy for the future. They could easily do that by offering tax breaks or subsidies or something...

I’m not the smartest mf’er on the planet but common sense tells me, you can’t lower energy prices by ignoring them…

[01WhiteCobra]

There is no proof of the assumption that ANWAR and off-shore drilling would take "years". To the contrary, depending on where they are drilling, 10-12 months is possible in some area's.

It wouldn't take years.

There would be more "boots on the ground" than Iraq and Afghaniland combined the day after it is opened up.

[Denny]

High oil prices benefit both the Democrats and the Republicans.

Democrats get to push Al Gore's agenda and the Republican backers make a shit load of money.

If oil prices drop, Al Gore go to the wayside and the Republican backers don't make as much money.
This is why it'll NEVER go down. Period. Go ahead and make a new source of energy. Once they find a way to capitalize on that, we're gonna get it in the keister again.

[Vertnut]

It wouldn't take years.

There would be more "boots on the ground" than Iraq and Afghaniland combined the day after it is opened up.
Of course you're right. It would almost be a race to see who could get the most the soonest. You would see "cutting edge"drilling technology again. All the natural gas around here (Ellis/Johnson County) has forced companies to get to that gas quicker and more effectively, due to competition. The oil would be no different. I liken it to the California "gold rush", for lack of a better term.

[Casper]

Wait... you mean to tell me that Democrats realize that gas prices, in the long run, will never go down even close to where the were a year ago,

A year ago? They are headed that way now. What makes you think they won't cointinue even past that without artificial market manipulation like rationing and price caps?

[Casper]

I disagree. It is all about perception. If Congress opened up drilling today prices would drop. Reasoning being that in the long term oil is worth less, the people who want to hold it as an asset (like gold) would view any potential new supply negatively. How much it would drop is anyone's guess.

absolutely, and perception drives the very speculation in question.

I wonder if Bush's EO had as much to do with drops as other factors though. I think part of the timing was based on Chinese energy policy.

[Casper]

It wouldn't take years.

There would be more "boots on the ground" than Iraq and Afghaniland combined the day after it is opened up.

For offshore east coast, I'm betting two years or more, for various reasons, especially considering the court barrages that are blocking even wind farms. I bet the initial exploration kicks off in a flash, but I don't know about extraction. You are talking about something that will be as NIMBY prone as a nuclear plant.

For ANWR, I bet a year though. Which itself could slow offshore down too.

[SlowLX]

Wait... you mean to tell me that Democrats realize that gas prices, in the long run, will never go down even close to where the were a year ago, so rather than spend taxpayer money trying to pass bills to artificially/temporarily lower the cost of fuel, they'd rather look beyond, to the future, and find an energy source that would not only be more cost effective, but harm our environment less?

What are they thinking?!?!?
So if we're moving beyond oil products, what's wrong with using more oil products until we develop something renewable that works?

[cannonball996]

the price drop last week was because of Mexico hedging the price of oil

[Sean88gt]

Drilling isn't going to provide relief NOW. We won't see the impact of a lift on ANWR or offshore drilling for years.

The relief NOW is dealing with the speculators driving these prices.

If you want relief in a couple of years, sure lift the bans on ANWR and offshore. If you want relief in a couple of years, lift the nazi rules and regs on refineries.
If you want relief in a couple of years, lift the nazi rules on nuclear plants.

Curbing the speculation is the only relief you will see now, but the politicians don't want to upset the money makers on wall street. That's a problem on both sides of the aisle.

Al P is completely right on with this one. If there is perceived drilling prices will fall. They could send a fucking ice fisherman with an auger up to ANWR and publish reports that drilling started and oil would fall by 35-50%

[Sean88gt]

the price drop last week was because of Mexico hedging the price of oil

Yeah...that's exactly what led to it and Bush's EO was just coincidence.

[cannonball996]

Yeah...that's exactly what led to it and Bush's EO was just coincidence.

Bushes executive order did nothing, infact oil prices went up the next day.
you still cant drill untill congress says you can

[Vertnut]

Bushes executive order did nothing, infact oil prices went up the next day.
you still cant drill untill congress says you can
You have nothing to substantiate that claim. Even so, it doesn't matter. Your congress won't be there for ever, and when the Reps are the majority again (maybe sooner than you think), it will be open season on oil exploration.

