Oil Company Myths - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 07-07-2008, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

.....we spend billions subsidizing inefficient oil alternatives, and we are not producing any oil domestically.

I know that generally on TFP, members want to put all of the blame on Bush but it seems to me that the problem is bigger than Bush and predates his administration. It is going to get worse unless there is cooperation in Washington on this issue.

ace....I've posted support for the idea that the first part of the quote of you above is inaccurate....and the rest is inaccurate because there is clear evidence that the Bush administration has constantly been at work destabalizing the security in the middle east, and not what you claim.

Ace, Iran is not a threat to US National Security....our own intelligence agencies issued a report last November, that the Bush administration stifled and contested for a year before it was released....with the president claiming the opposite of what the NIE said.....since Bush knew that the assessment of US intelligence was that Iran had ceeased it's nuclear weapons development program in 2003.

Iran is perhaps a threat to Israel's security, but would Iran ever launch a "first strike" on Israel, even if it did develop a nuclear warhead capable of being delivered via a missle, since Israel is host to the third most holy place in Islam?

Do you think this constant "dictation" from "unidentified US officials" to Michael Gordon of the NY Times, and other cooperative corporate media shills, by the Bush administration....serves to lessen tensions in the ME, ace, or to increase them? Do you think this constant belligerence influences petroleum prices to go down?

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...33#post2481933

Just read Michael Gordon's June 20 article, posted near the bottom of the next quote box......

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/09/hoyt/
Monday July 9, 2007 06:50 EDT
The ongoing journalistic scandal at the New York Times

....And most significantly of all, Hoyt's criticisms are grounded not in a technical violation of some petty rule or failure to adhere to some debatable journalistic custom, but rather, involve the worst journalistic sin of all: namely, a failure to treat government claims with skepticism and a willingness mindlessly to recite such claims without scrutiny. If a newspaper simply prints government claims without skepticism, what remote value does it have other than as a propaganda amplifier? None. And yet, as Hoyt's column potently demonstrates, that is exactly what the NYT is doing in Iraq -- yet again......

... Just consider the record of Michael Gordon -- who, I want to stress, is not personally the problem but merely the most vivid manifestation of the ills of American political journalism. Based exclusively upon what has appeared in the Times itself -- thus excluding all external criticisms of his reporting -- this is Gordon's record of shame over the last four years:

* A May 26, 2004 NYT Editors' Note http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/in...&ex=1184126400 identifies several articles written or co-written by Gordon about the Bush administration's pro-war Iraq claims and says about that reporting "that it was not as rigorous as it should have been"; that the war-fueling case "was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged"; and the reporting was flawed because "Administration officials were allowed to hold forth at length" with virtually no challenge or dissent.

* On January 28, 2007, NYT Public Editor Byron Calame reports http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/op...erland&emc=rss that "Times editors have carefully made clear their disapproval of the expression of a personal opinion about Iraq on national television by the paper's chief military correspondent, Michael Gordon," in which Gordon expressed clear support for President Bush's "surge" plan. The Times Washington Bureau Chief, Philip Taubman, said that Gordon "stepped over the line" by admitting that he supported escalation in Iraq.

* On February 27, 2007, Calame gently though clearly criticized http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=2 an article by Gordon written about the Bush administration's "saber-rattling about Iranian intervention in Iraq" (and other articles on the same topic) on the ground that (a) Gordon's article violated the paper's rules on the use of anonymous government sources; (b) the reported government claims about Iran "needed some qualification" about whether they were based on evidence or inference; (c) readers "deserved a clearer sense" of whether such a belief about the Iranian leadership's involvement in Iraqi insurgent attacks is shared by a consensus of intelligence officials (which, as even the President subsequently admitted, http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/...ipt/index.html it was not); and, most incriminatingly (given its obvious similarity to Gordon's pre-war failures), (d) "editors didn't make sure all conflicting views were always clearly reported" and the "story also should have noted . . . that the president's view on this point differed from the intelligence assessment given readers of [Gordon's] Feb. 10 article."

* Hoyt's column yesterday identifies a series of articles about Iraq, many written or co-written by Gordon, which "slipped into a routine of quoting the president and the military uncritically about Al Qaeda's role in Iraq," and further criticized the articles because "in using the language of the administration," these articles presented a misleading picture of Iraq.

Does anyone at the NYT really need help seeing the clear pattern here? What more does Gordon need to do in order to show how journalistically irresponsible he is, how either incapable or unwilling he is to treat Bush administration claims about the war with skepticism and do anything other than serve as an obedient vessel for pro-war government claims?

This is a disgraceful record that continuously exhibits the same journalistic sins and the same exceedingly transparent pro-war, pro-Bush bias, not just bias that Gordon harbors personally but bias which time and again permeates his "reporting." And again, this is the record as established by the Times itself. There are countless other instances where Gordon does this that do not make it into the pages of his newspaper, but which are nonetheless egregious.

And yet, the Editors of the NYT continue not only to make Gordon their featured star reporter when it comes both to Iraq and related stories about Iran, but also to approve of the same defective, corrupt journalistic methods that are his hallmark. The deficiencies in his reporting are not complex or hidden. They are all right there out in the open, easy to see. All one has to do is read Gordon's articles and it is immediately apparent that, time and again, they do nothing other than recite highly questionable and highly inflammatory claims from the military and the Bush administration, and he conveys them with no meaningful question, challenge, dissent, or qualification.

And he does this not once, but over and over. This is exactly what the NYT claims to be so ashamed of its having done prior to the war, and yet it so plainly continues to do it, four years later -- in the form of the same reporter and likely the same editors. After all, as Hoyt's column demonstrate, it is not just Gordon who is guilty of these failures. If bloggers can see it, and Hoyt sees it, isn't it safe to assume that the editors who approve of these articles see it, too? How can they not? ....

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t...avx0qT3nZkbstg
June 20, 2008
U.S. Says Israeli Exercise Seemed Directed at Iran
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON — Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military’s capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran’s nuclear program.

More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said.

The exercise also included Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots. The helicopters and refueling tankers flew more than 900 miles, which is about the same distance between Israel and Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, American officials said.

Israeli officials declined to discuss the details of the exercise. A spokesman for the Israeli military would say only that the country’s air force “regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel.”

But the scope of the Israeli exercise virtually guaranteed that it would be noticed by American and other foreign intelligence agencies. A senior Pentagon official who has been briefed on the exercise, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the political delicacy of the matter, said the exercise appeared to serve multiple purposes.

One Israeli goal, the Pentagon official said, was to practice flight tactics, aerial refueling and all other details of a possible strike against Iran’s nuclear installations and its long-range conventional missiles.

A second, the official said, was to send a clear message to the United States and other countries that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter.

“They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know,” the Pentagon official said. “There’s a lot of signaling going on at different levels.”

Several American officials said they did not believe that the Israeli government had concluded that it must attack Iran and did not think that such a strike was imminent. ....

....Israeli officials have told their American counterparts that Mr. Mofaz’s statement does not represent official policy. But American officials were also told that Israel had prepared plans for striking nuclear targets in Iran and could carry them out if needed.......

....“They are clearly nervous about this and have their air defense on guard,” a Bush administration official said of the Iranians.......

....Pentagon officials said that Israel’s air forces usually conducted a major early summer training exercise, often flying over the Mediterranean or training ranges in Turkey where they practice bombing runs and aerial refueling. But the exercise this month involved a larger number of aircraft than had been previously observed, and included a lengthy combat rescue mission......

.......“They rehearse it, rehearse it and rehearse it, so if they actually have to do it, they’re ready,” the Pentagon official said. “They’re not taking any options off the table.”

As can be clearly seen in Michael Gordon's June 20 article above, coming a full year after Glenn Greenwald's scathing criticism of Michael Gordon's "stenography", and of the apparent approval of his reporting by the NY Times editors who claim to condemn it but publish it anyway....there is a problem with the most prominent newspaper in the US acting as a PR outlet to distribute, verbatim, whatever the pentagon or the administration recites to it, even anonymously, without qualification or challenge, by the NY Times!

If the Times reporting is "too liberal", where do you suppose conservatives are going to get a "truer" view? Could it be to some source so far to the right that it influences the views of conservatives to the point that they are so far right, that they "fall over" the edge?

Isn't raising awareness that ALL mainstream news coverage is compromised by the corporate interests who own it, the first step of a new drive for independence of the American people, beginning with more independence in the way that they think?

The "independent" news media.... "silent" in 2003, silent for the next five years, silent, all the way to today.

...and, ace....do you think the Bush administration policy of treating Israel, in terms of it's seccurity, as if it were the 51st US state, has the effect of pushing already feeble democrats into a corner, politically? Do you think it is "normal" for democratic presidential candidate and political opponent, Obama, to have to declare, over and over.....that any enemy of Israel is an enemy of the US, and that he, as president, would order US troops to defend against an attack on Israel, as if it were an attack on the US?

Do you think that kind of a political climate may have led to the following, and do you think the consideration of this bill, this week, will lower tensions in the ME, and oil prices.....or raise them?

Quote:

http://niacblog.wordpress.com/2008/0...o-hconres-362/

Yesterday I posted a blog entry praising Rep. Waxman’s (D-CA-30) constituency for making the Congressman aware of their views on the current Iran situation. In an interview, the Congressman seemed to have a good grip on the thoughts of his constituency. His recent actions, however, make me question whether or not the opinions of his Iranian American constituents actually play a role in his cognition.

Rep. Waxman recently became a co-sponsor (one of about 220) of H.Con.Res. 362, made infamous for its ‘demand’ of the President to, in not so many words, create a naval blockade in the Persian Gulf. In a meeting yesterday between NIAC’s Assistant Legislative Director Patrick Disney and Rep. Waxman’s Senior Legislative Associate, it was revealed to us that the Congressman intends to remain a cosponsor of the bill. Apparently, Rep. Waxman and other cosponsors – including Reps. Ackerman and Pence who introduced the bill – don’t see it as an act of war.

