I never did like low oil prices

even though I drive and have to pay for other things who’s prices are attached to the cost of oil.
I always figure we should be paying a lot for it, maybe we’d appreciate its value and risks a bit better.
Now, the imploding price of oil has scared me, could this be the one that kicks a leg out from under the stool holding up our card house?

Big banks are cringing as crude oil is crumbling. Big banks brace for oil loans to implode by Matt Egan @mattmegan5 http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/18/investing/oil-crash-wall-street-banks-jpmorgan/index.html Firms on Wall Street helped bankroll America's energy boom, financing very expensive drilling projects that ended up flooding the world with oil. Now that the oil glut has caused prices to crash below $30 a barrel, turmoil is rippling through the energy industry and souring many of those loans. Dozens of oil companies have gone bankrupt and the ones that haven't are feeling enough financial stress to slash spending and cut tens of thousands of jobs. Three of America's biggest banks warned last week that oil prices will continue to create headaches on Wall Street -- especially if doomsday scenarios of $20 or even $10 oil play out. For instance, Wells Fargo (WFC) is sitting on more than $17 billion in loans to the oil and gas sector. The bank is setting aside $1.2 billion in reserves to cover losses because of the "continued deterioration within the energy sector." JPMorgan Chase (JPM) is setting aside an extra $124 million to cover potential losses in its oil and gas loans. It warned that figure could rise to $750 million if oil prices unexpectedly stay at their current $30 level for the next 18 months. "The biggest area of stress" is the oil and gas space, Marianne Lake, JPMorgan's chief financial officer, told analysts during a call on Thursday. ...
Heck I heard there was some High Sulfur Oil selling for -0.50 per barrel, they just want the stuff hauled off. Just looked, yup it doesn't seem to be a rumor: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-18/the-north-dakota-crude-oil-that-s-worth-less-than-nothing
even though I drive and have to pay for other things who's prices are attached to the cost of oil. I always figure we should be paying a lot for it, maybe we'd appreciate its value and risks a bit better. Now, the imploding price of oil has scared me, could this be the one that kicks a leg out from under the stool holding up our card house?
Big banks are cringing as crude oil is crumbling. Big banks brace for oil loans to implode by Matt Egan @mattmegan5 http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/18/investing/oil-crash-wall-street-banks-jpmorgan/index.html Firms on Wall Street helped bankroll America's energy boom, financing very expensive drilling projects that ended up flooding the world with oil. Now that the oil glut has caused prices to crash below $30 a barrel, turmoil is rippling through the energy industry and souring many of those loans. Dozens of oil companies have gone bankrupt and the ones that haven't are feeling enough financial stress to slash spending and cut tens of thousands of jobs. Three of America's biggest banks warned last week that oil prices will continue to create headaches on Wall Street -- especially if doomsday scenarios of $20 or even $10 oil play out. For instance, Wells Fargo (WFC) is sitting on more than $17 billion in loans to the oil and gas sector. The bank is setting aside $1.2 billion in reserves to cover losses because of the "continued deterioration within the energy sector." JPMorgan Chase (JPM) is setting aside an extra $124 million to cover potential losses in its oil and gas loans. It warned that figure could rise to $750 million if oil prices unexpectedly stay at their current $30 level for the next 18 months. "The biggest area of stress" is the oil and gas space, Marianne Lake, JPMorgan's chief financial officer, told analysts during a call on Thursday. ...
Heck I heard there was some High Sulfur Oil selling for -0.50 per barrel, they just want the stuff hauled off. Just looked, yup it doesn't seem to be a rumor: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-18/the-north-dakota-crude-oil-that-s-worth-less-than-nothing
Cheap oil is good for business. Not so great for the environment, but it boosts the economy.

I think it would be a smart move for the government to determine a reasonable price for gas and whenever the price drops below that the taxes automatically increase to compensate for any fall in price. When prices dorp precipitously like they have now the government wold receive a windfall that could be used to finance upgrades of our infrastructure.

Hmmm, are you being facetious?

Cheap oil is good for business. Not so great for the environment, but it boosts the economy.

I think it would be a smart move for the government to determine a reasonable price for gas and whenever the price drops below that the taxes automatically increase to compensate for any fall in price. When prices dorp precipitously like they have now the government wold receive a windfall that could be used to finance upgrades of our infrastructure.
If it were only possible. The "Free Market" ain't all it's cracked up to be. Now that I think of it. it certainly does have similarities with Crack. In for the big rush, then ignore all the consequences.
I think it would be a smart move for the government to determine a reasonable price for gas and whenever the price drops below that the taxes automatically increase to compensate for any fall in price. When prices dorp precipitously like they have now the government wold receive a windfall that could be used to finance upgrades of our infrastructure..
Very good idea.
Cheap oil is good for business. Not so great for the environment, but it boosts the economy.
Heh-Heh Lois
I think it would be a smart move for the government to determine a reasonable price for gas and whenever the price drops below that the taxes automatically increase to compensate for any fall in price. When prices dorp precipitously like they have now the government wold receive a windfall that could be used to finance upgrades of our infrastructure..
Very good idea. Too good to ever be passed by Republican Congress. Lois
Cheap oil is good for business. Not so great for the environment, but it boosts the economy.
No, it isn't. Cheap oil was good for business during the Reagan years, but things have changed tremendously since then. Oil companies and the auxiliary businesses are losing money at current oil prices. I don't feel sorry for the big oil companies but the little guys are hurting. These include the welders, truck drivers, and numerous other stakeholders the oil companies indirectly employ. This is why the stock market is in such flux right now. If oil goes back to $100/barrel the market will rebound and our retirement accounts will grow again.
Cheap oil is good for business. Not so great for the environment, but it boosts the economy.
No, it isn't. Cheap oil was good for business during the Reagan years, but things have changed tremendously since then. Oil companies and the auxiliary businesses are losing money at current oil prices. I don't feel sorry for the big oil companies but the little guys are hurting. These include the welders, truck drivers, and numerous other stakeholders the oil companies indirectly employ. This is why the stock market is in such flux right now. If oil goes back to $100/barrel the market will rebound and our retirement accounts will grow again.And I've always heard that the oil is cheap because the supply is strategicaly limited by the Saudis for political reasons. Obviously demand doesn't/can't change so drastically so quickly so it's the supply side that's being manipulated. So if I'm SA and I've fixed the price at $100/barrel, then it's economical for competitors (for ex US companies) to produce $50/brl oil, even if it costs them say $10/brl to produce it. So when that happens, SA just floods the market, oil goes down to $20/brl and completely undercuts the competitors.

One thing seems obvious to me. If the price of oil is low enough, (and is not taxed heavily) this insures that the world will continue to rely on it as its primary energy resource. Hence worsening climate change will go on unabated. Thus it is imperative, if one cares at all about future generations, that the true cost of fossil fuels be passed on to the consumers.
Also, if the price is low enough, supply will eventually go down (and prices will go up again), unless the costs of extraction go down, even more than they have, with further technological “advancements”.
Either way, if we want the Earth, as we know it, to survive us, for our descendants sake, fossil fuels must be taxed concomitantly with the environmental damage that they provide. This would probably entail some economic discomforts in the near term but a not too painful changeover to clean energy is within our grasp.

One thing seems obvious to me. If the price of oil is low enough, (and is not taxed heavily) this insures that the world will continue to rely on it as its primary energy resource. Hence worsening climate change will go on unabated. Thus it is imperative, if one cares at all about future generations, that the true cost of fossil fuels be passed on to the consumers. Also, if the price is low enough, supply will eventually go down (and prices will go up again), unless the costs of extraction go down, even more than they have, with further technological "advancements". Either way, if we want the Earth, as we know it, to survive us, for our descendants sake, fossil fuels must be taxed concomitantly with the environmental damage that they provide. This would probably entail some economic discomforts in the near term but a not too painful changeover to clean energy is within our grasp.
The problem with implementing intelligent policies and rules like you have suggested, is people. There is no greater impediment to doing what is best for everyone and the planet than the very people who you are trying to help. I have coffee with a group of men every Saturday morning. They're all very religious and very conservative minded. They rant and rail about the problems of the day and seem to know what is best, but as soon as I tell them that they might need to cut back or suffer in some way, that's it... no game. Their intellect is overridden by their emotion and a sense of entitlement that far too many first-worlders have. I point out to them the great success of the Scandinavian countries, and although they are jealous of that success, there's no way in hell they would entertain the idea of a sales tax or fuel tax or any other government interference in the 'free market'. I'm considered weak and a fool for wanting more control on the things that obviously need to be controlled. Culture and attitudes need to change, but that's a generational thing (or a panic thing if you REALLY screw things up.)

And if you don’t give a crap about the future of the Earth, or future generations of humans, heavily taxing oil while the cost is low, is still a good idea economically, if the proceeds are used to build and rehabilitate infrastructure.

One thing seems obvious to me. If the price of oil is low enough, (and is not taxed heavily) this insures that the world will continue to rely on it as its primary energy resource. Hence worsening climate change will go on unabated. Thus it is imperative, if one cares at all about future generations, that the true cost of fossil fuels be passed on to the consumers. Also, if the price is low enough, supply will eventually go down (and prices will go up again), unless the costs of extraction go down, even more than they have, with further technological "advancements". Either way, if we want the Earth, as we know it, to survive us, for our descendants sake, fossil fuels must be taxed concomitantly with the environmental damage that they provide. This would probably entail some economic discomforts in the near term but a not too painful changeover to clean energy is within our grasp.
The problem with implementing intelligent policies and rules like you have suggested, is people. There is no greater impediment to doing what is best for everyone and the planet than the very people who you are trying to help. I have coffee with a group of men every Saturday morning. They're all very religious and very conservative minded. They rant and rail about the problems of the day and seem to know what is best, but as soon as I tell them that they might need to cut back or suffer in some way, that's it... no game. Their intellect is overridden by their emotion and a sense of entitlement that far too many first-worlders have. I point out to them the great success of the Scandinavian countries, and although they are jealous of that success, there's no way in hell they would entertain the idea of a sales tax or fuel tax or any other government interference in the 'free market'. I'm considered weak and a fool for wanting more control on the things that obviously need to be controlled. Culture and attitudes need to change, but that's a generational thing (or a panic thing if you REALLY screw things up.) True. Immediate contingencies tend to be the most powerful in effecting behavior. But we have the capacity to be subject to rule governed behavior. (Figuring out the best rules and applying them is the sticky part.)
...(Figuring out the best rules and applying them is the sticky part.)
Actually, that's not the sticky part. It's quite simple to see the problems and lay out a plan for fixing them and preventing them from reoccurring. There are many different ways of fixing the future and none of them look like what we are doing now. The tough part is getting the public to stop caring more about themselves and their immediate comfort, and focus on the long-term future of humanity. Our brains are tuned to care far more about ourselves at this moment, than what kind of world our great-great-great-grandchildren are inheriting.
One thing seems obvious to me. If the price of oil is low enough, (and is not taxed heavily) this insures that the world will continue to rely on it as its primary energy resource. Hence worsening climate change will go on unabated. Thus it is imperative, if one cares at all about future generations, that the true cost of fossil fuels be passed on to the consumers. Also, if the price is low enough, supply will eventually go down (and prices will go up again), unless the costs of extraction go down, even more than they have, with further technological "advancements". Either way, if we want the Earth, as we know it, to survive us, for our descendants sake, fossil fuels must be taxed concomitantly with the environmental damage that they provide. This would probably entail some economic discomforts in the near term but a not too painful changeover to clean energy is within our grasp.
Those are good points. Instability in the fossil fuel market makes investment in renewables and fuel efficient vehicles ( hybrids and electrics mainly) a riskier proposition and can kill a developing market for these products. Once the market disappears it can take decades to recover and get back on track. This is another reason to stabilize fuel prices by the method I suggested above.
...(Figuring out the best rules and applying them is the sticky part.)
Actually, that's not the sticky part. It's quite simple to see the problems and lay out a plan for fixing them and preventing them from reoccurring. There are many different ways of fixing the future and none of them look like what we are doing now. The tough part is getting the public to stop caring more about themselves and their immediate comfort, and focus on the long-term future of humanity. Our brains are tuned to care far more about ourselves at this moment, than what kind of world our great-great-great-grandchildren are inheriting. That 2nd part is part of what I meant by "applying them". (Also, getting people to agree upon what the best "solutions" are, is not so simple.) And I agree that people will not stop caring about their immediate comfort. So how about showing them how their immediate comfort could have been even more comfortable had we already implemented "solutions"? And how about making clean energy alternatives as cost effective, or moreso, than fossil fuels? We would all be more comfortable, now, I think, breathing less CO2, and not facing the prospect of ever increasing intense weather disruptions. (Also, the poor prospects for Earth, have already begun, so it is not our "great-great-great-grandchildren" who will begin feeling the worst of the consequences of our self inflicted climate change. More like, our children and grandchildren. Droughts and famine and loosely associated wars are already occurring.)
One thing seems obvious to me. If the price of oil is low enough, (and is not taxed heavily) this insures that the world will continue to rely on it as its primary energy resource. Hence worsening climate change will go on unabated. Thus it is imperative, if one cares at all about future generations, that the true cost of fossil fuels be passed on to the consumers. Also, if the price is low enough, supply will eventually go down (and prices will go up again), unless the costs of extraction go down, even more than they have, with further technological "advancements". Either way, if we want the Earth, as we know it, to survive us, for our descendants sake, fossil fuels must be taxed concomitantly with the environmental damage that they provide. This would probably entail some economic discomforts in the near term but a not too painful changeover to clean energy is within our grasp.
The problem with implementing intelligent policies and rules like you have suggested, is people. There is no greater impediment to doing what is best for everyone and the planet than the very people who you are trying to help. I have coffee with a group of men every Saturday morning. They're all very religious and very conservative minded. They rant and rail about the problems of the day and seem to know what is best, but as soon as I tell them that they might need to cut back or suffer in some way, that's it... no game. Their intellect is overridden by their emotion and a sense of entitlement that far too many first-worlders have. I point out to them the great success of the Scandinavian countries, and although they are jealous of that success, there's no way in hell they would entertain the idea of a sales tax or fuel tax or any other government interference in the 'free market'. I'm considered weak and a fool for wanting more control on the things that obviously need to be controlled. Culture and attitudes need to change, but that's a generational thing (or a panic thing if you REALLY screw things up.) I hope you find a better group of people to have coffee with on Saturday mornings.
(Also, the poor prospects for Earth, have already begun, so it is not our "great-great-great-grandchildren" who will begin feeling the worst of the consequences of our self inflicted climate change. More like, our children and grandchildren. Droughts and famine and loosely associated wars are already occurring.)
Seems to me WE are already feeling the changes, but than like the little froggie in the pot of heating water, it feels just fine in here. http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=462 {Oh heck, now I can't find those sizing instructions, GdB where are you?} http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/hurricanes-climate.html
One thing seems obvious to me. If the price of oil is low enough, (and is not taxed heavily) this insures that the world will continue to rely on it as its primary energy resource. Hence worsening climate change will go on unabated. Thus it is imperative, if one cares at all about future generations, that the true cost of fossil fuels be passed on to the consumers. Also, if the price is low enough, supply will eventually go down (and prices will go up again), unless the costs of extraction go down, even more than they have, with further technological "advancements". Either way, if we want the Earth, as we know it, to survive us, for our descendants sake, fossil fuels must be taxed concomitantly with the environmental damage that they provide. This would probably entail some economic discomforts in the near term but a not too painful changeover to clean energy is within our grasp.
The problem with implementing intelligent policies and rules like you have suggested, is people. There is no greater impediment to doing what is best for everyone and the planet than the very people who you are trying to help. I have coffee with a group of men every Saturday morning. They're all very religious and very conservative minded. They rant and rail about the problems of the day and seem to know what is best, but as soon as I tell them that they might need to cut back or suffer in some way, that's it... no game. Their intellect is overridden by their emotion and a sense of entitlement that far too many first-worlders have. I point out to them the great success of the Scandinavian countries, and although they are jealous of that success, there's no way in hell they would entertain the idea of a sales tax or fuel tax or any other government interference in the 'free market'. I'm considered weak and a fool for wanting more control on the things that obviously need to be controlled. Culture and attitudes need to change, but that's a generational thing (or a panic thing if you REALLY screw things up.) I hope you find a better group of people to have coffee with on Saturday mornings.They're a great group. I'm happy to visit with them. The conversation isn't always religion, so the mood is usually relaxed and fun. And when we do get into a religious topic, I'm outnumbered but not picked-on.