[cannonball996]

You have nothing to substantiate that claim. Even so, it doesn't matter. Your congress won't be there for ever, and when the Reps are the majority again (maybe sooner than you think), it will be open season on oil exploration.

I have been a member of the republican party for over 10 years...and I work in the oil business, and trade oil every day. and I hope the congress allows for drilling and then for pumping, because there are already buyers in china lining up willing to pay up to $160 a barrel right now for that oil

[Vertnut]

I have been a member of the republican party for over 10 years...and I work in the oil business, and trade oil every day. and I hope the congress allows for drilling and then for pumping, because there are already buyers in china lining up willing to pay up to $160 a barrel right now for that oil
My wife is also in the business, and if China would pay $160 a barrel for oil, then we would ALL be paying that. It's still about supply/demand. China's oil consumption has not increased anywhere near the rate everyone thought it would.
Oil is at about $127 a barrel right now, so why would China pay $160? And if so, why are you wasting time on here trying to convince me?

[01WhiteCobra]

the price drop last week was because of Mexico hedging the price of oil

LOL.

The price of oil dropped last week because the number of open contracts fell off the cliff.

Also, why in the hell would Mexico be hedging oil?

[01WhiteCobra]

and I work in the oil business, and trade oil every day.

If that is the case, you should be looking for another job. You are about to be fired.

[cannonball996]

My wife is also in the business, and if China would pay $160 a barrel for oil, then we would ALL be paying that. It's still about supply/demand. China's oil consumption has not increased anywhere near the rate everyone thought it would.
Oil is at about $127 a barrel right now, so why would China pay $160? And if so, why are you wasting time on here trying to convince me?

because oil is what we call a future
its actually quite simple, see China knows its demand is going to increase in the future. knowing that there is going to be even more demand in the future its safe to assume that prices will rise. (have I lost you?)

now china, like all oil companies, does long range price forcasting, many of these models have oil going over $200 in the next 5 years. right now oil is at $127, and lets say you just stuck oil, that oil is not going to be ready for delivery for sometime, however china is ready to pay you $160 for it now, because they have forcasted the price of oil to be $175 when that oil is ready to be delivered.

[Gripenfelter]

Speculators Aren’t Driving Up Oil Prices, Report Says

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/b...rss&oref=slogin

Link to report
http://www.cftc.gov/stellent/groups...rudeoil0708.pdf

This doesn't surprise me one bit, Big Oil gets what Big Oil wants. Downplay speculation, yell for more drilling.

[cannonball996]

LOL.

The price of oil dropped last week because the number of open contracts fell off the cliff.

Also, why in the hell would Mexico be hedging oil?

because Mexico is one of the worlds largest oil producers, this allows for a price lock, and if the prices are locked is there a rush on getting a contract? nope

[Vertnut]

I know a little about the business... :cool: My point is that all the "futures" are based on present production. If we crank up ANWAR and both coastlines with rigs, the oil available to the market will increase substantially. All I want is for us to produce enough to be independent of the middle eastern suppliers. Canadian and south american oil doesn't bother me so much.

Bottom line: why not drill here and now? What do we have to lose? What is the down-side for the American consumer?

[AL P]

because Mexico is one of the worlds largest oil producers, this allows for a price lock, and if the prices are locked is there a rush on getting a contract? nope

Given that they are a net producer, they locked in to sell at a higher price and the result was the price dropped?

[01WhiteCobra]

because Mexico is one of the worlds largest oil producers, this allows for a price lock, and if the prices are locked is there a rush on getting a contract? nope

Exactly and why would a producer lock in the price? Because they believe the prices are going to fall.

It would be absolutely stupid for Mexico to hedge if they believed prices are going up. They hedge when they believe prices are going to fall.

You are attempting to convince people the price dropped because of Mexico which would be ignorant. Mexico hedges because the price drops.

Mexico probably also believed they could lock the profit, and if prices went up, they'd be able to get out of the contracts because of the embarrassingly large open interest there has been in oil contracts.

Open interest has fallen dramatically over the past week. The players are getting out and not getting back in. Ooops.

[01WhiteCobra]

Given that they are a net producer, they locked in to sell at a higher price and the result was the price dropped?

cannonball logic, Al.

You should try it in commercial real-estate you'd be the next Donald Trump.

