Oil

[Ukridge]

Seems to be quite a few discussions spread about concerning oil, its availability, and its price. I suggest that we let Jimntx square off against Busdrvr for a 15 rounder. "In this corner, tipping the scale at 13 stone and in the red trunks - Busdrvr. Sagging the earth at 13 stone and one-half in the blue - Jimntx."

Seriously, this is a topic much debated in Europe and I am interested to find out the opinions from the abovementioned two (as well, of course, as others) as to:
- Why is there a perception that petrol costs more in Europe than in the U.S.? The pre-refined oil costs no more (in some cases less from transportation to the refinery if it is any of the various oils that make up the 'Brent' label) but is post-refined taxed much more. I find it interesting to hear that the U.S. needs to take this or that action lest petrol cost as much as in any of the other industrialized countries. Well, the issue there is for the most part tax.

- What blandishment (other than leakage and cheating on a quota) is there for OPEC to seek lower prices? Fully understanding the demand curve, it is difficult to underestimate what the inflow of monies has done for member and other producing countries. One need only to look at Nigeria, but consideration of Iran is more illustrative. Long beleagured by a booming population without solid life prospects. The recent run-up in oil prices has allowed the government to pacify this group with make-work projects and some may state, given the leadership (I use this term loosely of course) further impetus to seek natural gas deals with India and China - all which weakens the U.S. position against Iran. Money in the coffer always serves as a butress.

- If the U.S. feels so hamstrung by lack of refining capacity, why do they not simply contract to do it right across the border in Mexico? What would be the transport cost? Why the huff and puff about the entire game stopped by a few? I find this argument chimerical at best and for the most part vacuous.

- Why the sentiment against conservation? Anyone who has read either Professors Ferguson or Timothy Garton Ash is forced to agreee that apart from all the good in Europe and the U.S. the real game is shifting toward Asia. Ash is of the opinion that Europe/U.S. are going to be relegated to the second rank by India/China growth. Yes, even China may see a slowing of growth, but look 20 to 25 years down the road - not next year and the thesis is hard to refute. Drill away, it still may not be enough.

Remember the current adage making the rounds: if you are one in a million in China - that one person of a million with not only special engineering or science knowledge but also true intellectual gifts - then there are statistically speaking another 1,350 just like you! Perhaps it will not come to play but I would not wager that Inida and China are going to remain passive players in the world market. Ash may very well be correct.
Cheers

 

[WorldTraveler]

I'll jump in since I made it here before Bus and Jim but the US is now no longer the only force on the planet to determine the world's economy - at it hurts. There are other economies vying for the world's limited resources. Further, the US economy is limping along because of consumer spending; now that the standard of living for the average American worker is no longer growing, it's harder and harder to keep the economy moving. Which means that price hikes what's happening w/ oil hurt even more. And because we now live in the global economy that the US advocted - but which the US really isn't that prepared to win in - the US has to devalue the dollar. OPEC has no reason to accept less money for their products because there is lots of demand for their product elsewhere and they also don't have to buy just US products anymore.
I'm generally an optimist but I really can't see a whole lot of silver lining about the US economy anytime in the next 10 years or more.

 

[Busdrvr]

Petrol prices in the U.S. vs UK:
"pump" prices are higher in the UK, because of the much higher level of taxation on consumer fuel in the EU area. however, last I check, Jet Fuel was CHEAPER in the EU. Again, I think much of that price differance is due to taxation. While I laugh at much of what the two stooges in Europe (France and Germany) do economically, they at least have the brains to avoid the taxation of production. We use it as a political point and and accuse politicains of "handouts" to "big business" when we do it.

