United gives a good biffing to the critics

[Dea Certe]

----------------------
I am so happy to see United make it through the BK and come out on the other end. Good job, guys!
-----------------------

"Good job guys"??

What, good job in negotiating and letting the courts force you to give back half your pay, retirement, benefits, schedule quality, stiffing investors and creditors? Oh yes, great job!

Hey, all I was trying to say is that I'm glad that United didn't liquidate and that many employees are still able to do the jobs they like.

Pretty much every airline, except SWA, has screwed its employees. I'm not happy about that. But, United has lived to fight another day.

It seems like their management is focused on retaining and gaining more business travelers, which in my most humble opinion, is a good thing.

United is hiring flight attendants, so that must mean all the furloughees are back. Another good thing. I hope all furloughed folks are called back soon.

From what I hear, United customers are happy with the service they are receiving. That's good too, isn't it?

Lighten up! You'll live longer.

Dea

 

[Ukridge]

Points well made Jim.
I would like to propose that you and Busriver square off in a two hour spirited debate at the Good Queen Bess pub near the LSE one evening. I will provide the ale and all would be welcome. Well, this would not be a Fish friday of course (if you know what I mean) so we would keep that element away.
Seriously, I always feel as if I am missing something when looking at this problem. Irrespective of the level of production gained from the use of oil in the West, it seems that the uncertainty of its price and the subsequent impact on the leading economies would demand that governments make immediate and serious alternative plans - such as those mentioned by Busdriver. One would imagine that the shale and sand he describes would be driven to the top of the priority list for national interest. The same with an entire range or 'toolbox' full of other exploration/devlopement efforts whether they be nuclear, solar, or petrol based. Some avenues will of course lead nowhere (and frankly they should - that is the beauty of research and how it leads to steps forward in the end) and some may only contribute slightly to slaking the energy needs. The reliance however, on oil from unstable political areas seems to be foolhardy at best. Again, I am missing something as it seems to be what we in the West do over and over again. What is it that I do not know? (Well actually quite a bit, but in this context?)
Cheers

 

[Busdrvr]

UK,
Other than the obvious political overtone of Jim's response, there isn't much (if anything) that he said that I'd disagree with.

On Nukes:
In the past it was said that not one person had died in the western world fromt he peaceful use of nuclear power. That changed a few years ago when the Japanese had (I think) three individuals killed while experimenting in a lab. Meanwhile, we've lost 14 good men in coal mines just in the last month or so in the U.S. It's all rather irrational. I agree that we need follow the French model, find a good design and use it for a several plants. The other aspect is to get rid of the Green Nazi's power to slow the projects down. A classic example was the Shoreham site in NY. It was of the same design as another plan constucted in a nearby state (construction started at around the same time) but shoreham cost (I think) 10 times more, took significantly more time to build and never produced any electricity. The Green Party with the help of that ignorant fool Cuomo, got it shut down. They replaced it with DIESEL POWERED GENERATORS. Now ain't that clean and green... The biggest expense in Nuke power is construction costs, and they DEMOLISHED A BRAND NEW PLANT. Incredible. Yet our estemed NY senators decry our dependance on foriegn oil... In the Case of the Texas Nuke plant, keep in mind that the high inflation rates and interest rates of the late 70's/early 80's surely played a roll in the higher nominal cost of construction.

Secondly, I agree with his view of Irans influence on the oil markets. For the record, my stats on Irans market share are from their output in 2004 and taken from BP's energy factbook. There seems to be this notion that a cut of even 5% of world production would end life as we know it. Ludicrous. If price doubled, would we cut our use by 5%? I'm thinking it would be by even more. Additionally, we use significantly less oil per $1 of GDP than the developing world. So where will the biggest hit come? To the efficient users of energy or the inefficient ones?

While I'm for conservation where feasible, I laugh at the notion of "saving oil for our grandkids". It comes down to the differance between sustainability, and Sustainable growth. In the first case, the earth needs to be producing more oil than we're using. In the second, we develope alternatives as oil becomes more and more expensive, and the economy continues to grow. Jim would say to save some for our grandkids. Ok Fine, we cut use by 50%, our grandkids now have oil. What about our great grandkids? If it's a finite resource, someone gets screwed. I'd rather grow the economy and develope other sources rather than sit in a cave and "save oil" for the next generation.

WRT Shale, there is hesitation to proceed. This is borne partly out of the collapse of oil prices the last time around, and the economic ruin it left in western colorado. When ONE oil company starts producing large quantities out there, the rest will follow suit. Just a little game theory at play.

 

[TechBoy]

WRT Shale, there is hesitation to proceed. This is borne partly out of the collapse of oil prices the last time around, and the economic ruin it left in western colorado. When ONE oil company starts producing large quantities out there, the rest will follow suit. Just a little game theory at play.

From a market perspective, it is difficult to make the case for a big investment in shale right now. Shale would be the highest cost source for oil and would be hurt the most by any fall in prices. It's still cheaper to find new conventional oil than to do shale -- although tar sands seem to have a bright future as long as oil doesn't fall to $20. When the typical OPEC producer has a marginal cost of $2-5/bbl, there is always a big risk in investing huge amounts in high cost oil.

However, from a national security perspective, it may make sense to invest in shale. How much do we spend every year for national security purposes that is largely related to oil? Tens of billions at a minimum. If we invested some fraction of that in new production and real conservation, we could make a real national security difference. Now I know that would not be most efficient economically, but national security interests and economic interests do not always jive. This is a critical national security issue that both parties have ducked repeatedly.

 

[Ukridge]

Busdriver,

Fine response with much food for thought – good thread. First, as you know the spirit of classic English debate is often not a confrontational one and in no way similar to those of the tele fights that seem to be predominate on the airwaves on both sides of the Atlantic these days. So it was with this in mind that I extended the invite for you and Jim to the Good Queen Bess for a lively discussion of all topics oil and energy! The goal, as with this thread, is to learn. So welcome one, welcome all.
I have to admit to being a strong supporter of the nuclear concept. It can, and is, safely done. As you are probably well aware, there is a great deal of research and thinking going on at the moment as to better address the manner is which to deal with what has always been labeled “nuclear waste.†Of course it really is not “waste†per se, but rather a by-product of “spending†the rods. What to do then? Well, the current thinking is leading toward a “re-cycling†of sorts. It may hold some promise and I hope that it does. Better casking (quite good already for transport) may also lead to options. For years if one ever mentioned trying to launch the by-products into space or put them deep ocean, it was met with howls of derision – much along with the stupid questions a scientist faces when asked why we cannot have an anti-gravity mechanism or go faster than the speed of light. Not just annoying, but time wasting exercises in what was thought could not be done. Well, technology marches full apace and I would like to see what is proposed. It was the unfortunate first accident of your first Space Shuttle that oddly enough started to bring hope that maybe the casking could be strong enough to survive the worst. (Side note: for those who think launching nuclear ‘waste’ into space would be ‘polluting’ the universe need to remember that the sun is nothing but a seething mass of radioactivity)
For in the meantime, you have nearly 65% of central Germany and even central Europe’s wooded areas showing significant damage from non-base (or acid as I believe you call it) rains and associated precipitants. Yet, almost like clockwork, you have some German or Dutch “Green†blighter placing himself on the railway track to block the transport of the spent fuels – the very same fuels that added not a milligram of pollutant to the atmosphere! Yes, this blighter’s idea that Ruhr coal is the better idea leaves me confused.
I agree with your ideas of sustainability but also that we should also pursue mixtures of sources. Some of this is just out of an interest in research. Some ideas will fail the test of practicality; some will not be enough to provide all energy needs. Wind for example, while showing great promise in the North Sea, is certainly not (under current thinking) promising enough to replace all other sources. But augment it may, and should. I like to see what is being tried, tweaked, and working.
Second, apart from any specific political bias, I wonder (unfortunately without any specific numbers here) just what the real costs are for oil that comes through the “chokepoints.†When our kind and gentle friends attacked the French oil tanker near Yemen, the world was all a twitter thinking that the Froggies have been boxed a good one in the nose. Well, not only did oil insurance shipping rates increase markedly, but it also drew additional allied troop strength to monitor these areas. Now, one could make the argument that this force of men and material was a ‘sunk’ cost, but it does make me at least raise the question of how much the “cheaper†oil is costing the West as opposed to breaking logjams in other areas of research or just giving incentives to the oil companies (yes, I said it! Incentives!) to perfect shale/sand extraction. That to me is one of the real questions. Even though the oil in the West may be better utilized, what is the full cost as measured across all areas in order for it to be used.
Cheers

 

[jimntx]

While I'm for conservation where feasible, I laugh at the notion of "saving oil for our grandkids". It comes down to the differance between sustainability, and Sustainable growth. In the first case, the earth needs to be producing more oil than we're using. In the second, we develope alternatives as oil becomes more and more expensive, and the economy continues to grow. Jim would say to save some for our grandkids. Ok Fine, we cut use by 50%, our grandkids now have oil. What about our great grandkids? If it's a finite resource, someone gets screwed. I'd rather grow the economy and develope other sources rather than sit in a cave and "save oil" for the next generation.

Ah, Bus. (May I call you Bus?) You misconstrue. I did not mean save oil for our grandkids, I meant saving the bloomin world for our grandkids (of which I have none, nor shall have). The list of known carcinogens in crude oil and oil-derivative products, such as gasoline, is longer than the Joisey Turnpike. And, once petroleum products are spilled into the air, the water, or the soil (or, as happened time and time and time again, illegally and deliberately dumped by businesses that don't want the bother or expense of disposing of the stuff correctly), the dumpee remains polluted for a long, long, long time. A few Spring showers will not wash away and rectify petroleum ground pollution.

Despite the rigorous research (asking the oil companies what to say) by such well-known scientists as G. W. Bush, and the eminence grise, Dick Cheney, the reality of global warming and egregious man-made pollution--of all types--is becoming more evident every day. Now, as someone who is almost 61 and childless and a widower, I guess I could say let the b*st*rds freeze in the dark in the future, or die of excess solar exposure due to the destruction of the ozone layer, or live lives shortened by the carcinogens that have become a permanent feature of the water supply, but I can't get rid of the notion that maybe, just maybe, I should make some attempt to leave the world in, at least, no worse condition that I received it.

Now, I realize that since this is in direct opposition to everything that Bush and company stand for, you'll say this is just a political rant. But, one of the days when you are looking down on the earth from your eternity, I hope that you don't see your descendants living in poverty, disease, and pain because we of the current generation decided that cheap gas was the most important, and only, problem worth solving.

And, a mea culpa. Busdriver is right about the oil sands recovery projects. I have since found out that there are efforts hot and heavy in western Canada to extract petroleum from oil sands. I would like to add though that this is ONLY because oil is above $60/bbl which makes these projects economically feasible. If oil drops back down in price--which we all need--these projects will once again shrivel and die as they did before. Expensive production processes require high priced end product. Toyota does not spend $30,000 building a car that they can only sell for $20,000--that's the speciality of GM and Ford.