Waxman’s LA echoed Ackerman and Pence’s ‘Dear Colleague’ letter, re-affirming their belief that the bill does not call for a blockade of Iran. They point to a caveat in the bill that states ‘Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran.’ It’s likely that the US’s ‘prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products’ would be seen by the Iranians at the very least as an illegal act of aggression, most likely an act of war. This is because enforcing the prohibition of petroleum shipments to Iran would require imposing a naval blockade.

Other troubling elements of the bill include ‘imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran’ (note to the small number of tourists and ex-pats that travel to Iran regularly: this includes you). This plan targets ordinary Iranian people more than the Iranian government, and will empower the hardline elements of the regime. The US would lose the hearts and minds of the Iranian people, one of our greatest strategic assets and a bulwark against anti-Americanism in the region.

Furthermore, ‘prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program’ is completely illegal, as the bill provides for no exceptions, including diplomats not on the nuclear negotiating team.

This is quite disappointing, to say the least. Rep. Waxman is an ally of the Iranian American community, but it seems like – certainly on this one – he has fallen prey to the influence of the war-hawks.

The Congressman’s staffer hinted that Rep. Waxman might be making a floor speech clarifying his beliefs about the bill in the near future.

The mark-up session for the bill is scheduled for next week. Changes to the language and/or content are possible either before or during the mark-up. Time will tell the outcome. What is certain is that the story of H.Con.Res. 362 is not over yet.

aceventura3 · 07-07-2008, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

This is a convoluted problem that no means of simple summary can describe. It is the problem of our time.

This chart show the price of oil adjusted for inflation, perhaps the real problem is we have been spoiled given decades of relatively stable prices. This crisis will pass, just as it did in the 1970's.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/i...ices_Chart.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace....I've posted support for the idea that the first part of the quote of you above is inaccurate....and the rest is inaccurate because there is clear evidence that the Bush administration has constantly been at work destabalizing the security in the middle east, and not what you claim.

I agree that there is a war risk premium in the current price of oil. I have stated that. I don't know how much it is, but I bet it is higher than whatever the historical norm would be. However, I think we succeed in stabilizing Iraq the premium would go down significantly below its historical norms.

Quote:

Ace, Iran is not a threat to US National Security....our own intelligence agencies issued a report last November, that the Bush administration stifled and contested for a year before it was released....with the president claiming the opposite of what the NIE said.....since Bush knew that the assessment of US intelligence was that Iran had ceeased it's nuclear weapons development program in 2003.

Iran is perhaps a threat to Israel's security, but would Iran ever launch a "first strike" on Israel, even if it did develop a nuclear warhead capable of being delivered via a missle, since Israel is host to the third most holy place in Islam?

Do you think this constant "dictation" from "unidentified US officials" to Michael Gordon of the NY Times, and other cooperative corporate media shills, by the Bush administration....serves to lessen tensions in the ME, ace, or to increase them? Do you think this constant belligerence influences petroleum prices to go down?

Iran will not be a Bush issue in a few months, my guess it will be an Obama issue. And it seems Obama is running towards Bush's ME policy. Like I predicted, I betting under Obama we will be in Iraq at least through his first term. Are you voting for Obama? Do you support a continuation of our current ME policy? Looks like you won't have a real choice.

Baraka_Guru · 07-07-2008, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

This chart show the price of oil adjusted for inflation, perhaps the real problem is we have been spoiled given decades of relatively stable prices. This crisis will pass, just as it did in the 1970's.

This chart shows just one picture of a multidimensional problem. Do you realize how many oil wells have been tapped since the '70s? Do you think that can be done again between now and 2040? The world is only so big....

Here's a little research project. Have a look into the portfolios of some of the most successful investors in the world. I'm talking about the ones who invest $millions, if not $billions, at a time in the tradition of Warren Buffett. They aren't speculators, they're investors--they invest for the long term. Look at how many of them are in oil. They understand how businesses work and how they are valued, and they understand supply and demand. These are the same guys who wouldn't touch high-tech in the '90s before that bubble burst (Buffett included), even though they were losing clients left and right as they were getting their ears chewed off and were being called idiots. These clients left them because they thought they were losing out on $millions in gains, but look who got the last laugh: These guys were making money while the markets were losing.

These same guys are in oil, and they are in it as huge chunks of multi-million dollar portfolios. That and precious metals, which is another story when it comes to supply, demand, and expanding economies. They know a good thing when they see it.

Look forward to $200 a barrel.

host · 07-07-2008, 08:00 AM

ace, you've been a long term supporter of the fanatically pro-Israel, neocon agenda...

Quote:

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2008/070208Paul.shtml
GOVERNMENT:
Rep. Ron Paul Assails Congress's "Virtual Iran War Resolution"
by Congressman Ron Paul

....Now the one issue that I do want to mention tonight is a resolution that is about to come to this floor if our suspicions are correct, after the July 4th holiday. And this bill will probably be brought up under suspension. It will be expected to be passed easily. It probably will be. And it is just more war propaganda, just more preparation to go to war against Iran.

This resolution, H.J. Res 362[listed as H. Con. Res 362 online] is a virtual war resolution. It is the declaration of tremendous sanctions, and boycotts and embargoes on the Iranians. It is very, very severe. Let me just read what is involved if this bill passes and what we're telling the President what he must do:

This demands that the President impose stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran, and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials.

This is unbelievable! This is closing down Iran. Where do we have this authority? Where do we get the moral authority? Where do we get the international legality for this? Where do we get the Constitutional authority for this? This is what we did for ten years before we went into Iraq. We starved children—50,000 individuals it was admitted probably died because of the sanctions on the Iraqis. They were incapable at the time of attacking us. And all the propaganda that was given for our need to go into Iraq was not true.

And it is not true today about the severity [of the need to attack Iran]. But they say, "Yeah, but Ahmadinejad—he's a bad guy. He's threatened violence." But you know what? Us threatening violence is very, very similar. We must—we must look at this carefully. We just can't go to war again under these careless, frivolous conditions....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhamm..._b_111121.html
How To Convince Your Congressperson Not To Attack Iran
Posted July 7, 2008 | 04:24 AM (EST)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read More: Congress Resolutions Against Iran, Naval Blockade, Politics News

Two bipartisan Resolutions that are being widely construed as tantamount to a declaration of war on Iran are expected to be voted on by both houses of the U.S. Congress this week.

U.S. House of Representatives Resolution (HR 362) and Senate Resolution (SR 580), while non-binding and explicitly stating that they are not granting the Bush administration the authorization to attack Iran, call on the Administration to take a much harder line on Iran. This would include a naval blockade of Iran's ports, which would certainly be interpreted as an act of war.

Both the Senate and House Resolutions are based on factual errors, exaggerations, half-truths, and even outright lies. Therefore, it is of utmost urgency that Americans who oppose an attack on Iran know what the Resolutions actually contain, so that they can lobby their Congressional representatives, with facts in hand, to stop the Resolutions' passage in both the House and the Senate.

To that end, here is the guide to understanding Congress' "Iran War" Resolutions, as well as the errors, falsehoods, and exaggerations within them. Actual sentences from the Senate and House Resolutions are in italics; my rebuttals follow in normal text.....

http://www.newsweek.com/id/47337?tid=relatedcl
Countdown to a Showdown: Part II
Two American congressmen have proposed a 'quarantine' they think could stop Iran's mullahs from building nukes. It's a high-risk strategy.
By Christopher Dickey | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jan 25, 2006 ...

....but you also espouse "drilling our way" out of the current oil price crisis, even though slack demand and a dramatic, immediate increase in US domestic petroleum prices has been met with the opposite movement in price that you say should happen.

The foreign policy you fully support result in the "resolution" now being contemplated in congress, described above. But you are concerned about high oil prices, and you're sure that the policies of the Bush admin. "are not responsible".... IMO, ace, you're chasing your tail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

....These same guys are in oil, and they are in it as huge chunks of multi-million dollar portfolios. That and precious metals, which is another story when it comes to supply, demand, and expanding economies. They know a good thing when they see it.

Look forward to $200 a barrel.

Only war in the ME or US wage inflation driven demand increases would make $200 (US) oil possible, IMO....with ramping unemployment now, the second factor ain't likely to happen.. I am predicting a worldwide, deflationary depression that will influence oil to drop below $55 bbl, so soon, it will shock "the guys in oil", and wipe out a significant portion of their investment gains....

aceventura3 · 07-07-2008, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

This chart shows just one picture of a multidimensional problem. Do you realize how many oil wells have been tapped since the '70s? Do you think that can be done again between now and 2040? The world is only so big....

That would not be necessary. For example, look at what Brazil has been doing with bio-fuels, dino oil alternatives can be viable. In Brazil they are using sugar cane which is much more efficient than our approach of using corn. Also oil exploration and drilling is simply more effecient now than 30 years ago. Each individual well can be much more productive today than in the past.

Quote:

Here's a little research project. Have a look into the portfolios of some of the most successful investors in the world. I'm talking about the ones who invest $millions, if not $billions, at a time in the tradition of Warren Buffett. They aren't speculators, they're investors--they invest for the long term. Look at how many of them are in oil. They understand how businesses work and how they are valued, and they understand supply and demand. These are the same guys who wouldn't touch high-tech in the '90s before that bubble burst (Buffett included), even though they were losing clients left and right as they were getting their ears chewed off and were being called idiots. These clients left them because they thought they were losing out on $millions in gains, but look who got the last laugh: These guys were making money while the markets were losing.

These same guys are in oil, and they are in it as huge chunks of multi-million dollar portfolios. That and precious metals, which is another story when it comes to supply, demand, and expanding economies. They know a good thing when they see it.

Look forward to $200 a barrel.

At some point oil will hit $200 in nominal terms, but a loaf of bread may cost $25. Everything is relative.

One reason billionaires may be avoiding investments in oil companies is because of people like Chavez in Venezuela (stealing oil company assets) or even the Democrats in Washington who want to penalize oil companies through wind-fall profit taxes and excessive regulation.

Baraka_Guru · 07-07-2008, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

That would not be necessary. For example, look at what Brazil has been doing with bio-fuels, dino oil alternatives can be viable. In Brazil they are using sugar cane which is much more efficient than our approach of using corn. Also oil exploration and drilling is simply more effecient now than 30 years ago. Each individual well can be much more productive today than in the past.

Biofuels are an unrealistic widescale alternative for the next few years. And it isn't about efficiency in finding and drilling oil, it's in finding and drilling sweet crude at all. You can only expand capacity so far before it becomes impossible to keep up with demand, especially when you get down to the crude that needs more refining. Refining capacity has been a problem recently, too.

We can't have the number of new oil fields go online as we've seen over the past 40 years. I think that's logistically impossible.

Quote:

At some point oil will hit $200 in nominal terms, but a loaf of bread may cost $25. Everything is relative.

This will likely happen by 2010, not 2040.

Quote:

One reason billionaires may be avoiding investments in oil companies is because of people like Chavez in Venezuela (stealing oil company assets) or even the Democrats in Washington who want to penalize oil companies through wind-fall profit taxes and excessive regulation.

I'm not talking about the billionaires avoiding the investments; I'm talking about the ones who are jumping into the earning potential over the next few years. I'm talking about the investors who know about value investing. They see these oil companies with real asset- and earnings-based value up to and past 2010. By the time oil were to return to sub-$70 prices, these guys would already have sold off long ago. Currently, they are in for a bit of a haul and some are still buying up. They see oil & gas as still set to go.

host · 07-07-2008, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

That would not be necessary. For example, look at what Brazil has been doing with bio-fuels, dino oil alternatives can be viable. In Brazil they are using sugar cane which is much more efficient than our approach of using corn. Also oil exploration and drilling is simply more effecient now than 30 years ago. Each individual well can be much more productive today than in the past.

At some point oil will hit $200 in nominal terms, but a loaf of bread may cost $25. Everything is relative.

One reason billionaires may be avoiding investments in oil companies is because of people like Chavez in Venezuela (stealing oil company assets) or even the Democrats in Washington who want to penalize oil companies through wind-fall profit taxes and excessive regulation.

ace....you post crap you read in IBD and WSJ editorials as if it was gospel truth. I wish you would support the things you post with sources we can go to and consider....sources other than editorials.....here is a more fact filled and evenhanded piece on the recent history of oil corp. relationships with the government of Venezuela:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...4558_db016.htm

The folks in charge in Venezuela in the 90's presided over wealth inequity that should even make a conservative wince....as they were negotiating away the petroleum rights of all of the people of the country.... while the wealth flowed undeniably and exclusively to the wealthy. Has not nearly every third world nation with relationships with "big oil", done exactly as Venezuela has?

Democracy worked ace. The masses voted out wealth inequity, and the flow of wealth went away from the elite. This is the only non-violent recourse that an oppressed mass has, against a usurping elite. The people of Venezuela managed to stop the concentration of wealth in their country, peacefully, but you condemn them for it....

aceventura3 · 07-07-2008, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Biofuels are an unrealistic widescale alternative for the next few years. And it isn't about efficiency in finding and drilling oil, it's in finding and drilling sweet crude at all. You can only expand capacity so far before it becomes impossible to keep up with demand, especially when you get down to the crude that needs more refining. Refining capacity has been a problem recently, too.

Are you a Canadian? What do you think about the tar sands? Viable? At $200 a barrel for oil, profitable?

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace, you've been a long term supporter of the fanatically pro-Israel, neocon agenda...

I believe Israel has a right to exist. Do you?

I believe we should honor our treaty with Israel. Do you?

On the basis of those two questions, you call my view "fanatically pro-Israel"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace....you post crap you read in IBD and WSJ editorials as if it was gospel truth. I wish you would support the things you post with sources we can go to and consider....sources other than editorials.....here is a more fact filled and evenhanded piece on the recent history of oil corp. relationships with the government of Venezuela:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...4558_db016.htm

The folks in charge in Venezuela in the 90's presided over wealth inequity that should even make a conservative wince....as they were negotiating away the petroleum rights of all of the people of the country.... while the wealth flowed undeniably and exclusively to the wealthy. Has not nearly every third world nation with relationships with "big oil", done exactly as Venezuela has?

Democracy worked ace. The masses voted out wealth inequity, and the flow of wealth went away from the elite. This is the only non-violent recourse that an oppressed mass has, against a usurping elite. The people of Venezuela managed to stop the concentration of wealth in their country, peacefully, but you condemn them for it....

I clearly identify opinion pieces as opinion pieces. The read can decide if those pieces add any value. I express my opinion as my opinion, nothing more.

If you think it is o.k. for governments to seize private assets without compensation, that is your view and I can still respect a view different than mine. However, governments seizing oil company assets or profits is a risk that "smart money" may want to avoid.

Baraka_Guru · 07-07-2008, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Are you a Canadian? What do you think about the tar sands? Viable? At $200 a barrel for oil, profitable?

Yes, I'm Canadian. I think we have a lot to gain from high oil prices. But our ability to supply demand is limited.

Yes, the main reason why the tar sands are booming is because oil prices are high. The extraction, as you probably know, is difficult compared to many of the oil fields in, say, Saudi Arabia. The high prices make it worthwhile (and, yes, profitable).

But the problem remains: Worldwide demand will outstrip production (well, some reports will tell you it already is outstripping it). It's a good thing we have reserves, but that won't keep prices down to where we want them.

When (sorry, "if") $200 a barrel hits, Alberta will be laughing. Let's hope the feds keep the transfer payments flowing. (I live in Ontraio.)

roachboy · 07-07-2008, 04:19 PM

well, i was wrong about the demand increase.
unfortunately, the database i was looking at this afternoon has been down the past couple hours---

http://www.earthtrends.wri.org/

but if you go to this, you can get a reasonable snapshot of some of the longer-term trends (1990->2000->2003 in the case of oil consumption rates, for example)...production data is also available. it's pretty comprehensive in these areas, and in several others that i would have written about here had i been able to get at the site.

here's a world bank report (pdf)

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTE...K:4607,00.html

prepared for the g8 summit on the coupled oil and food price spikes--i probably should put this in the other thread, but i'll stick it here as it is a little compendium of much of what's been talked about between the two threads, to the extent that they're both concerned with the prices...pay attention to the footnotes as the devil's in the details, here as everywhere---biofuels as significant factor (see the oil/food/oil thread), changes in the way futures speculation has been happening (index speculation, i think it's called) etc...

of course, freaked out about Regulation, the head of bp blames states for all this:

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbi...aign_id=rss_eu

=======
meanwhile, at the g8 summit there was this---truly glorious----image of contemporary capitalism that you will no doubt NOT see footage of on american television:

Quote:

Just two of the 19 dishes on the dinner menu at the G8 food shortages summit

* Patrick Wintour and Patrick Barkham

As the food crisis began to bite, the rumblings of discontent grew louder. Finally, after a day of discussing food shortages and soaring prices, the famished stomachs of the G8 leaders could bear it no longer.

The most powerful bellies in the world were last night compelled to stave off the great Hokkaido Hunger by fortifying themselves with an eight-course, 19-dish dinner prepared by 25 chefs. This multi-pronged attack was launched after earlier emergency lunch measures - four courses washed down with Château-Grillet 2005 - had failed to quell appetites enlarged by agonising over feeding the world's poor.

The G8 gathering had been seen as a "world food shortages summit" as leaders sought to combat spiralling prices of basic foodstuffs in the developed world, and starvation in the developing world.

But not since Marie Antoinette was supposed to have leaned from a Versailles palace window and suggested that the breadless peasants eat cake can leaders have demonstrated such insensitivity to daily hardship than at the luxury Windsor hotel on the Japanese island of Hokkaido.

After discussing famine in Africa, the peckish politicians and five spouses took on four bite-sized amuse-bouche to tickle their palates. The price of staple foods may be soaring, but thankfully caviar and sea urchin are within the purchasing power of leaders and their taxpayers - the amuse-bouche featured corn stuffed with caviar, smoked salmon and sea urchin, hot onion tart and winter lily bulb.

Guests at the summit, which is costing £238m, were then able to pick items from a tray modelled on a fan and decorated with bamboo grasses, including diced fatty tuna fish, avocado and jellied soy sauce, and pickled conger eel with soy sauce.

Hairy crab Kegani bisque-style soup was another treat in a meal prepared by the Michelin-starred chef Katsuhiro Nakamura, the grand chef at Hotel Metropolitan Edmont in Tokyo, alongside salt-grilled bighand thornyhead (a small, red Pacific fish) with a vinegary water pepper sauce.

They have told their people to tighten their belts for lean times ahead, but you feared for presidential and prime ministerial girdles after the chance to tuck into further dishes including milk-fed lamb, roasted lamb with cepes, and black truffle with emulsion sauce. Finally there was a "fantasy" dessert, a special cheese selection accompanied by lavender honey and caramelised nuts, while coffee came with candied fruits and vegetables.

Leaders cleverly skated around global water shortages by choosing from five different wines and liqueurs.

Earlier, the heads of state had restricted themselves to a light lunch of asparagus and truffle soup, crab and supreme of chicken served with nuts and beetroot foam, followed by a cheese selection, peach compote, milk ice-cream and coffee with petits fours.

Fresh from instructing his population to waste less food, it can only be hoped that Gordon Brown polished off every single morsel on his plate.

Andrew Mitchell, the shadow secretary of state for international development, said: "The G8 have made a bad start to their summit, with excessive cost and lavish consumption. Surely it is not unreasonable for each leader to give a guarantee that they will stand by their solemn pledges of three years ago at Gleneagles to help the world's poor. All of us are watching, waiting and listening."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...d.foodanddrink

um...
yeah.

loquitur · 07-07-2008, 05:13 PM

It's not for themselves that they do it, RB. It's for us. There is no limit to the sacrifices they are willing to make.

roachboy · 07-07-2008, 07:45 PM

you know, there's a reason that dame edna was the first to pop into my mind when i read that account. like her, they give and give and give.

aceventura3 · 07-15-2008, 08:10 AM

O.k., I really need some help with this. Pelosi and many Democrats are resolutely against increasing domestic oil drilling or increasing supply, they are against high oil prices, they think speculators and oil companies are the primary reason oil prices are as high as they are. Yet, she thinks releasing a small amount of oil from our strategic oil reserves will lower prices. Can some one make sense of this?