[cannonball996]

I know a little about the business... :cool: My point is that all the "futures" are based on present production. If we crank up ANWAR and both coastlines with rigs, the oil available to the market will increase substantially. All I want is for us to produce enough to be independent of the middle eastern suppliers. Canadian and south american oil doesn't bother me so much.

Bottom line: why not drill here and now? What do we have to lose? What is the down-side for the American consumer?

actually prices are more demand based then based on current present production, because demand is easier to predict.

whats the down side to drilling and pumping for oil here...well any oil found is going to end up in china, and because they would have a new oil contract they would then add more drivers (they are communist they can force people to drive)

the only way any of that oil is going to have a positive impact on the US is if that oil is reserved only for the US market, but that would violate all kinds of free market issues

[cannonball996]

Given that they are a net producer, they locked in to sell at a higher price and the result was the price dropped?

very simple, if oil is trading at $147 and mexico is wanting to lock in at $140 and your an oil trader, what do you do? you buy as much as you can as fast as you can! then get your contracts locked in. oil is down because everyone locked their contracts in last week, and not so many people need contracts this week.

2 refineries just went off line because of a hurricane, and the price of oil has dropped today, thats how good it was last week

[01WhiteCobra]

very simple, if oil is trading at $147 and mexico is wanting to lock in at $140 and your an oil trader, what do you do? you buy as much as you can as fast as you can! then get your contracts locked in. oil is down because everyone locked their contracts in last week, and not so many people need contracts this week.


Oil is down because decrease in demand is no longer being seen as an blip but a trend. Oil is down because the dollar has kicked significant ass in the past week.

Mexico didn't have one damn thing to do with it.

[cannonball996]

Oil is down because decrease in demand is no longer being seen as an blip but a trend. Oil is down because the dollar has kicked significant ass in the past week.

Mexico didn't have one damn thing to do with it.

and why is noone buying oil this week??? because last week when oil was at $147, a price of $140 looked so good people locked in their oil contracts. and if you got locked in last week, you dont need to buy this week.

[01WhiteCobra]

and why is noone buying oil this week??? because last week when oil was at $147, a price of $140 looked so good people locked in their oil contracts. and if you got locked in last week, you dont need to buy this week.

Why is no one buying oil this week? Because the Goldman Sachs of the world have finally started easing themselves out of the market.

If you bought last week, you're fucked. The price is over $15 a barrel cheaper and closing in on $20 a barrel cheaper. You are about to be fired.

Which is what is happening. There is a little panic in the oil bull market and no one wants to be holding the bag when oil eventually gets down to $115 a barrel over the next week.

Again, the dollar kicking ass had much more to do with the state of affairs than did Mexico hedging some of their contracts.

Pemex's CEO Heroles just recently stated he believes oil is going to $80 a barrel.

Since you have stated you trade oil daily tell me the current long and short positions speculators verse the commercials and what the trend has been the past couple of weeks. This should fall out of the mouth of anyone that seriously trades oil for a living.

An explanation of why the trend is very important in the current downward cycle would be helpful to. If you can answer that I will deem you oil trading God and shut my mouth.

[AL P]

Why, 01WhiteCobra are you implying that the hedge funds of the world are slowly sneaking out the exit door while the sheep are oblvious to the impending doom? Why that would be just like every other huge market blow up.

Bring on the margin calls.

[FATHERFORD]

Pemex's CEO Heroles just recently stated he believes oil is going to $80 a barrel.



I just heard about an hour ago of another higher end oil company saying they expect the price to get $90-100 a barrel pretty soon.

<--works in oil-gas business and meeting it taking place right next to my office as I type.

[AL P]

I just heard about an hour ago of another higher end oil company saying they expect the price to get $90-100 a barrel pretty soon.

<--works in oil-gas business and meeting it taking place right next to my office as I type.

Go ahead and give us a name.

[01WhiteCobra]

I just heard about an hour ago of another higher end oil company saying they expect the price to get $90-100 a barrel pretty soon.

<--works in oil-gas business and meeting it taking place right next to my office as I type.

$115-116 is my "line in the sand"

If oil drops below the rate of decline will speed up to around $90 or so. $115-116 represents about a 20% drop from the highs and even the trend trading turtles will be getting out.

Gee, right in time for a Presidential election as well!

[Vertnut]

$115-116 is my "line in the sand"

If oil drops below the rate of decline will speed up to around $90 or so. $115-116 represents about a 20% drop from the highs and even the trend trading turtles will be getting out.

Gee, right in time for a Presidential election as well!
Not quite low enough for my taste, but I guess it will have to do.But wait! It's still hurricane season...

[01WhiteCobra]

Why, 01WhiteCobra are you implying that the hedge funds of the world are slowly sneaking out the exit door while the sheep are oblvious to the impending doom? Why that would be just like every other huge market blow up.

Bring on the margin calls.

Just for a day or two I'd love a 5 billion to throw around the market just to see how it feels to make a purchase and watch my purchase move a market up or down.

And still have enough money to jack with options to further manipulate the price of what I'm trading.

[cannonball996]

Why is no one buying oil this week? Because the Goldman Sachs of the world have finally started easing themselves out of the market.

If you bought last week, you're fucked. The price is over $15 a barrel cheaper and closing in on $20 a barrel cheaper. You are about to be fired.

Which is what is happening. There is a little panic in the oil bull market and no one wants to be holding the bag when oil eventually gets down to $115 a barrel over the next week.

Again, the dollar kicking ass had much more to do with the state of affairs than did Mexico hedging some of their contracts.

Pemex's CEO Heroles just recently stated he believes oil is going to $80 a barrel.

Since you have stated you trade oil daily tell me the current long and short positions speculators verse the commercials and what the trend has been the past couple of weeks. This should fall out of the mouth of anyone that seriously trades oil for a living.

An explanation of why the trend is very important in the current downward cycle would be helpful to. If you can answer that I will deem you oil trading God and shut my mouth.

well thats really a trick question you got there...are we talking light sweet crude, Brent or what? the prices vary on all of them. depending on who you are, where you are, and how you trade, you will have different prices, margins, positions ect.

give me a more specific question, and I will try and give you a more specific answer

I deal with contracts and funds with oil, and what ever comes out of my ground. I work with much smaller margins and it moves much faster

[Casper]

very simple, if oil is trading at $147 and mexico is wanting to lock in at $140 and your an oil trader, what do you do? you buy as much as you can as fast as you can! then get your contracts locked in.

:confused:

no, really...

:confused:

[Casper]

whats the down side to drilling and pumping for oil here...well any oil found is going to end up in china, and because they would have a new oil contract they would then add more drivers (they are communist they can force people to drive)


No, seriously, quit bogarting that shit and pass it!

[01WhiteCobra]

well thats really a trick question you got there...are we talking light sweet crude, Brent or what? the prices vary on all of them. depending on who you are, where you are, and how you trade, you will have different prices, margins, positions ect.

give me a more specific question, and I will try and give you a more specific answer

I deal with contracts and funds with oil, and what ever comes out of my ground. I work with much smaller margins and it moves much faster

LOL.

CL, Light Crude, Nymex.

I gave you a very specific question. Relate the open positions of speculators and commercials (long, short and spreading) and the trend over the past month or so predicted the recent 15% decline in oil prices over the past week.

If you can't you aren't a trader, you are an order taker.

Also, Mexico produces about 5% of the oil in the world market. No way in hell can Mexico move a market 15% even if they hedge their entire production for a year.

As part of disclosure I use to write oil and gas trading (not order taking) platforms for Coastal Corporation back in the mid-80s.

[PWTRTXSS]

Al P is completely right on with this one. If there is perceived drilling prices will fall. They could send a fucking ice fisherman with an auger up to ANWR and publish reports that drilling started and oil would fall by 35-50%

I agree. Perception does wonders for the economy.

[01WhiteCobra]

No, seriously, quit bogarting that shit and pass it!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qNUjClJked8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qNUjClJked8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Vertnut]

"The older the berry, the sweeter the juice".
"No man. It's 'the blacker the berry, the sweeter the juice'".
"Oh, well, she's blacker than a motherfucker, too!" :D :D :D

[Casper]

Puff puff give! That's the rotation!

wow its been long enough for even an amway style broker to link to a discussion on trends between the two.

pssst! cannonball! commercials are the same as hedgers. Maybe that will help ;)

[mikeb]

$124/barrel today and still dropping.....

i'm not a trader or particularly knowledgeable about the market like some here, but this sure does look like traders quietly slipping out of the market to me.

Whatever it is, I like it :)

[bigwhip2]

The "blind dog republicans" want to drill offshore?? Why aren't they doing it? There are 300 million acres that are unrestricted, so why the bull about opening up more area? Bush and his Daddy have vested interest in oil (I want it all") thats why Bush LIED, and 4000 men died, in Iraq!!

[01WhiteCobra]

The "blind dog republicans" want to drill offshore?? Why aren't they doing it? There are 300 million acres that are unrestricted, so why the bull about opening up more area? Bush and his Daddy have vested interest in oil (I want it all") thats why Bush LIED, and 4000 men died, in Iraq!!

Yawn. That shit don't play here.

[forever_frost]

The "blind dog republicans" want to drill offshore?? Why aren't they doing it? There are 300 million acres that are unrestricted, so why the bull about opening up more area? Bush and his Daddy have vested interest in oil (I want it all") thats why Bush LIED, and 4000 men died, in Iraq!!


I think you've been reading too many t shirts.

[Casper]

The "blind dog republicans" want to drill offshore?? Why aren't they doing it? There are 300 million acres that are unrestricted, so why the bull about opening up more area? Bush and his Daddy have vested interest in oil (I want it all") thats why Bush LIED, and 4000 men died, in Iraq!!

deep shelf is too risky when the price is this high and this volatile.

[Vertnut]

The "blind dog republicans" want to drill offshore?? Why aren't they doing it? There are 300 million acres that are unrestricted, so why the bull about opening up more area? Bush and his Daddy have vested interest in oil (I want it all") thats why Bush LIED, and 4000 men died, in Iraq!!
Take that weak ass shit to "imaliberalscumbag.com". :cool:

[Fox466]

Lol at the troll. Surely he's not really that stupid...

[jyro]

even if they drill and find oil, they still have to get permission to pump it.
even if they could pump it, China would end up getting it anyway, they are willing to pay more for it on the open market.
because Chinas ever increasing demand grows faster then the rate of production, the price will still increase.

Democrat sponsored
"Oil for Americans Act"
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6523

another
S. 3306: A bill to ban the exportation of crude oil produced on Federal land, and for other purposes
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6523

[32VfromHell]

The "blind dog republicans" want to drill offshore?? Why aren't they doing it? There are 300 million acres that are unrestricted, so why the bull about opening up more area? Bush and his Daddy have vested interest in oil (I want it all") thats why Bush LIED, and 4000 men died, in Iraq!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA


I have nothing to add to this good discussion, but i just had to share my amusement at the above post.

[Sean88gt]

The "blind dog republicans" want to drill offshore?? Why aren't they doing it? There are 300 million acres that are unrestricted, so why the bull about opening up more area? Bush and his Daddy have vested interest in oil (I want it all") thats why Bush LIED, and 4000 men died, in Iraq!!


Hey buddy, go fuck your mother!

[Denny]

Hey buddy, go fuck your mother!
But just wait until I'm done!

[01WhiteCobra]

Where'z cannonball, I'm waiting for my edumacation.

[bcoop]

The "blind dog republicans" want to drill offshore?? Why aren't they doing it? There are 300 million acres that are unrestricted, so why the bull about opening up more area? Bush and his Daddy have vested interest in oil (I want it all") thats why Bush LIED, and 4000 men died, in Iraq!!



Someone's trying to give gpamp, StangSeller, and Zaruthustra a run for their money.


This could get good. :D

[AL P]

Someone's trying to give gpamp, StangSeller, and Zaruthustra a run for their money.


This could get good. :D

Not really. Just another idiot who listens to NPR for all of his facts.

[The Punisher]

The "blind dog republicans" want to drill offshore?? Why aren't they doing it? There are 300 million acres that are unrestricted, so why the bull about opening up more area? Bush and his Daddy have vested interest in oil (I want it all") thats why Bush LIED, and 4000 men died, in Iraq!!
wow... grow a brain...

[Nate]

Breaking news on cnnmoney.com

'CFTC unveils first charges since announcing probe into manipulation of oil markets, bringing civil case against trading firm. "

[89gt-stanger]

The fact that oil has fallen $15 a barrel since Bush lifted tha "ban" on his side, should say something. I think if the senate decided to lift the ban today, oil would fall $10 a barrel tomorrow. Remember, "speculation" would come into play, knowing that "new" oil was coming onto the market.

How long does it take from the drill, to the pump though?

[01WhiteCobra]

Breaking news on cnnmoney.com

'CFTC unveils first charges since announcing probe into manipulation of oil markets, bringing civil case against trading firm. "

Haha. That should bitch slap oil another $10.

[01WhiteCobra]

Like I said before, I wish a had a few billion to throw around to bang the close or paint the tape. Just for a day or so. Just so I could feel the power. haha.

Release: 5521-08
For Release: July 24, 2008

CFTC Charges Optiver Holding BV, Two Subsidiaries, and High-Ranking Employees with Manipulation of NYMEX Crude Oil, Heating Oil, and Gasoline Futures Contracts

Defendant Caught on Tape and in Email Saying He Would “Bully” the Market

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced today its case against Optiver Holding BV, two of its subsidiaries, and three employees, charging them with manipulation and attempted manipulation of New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) Light Sweet Crude Oil, New York Harbor Heating Oil, and New York Harbor Gasoline futures contracts during March 2007.

The CFTC filed the civil enforcement action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Optiver Holding BV, a global proprietary trading fund headquartered in the Netherlands, and two subsidiaries – Optiver US, LLC (Optiver), a Chicago-based corporation, and Optiver VOF, a Dutch company. The complaint also names defendants Christopher Dowson (head trader of Optiver), Randal Meijer (head of trading and supervisor of Optiver and Optiver VOF) and Bastiaan van Kempen (Chief Executive Officer of Optiver).

The complaint charges all defendants with 19 separate instances of attempted manipulation involving the aforementioned energy futures contracts on 11 days in March 2007. The complaint further alleges that in at least five of those 19 attempts, defendants successfully manipulated certain of these energy futures contracts, causing artificial prices. In three of those instances, defendants forced futures prices lower, and in two instances, defendants forced futures prices higher. The complaint alleges that defendants profited by approximately $1 million from their manipulative scheme.

According to the complaint, the defendants employed a manipulative scheme commonly known as “banging” or “marking”’ the close. “Banging the close” refers to the practice of acquiring a substantial position leading up to the closing period, followed by offsetting the position before the end of the close of trading for the purpose of attempting to manipulate prices.

The complaint further charges Optiver and van Kempen with concealing the manipulative scheme and making false statements in response to an inquiry from NYMEX.

“These charges go to the heart of the CFTC’s core mission of detecting and rooting out illegal manipulation of the markets,” said CFTC Acting Chairman Walt Lukken. “The CFTC’s Enforcement Division aggressively pursues and punishes manipulative activity to bring offenders to justice and deter others from attempting to harm the markets. Although this alleged energy trading scheme lasted only several days in March 2007, even short-term distortions of prices will not be tolerated by the Commission.”

“The men and women of the Division of Enforcement are working tirelessly to pursue every investigative lead involving potential wrongdoing in the commodities markets, including our nation’s vital energy markets,” said Acting Enforcement Director Stephen Jay Obie. “We use every resource available to uncover wrongdoing and to make sure that violators of the Commodity Exchange Act are tracked down and brought to justice.”

The Energy Futures Contracts Manipulated by Defendants

The defendants’ manipulative trading scheme involved three futures contracts listed for trading on the NYMEX: the Light Sweet Crude Oil futures contract (Crude Oil, also referred to as West Texas Intermediate (WTI)), the New York Harbor Heating Oil futures contract (Heating Oil), and the New York Harbor Reformulated Gasoline Blendstock futures contract (New York Harbor Gasoline). The settlement price for the Crude Oil, New York Gasoline, and Heating Oil futures contracts is derived by calculating the volume weighted average prices of futures trades conducted during the closing period for the contracts (from 2:28 to 2:30 p.m.). The volume weighted average price is referred to commonly as the VWAP.

The defendants’ manipulative scheme involved the Trading at Settlement (or TAS) contracts in Crude Oil, Heating Oil, and New York Harbor Gasoline contracts. TAS contracts are futures contracts, except that the parties determine at the initiation of the contract that the price of the TAS contract will be the day’s settlement price plus or minus an agreed differential. A TAS contract which has been bought or sold can be offset by trading a futures contract in the opposite direction.

The Manipulative Scheme

The manipulative scheme, in defendant Dowson’s words, to “bully the market,” involved trading a significant volume of futures contracts in Crude Oil, Heating Oil, and New York Harbor Gasoline in the opposite direction of the associated TAS position, before and during the close of the contracts. The defendants’ goal in trading the large volume of futures was to improperly influence and affect the price of futures contracts in Crude Oil, Heating Oil, and New York Harbor Gasoline. The defendants’ manipulative scheme was, in the words of defendant Meijer, “built on the idea that we can control the VWAP.”

As alleged in the complaint, the scheme ultimately permitted defendants to profit regardless of the direction of the market move, provided that Optiver’s futures trading in the close and before the close was in the opposite direction of the TAS position it had accumulated during the trading day.

For further detail on the allegations, please see the complaint and background documents found in Related Links.

The Commission wishes to thank the U.K. Financial Services Authority and the New York Mercantile Exchange for their assistance with this investigation.

The following CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members are responsible for this matter: Manal Sultan, David Acevedo, David MacGregor, Michael Berlowitz, David Oakland, R. Stephen Painter Jr., Eliud Ramirez, Derek Shakabpa, Judith Slowly, Lara Turcik, Lenel Hickson Jr. and Vincent McGonagle. Michael Penick and Andrei Kirilenko from the CFTC’s Office of Chief Economist are also responsible for this matter, as well Dr. Young Hwan Byeon, an Economist from the Korean Financial Supervisory Service.

[Nate]

Haha. That should bitch slap oil another $10.
I was hoping so.

I believe it was you that said...

"we'll see $110 oil before we see $150..." I told some people that at work (see my avg american thread) and they laughed at me and called me a moron, bush loving fool. It's funny to see them come ask me 401k advice this week though. :D

[01WhiteCobra]

I was hoping so.

I believe it was you that said...

"we'll see $110 oil before we see $150..." I told some people that at work (see my avg american thread) and they laughed at me and called me a moron, bush loving fool. It's funny to see them come ask me 401k advice this week though. :D

Natural gas has been getting slapped around for a couple of weeks as well. Peaked around 13.50/MMBtu last month and is now trading at 9.13/MMBtu.

I just hope FEC/their wholesaler didn't hedge the rest of year's supply at 13.50 for their natty gas generators. Unfortunately, with my luck, they did. haha.

[Nate]

Natural gas has been getting slapped around for a couple of weeks as well. Peaked around 13.50/MMBtu last month and is now trading at 9.13/MMBtu.

I just hope FEC/their wholesaler didn't hedge the rest of year's supply at 13.50 for their natty gas generators. Unfortunately, with my luck, they did. haha.
I seriously would like to work for you somehow. I think I could learn a lot from a smart guy like you...want to higher a gopher bitch for a year. :D

[Casper]

How long does it take from the drill, to the pump though?

Good case scenario, a 10,000 foot exploratory is completed in 4 months, and a 20,000 extraction well takes another four months. There is 8 months in between because the north slope has to be worked in the winter. Assuming a delivery mechanism is set up and in place once the extraction well is complete that's 16 months. A solid effort could make that scenario a reality, utilizing summer months as best you can, taking some risks, and all market variables like labor and material being straightforward.

Before that happens, the land has to be leased and divided. Plays identified and pools allocated. Environmental impacts and red tape have to be overcome. That could take years.

But first you open it to exploration, if you do nothing else. That should have been started a decade ago. That would allow you an assessment for drilling, lease division and pipeline planning. Without that, you could easily have two or three seasons of exploration, followed by three or four seasons of no actual delivery and extraction work on the ground, and then another season or two to implement all that.

Parts of the North slope were delivering oil in 6 years. That is about the fastest for the region. It could be sped up, and I think you could realistically make it in about a year after initial exploration, and possibly, if there were some reason you had to do so, include exploration in that timeline (but I doubt it).

[MadMax404m]

.....A little off topic but same type of deal


Enviromentalists dont like it because it doesnt STOP the problem, it only fixes it :rolleyes:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1023315/Machine-clean-greenhouse-gas-breakthrough-war-global-warming-say-scientists.html

[01WhiteCobra]

Good case scenario, a 10,000 foot exploratory is completed in 4 months, and a 20,000 extraction well takes another four months.

Sheeet. Haven't you been watching Black Gold?

Mofos be drillin' those holes in 20 days.

:D