Why would OPEC NOT want oil prices to be as high as possible?
couple of things to consider.
1. If I have a project that will, including developement cost, yield oil at $20 a barrel, I will proceed with that project if and only if oil is above $20, AND I am resonably sure it will stay there long enough for me to get to an economic breakeven profit level. In the past, when oil has spiked, the futures contracts stayed low, discouraging exploration. This was largely due to assurances from OPEC that "we'll open the spigots". Not this time.
2. High oil prices mean CONSERVATION. for OPEC, that's bad.
3. High oil prices mean alternative energy sources. NG for instance, is about HALF the price per million BTU as petrol at the pump. the only thing lacking is infrastructure. If the price differential stays high, the infrastructure comes.
4. Now, tying this together, one of the theories of oil demand is that it has what is referred to as "assymetric price elasticity of demand". Simply put, lets imagine that oil demand is stable at $20 a barrel. 10 years from now it's still $20 a barrel at the same level of output. Now, let's imagine that instead, price spikes to $100 a barrel, then falls back a couple years later to $20 a barrel. Will demand be the same as if it had never spiked? Likely not. The spike probably costs folks like KCflyer to trade in the truck and Big Chrysler for matching Hybrids complete with it's standard "I brake for trees" and "Meat is murder" bumper sticker. If price falls, He's not going to run back to the dealer and get his old cars back. High prices drive technology change to reduce energy consumption.
5. When other, non-OPEC companies drill for oil, they produce flat out, max. That's the rational game theory production level. That leaves OPEC to do ALL the capacity cuts to control prices. A case in point is to look at what happened to Saudi oil production and prices from 1979 to 1985. They were doing ALL the heavy lifting in an attempt to get prices under 'control' (they felt they were much too low in 85).

http://www.bp.com/subsection.do?categoryId...ntentId=2015020
This site contains a wealth of statistical production and consumption as well as usage levels for about the last 30 years.

One must also consider that OPEC is made up of many countries with differant "goals". The 'stable' regimes (if you can call them that) of Saudi and Kuwait want lower prices and stable demand. They want you to burn oil in your car 100 years from now. The "less stable" governments like Argentina and Iran want HIGH prices today so that they can stay in power, with little regard for next week, much less 20 years from now.

Refining:
Somebody has to run it, and a lot of the skilled labor wouldn't want to move to Mexico. Plus I think the entire industry is nationalized there. Why build a refinery in Mexico only to have the Mexican government tax away every dime of your profit (and more) then just take it away in a few years. Plus, it is VERY expensive to build one, and with limited "players" in the field (see Cournot Duopoly), and significant barriers to entry, new refineries have not been in the cards. There is a planned new refinery for Yuma Arizona that was recently approved (will process "heavy" Mexican oil), so hopefully help is on the way.

Conservation: There is no energy shortage. and in truth, there is no "oil" shortage. There is a shortage of the simpliest to refine grades, and of refinery capability to crack the heavy oils. The oil sand and oil shale in North America make the middle east look like a little mud puddle. the middle east has maintained one advantage, COST. As to India and China, their economies are MUCH more energy intensive, ie it takes WAY more energy to produce one unit of GDP than in the U.S, and on the consumer side, if you make $100 a week, $2 a gallon gas will change your habits. If you make $3000 a week, it likely will not.

 

[jimntx]

I shan't weigh in here. As a veteran of the oil business (20+ years), I've stated my position previously. However, Busdriver adheres to the pseudo-conspiracy theory position that somehow or another, the evil liberals are responsible.

I have to offer in contradiction to a couple of his last statements...

"2. High oil prices mean CONSERVATION. for OPEC, that's bad." Just where does he see conservation being practiced? The lines at the pumps do not seem any shorter even though gasoline at retail is approx. 66% above what it was a year ago.

"There is no energy shortage. and in truth, there is no "oil" shortage. There is a shortage of the simpliest to refine grades, and of refinery capability to crack the heavy oils. The oil sand and oil shale in North America make the middle east look like a little mud puddle."

It appears that no amount of logic will shake him from this position. Yes, there are lots of oil sand and oil shale deposits in North America. And, as he states the COST of production is a major barrier to exploration. There is also the little issue that the people of the U.S. and Canada are united in their cries of NIMBY. Let's see if Busdriver will be first to volunteer the lot next to his children or grandchildren's school for a drill site. Or, perhaps a cracker unit behind his house in the area where he has always enjoyed watching the deer feed in the early morning. Every one wants cheap gas as long as it's some dark-skinned people that are discommoded by the production and refining.

The major oil companies have a long and storied history of ignoring and circumventing environmental protection laws at every opportunity. Then 50 years down the road when a town's water supply becomes undrinkable or half the children in town have cancers of one sort or another, the oil company is either gone or dares you to sue them in court. If you do sue and win, they keep lawyers on retainer for years to make sure that you die before you collect a dime.

As far as the argument that most of the cost of crude oil and petrol in Europe...
Yes, the cost of crude is about the same in both the U.S. and Europe. So what? Personally, I have no direct use for crude oil. Do you?
Most of the cost of petrol at the pump in Europe is taxes. So what? Most of the cost of gasoline in the U.S. is taxes of one sort or another as well. So what?

Whether the cost is taxes or the vendor is subsidizing the cost of Caramellos in the mini-mart, the cost at the pump is what it is. I am still waiting to see the higher gas prices result in conservation in this country.


But, don't get me started...

BTW, how did you know how much I weigh? At 13.5 stone, you were off by a 3rd order decimal.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Bus,
the cost and timeline for development of new energy sources is astronomical and OPEC knows it. They can keep prices high now but the market will not develop new energy sources unless they see energy needs surpassing current production capabilities, necessitating an investment and insuring that there will be a reasonable return.
Despite your assertions otherwise, the US has a serious infrastructure crisis brewing and alot of it is due to the NIMBY mindset about which Jim speaks. When we haven't built a refinery in this country in 30 years and the electrical infrastructure is precariously stretched to the limit, there is little hope that prices will either come down or that there will be a surplus of capacity. For the airlines, it means every one of them should plan on much higher prices; it's possible they might not end up as high as expected but the airline industry has rarely been overly pessimistic in any of its assumptions.

 

[UAL_TECH]

For the airlines, it means every one of them should plan on much higher prices; it's possible they might not end up as high as expected but the airline industry has rarely been overly pessimistic in any of its assumptions.

[post="261513"][/post]​

You are 8 days off, April fools was last week.

Thanks for the laugh though!

B) UT

 

[Busdrvr]

However, Busdriver adheres to the pseudo-conspiracy theory position that somehow or another, the evil liberals are responsible.

No, I contend that it's not nearly so complicated. The Clinton administration, out of political expediency, chose to ignore the coming shortage brought on by the glut. They sat back and watched prices hit $10 a barrel. They had the perfect op to fill the SPR AND offer stability to the drilling sector. They didn't. bubby knows peoples likes the cheap url.


Just where does he see conservation being practiced? The lines at the pumps do not seem any shorter even though gasoline at retail is approx. 66% above what it was a year ago.

First, there IS conservation. I'm avoiding the temptation to flame you over your apparent disregard of the laws of economics, but consider this: When Oil prioces go up $10 a barrel, there isn't a line of Hummers at the Toyota dealership just waiting to be traded in for pennies on the dollar for a new Prius.
Here is what DOES happen, EVEN if oil prices start down now. The old family truckster gets old. It needs replacing. Now when you go to replace it, MPG MATTERS. If you have a car that gets 20 MPG and you drive 2000 miles a month, you gas bill is $150 a month at $1.50 a gallon, $200 a month at $2.00 a gallon, and $250 at $250 a gallon. Now imagine that you can buy a new car that gets 30 MPG and gas is up to $3.00 a gallon. how much more are you willing to spend to own the 30 MPG car? What if you are unsure if prices will stay high? What if the new car can't pull a boat? Isn't as "safe" Isn't as powerful? In truth a prius is a tough economic argument to make. but MPG will become a bigger issue. Higher oil may not send you in for a tradein, but it will matter as current vehicles need replacing. It won't happen instantly, but it IS happening. Take a look at the stats, the first oil, shock didn't change things much in the 70's, the second did. I'd argue that the first actually DID, it just took until AFTER the SECOND shock for the changes to roll through.

There is also the little issue that the people of the U.S. and Canada are united in their cries of NIMBY.

"united"? maybe at your green party meetings..
See, wht YOU want to do is DICTATE what everyone drives, and where we drill (even if it's all on someone elses property). Personally, NIMBY is about people who are p1ssed that no oil was found on their lot and are looking for a peice of the action. It reminds me though of a story. A wealthy stock brocker friend was vising a rather wealthy client who happened to be, I think, a pig farmer. Of course there was a smell associated with the farm. The farmer asked him what "do you know what that smell is?" "MONEY!" He made a choice. Likewise, we need to make choices.

NIMBY? How much land do you think needs to be developed? What percent of U.S. land would it comprise? Is there an acceptable level of development for you?

but lets put aside Shale and oil sands (which are currently producing gobs of oil). What else can be used to produce fuel? Are you familiar with Biodeisel? Google it. It's liquid solar energy. It's currently only a little more expensive than desiel, and MUCH cleaner. There alternatives, and they all don't take years to develope. But even when they do, it's as I stated earlier, the "unstable" OPEC states want higher oil prices now, the "stable' states learned from the last oil shock.

Every one wants cheap gas as long as it's some dark-skinned people that are discommoded by the production and refining.

Yeah, better they starve to death naturally. Life would be so grand if we just all farmed what we could, rode horses (or is that cruel to animals?) and lived in caves...

The major oil companies have a long and storied history of ignoring and circumventing environmental protection laws at every opportunity. Then 50 years down the road when a town's water supply becomes undrinkable or half the children in town have cancers of one sort or another

Oh, so a bunch of dead people who ran the company 100 years ago were wrong, and now that means developement can't be dones responsibly. .

 

[jimntx]

No, I contend that it's not nearly so complicated.  The Clinton administration, out of political expediency, chose to ignore the coming shortage brought on by the glut.  They sat back and watched prices hit $10 a barrel.  They had the perfect op to fill the SPR AND offer stability to the drilling sector.  They didn't.  bubby knows peoples likes the cheap url. 

I never said that the Democrats have anymore political nerve than the Republicans. And, I guess your boy, Shrub, is really standing up to the automotive industry lobby on his demand that SUVs and non-commercial trucks get better gas mileage. And, I loved it when Shrub insisted that energy producers quit polluting the air, soil, and water of this nation. Those rank right up there with his (and Darth Cheney's) promise that the reconstruction of Iraq would pay for itself.

First, there IS conservation.  I'm avoiding the temptation to flame you over your apparent disregard of the laws of economics, but consider this:  When Oil prioces go up $10 a barrel, there isn't a line of Hummers at the Toyota dealership just waiting to be traded in for pennies on the dollar for a new Prius.
Here is what DOES happen, EVEN if oil prices start down now.  The old family truckster gets old.  It needs replacing.  [Edited for length]  Higher oil may not send you in for a tradein, but it will matter as current vehicles need replacing.   It won't happen instantly, but it IS happening.  Take a look at the stats, the first oil, shock didn't change things much in the 70's, the second did. 

I find that level of naivete refreshing in someone your age. In the first place, Toyota can't GIVE away the Prius to anyone other than us evil Greens (which I am not, BTW. I'm a divine right royalist.) It will matter as current vehicles need replacing just about as much as your vaunted second oil shock changed things. Only a little and only for a relatively short time. IIRC, even with the supposed change after the 2nd oil shock, the first thing that happened was trucks (whether commercial or non-commercial) got exempted from fuel consumption reduction requirements. Then, the automotive industry started building SUVs on truck frames and insisted that they be exempted as well. Other consumers of petroleum products, such as power boats got exempted also. Considering that the American public is willing to deny itself nothing even in times of war (try talking to some people who were around during WWII about how average, church-going, upstanding folk cheated like bandits on their ration stamps for fuel, tires, you name it), and considering that the collective memory of the American public is about as long as Shrub's thought processes (not currently measurable without an electron microscope), your argument holds no H20.

"united"?  maybe at your green party meetings..
See, wht YOU want to do is DICTATE what everyone drives, and where we drill (even if it's all on someone elses property).  Personally, NIMBY is about people who are p1ssed that no oil was found on their lot and are looking for a peice of the action.  It reminds me though of a story.  A wealthy stock brocker friend was vising a rather wealthy client who happened to be, I think, a pig farmer.  Of course there was a smell associated with the farm.  The farmer asked him what "do you know what that smell is?"  "MONEY!"  He made a choice.  Likewise, we need to make choices.

Oh, I agree completely that we need to make choices, but the problem is that the American public keeps opting for unavailable choices. We want cheap gas, but we don't want oil drilled in our back yards (as for your snide little Green comment...I guess Shrub's little brother qualifies as a Green since he got big brother's government to ban oil drilling off the beaches in Florida. And, don't even bother coming back with the lie that the drilling sites that were banned from auction were 100 miles offshore. They were within sight of the beaches.) We want to prosecute wars and cut taxes at the same time. (It's simple really. We'll just not include any costs associated with the war in the budget. That will reduce the deficit.) We want policemen, firemen, and highly skilled, trained, and educated school teachers, but we want someone else to pay for them. (What about me? I don't have any children. Why should I pay school taxes?)

Your little fable about the pig farmer is really, really cute. Why don't we have Hormel (or whoever) build another one of their giant pig farms near your home? See if you still think that smell is the smell of prosperity--particularly, since you won't be sharing in that prosperity. The myth of the individual pig farmer is just that--a myth--in this country now.

I do not want to dictate what anyone drives. However, I am really tired of people ranting about the cost of gasoline while they fill up their Navigator that gets less than 10 mpg. I am tired of people who rant about NAFTA's effect upon the textile and clothing industries in the U.S. (negligible) all the way from home to Wal-Mart which started out (and continues) to sell clothing made in the Far East.

NIMBY?  How much land do you think needs to be developed?  What percent of U.S. land would it comprise?  Is there an acceptable level of development for you?

The amount of land needed is of no consequence and you know it. What a facetious statement. I am talking about the unwillingness of the average Joe Schmoe--particularly the upper middle income shlubs--to have anything unpleasant like ground and water pollution from drilling site spills or air, ground, and water pollution from refinery oopsies anywhere near where he/she lives and plays. I'm with you on the need to develop nuclear energy, but look at the fiasco that has ensued over the storage of the wastes. Everyone except the people in Nevada thought Yucca Mountain would be just the perfect place. THAT's what I mean by NIMBY. This idea that I want the benefits of a technology--such as nuclear electric power generation--but you should have to keep the still radioactive wastes buried in your state. After all, you have more land out there (wherever there may be as long as it's NIMBY.)

but lets put aside Shale and oil sands (which are currently producing gobs of oil).  What else can be used to produce fuel?  Are you familiar with Biodeisel?  Google it.  It's liquid solar energy.  It's currently only a little more expensive than desiel, and MUCH cleaner.  There alternatives, and they all don't take years to develope.  But even when they do, it's as I stated earlier, the "unstable" OPEC states want higher oil prices now, the "stable' states learned from the last oil shock.

And, just who is responsible for our failure to exploit alternative energy sources? Oh, I know. It's those evil OPEC countries that have passed a law that prevents the United States from ever using anything other than oil. Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket. If there were money to be made in biodiesel, I can assure you that the oil companies would be in Washington, D.C. right now trying to get a law passed that prevented anyone other than them from developing these alternative sources. Running cars on reprocessed vegetable oil--even from a greasy spoon deep fat fryer--is an idea that was proven over 30 years ago. I had a friend in Houston who lost a small fortune trying to get the government, the oil companies, and the public to invest in his company that collected waste oil from all kinds of sources--service stations, restaurants, you name it. In the early 70's, he proved that these oils could be "cleaned" and reused at a reasonable cost and sold at a reasonable price. The problem then and now, is that the profit margin was only reasonable as well. Oil companies don't want reasonable profits. Why should they settle for reasonable when they have made astronomical profits from petroleum and petroleum-based products?

Yeah, better they starve to death naturally.  Life would be so grand if we just all farmed what we could, rode horses (or is that cruel to animals?) and lived in caves...

Oh, aren't you just too cute with your attempts to twist the argument with specious statements? I never said that. Again, it's nothing more than NIMBY. Anyone who says that the United States does not have a history of assuming superiority over any country or people that are not European in origin is in rank denial, or an avid participator in those assumptions. Why should I have an oil shale processing plant in my back yard when we can place it in the backyard of someone who has no political power or the money to fight it?

Oh, so a bunch of dead people who ran the company 100 years ago were wrong, and now that means developement can't be dones responsibly.  .

[post="261526"][/post]​

Who said anything about 100 years ago. How about 20 years ago? Or, even right now today? The oil companies and a lot of other industries continue to pollute the air, ground, and water because they can. And, they spend millions lobbying in Washington and in state capitals to make sure that no laws are passed that would require them to BE responsible in their development.

I would like to hear you pronounce your blather to the parents of the children who are dealing with cancers and other diseases from a deliberate dumping of oil wastes at a site just south of Houston which "free market" developers then built a subdivision and school on top of the site. The dumping took place in the late 70's and early 80's. Oh, but don't worry. The company that did the dumping no longer exists, and the developers and the companies that produced the waste are taking the Ken Lay defense that they didn't know nuthin 'bout nuthin.

 

[Busdrvr]

And, I guess your boy, Shrub, is really standing up to the automotive industry lobby on his demand that SUVs and non-commercial trucks get better gas mileage.

Let me be clear, I don't want "tougher standards". If I want a 300 HP denali that can haul a Mastercraft with ease, I want to be able to buy it. You contend the SUV would not even exist if not for the government meddeling in the free market. Silly rules yield silly solutions. How will they reduce the fleet average SUV fuel economy? They'll produce things like the PT Cruiser and call it an SUV. did you kow that for purposes of the feel good "gas guzzler" tax, a Rolls Royce was classified as a "truck"? To get better gas milage in SUVs, the auto industry will have to make the more expensive, smaller, lighter, or all of the above. Not interested.

And, I loved it when Shrub insisted that energy producers quit polluting the air, soil, and water of this nation.

Please explain. Are you saying that the regulations under Bush are less stringent than they were under Clinton? If yes, please provide the relevent proof. Zero polution is neither possible or desirable.

I find that level of naivete refreshing in someone your age.

I find that level of stubborness and ignorance comical in someone your age. Put down the slide rule. We no longer make the same decisions based on the how things were 'in the day'.

In the first place, Toyota can't GIVE away the Prius to anyone other than us evil Greens

Really? Do you REALLY believe that? Incredible. first, Hybrids are going "mainstream", despite the best efforts of the ignorant greens who protest loudly that anyone would even think of making a hybrid SUV. Honda will produce a midsize Hybrid car, that has the power of a 6 cylinder and the economy of a 4 cylinder, while Ford and Lexus are introducing Hybrid SUV's. I'm willing to bet the line is already long. Personally, I'm far from sold on the hybrids. A turbo deisel will do almost just as well on fuel, while costing significantly less, lasting longer, and in the ase of the SUV's, have the ability to tow something.

See if you still think that smell is the smell of prosperity--particularly, since you won't be sharing in that prosperity. The myth of the individual pig farmer is just that--a myth--in this country now.

I don't smell his farm, but i likely benefit from lower food prices because of people like him. The problem isn't NIMBY, the problem is NIYBY. Too many busy bodies telling far away people what they can and can't do in their back yard. ANWR is a classic example. It supported overwelmingly by Alaskans to include the native peoples. Yet the Nantucket, and L.A. crowds wishes to dictate to them what they should do. Never mind that the LA basin and Nantucket were much more beautiful before developement. Maybe we should bulldoze the rich liberal enclaves, restore them to their 'natural state" to perserve the natural beauty of the country, and DEVELOPE the wastelands. I'm sure a lot more wildlife was displaced per acre to build the Kennedy and Kerry compounds than to would be develope ANWR.

We want to prosecute wars and cut taxes at the same time. (It's simple really. We'll just not include any costs associated with the war in the budget. That will reduce the deficit.)

Hmm, i see you have a handle on Macroeconomics....

American public is about as long as Shrub's thought processes (not currently measurable without an electron microscope)

now that's funny. i guess you still think Kerry was "brighter'? GMAFB. Why do you think Kerry refused to release his SATs? I'll give you a hint, he was the least intellegent guy running. Bush tortures the English language. so what. I honestly get the beak when I hear leftist make the snide, usually EXTREMELY uninformed remarks about the policies of the current administration. A quick reading of USAToday and you've got it wired huh.

Everyone except the people in Nevada thought Yucca Mountain would be just the perfect place. THAT's what I mean by NIMBY. This idea that I want the benefits of a technology--such as nuclear electric power generation--but you should have to keep the still radioactive wastes buried in your state. After all, you have more land out there (wherever there may be as long as it's NIMBY.)

Yucca mountain is a classic example of misinformation and fear mongering by the left. would I except a Yucca type facility near my house? ABSOLUTELY. How close is YUCCA to the nearest city? What is the danger? Is it safer to store waste onsite? did you know there are other places that WANT the Yucca facility? Yucca is about one thing, attempting to stop developement via the back door. The greens are trying to stop power generation by stopping wasted disposal. Misinformation is the weapon. Sierra acknowledges that their gripe about Nuke power is that if energy is too clean and cheap, we'll use too much. :blink: . the goal is not anti-nuke, it's anti-economic growth. Ironically, despite refusing to back down on Yucca, Bush still carried Nevada.

And, just who is responsible for our failure to exploit alternative energy sources? Oh, I know. It's those evil OPEC countries that have passed a law that prevents the United States from ever using anything other than oil. Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket.

Ah, is it that difficult to understand? Alternate sources were not pursued because oil was CHEAPER. If not in the short term, in the long term. that appears, at least for now, to be changing. The futures maket is now indicating permanantly higher oil prices. aproject that needs years of higher oil prices to break even, may now pass financial muster.

If there were money to be made in biodiesel, I can assure you that the oil companies would be in Washington, D.C. right now trying to get a law passed that prevented anyone other than them from developing these alternative sources. Running cars on reprocessed vegetable oil--even from a greasy spoon deep fat fryer--is an idea that was proven over 30 years ago. I had a friend in Houston who lost a small fortune trying to get the government, the oil companies, and the public to invest in his company that collected waste oil from all kinds of sources--service stations, restaurants, you name it.

The guy who invented Velcro didn't make a dime either. His timing was bad. There are plenty of people making aliving with biodiesel, and the market is now gaining traction and growing. 20% blends are being used in lots of locations, and Biodiesel helps make petrol diesel meet emission standards

 

[JungleClone]

Isn't it amazing how the U.S. has troops deployed and/or large military bases in the countries where the last large known oil fields are located? Anyone ever asked themselves why Dick Cheney and his pals so adamantly refuse to hand over the minutes and records from their Energy Task Force meetings? It's because they know the truth. Oil production has peaked. And the impact on the global economy is going to be devastating once that fact can no longer be hidden from a public that merely takes everything it's spoon-fed from the White House and Congress as gospel without ever questioning it.

 

[Busdrvr]

Isn't it amazing how the U.S. has troops deployed and/or large military bases in the countries where the last large known oil fields are located? Anyone ever asked themselves why Dick Cheney and his pals so adamantly refuse to hand over the minutes and records from their Energy Task Force meetings? It's because they know the truth. Oil production has peaked. And the impact on the global economy is going to be devastating once that fact can no longer be hidden from a public that merely takes everything it's spoon-fed from the White House and Congress as gospel without ever questioning it.

[post="261988"][/post]​

Really? The Saudi's effective kicked us out. So that leave Iraq, Kuwait and Qatar.

Now other place with big troop/base levels: Japan, Okinawa, South Korea, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Afghanistan....

Plaaces without large U.S. troops levels: Russia (specifically Siberia), Greenland (there are those who think there are HUGE reserves there), Canada, Mexico, Venezuala, Nigeria, iran, Libya, Somalia (yes, some think they have sizable reserves).

While I'm personally not sold on the fear mongering of Peak oil, I do believe that oil usage will steadily decline just as soon as oil CONSISTANTLY stays above the cost of other suitable alternatives (syn and Bio fuels). But you are correct, one of Bush's most prominant energy advisors is a HARD CORE, chicken little peak oil advocate. Now that is where I just don't get the liberal view on Bush and Energy. A little consistancy would be nice, either Bush believes we are threatened with having huge "peak oil" issues, and need to develope everything we have while we try to make a smooth transition to other energy sources, or he's doesn't think we'll ever run out so he's trying to help out his "oil buddies"

On the "minutes" issue. you're CEO of a company. The Vice President considers you an Expert on a subject. He calls you in and says "Bob, don't sugar coat it, give me your opinion, no attribution, no retribution". would you be completely candid if you knew everything you said would be leaked to the press and attributted to you?

 

[novaqt]

Funny how all this will change when the opposing party has control of Congress and perhaps the White House back.

 

[Busdrvr]

Funny how all this will change when the opposing party has control of Congress and perhaps the White House back.

[post="262101"][/post]​

You're right. We won't need gas when pigs fly....

 

[Ukridge]

Ding! The round ends and the fighters return each to his corner. A quick look at the scoring card to see how the round played out…..

Jimntx – No, only a guess as to the 13 stone ½. I think you may have misunderstood my point about post-refinery taxation when you said “so what?†I was trying to understand why there seems to be a sentiment in America that we on the Eastern side of the water have to pay more for oil/refined products when as you stated it is simply a taxation policy. The barrel of crude (that indeed I can do nothing with) has cost me the same or less than my American counterpart. HM government however, has decided to tax the daylights out of it once it exits the refinery and enters my auto.

Busdrvr – I am not sure that I understand the concept of “a liberal.†or a “conservative.†Is it a liberal serving portion whilst at the dinner table? Is it a liberal education - heavy on the classics with Latin and Greek as the underpinning? I have always thought that these phrases are more of a commercial marketing tool than a point of serious philosophical political discourse. Marketers of all stripes have made serious money trotting out the concept of an “us†versus them mentality. I have noticed in the FCs that it is used to sell radio, television, and books. Yet, when challenged, very few of the consumers of such palvum struggle to be able to articulate just what ideas they hold as “principles†(a word I hear often in discussion with our American cousins). It seems rather that so many have simply retreated into a tribe or clan and have adopted the shibboleths of said tribe without deep and rational examination of the credos held forth by the group. I certainly do not expect a consumer ( not implying you but rather in a general frame) of the trash of the Murdoch (remember, he has as much here as he does over there) empire to be able to accurately discuss the great democratic philosophers such as Hume, Locke, or Rousseau, but a sketch of the main principles would serve the argument. Orwell, if he were not already dead, would be slain by such use of labels. I believe them to be a money-making trick at best.

Now, on another thread I noticed that a poster claimed to exercise “Sentimental Analysis†whilst plying his expertise in the oil markets. I would submit that I could do nothing of the sort but perhaps you and Jimntx could enter into a sure-fire scheme with Ukridge. Using the basis of Descartes ‘I think therefore I am†(cogito ergo sum) I think that we could put forth an oil newsletter based of the principle of “Sentient Analysis.†In other words because we “are,†therefore we “analyze.†This Sentient Analysis is a contrarian tack in the field of oil market analysis. I thought that we could trot out a newsletter that would feature Busdrvr and Jimntx squaring off on a monthly basis to read the tea leaves of the trends in the oil markets. I would write a turgid introduction and we could charge readers £15 per issue for the pearls of wisdom. Why not? If this ‘Sentimental Analysis’ is such the sure-fire thing, why not ‘Sentient Analysis?’ After all, all you have to ‘be’ is alive!

Cheers

 

[jimntx]

The major oil companies have a long and storied history of ignoring and circumventing environmental protection laws at every opportunity. Then 50 years down the road when a town's water supply becomes undrinkable or half the children in town have cancers of one sort or another

Oh, so a bunch of dead people who ran the company 100 years ago were wrong, and now that means developement can't be dones responsibly. .

[post="261526"][/post]​

If you think it was all over 100 years ago, please read the article in today's NY Times regarding drinking water pollution from MTBEs and certain Republican efforts to absolve the guilty parties of any financial responsibility for the cleanup.

A Dirty Little Footnote to the Energy Bill