Quote:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is calling on President Bush to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to bring down prices.

Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced to Democratic leaders Tuesday night that she has written a letter to President Bush, urging him to release a “small” amount of oil from the government stockpile to increase supply and decrease prices, a leadership aide said.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...008-07-08.html

hiredgun · 07-15-2008, 10:59 AM

Ace, the answer is political. The politicians you are describing would like to be seen doing 'something' about high oil prices - which are painful for constituents - but advocating new drilling would usually offend their and their constituents' environmental sensibilities. The SPR is therefore seen as a safer target, since it doesn't involve opening up wildlife reserves or threatening beaches.

Now that entire chain of reasoning is fairly wrong-headed and reflects a shallow understanding of why we are where we are with regard to oil, but I think it should answer your question as far as 'making sense' of these positions (with which, to be clear, I don't agree).

host · 07-15-2008, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

O.k., I really need some help with this. Pelosi and many Democrats are resolutely against increasing domestic oil drilling or increasing supply, they are against high oil prices, they think speculators and oil companies are the primary reason oil prices are as high as they are. Yet, she thinks releasing a small amount of oil from our strategic oil reserves will lower prices. Can some one make sense of this?

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...008-07-08.html

ace, how is a comparatively small amount of oil, not possible coming on the market until the year 2017, and not owned by the public, i.e. it will be sold, when it becomes available....at wolrd market price.....supposed to be relevant to today's situation. I already have posted that three BP Gulf of Mexico projects, complete with a pipeline to transport the oil and gas they add to the market, right to nearby south Louisiana refineries....a combined increase in US domestic production, of close to 7 percent by THE END OF THIS YEAR....has had no dampening affect on price, or on market psychology.

Can you explain, considering my points, how your points, and concerns, are relevant to any solution to high oil prices? Isn't ridiculously disproportionate US domestic consumption, vs, per capita consumption in the rest of the industrialized and post industrailized world, the area to seek reasonably rapid mitigation to high prices, from?

aceventura3 · 07-16-2008, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace, how is a comparatively small amount of oil, not possible coming on the market until the year 2017, and not owned by the public, i.e. it will be sold, when it becomes available....at wolrd market price.....supposed to be relevant to today's situation. I already have posted that three BP Gulf of Mexico projects, complete with a pipeline to transport the oil and gas they add to the market, right to nearby south Louisiana refineries....a combined increase in US domestic production, of close to 7 percent by THE END OF THIS YEAR....has had no dampening affect on price, or on market psychology.

Can you explain, considering my points, how your points, and concerns, are relevant to any solution to high oil prices? Isn't ridiculously disproportionate US domestic consumption, vs, per capita consumption in the rest of the industrialized and post industrailized world, the area to seek reasonably rapid mitigation to high prices, from?

Host,

In the past you have generally not accepted things that I find most obvious, and then you ask me to prove the obvious which I find to be a waste of effort. That is our pattern, and here we go again.

If the US makes a commitment to producing domestic oil it will have an impact on current oil producers. If a current producers have a virtual lock on the market and supply, they will drive the price up as much as possible to maximize profits. Changes in new supply and changes in total demand generally have relative long tails, and changes in new supply is capital intensive (takes alot of new money). Producing more from existing sources has a shorter tail and is less capital intensive. A current producer has incentive to try to maintain as much of a lock on the market as possible. Current producers realize that if prices are too high "today" (profits too high), then prices can very easily be made too low "tomorrow" (profits too low and loss of market control of supply). A smart producer will lower profits "today" to make it less attractive for new production to come online "tomorrow". Again, their motivation is too maximize profits. Theoretically, we could simply posture that we are making a commitment and prices could go down.

You know how I love pointless analogies, so here is one to chew on. If a junkie tells his pusher, that he is going to give up drugs. The pusher won't be to happy about that, so what do you think the pusher might do? Perhaps, give the junkie a few free hits, lower the price, make it a little bit more difficult for the junkie to give up the habit of buying from the pusher.

Hasn't that been the pattern of OPEC over the past 40 years? When the price goes high enough, for the US to get concerned and start to do something, the price goes down. This has happened time and time again. Now, however, not only do they have the US they have China, India and other developing nation with the addiction to oil.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

Ace, the answer is political. The politicians you are describing would like to be seen doing 'something' about high oil prices - which are painful for constituents - but advocating new drilling would usually offend their and their constituents' environmental sensibilities. The SPR is therefore seen as a safer target, since it doesn't involve opening up wildlife reserves or threatening beaches.

Now that entire chain of reasoning is fairly wrong-headed and reflects a shallow understanding of why we are where we are with regard to oil, but I think it should answer your question as far as 'making sense' of these positions (with which, to be clear, I don't agree).

That is what I thought. I wonder were DC is, when I state things like what you have stated, he sees it as a baseless criticism and the rantings of an extremist.

dc_dux · 07-16-2008, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I wonder were DC is, when I state things like what you have stated, he sees it as a baseless criticism and the rantings of an extremist.

ace....please post a link where I have characterized a post of yours (or anyone here) as the "rantings of an extremist"....OR stop putting words in my mouth.

In terms of releasing oil from the strategic reserve, it has about the same merit as the Bush/McCain gas tax holiday idea.

aceventura3 · 07-16-2008, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....please post a link where I have characterized a post of yours (or anyone here) as the "rantings of an extremist"....OR stop putting words in my mouth.

I did a search on your posts and found this one, in about 60 seconds, want more? I am not sure what a "uberConservative" is if not an extremist, and perhaps I did mis- characterize what it meant. But, before putting anymore effort into this, am I to understand that your current view is that I am not a ranting extremist?

Quote:

More for the record:
host....I couldnt do what I do w/o those of you further to the left of me doing what you do....all in support of preventing the aceBush uberConservatives from continuing to do what they would do.

6/26/2008, post #109 - Obama & Dem Leaders Act Same as Bush...

Quote:

In terms of releasing oil from the strategic reserve, it has about the same merit as the Bush/McCain gas tax holiday idea.

I did not know Bush was involved with that idea, but I was against it then and against it now. I stated that it was a political gimmick.

dc_dux · 07-16-2008, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I did a search on your posts and found this one, in about 60 seconds, want more? I am not sure what a "uberConservative" is if not an extremist, and perhaps I did mis- characterize what it meant. But, before putting anymore effort into this, am I to understand that your current view is that I am not a ranting extremist?

6/26/2008, post #109 - Obama & Dem Leaders Act Same as Bush...

ace....taking my post out of context again! nice try.

My reference to uberconservatives was part of a post (my resolution as part of my disagreement with host) that also mentioned uberliberals...and I didnt characterize either one as ranting extremists.

But enough of this silly game.....just STOP misrepresenting what I post or I will ask the mods to have such false statements deleted in the future.

aceventura3 · 07-16-2008, 09:51 AM

DC,

Excuse me, but I can't just let this go given your last post.

I read and understood the context of your quote. Are you suggesting that being characterized as a "uber" anything is not being characterized as extreme or an extremist? I know people can reasonably disagree on issues, but to me this is pretty clear.

{added}

Speaking of extremists...

As compared to Bush's press conference yesterday.

Quote:

Q: Gas prices are now approaching $5 a gallon in some parts of the country. Offshore oil exploration is obviously a long-term approach. What is the short-term advice for Americans? What can you do now to help them?

Bush: First of all, there is a psychology in the oil market that basically says supplies are going to stay stagnant while demand rises. And that's reflected somewhat in the price of crude oil. The amount of a gasoline price at the pump is reflected in the price of crude oil. And therefore, it seems like it makes sense to me to say to the world that we're going to use new technologies to explore for oil and gas in the United States — offshore oil, ANWR, oil shale projects — to help change the psychology, to send a clear message that the supplies of oil will increase.

Secondly, obviously good conservation measures matter. I've been reading a lot about how the automobile companies are beginning to adjust. Consumers are beginning to say, "Wait a minute, I don't want a gas guzzler anymore. I want a smaller car." So the two need to go hand in hand.

There is no immediate fix. This took us a while to get in this problem; there is no short-term solution. I think it was in the Rose Garden where I issued this brilliant statement: If I had a magic wand, but the president doesn't have a magic wand. You just can't say "low gas." It took us a while to get here, and we need to have a good strategy to get out of it.

Q: But you do have the Strategic Oil Petroleum Reserve. What about opening that?

Bush: The Strategic Oil Petroleum Reserve is for emergencies. But that doesn't address the fundamental issue. And we need to address the fundamental issue, which I, frankly, have been talking about since I first became president, which is a combination of using technology to have alternative sources of energy, but at the same time finding oil and gas here at home. And now is the time to get it done.

I heard somebody say, "Well, it's going to take seven years." Well, if we'd have done it seven years ago we'd be having a different conversation today. I'm not suggesting it would have completely changed the dynamics in the world, but we certainly would have been using more of our own oil and sending less money overseas.

Q: Following up on the question about oil, in the past, when oil prices have gone up a lot, they've wound up going down a lot afterward. But I wonder if you're able to say that oil prices in the future are going to come down a lot.

Bush: I can't predict. Look, my attitude is that unless there is a focused effort in the short term to bring more supplies to market, there's going to be a lot of upward pressure on price. We got 85 million barrels a day of demand and 86 million barrels of production. And it's just too narrow a spread, it seems to me.

Now, I'm encouraged by the Caspian Basin exploration. I'm encouraged that the Saudis are reinvesting a lot into their older fields. And remember, some of these oil fields get on the decline rate, which requires a lot of investment to keep their production up to previous levels. So one thing we look at is how much money is being reinvested in some of those fields. I'm encouraged by that.

I am discouraged by the fact that some nations subsidize the purchases of product, like gasoline, which means that demand may not be causing the market to adjust as rapidly as we'd like. I was heartened by the fact that the Chinese the other day announced that they're going to start reducing some of their subsidies, which all of a sudden you may have some demand-driven changes in the overall balance.

But if we conserve and find more energy, we will have done our part to address the global market right now. And the other thing is that this is just a transition period. All of us want to get away from reliance upon hydrocarbons, but it's not going to happen overnight. One of these days people are going to be using battery technologies in their cars. You've heard me say this a lot. I'm confident it's going to happen. And the throw-away line, of course, is that your car won't have to look like a golf cart.

But the question then becomes, where are we going to get electricity? And that's why I'm a big believer in nuclear power, to be able to make us less dependent on oil and better stewards of the environment. But there is a transition period during the hydrocarbon era, and it hasn't ended yet, as our people now know. Gasoline prices are high.

Again, I don't want to be an "I told you so," but if you go back and look at the strategy we put out early on in this administration, we understood what was coming. We knew the markets were going to be tight. And therefore, we called for additional exploration at home, plus what has been happening, which is an acceleration of new technologies — including ethanol technologies — to get us less dependent on crude oil from overseas.

Let's see here, Steven Lee. Steven Lee.

And so I think the thing we need to do now is for us to analyze whether or not we can have some more bilateral sanctions on regime leaders. After all, these sanctions were not against the Zimbabwe people; these were against the people that—in the Mugabe regime that made the decisions it made. We got the Treasury Department and State Department—are now working on a potential—potential U.S. action.

Q: Understanding what you say about energy supplies being tight and the debate over energy, which has gone on for years and will continue long through the campaign and into the next administration, one thing nobody debates is that if Americans use less energy the current supply/demand equation would improve. Why have you not sort of called on Americans to drive less and to turn down the thermostat?

Bush: They're smart enough to figure out whether they're going to drive less or not. It's interesting (that) the price of gasoline has... caused people to drive less. That's why they want smaller cars. They want to conserve. The consumer is plenty bright. The marketplace works.

Secondly, we have worked with Congress to change CAFE standards, and had a mandatory alternative fuel requirement.

So no question about what you just said is right. One way to correct the imbalance is to save, to conserve. And as you notice my statement yesterday, I talked about good conservation. And people can figure out whether they need to drive more or less; they can balance their own checkbooks.

Q: But you don't see the value of your calling for a campaign ...

Bush: I think people ought to conserve and be wise about how they use gasoline and energy. Absolutely. And there's some easy steps people can take. You know, if they're not in their home, they don't keep their air-conditioning running. There's a lot of things people can do.

But my point to you is that it's a little presumptuous on my part to dictate to consumers how they live their lives. The American people are plenty capable and plenty smart people, and they'll make adjustments to their own pocketbooks. That's why I was so much in favor of letting them keep more of their own money. It's a philosophical difference: Should the government spend their money, or should they spend their own money? And I've got faith in the American people.

And as much as I regret that the gasoline prices are high — and they are — I also understand that people are going to make adjustments to meet their own needs. And I suspect you'll see, in the whole, Americans using less gasoline. I bet that's going to happen.

In the meantime, technologies will be coming on the market that will enable them to drive and save money, compared to the automobiles they're using before. And as you notice, the automobile industry is beginning to adjust here at home as consumer demand changes. And the great thing about our system, it is the consumer that drives our system;

Q: You never mention oil companies. Are you confident that American oil producers are tapping all of the sources they have out there, including offshore?

Bush: Do I think they're investing capital to find more reserves with the price at $140 a barrel? Absolutely. Take an offshore exploration company. First of all, it costs a lot of money to buy the lease, so they tie up capital. Secondly, it takes a lot of money to do the geophysics, to determine what the structure may or may not look like. That ties up capital. Then they put the rig out there. Now, first of all, in a federal offshore lease, if you're not exploring within a set period of time, you lose your bonus; you lose the amount of money that you paid to get the lease in the first place.

And once you explore, your first exploratory, if you happen to find oil or gas, you'll find yourself in a position where a lot of capital is tied up. And it becomes in your interest, your economic interest, to continue to explore so as to reduce the capital costs of the project on a per-barrel basis. And so I think they're exploring. And hopefully a lot of people continue to explore so that the supply of oil worldwide increases relative to demand.

Now, people say, what about the speculators? I think you can't help but notice there is some volatility in price in the marketplace, which obviously there are some people buying and selling on a daily basis. On the other hand, the fundamentals are what's really driving the long-term price of oil, and that is demand for oil has increased and supply has not kept up with it. And so part of our strategy in our country has got to be to say, okay, here are some suspected reserves and that we ought to go after them in an environmentally friendly way.

A buddy of mine said, well, what about the reefs? So I'm concerned about the reefs. I'm a fisherman, I like to fish. Reefs are important for fisheries. But the technology is such that you can protect the reefs. You don't have to drill on top of a reef. You can drill away from a reef and then have a horizontal hole to help you explore a reservoir.

It's like in Alaska. If you ever go out to West Texas, you'll see there's like a rig every 20 acres, depending upon the formation. In Alaska you can have one pad with a lot of horizontal drilling, which enables you to exploit the resources in a way that doesn't damage the environment. These are new technologies that have come to be, and yet we've got an old energy policy that hasn't recognized how the industry has changed. And now is the time to get people to recognize how the industry has changed.

The other thing is that we haven't built a new refinery in the United States since the early '70s. It makes no sense. And yet you try to get one permitted, it is unbelievably difficult to do. People aren't willing to risk capital if they're deeply concerned about how their capital is going to be tied up in lawsuits or regulations. And we import a lot of gasoline, refined product from overseas.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...01003789555596

dc_dux · 07-16-2008, 10:54 AM

ace...its really quite simple.

You can include any post of mine in "quotes" (with a link to see context). That is your right as a member of the forum.

But when you post: DC .....sees it as a baseless criticism and the rantings of an extremist.....you are attempting to speak for me.

And the fact is, YOU DONT SPEAK FOR ME. I speak for myself, when I chose and how I chose.

If it happens again, I will ask that it be deleted.

aceventura3 · 07-16-2008, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...its really quite simple.

You can include any post of mine in "quotes" (with a link to see context). That is your right as a member of the forum.

But when you post: DC .....sees it as a baseless criticism and the rantings of an extremist.....you are attempting to speak for me.

And the fact is, YOU DONT SPEAK FOR ME. I speak for myself, when I chose and how I chose.

If it happens again, I will ask that it be deleted.

You seem to be getting aggravated about how you describe me. You should ask that this be deleted. In your post in question, there was no need to reference me, but you did, perhaps you should have that deleted as well.

aceventura3 · 07-17-2008, 11:18 AM

Here is an excerpt from a speech Bush gave outlining his energy plan over 7 years ago. Too bad he never got the support he needed from Congress to get it done.

Quote:

Following are excerpts from President Bush's speech on energy policy yesterday in St. Paul, as recorded by The New York Times:

To protect the environment, to meet our growing energy needs, to improve our quality of life, America needs an energy plan that faces up to our energy challenges and meets them. Vice President Cheney and many members of my cabinet spent months analyzing our problems and seeking solutions. The result is a comprehensive series of more than 100 recommendations that light the way to a brighter future through energy that is abundant and reliable, cleaner and more affordable. The plan addresses all three key aspects of the energy equation: demand, supply and the means to match them.

First, it reduces demand by promoting innovation and technology to make us the world leader in efficiency and conservation. Second, it expands and diversifies America's supply of all sources of energy: oil and gas, clean coal, solar, wind, biomass, hydropower and other renewables, as well as safe and clean nuclear power. Third and finally, the report outlines the ways to bring producers and consumers together by modernizing the networks of pipes and wires that link the power plant to the outlet on the wall.

Our new energy plan begins with a 21st-century focus on conservation. The American entrepreneurial system constantly invents ways to do more with less. We pack more and more computing power onto a chip; we carry more and more messages over a cable; and we squeeze more and more power out of a barrel of oil or a cubic foot of natural gas. A new refrigerator you buy today, for example, uses 65 percent less electricity than one that was made 20 years ago. Over all, we use 40 percent less energy to produce new goods and services than we did in 1973.

But this steady improvement slowed in the 1990's. Our energy plan will speed up progress on conservation where it has slowed and restart it where it has failed. It will underwrite research and development into energy-saving technology. It will require manufacturers to build more energy-efficient appliances. We will review and remove the obstacles that prevent business from investing in energy-efficient technologies. . . .

Conservation does not mean doing without. Thanks to new technology, it can mean doing better and smarter and cheaper. Innovation helps us all make better choices. Smart electric meters can tell homeowners how they're using power and how they might reduce their monthly electric bill. Sensors can turn off lights when people leave a room. And innovation is bringing us transmission wires that waste less of the electricity they carry from plant to home or to office.

Conservation on a wide scale takes more than good ideas. It takes capital investment. Outdated buildings and factories have to be upgraded or replaced to consume less and pollute less. And here some well-intentioned regulations have created a Catch-22. Procedures intended to protect the environment have too often blocked environmental progress by discouraging companies from installing newer and cleaner equipment.

Wise regulation and American innovation will make this country the world's leader in energy efficiency and conservation in the 21st century. Our goal is to use less additional energy to fuel more economic growth. And I know we can do so. I also know that conservation is the result of millions of good choices made across our land on a daily basis. Yet even as we grow more efficient, even as this nation achieves the objectives in conservation, we will always require some additional energy to power our expanding economy. We learned that from the California experience.

California has been an impressive conservation leader. It is the second-most energy-efficient state in the union. But California has not built a major new power plant in a decade. And not even the most admirable conservation effort could keep up with the state's demand for electricity.

So the second part of our energy plan will be to expand and diversify our nation's energy supplies. Diversity is important, not only for energy security but also for national security. Over dependence on any one source of energy, especially a foreign source, leaves us vulnerable to price shocks, supply interruptions and in the worst case, blackmail.

America today imports 52 percent of all our oil. If we don't take action, those imports will only grow. As long as cars and trucks run on gasoline, we will need oil, and we should produce more of it at home. New technology makes drilling for oil far more productive, as well as environmentally friendly, than it was 30 or 40 years ago. Here is a result of one study and I quote: ''Improvements over the past 40 years have dramatically reduced the industry's footprint on the fragile tundra, minimized waste produced and protected the land for resident and migratory wildlife.''

Those aren't my words. Those are the words of the Department of Energy's study conducted during my predecessor's administration. Advanced new technologies allow entrepreneurs and risk-takers to find oil and to extract it in ways that leave nature undisturbed. Where oil is found underneath sensitive landscapes, rigs can stand miles away from the oil field and tap a reservoir at an angle. In Arctic sites like A.N.W.R., we can build roads of ice that literally melt away when summer comes and the drilling then stops to protect wildlife. A.N.W.R. can produce 600,000 barrels of oil a day for the next 40 years. What difference does 600,000 barrels a day make? Well, that happens to be exactly the amount we import from Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

We're not just short of oil, we're short of the refineries that turn oil into fuel. So while the rest of our economy is functioning at 82 percent of capacity, our refineries are gasping at 96 percent of capacity.

A single accident, a single shutdown can send prices of gasoline and heating oil spiraling all over the country. The major reason for dramatic increase in gasoline prices today is the lack of refining capacity. And my plan gives the needed flexibility and certainty so refiners will make the investments necessary to expand supply by increasing capacity.

And America needs to generate more electricity. The Department of Energy estimates that America will need between 1,300 and 1,900 new power plants over the next two decades. A high-tech economy is a high-electricity consumption economy. Even the sleekest laptop needs to plug into an electrical outlet from time to time.

More than half of the electricity generated in America today comes from coal. If we weren't blessed with this natural resource we would face even greater shortages and higher prices today. Yet coal presents an environmental challenge. So our plan funds research into new clean-coal technologies. It calls on Congress to enact strict new multipollutant legislation to reduce emissions from electric power plants.

My administration's energy plan anticipates that most new electric plants will be fueled by the cleanest of all fossil fuels, natural gas. Our nation and our hemisphere are rich in natural gas resources. But our ability to develop gas resources has been hampered by restrictions on natural gas exploration. Our ability to deliver gas to consumers has been hindered by opposition to construction of new pipelines that today are more safe and more efficient. I will call on Congress to pass legislation to bring more gas to market while improving pipeline safety and safeguarding the environment.

America should also expand a clean and unlimited source of energy: nuclear power. Many Americans may not realize that nuclear power already provides one-fifth of this nation's electricity, safely and without air pollution. But the last American nuclear power plant to enter operation was ordered in 1973.

In contrast, France, our friend and ally, gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. By renewing and expanding existing nuclear facilities we can generate tens of thousands of megawatts of electricity at a reasonable cost, without pumping a gram of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. New reactor designs are even safer and more economical than the reactors we possess today. And my energy plan directs the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to use the best science to move expeditiously to find a safe and permanent repository for nuclear waste.

Our energy plan also supports the development of new and renewable sources of energy. It recommends tax credits to homeowners who invest in solar homes, and to utilities that build wind turbines or harness biomass and other environmentally friendly forms of power. It removes impediments to the development of hydroelectricity. It proposes incentives to buy new cars that run on alternative fuels like ethanol, that consume less oil and therefore pollute less. It supports research into fuel cells, a technology of tomorrow that can power a car with hydrogen, the most common element in the universe, and emit only steam as a waste product.

In all these ways, we will expand the diversity of our energy supply. But as with conservation, new energy supply alone is not the whole answer. There's a third element we must address: modernizing the network that delivers the supply to the point of demand. . . .

And here, too, technology will make a big difference. Electricity markets used to be localized because wires could not carry electrical current over long distances. More and better wires can efficiently ship power across the country, reducing the threat of local blackouts or outages.

And it's just not our electricity delivery system that has fallen behind. The energy report projects that natural gas consumption will rise rapidly as electric utilities make greater and greater use of this environmentally friendly fuel. We will need newer, cleaner and safer pipes to move these larger quantities of natural gas -- up to 38,000 new miles of pipe and 263,000 miles of distribution lines.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

Also here is a link to his 2001 plan.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/Nat...rgy-Policy.pdf

{added}

Before some of you try to rewrite history - The Senate (controlled by Democrats at the time) and the House never acted on Bush's plan, they did try to develop their own plans, they never reached agreement and nothing passed, then or when Democrats took control of the House and had control of the Senate. So the next time you hear Reid or Pelosi talk about Bush's failed energy plan, ask them to look in a mirror and stop with the B.S.

Baraka_Guru · 07-17-2008, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Here is an excerpt from a speech Bush gave outlining his energy plan over 7 years ago. Too bad he never got the support he needed from Congress to get it done.

Don't fret. Most innovation comes from private money, not public money.

Quote:

(CNN) -- Billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens is putting his clout behind renewable energy sources like wind power.
T. Boone Pickens talks about the advantages of wind power on CNN in May.

The legendary entrepreneur and philanthropist on Tuesday unveiled a new energy plan he says will decrease the United States' dependency on foreign oil by more than one-third and help shift American energy production toward renewable natural resources.

"The Pickens Plan" calls for investing in domestic renewable resources such as wind, and switching from oil to natural gas as a transportation fuel.

In a news conference outlining his proposal, Pickens said his impetus for the plan is the country's dangerous reliance on foreign oil.

"Our dependence on imported oil is killing our economy. It is the single biggest problem facing America today," he said. Video Watch Pickens discuss plan for wind power »

"Wind power is ... clean, it's renewable. It's everything you want. And it's a stable supply of energy," Pickens told CNN in May. "It's unbelievable that we have not done more with wind."

Pickens' company, Mesa Power, recently announced a $2 billion investment as the first step in a multibillion-dollar plan to build the world's largest wind farm in Pampa, Texas.

Pickens said Tuesday that if the United States takes advantage of the so-called "wind corridor," stretching from the Canadian border to West Texas, energy from wind turbines built there could supply 20 percent or more of the nation's power. He suggested the project could be funded by private investors.

Power from thousands of wind turbines that would line the corridor could be distributed throughout the country via electric power transmission lines and could fuel power plants in large population hubs, the oil baron said.

Fueling these plants with wind power would then free up the natural gas historically used to power them, and would mean that natural gas could replace foreign oil as fuel for motor vehicles, he said.

Using natural gas for transportation needs could replace one-third of the United States' imported oil and would save more than $230 billion a year, Pickens said.

"We are going to have to do something different in America," Pickens told CNN. "You can't keep paying out $600 billion a year for oil."

His energy plan could be implemented within 10 years if both Congress and the White House treat the current energy situation as a "national emergency and take immediate action," he predicted.

Pickens, a lifelong Republican, says he is not advising either presidential candidate, but is prepared to work with the next president.

The Web site for the plan urges people to sign up and help spread the word.

Oil analyst Peter Beutel of Cameron Hanover, an energy risk manager, said Pickens' plan could definitely reduce the country's dependency on foreign oil.

"The best thing about it is that it's a definite plan -- it's not something that either party has pitted itself outrightly against. It therefore has a tremendous chance for success on Capitol Hill."

Analyst Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., an investment firm, added that such a plan "has been on the drawing board for years."

At least 21 states and the District of Columbia have set deadlines or goals for utilities to obtain electricity from clean, renewable sources instead of fossil fuel-burning plants. See where states stand on renewable resources »

The scramble has triggered construction of large-scale wind farms throughout much of the nation, including proposals for the first U.S. offshore facilities.

Delaware and Galveston, Texas, have offshore projects in the works, although a farm proposed off New York's Long Island was shelved this year because of high projected construction costs.

In Massachusetts, where utilities are under the gun to obtain four percent of electricity from renewables by 2009, builders await federal approval of a hugely controversial wind farm off historic Cape Cod.

The Cape Wind project envisions 130 wind turbines each rising 440 feet above Nantucket Sound by 2011. State officials said the farm will eliminate pollution equal to 175,000 gas-burning cars.

July 8, 2008
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science...lan/index.html

dc_dux · 07-17-2008, 12:29 PM

Baraka....I'm not a fan of T Boone, the oil widlcatter turned slash and burn corporate takeover mogul and funder of the Swift Boat ads, but the Pickens Plan makes sense to me.

It focuses on wind power..the US has the largest potential for wind power of any country in the world.

The plan is to increase the use of wind power to supply over 20% of US power needs and then converting natural gas currently used for power generation to transportation. The result is a significant decline in reliance on foreign oil....and its clean....its renewable...and its cheap.

The Pickens Plan.

In his 2006 State of the Union address, Bush proclaimed that "America is addicted to oil"...then went on to suggest, in effect, that if we're addicted, it should be to ourselves, rather than to others....while at the same time, cutting funding for some renewable energy programs in each of the last three or four budgets.

An addiction is still an addiction.

IMO, it would be far better to aggressively pursue a goal to lower that addiction rate....and accomplish other goals as well (ie cleaner environment) than to continue to feed the addiction.

An interesting partnership may emerge on the issue....T Boone Pickens, the Republican oil guy and Al Gore (clean energy goal articulated today), the Democratic climate guy....to lead such an effort.

It certainly wont happen if the next president (and vice president) develop a national energy plan in secret with only oil company executives at the table.

dc_dux · 07-18-2008, 04:51 AM

There are some forward thinking people in oil country...

Quote:

Texas cemented its role as the nation's top wind power producer Thursday when the Public Utility Commission authorized nearly $5 billion of new transmission lines.

The commission told its staff to create the order picking the middle scenario out of five to harness the wind. A lattice of wires will connect West Texas' and the Panhandle's fast-growing wind farms to power-hungry cities to the east and southeast. Texas already generates nearly 7,000 megawatts of wind, the most of any state, and the new lines will boost that by 18,456 megawatts.

If it works as designed, the additional wind power could cut wholesale power costs by at least $3.4 billion a year, according to research from the Energy Reliability Council of Texas, which manages most of the state's power. Advocates call that number conservative.

full article: Texas PUC OKs $4.93B in wind power transmission lines

aceventura3 · 07-18-2008, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

In his 2006 State of the Union address, Bush proclaimed that "America is addicted to oil"...then went on to suggest, in effect, that if we're addicted, it should be to ourselves, rather than to others....while at the same time, cutting funding for some renewable energy programs in each of the last three or four budgets.

Is it possible that their are some renewable energy programs that are worthy of being cut?

Is it possible that the Bush administration evaluated the programs and given limited resources decided to allocate those recourses in the most cost effective manner?

Are you referring to actual cuts in dollars or cuts in percentage increase?

Are you suggesting that if the next President changes budget priorities and makes budget cut on some of Bush's energy programs that it means they are against those the fundamental goals of those programs?

If we agree or disagree with Bush's budget proposals, doesn't Congress have the final word on the budget?

Quote:

It certainly wont happen if the next president (and vice president) develop a national energy plan in secret with only oil company executives at the table.

Is the process of developing an energy plan more important than the plan? Are you suggesting that no one knew Bush was going to propose an energy plan?

And even if they did not know, didn't everyone have an opportunity to give input before Congress acted on it, or failed to act on it?

Baraka_Guru · 07-18-2008, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

An addiction is still an addiction.

IMO, it would be far better to aggressively pursue a goal to lower that addiction rate....and accomplish other goals as well (ie cleaner environment) than to continue to feed the addiction.

I agree with this. My perspective is that oil & gas is only expensive because of how much we use it. At the time of this posting, a pint of oil is worth $0.38. Compare that to other fluids you typically buy: water, beer, milk, pop, soup. Suddenly, it isn't so bad.

Sure, you need to burn the stuff in your everyday life, and it adds up. But when you look at the big picture and consider your use of the stuff to move your 3,000+ pounds of metal, plastic, and rubber around, ask yourself this: Is it worth it? What are you moving with it? Is it just you? Is that worth it?

There are far too many communities built around the idea that we can and should (must, actually) drive everywhere. No wonder people are griping over something that still costs relatively little.

A single human's ability to move over 3,000 pounds with incredible ease and at high speeds and maneuverability is an amazing feat. How cheap do you expect that to be? How cheap did you expect that to remain?

aceventura3 · 07-18-2008, 03:15 PM

If the people who want to stop using oil, actually stopped using oil wouldn't that solve the problem that people who want to stop using oil think we have?

The term "addiction" has been used loosely in the context of our oil consumption, but I think some who use the term don't literally think of our use of oil as an "addiction", anymore more than using water could be considered an addiction.

Personally, I simply want cheap oil and I think it is possible to have cheap oil. I have no interest in riding a bike, mass transit, using a golf cart or driving 55 mph on the interstate. If others want those things, that is o.k. with me. And if the people who want those things, just did them wouldn't we all be happy?

Baraka_Guru · 07-21-2008, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Personally, I simply want cheap oil and I think it is possible to have cheap oil. I have no interest in riding a bike, mass transit, using a golf cart or driving 55 mph on the interstate. If others want those things, that is o.k. with me. And if the people who want those things, just did them wouldn't we all be happy?

But, relatively speaking, oil is cheap. I understand that you want cheaper oil, but how cheap can you go given all the variables? We cannot repeat what we did in the second half of the 20th century to increase capacity. How do you think the world economy will change over the next 40 years?

Seriously: I think oil is as cheap as it's getting for at least the next 10 or 15 years before supply can catch up again, and this will only happen when alternatives kick in and demand moves to meet it half way (figuratively speaking). I could see it maybe dropping as far as $100/barrel in the near future, but that may only be a result of volatility. There is a lot of investment in oil right now, so you'll see many things come out of the industry to help production, refinement, and new sources, but this growth of output will be slow compared to the growth of short-term demand. We cannot indefinitely expand capacity. There is only one Saudi Arabia and only one Athabasca Oil Sands. We might get lucky in some of the sea beds around the world, but I wouldn't bet on it.

aceventura3 · 07-21-2008, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

But, relatively speaking, oil is cheap. I understand that you want cheaper oil, but how cheap can you go given all the variables?

I think excessive regulation and counter productive government policy has inflated the price of oil far beyond what is reasonable. I agree there are many variables affecting the price other than the two factors I mention, but I think we could have an energy policy that gives us "cheap" oil, protects the environment, gives incentives for cost effective alternatives, and reduces our dependence on importing oil.

Quote:

We cannot repeat what we did in the second half of the 20th century to increase capacity. How do you think the world economy will change over the next 40 years?

I think we can increase capacity. Technology applied properly has made a measurable impact on maximizing oil produced from older wells and our ability to produce oil from locations not accessible in the past.

I think the key to a sound energy policy is to encourage the development of alternatives and incrementally lowering demand while maintaining fair and reasonable prices for oil. Incremental changes in fuel efficiency standards in vehicles has lead us to a wide selection of vehicles that are safe, powerful, produce little pollution and are fuel efficient. If we removed 10% or 20% of the oldest vehicles currently in operation that would have a bigger impact on what we could do for the environment and overall fuel efficiency than any other reasonable idea in my opinion. Another example In the areas of urban development, the trend towards mixed use (residential, commercial, recreational development in a condensed urban setting) in an effort to stop suburban sprawl can have a material impact on our national oil consumption. These and other ideas can be done in addition to using wind, nuclear, biofuels, natural gas and solar, without panic, without excessive taxes, or excessively high oil prices. I think the next 40 years can be dynamic and exciting in terms of the possibilities.

Quote:

Seriously: I think oil is as cheap as it's getting for at least the next 10 or 15 years before supply can catch up again, and this will only happen when alternatives kick in and demand moves to meet it half way (figuratively speaking). I could see it maybe dropping as far as $100/barrel in the near future, but that may only be a result of volatility. There is a lot of investment in oil right now, so you'll see many things come out of the industry to help production, refinement, and new sources, but this growth of output will be slow compared to the growth of short-term demand. We cannot indefinitely expand capacity. There is only one Saudi Arabia and only one Athabasca Oil Sands. We might get lucky in some of the sea beds around the world, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Do we know what the true price of oil is? Given all the factors that make up the price of oil, if we simply looked at the costs of production, refining, shipping, and reasonable profit those costs might less than 50% of the current cost. Have those costs materially changed in the past 12 months? I don't think they have.

Baraka_Guru · 07-21-2008, 08:16 AM

You've made some interesting responses that we could build upon to further realize the challenges, possibilities, and opportunites, but I wanted to sort this out first:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Do we know what the true price of oil is? Given all the factors that make up the price of oil, if we simply looked at the costs of production, refining, shipping, and reasonable profit those costs might less than 50% of the current cost. Have those costs materially changed in the past 12 months? I don't think they have.

We can try to find the "true" price of oil, but we need to deal with the "real" price, which is the price the market serves us. We could isolate the cost of production and distribution, but we cannot stop there, as we are dealing with open and free markets (for the most part). The issue isn't so much the cost of production (though they are increasing due to the technology cost you've mentioned for extracting deeper oil, and also due to skyrocketing steel prices, which affect construction costs), but what we are really at the mercy of is the cost of consumption.

I came across this interesting piece: Global Energy: Increasingly Unsustainable. It was published in Finance & Development, which is a part of the IMF, so let's keep biases in mind. But what interests me is the data. Here's a sample:

Quote:

China and India are the emerging giants of world energy. China will overtake the United States soon after 2010 to become the world's biggest energy consumer. In 2005, U.S. demand was 34 percent higher than Chinese demand.

[Developing countries will account for 74% of the overall increase in demand for fossil fuels.]

On current trends, China and India will account for more than 40 percent of the increase in global energy use by 2030.

China will overtake the United States as the largest car market in the world by 2016.

India needs to import 75% of its oil to meet demand, so their economy has relatively inelastic demand for it. Their economy has suffered lately because of high prices, but it will be a matter of time before the government does something to alleviate this and encourage further development and investment. And China imports a heck of a lot too, but I don't have numbers handy.

The key issue is that both of these economies are growing as developing nations becoming industrialized nations. This means their growth in demand for natural resources occurs at a rate several times higher than that of industrialized nations. Consider oil & steel, which are the backbone resources for expanding economies. The amount of oil that will be pumping into these countries, coupled with the amount of steel being shipped there, will keep prices for both items relatively high. This isn't necessarily tied purely to the cost of production and delivery, it's also tied to the price of these items in an open market, in addition to investors dropping large amounts of money into the industries that mine and extract them.

As you can see, it's a complex set of variables. But note how it all comes down to one real cause: Demand is skyrocketing (relative to historic demand in these specific countries). The cost of industrializing large populations isn't cheap.

Of course the price of oil is high. But now what do we do? This is something we are starting to get at.

aceventura3 · 07-21-2008, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

You've made some interesting responses that we could build upon to further realize the challenges, possibilities, and opportunites, but I wanted to sort this out first:
We can try to find the "true" price of oil, but we need to deal with the "real" price, which is the price the market serves us. We could isolate the cost of production and distribution, but we cannot stop there, as we are dealing with open and free markets (for the most part). The issue isn't so much the cost of production (though they are increasing due to the technology cost you've mentioned for extracting deeper oil, and also due to skyrocketing steel prices, which affect construction costs), but what we are really at the mercy of is the cost of consumption.

I came across this interesting piece: Global Energy: Increasingly Unsustainable. It was published in Finance & Development, which is a part of the IMF, so let's keep biases in mind. But what interests me is the data. Here's a sample:

India needs to import 75% of its oil to meet demand, so their economy has relatively inelastic demand for it. Their economy has suffered lately because of high prices, but it will be a matter of time before the government does something to alleviate this and encourage further development and investment. And China imports a heck of a lot too, but I don't have numbers handy.

The key issue is that both of these economies are growing as developing nations becoming industrialized nations. This means their growth in demand for natural resources occurs at a rate several times higher than that of industrialized nations. Consider oil & steel, which are the backbone resources for expanding economies. The amount of oil that will be pumping into these countries, coupled with the amount of steel being shipped there, will keep prices for both items relatively high. This isn't necessarily tied purely to the cost of production and delivery, it's also tied to the price of these items in an open market, in addition to investors dropping large amounts of money into the industries that mine and extract them.

As you can see, it's a complex set of variables. But note how it all comes down to one real cause: Demand is skyrocketing (relative to historic demand in these specific countries). The cost of industrializing large populations isn't cheap.

Of course the price of oil is high. But now what do we do? This is something we are starting to get at.

I think it is important to find and understand the "true" price of oil. If we do then we can better understand the "real" price of oil. I have not taken the time to do any real mathematical calculations, but I think a large portion of the "true" price and the "real" price is governmental policies and regulations ( I am not an anarchist, some regulation is needed). For example what impact has Venezuela's actions had on the price of oil? What impact has Iran and the threat of them having nuclear weapons had on the price of oil? What impact has the US's unwillingness to explore and develop its own oil had on the price of oil? What impact has the constant threats of windfall profits taxes had on the price of oil? What impact has the devaluation of the US dollar (Fed Policy) had on the price of oil?

I think China and India are real factors impacting the price of oil, however the demand for oil is predictable. Given a country like China developing an industrial base, statisticians can easily look at historical patterns and project future needs. Given the predictable nature of demand the market price should not be as volatile as it has been. I truly believe the other factors have had a bigger impact on price than demand. 12 months ago oil was trading about $50 per barrel, now it is at about $130.

Baraka_Guru · 07-21-2008, 11:17 AM

Putting the issue of regulation aside for now, although the increase in demand is fairly predictable, the future ability to fill it isn't so much. For starters, we aren't even sure how accurate the numbers are on Saudi Arabia's reserves. We are also beginning to question the ability of other nations to maintain their current level of production. Also consider unpredictable things such as conflicts and natural disasters. Those are the unpredictable factors. And regardless of these, demand will chug ahead, as predictable as always. When asking why oil prices went up so fast in just 12 months, consider the value of the US dollar, which is how oil is priced. Also consider the recent reports that certain nations have faced dwindling production capacity. This is mainly volatility, but as time marches on, we will see the average price remain high, even after the volatility settle down (if it ever does).

Generally, on this issue, one big reason the prices are high is because the increases in demand are outstripping increases in production. The first is relatively predictable, the second isn't.

aceventura3 · 07-21-2008, 11:52 AM

I was not able to find more current global fuel oil consumption information, but this graph shows the trends from 1995 to 2005.

BP - Statistical Review charting tool

This chart shows proven oil reserves.

BP - Statistical Review charting tool

This chart shows oil production.

BP - Statistical Review charting tool

I know the obvious problems with showing these three graphs together and trying to draw conclusions, but through 2005 the general trends suggest that we are doing a good job of finding new proven reserves, increasing available supply, and moderately controlling demand. The information I find consistently leads me to the conclusion that the recent price escalation has less to do with normal supply and demand and more to do with other factors..

Baraka_Guru · 07-21-2008, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I know the obvious problems with showing these three graphs together and trying to draw conclusions, but through 2005 the general trends suggest that we are doing a good job of finding new proven reserves, increasing available supply, and moderately controlling demand.

Interesting data, nonetheless. But have a look at this to help illustrate what I mean:

Projections aside, have a look at what happened between 1950 and 2000, and then ask yourself if you think this is repeatable in anywhere near the same capacity between 2010 and 2060. Even if demand for oil doesn't grow at the same rate it did between 1950 and today, we can still assume there is much growth to occur in largely populated developing nations as they modernize.

Quote:

The information I find consistently leads me to the conclusion that the recent price escalation has less to do with normal supply and demand and more to do with other factors..

To help me understand your perspective on this, if the other factors would be resolved, what do you think the "true" price of oil is? What is the lowest it could be, and what do you see happening to that price between now and, say, 2050?

aceventura3 · 07-22-2008, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Interesting data, nonetheless. But have a look at this to help illustrate what I mean:

Projections aside, have a look at what happened between 1950 and 2000, and then ask yourself if you think this is repeatable in anywhere near the same capacity between 2010 and 2060. Even if demand for oil doesn't grow at the same rate it did between 1950 and today, we can still assume there is much growth to occur in largely populated developing nations as they modernize.

I agree that we probably can not duplicate 1950-2000 in terms of production. However, I don't think demand for oil will duplicate that period either. As the US industrialized it was at a unique time in history. I think China, India and other countries can industrialize without the same thirst that the US had for oil. For example in the US, with the introduction of the telephone, it required phone lines to be placed to every location where there was a phone. Today, with cell phone technology one strategically place (whatever they are called) can serve thousands of phones. Every industry can point to these kinds of efficiencies.

Quote:

To help me understand your perspective on this, if the other factors would be resolved, what do you think the "true" price of oil is? What is the lowest it could be, and what do you see happening to that price between now and, say, 2050?

Perhaps close to $50 or $60 per barrel.

Baraka_Guru · 07-23-2008, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I agree that we probably can not duplicate 1950-2000 in terms of production. However, I don't think demand for oil will duplicate that period either. As the US industrialized it was at a unique time in history. I think China, India and other countries can industrialize without the same thirst that the US had for oil. For example in the US, with the introduction of the telephone, it required phone lines to be placed to every location where there was a phone. Today, with cell phone technology one strategically place (whatever they are called) can serve thousands of phones. Every industry can point to these kinds of efficiencies.

Some excellent points here. I find it interesting that Japan has actually reduced its need for oil over the past 30 years despite being the second largest economy in the world. That's efficiency for you. It will be intersting to watch others such as France and Germany in this respect as well.

We will likely see the same with virtually every other developed nation over the next while, but this will be offset somewhat by developing nations that will have a high demand for oil not only for fuel but also for construction and manufacturing, etc. They will possibly be more efficient than post-1950s America, but also remember the collective population of these developing nations (which include others besides China and India) is far greater. This is why oil should remain relatively high.

Quote:

Perhaps close to $50 or $60 per barrel.

I don't believe we'll see $80 in the foreseeable future, barring some major unpredictable event.

aceventura3 · 09-12-2008, 07:48 AM

A report to Congress by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission did not support the common notion that speculators were the cause of the spike in oil prices this year. Seems like it is supply and demand as the primary market forces in their view.

Quote:

The Coalition to Protect Competitive Markets said today that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) new report on swap dealers and index traders supports the growing consensus of economic thought that the forces of supply and demand, not investors, are responsible for the run-up in oil and gas prices.
Specifically, the CFTC's report, which is based on an unprecedented collection of data from commodity traders, found that as crude oil prices were increasing -- from December 31, 2007 to June 30, 2008 -- the activity of commodity index traders in the oil futures actually declined.
"The CFTC report refutes the notion that investor participation in the commodity markets has caused the rise in oil prices," said Richard H. Baker, President and CEO of Managed Funds Association and a spokesman for the coalition. "During the period when oil prices were rising, investment activity in the oil futures markets was declining. This fact undermines the political rhetoric about investors and their impact on energy prices. It's time for Congress to move forward with a comprehensive energy plan that deals with the supply and demand issues that are behind high oil and gas prices."

.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/cftc-report-undercuts-claim-investors/story.aspx?guid={06B5DBFD-CC90-41A2-A3C0-6F18A3DBC03A}&dist=hppr

dc_dux · 09-12-2008, 08:08 AM

A recent report to Congress from the Energy Information Administration suggests that ending the drilling moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) would have an insignficant impact on the price on domestic crude production or prices before 2030:

Quote:

The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case . Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.

Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf

IMO, a better way to reduce the cost before 2030 would be to lower demand through conservation and conversion to alternatives.

07-07-2008, 07:45 PM	#52 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	you know, there's a reason that dame edna was the first to pop into my mind when i read that account. like her, they give and give and give. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-16-2008, 10:54 AM	#61 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace...its really quite simple. You can include any post of mine in "quotes" (with a link to see context). That is your right as a member of the forum. But when you post: DC .....sees it as a baseless criticism and the rantings of an extremist.....you are attempting to speak for me. And the fact is, YOU DONT SPEAK FOR ME. I speak for myself, when I chose and how I chose. If it happens again, I will ask that it be deleted. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-16-2008 at 10:57 AM..

07-17-2008, 12:29 PM	#65 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Baraka....I'm not a fan of T Boone, the oil widlcatter turned slash and burn corporate takeover mogul and funder of the Swift Boat ads, but the Pickens Plan makes sense to me. It focuses on wind power..the US has the largest potential for wind power of any country in the world. The plan is to increase the use of wind power to supply over 20% of US power needs and then converting natural gas currently used for power generation to transportation. The result is a significant decline in reliance on foreign oil....and its clean....its renewable...and its cheap. The Pickens Plan. In his 2006 State of the Union address, Bush proclaimed that "America is addicted to oil"...then went on to suggest, in effect, that if we're addicted, it should be to ourselves, rather than to others....while at the same time, cutting funding for some renewable energy programs in each of the last three or four budgets. An addiction is still an addiction. IMO, it would be far better to aggressively pursue a goal to lower that addiction rate....and accomplish other goals as well (ie cleaner environment) than to continue to feed the addiction. An interesting partnership may emerge on the issue....T Boone Pickens, the Republican oil guy and Al Gore (clean energy goal articulated today), the Democratic climate guy....to lead such an effort. It certainly wont happen if the next president (and vice president) develop a national energy plan in secret with only oil company executives at the table. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-18-2008 at 03:36 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

07-18-2008, 03:15 PM	#69 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	If the people who want to stop using oil, actually stopped using oil wouldn't that solve the problem that people who want to stop using oil think we have? The term "addiction" has been used loosely in the context of our oil consumption, but I think some who use the term don't literally think of our use of oil as an "addiction", anymore more than using water could be considered an addiction. Personally, I simply want cheap oil and I think it is possible to have cheap oil. I have no interest in riding a bike, mass transit, using a golf cart or driving 55 mph on the interstate. If others want those things, that is o.k. with me. And if the people who want those things, just did them wouldn't we all be happy? __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

07-21-2008, 11:17 AM	#74 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Putting the issue of regulation aside for now, although the increase in demand is fairly predictable, the future ability to fill it isn't so much. For starters, we aren't even sure how accurate the numbers are on Saudi Arabia's reserves. We are also beginning to question the ability of other nations to maintain their current level of production. Also consider unpredictable things such as conflicts and natural disasters. