Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

32:1? Today Show's Curry Hopes for Worst in Wake of BP Shutdown
Today Show/NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

Posted on 08/07/2006 5:27:11 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest

view edit Posted by Mark Finkelstein on August 7, 2006 - 08:10. A price spike 32 times larger than the proportion of oil production lost? It's what NBC's Ann Curry imagined on this morning's Today show. 'Soaring Gas Prices' is one of the Today show's longest-running hits. This morning's episode brought us Ann Curry trying to induce CNBC financial reporter Ron Insana to paint the gloomiest possible picture in the wake of the news that BP has shut down an Alaskan oilfield. BP shut the Prudhoe Bay field indefinitely due to the discovery of severe corrosion and a very small spill from a Prudhoe Bay oil transit line. The 400,000 represents 8% of US domestic oil output and about 2.6% of US supply, including imports.

Curry: "First - new fears of a spike in gas prices now that BP is shutting down their oil field. Ron Insana is here to explain what it means. Major developments?"

Insana: "Absolutely. If you think about the size of this shut down and what it means to the world oil market. 400,000 barrels a day are coming off line. 2.6% of US oil consumption. While we worry about disruptions from the Middle East because of what is going on between israel and lebanon, this is a disruption at a time when prices are already high."

Curry: "Overseas markets $77. Higher?"

Insana: "Absolutely."

So far, so fair. Clearly the loss of 400,000 barrels a day is not good news. But it was then that Curry started pushing the envelope.

Curry: "How much? $10 [per barrel]?"

And understated Insana: "In a single day that would be a lot."

I'll say! As mentioned, the 400,000 barrels represents only 2.6% of US supply. But remember - the crude oil market is international. The lost 400,000 represents less than 0.4% of total global daily crude oil production of about 84 million barrels. Yet Curry was envisioning a 13% price increase! Now, it's true that negative events can disproportionately impact prices. But by a factor of 32 times?

Ann wasn't done: "What about the economy? What happens to oil affects the economy?"

Insana: "If it's above the $78 a barrel level, gas prices will go up. Retail sales could be hurt and the consumer will get pinched more. It could slow down an already weaker consumer whom we have seen stop spending at walmart and restaurants because they are feeling the pain at the pump."

Curry saved her fondest wish for last: "A game changer in the economy?"

Ron played along: "Yes. Because it puts more pressure on the inflation picture. It may keep the Federal Reserve raising rates longer. That's an open question. If it slows the economy too much, it may take the fed out of the game and rates may come down."

Curry wasn't finished beating the higher-prices horse: "One way the economy is [slowed] is the price of gas. What do you think will happen to the price of gas?"

Well, Ann, what do you think would happen to price of gas if your prediction of a $10/barrel increase in the price of crude came true?

Curry closed by telling Insana to "come back when you have good news." Somehow you sensed she didn't mean it.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; US: Alaska
KEYWORDS: anncurry; bp; cnbc; crudeoil; energy; gasprices; mediabias; nbc; oil; prudhoebay; roninsana; todayshow
Today Show/NewsBusters gas-price ping to Today show list.
1 posted on 08/07/2006 5:27:12 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

A recalculation indicates Ann was suggesting a price hike 'only' 28 times greater than the proportion of global crude oil production lost.


2 posted on 08/07/2006 5:37:11 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest (Watching the Today Show since 2002 so you don't have to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: governsleastgovernsbest

As far as infobabes go, Ann Curry doesn't do anything for me.


4 posted on 08/07/2006 5:39:58 AM PDT by BaBaStooey (I heart Emma Caulfield.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
Of course Curry is going to do some heavy lifting for her Democratic brethren. If Curry and the rest of the MSM can continue to fan the flames of discontent over high gas prices perhaps they can get the change in Congress that they are so desperately hoping for.

I loathe the MSM types for NEVER pointing out that we are thus affected by such a small shut down in large measure because environmental wackos - whom she, and the rest of the MSM wholeheartedly supports - have completely restricted our access to ANWAR, offshore drilling, and nuclear power! Is there any wonder why a small pebble in our shoe completely debilitates us??
5 posted on 08/07/2006 5:42:24 AM PDT by Obadiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BaBaStooey
As far as infobabes go, Ann Curry doesn't do anything for me.

I wholeheartedly agree.
6 posted on 08/07/2006 5:42:29 AM PDT by JamesP81 ("Never let your schooling interfere with your education" --Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
Curry closed by telling Insana to "come back when you have good news." Somehow you sensed she didn't mean it.

You could bet the farm on this one. No way Curry/NBC/MSM are looking for any good news.

Thanks for watching GLGB. I still cannot bear to watch, but am most appreciative of you doing so.

7 posted on 08/07/2006 5:46:51 AM PDT by Chuck54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chuck54

Thanks, Chuck - my pleasure. Curry's rooting-for-the-worst was so blatant.


8 posted on 08/07/2006 5:49:45 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest (Watching the Today Show since 2002 so you don't have to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Why has no one seen the obvious. This is a stunt by BP, no doubt at the behest of the oil industry AS A WHOLE, to force oil prices even higher on some lame pretext. If you believe that BP really is shutting down that line because of corrosion, I have a summer home in Al-Anbar Province I can sell you for a song!



9 posted on 08/07/2006 5:52:37 AM PDT by katyusha (Those who fail history are doomed to go to summer school)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah; All
"...we are thus affected by such a small shut down in large measure because environmental wackos...

Amen! Also, ever notice how MSM reporters are now asking for more and more conclusions from the person reporting the story, rather than backing up any conclusions/generalizations with hard research? Watch the evening news and listen for: "According to a recent ABC (or fill in your own MSM network) poll, the demand for crude oil is now perfectly inelastic." (or some other equally stupid statement). They're making up their own news! I even asked to see an ABC poll a few years back about building power plants and was told: "The poll is not available to the general public". Believe me, anyone who is adept at writing questionnaires can word them in ways that produce the results they want.
10 posted on 08/07/2006 6:00:23 AM PDT by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: katyusha
This is a stunt by BP, no doubt at the behest of the oil industry AS A WHOLE, to force oil prices even higher on some lame pretext.

What's the basis for your conclusion? Hate for the oil industry or hard evidence?
11 posted on 08/07/2006 6:03:06 AM PDT by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: econjack

Merely common sense and an understanding of human nature. When I was a young person like you, I, too, had total faith in the market.


12 posted on 08/07/2006 6:11:22 AM PDT by katyusha (Those who fail history are doomed to go to summer school)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
Curry: "How much? $10 [per barrel]?"
Insana: "In a single day that would be a lot."

She could have said $100 [per barrel]... and Insana would have said the same thing.

13 posted on 08/07/2006 6:11:43 AM PDT by johnny7 (“And what's Fonzie like? Come on Yolanda... what's Fonzie like?!”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Looks Democrats were lying when they said oil from Alaska would be a mere drop in the bucket.


14 posted on 08/07/2006 6:13:24 AM PDT by syriacus (It's a small world after all. I'd rather have Israelis as neighbors than have Hizb'allah as neigbors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest; All

I thought OIL was not the real issue, the real issue is REFINERIES.


15 posted on 08/07/2006 6:14:21 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: katyusha

At first, I thought what you're saying was silly. But, on further thought,,,,,
How could these pipes have corroded so quickly? I 'm the operator of a small water company, and our tanks have been in use for almost 50 years. They were inspected last year, and the inspector said they were good for another forty years at least. And they're full of rising and falling water, not a lubricant type material. What did they make these pipes out of? Tinfoil?


16 posted on 08/07/2006 6:15:54 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ("Don't touch that thing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
yep..they skimped on the steel..you know ..big Government projects...unions...the mob...just like the big dig....skimp on the cement..payoff the inspector...

we should be building nukes, drilling for oil all over the place...getting ourselves away from the middle east terrorists....lets get going US...besides it creates great jobs..and Democrats like that...right?
17 posted on 08/07/2006 6:23:19 AM PDT by Youngman442002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
Looks Democrats were lying when they said oil from Alaska would be a mere drop in the bucket.

Great point!! Except that for the MSM, 400,000 barrels/day is only a lot when it's being subtracted from the market, not added ;-)

18 posted on 08/07/2006 6:25:51 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest (Watching the Today Show since 2002 so you don't have to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: syriacus

I really think your point here is brilliant. I've added it to the original NewsBusters item and given you a big hat tip.


19 posted on 08/07/2006 6:31:18 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest (Watching the Today Show since 2002 so you don't have to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: katyusha
When I was a young person like you, I, too, had total faith in the market.

Thanks for the compliment, but I'm two years younger than dirt, having taught university-level economics for over 20 years. Anyway, please don't fall into the "we ought to punish the oil companies and levy an excess profits tax on them!" crowd. Which would you rather do: 1) levy an excess profits tax and have Washington get a windfall income increase, or 2) let the companies who produce oil have the profits and use them to find more (profitable) oil? Oil companies during the last quarter made a 10% profit on gross sales. Given that the "easy" oil is already being drilled, they need the extra income to absorb the greater costs and risks associated with current exploration. This is even more true because of the "tree huggers" opposition to less expensive exploration (e.g., the Gulf of Mexico).

As to giving the govt more income via an excess profits tax, Congress levied an "alternative fuel tax" in the mid-1970's to pay for alternative fuel sources. I don't know about where you are, but they don't seem to be selling any of that alternative fuel in my neighborhood, but they're still collecting the tax.

No...the market can solve a billion simultaneous equations per day a heck of a lot better than some money-grubbing politician in Washington. I will always trust free markets more than politicians or tree-huggers.

20 posted on 08/07/2006 6:41:47 AM PDT by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: katyusha
This is a stunt by BP, no doubt at the behest of the oil industry AS A WHOLE, to force oil prices even higher on some lame pretext

Wow! The black helicopter told me that too!

21 posted on 08/07/2006 6:46:18 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Rabid ethnicist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

It was stated on another thread yesterday that sand is pumped out of the ground along with the oil. Over time, it corrodes, or creates thin spots along the pipeline.

What kind of maintenence does one do to prevent corrosion of this nature from happening?


22 posted on 08/07/2006 6:49:53 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Rabid ethnicist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

Exactly. Karl Rove commanded a fleet of Halliburton black helicopters to fly over Prudhoe Bay and corrode the pipeline, so that the neo-cons of Exxon/BP running the White House could profit from their . . . ;-)


23 posted on 08/07/2006 6:54:26 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest (Watching the Today Show since 2002 so you don't have to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

LOL! What I don't understand is if some folks really believe this, why would BP need a pretext to withhold oil from the market to raise prices? Just do it.


24 posted on 08/07/2006 6:57:59 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Rabid ethnicist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
Except that for the MSM, 400,000 barrels/day is only a lot when it's being subtracted from the market, not added ;-)

LOL. The new DNC math.

25 posted on 08/07/2006 7:13:30 AM PDT by syriacus (It's a small world after all. I'd rather have Israelis as neighbors than have Hizb'allah as neigbors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: econjack
No...the market can solve a billion simultaneous equations per day a heck of a lot better than some money-grubbing politician in Washington. I will always trust free markets more than politicians or tree-huggers.

I hope you don't mind that I bookmarked your post. You did a great job of presenting the facts.

26 posted on 08/07/2006 7:16:29 AM PDT by syriacus (It's a small world after all. I'd rather have Israelis as neighbors than have Hizb'allah as neigbors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
"Exactly. Karl Rove commanded a fleet of Halliburton black helicopters to fly over Prudhoe Bay and corrode the pipeline, so that the neo-cons of Exxon/BP running the White House could profit from their . . . ;-)"

...somehow making money by NOT selling the oil, which is stuck at the far-end of the pipeline and in the ground. It's just scary that basic stuff like economics is not taught in schools today, but putting-condoms-on-bananas is.

As I look up at the TV screen, oil is up $1.49 and natural gas is actually down, so it appears that Ms. Market is kinda yawning at this news.

27 posted on 08/07/2006 7:22:15 AM PDT by Sooth2222
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: syriacus

Thanks for the kind words...I appreciate it!


28 posted on 08/07/2006 7:27:12 AM PDT by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

Well, sand is certainly very corrosive. That must be the answer. However, I would think that some fairly high-tech coatings would be used in this instance. Do you remember when this pipeline was put in?


29 posted on 08/07/2006 7:28:34 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ("Don't touch that thing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

I believe they said the pipeline was put in in 1968.


30 posted on 08/07/2006 7:32:34 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Rabid ethnicist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
Alaskan oilfield. BP shut the Prudhoe Bay field indefinitely due to the discovery of severe corrosion and a very small spill from a Prudhoe Bay oil transit line. The 400,000 represents 8% of US domestic oil output and about 2.6% of US supply, including imports.

If losing such a small percentage of our oil production has such a bad effect wouldn't adding that much production have a like effect in the positive direction?

The anti-drillers have told us that US production has no effect on oil prices, Riiiiiight.

31 posted on 08/07/2006 7:34:29 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (I'll have the duck with mango salsa.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sooth2222

Can you believe it...way back when I was in high school (I think Gutenberg was still printing books), I had the choice of taking Economics or Civics, and I took Civics 'cause I heard econ was too hard. (I went on to major in econ in college...go figure.) Anyway, I think too many people opted for the same choices I did and we're paying the costs now.

Interesting experiment I used to ask in-coming Freshmen: What is the average profit of a US corporation? The most-often given answer: 50%. When pressed for their source of this "nugget" of information, they said "my parents". We're in deep trouble, people, if this is what the average US citizen thinks. The long-run profit rate for the average US corporation is 3.2%. Indeed, most companies would earn more if they sold their company and put the money in CD's. (There might be a few unemployemnt problems, however, if every corporation did this!)

Like they say: "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."


32 posted on 08/07/2006 7:38:09 AM PDT by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

Well, that's a pretty long time! I'll accept your facts! You came, you saw, you shot me down!


33 posted on 08/07/2006 7:43:24 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ("Don't touch that thing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

LOL! I just regurgitated. The sand sounds right. Even the date of the pipeline sounds right but I haven't seen date/timestamps on them myself ;)


34 posted on 08/07/2006 7:47:18 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Rabid ethnicist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

BWAAAAAAAA!
" but I haven't seen date/time stamps"
Ya know, there are some reuters pics floatin' around and I'd like to see the
date/times stamps on them!


35 posted on 08/07/2006 7:55:49 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ("Don't touch that thing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: econjack

I appreciate the convenience of having a well-written argument, like yours, available.


36 posted on 08/07/2006 9:37:35 AM PDT by syriacus (It's a small world after all. I'd rather have Israelis as neighbors than have Hizb'allah as neigbors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici; Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
I believe they said the pipeline was put in in 1968.

The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was designed and constructed to move oil from the North Slope of Alaska to the northern most ice- free port- Valdez, Alaska. Construction began on March 27, 1975 and was completed on May 31, 1977.

Alyeska Pipeline Quick Facts

37 posted on 08/07/2006 10:31:44 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: thackney; Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

Seems to be! Discovered in '68 and flowing in '77.

So it's only 30 years old.


38 posted on 08/07/2006 10:42:10 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Rabid ethnicist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

My husband is a pipeline inspector and has worked on repairs or replacements for the major oil companies on lines that were not as old as this one and some that were older. The acceleration of corrosion can be caused by a number of factors, and this shutdown is not likely to be a plot by BP to drive up prices, as some are asserting here.


39 posted on 08/07/2006 10:53:36 AM PDT by Mjaye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mjaye

I agree. The pipe is an average of 3 1/2 inches thick.


40 posted on 08/07/2006 11:05:37 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ("Don't touch that thing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

As I recall, most of the Alaska pipeline was built with an expected lifespan of about 30 yrs., which seemed very far off in the late 60's/early 70's.


41 posted on 08/07/2006 11:29:31 AM PDT by Mjaye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mjaye
As I recall, most of the Alaska pipeline was built with an expected lifespan of about 30 yrs., which seemed very far off in the late 60's/early 70's.

Weren'tt they also saying that our oil would run out in 1990 or 2000? They probably figured they had the system beat ;)

42 posted on 08/07/2006 11:36:38 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Rabid ethnicist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mjaye

There's apic of a pipe section on Drudge right. Completely shot. They will replace 73% of the pipeline. Going to be closed for a loooong time!


43 posted on 08/07/2006 12:36:04 PM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ("Don't touch that thing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

from reuters "Democrats call on Congress to probe BP shutdown"
Bush's fault!


44 posted on 08/07/2006 12:39:32 PM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ("Don't touch that thing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Mjaye

--this shutdown is not likely to be a plot by BP to drive up prices, as some are asserting here--

Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.

Jer. 5:21 KJV


45 posted on 08/08/2006 6:21:06 AM PDT by katyusha (Those who fail history are doomed to go to summer school)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

--why would BP need a pretext to withhold oil from the market to raise prices? Just do it--

Such a bonehead move would only inflame public (and congressional) passions against the oil industry further. The oil industry still has not forgotten the late, great, conservative senator Henry (Scoop) Jackson, who suggested back in the 1970s that the oil industry be nationalized. From his lips to Gods ears, as the saying goes. Anyhow, this gives BP a pretext to shut down the pipeline in the name of preventing an oil spill that would harm Mother Earth. Clever!


46 posted on 08/08/2006 6:24:25 AM PDT by katyusha (Those who fail history are doomed to go to summer school)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
Thanks, hadn't seen pic on Drudge, going there now after preparing self for assault by ads.
47 posted on 08/08/2006 11:41:17 PM PDT by Mjaye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

Uh-oh, if I read the story on Drudge correctly, they haven't even pigged the line, and I'll bet they will find more damage.


48 posted on 08/08/2006 11:46:00 PM PDT by Mjaye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson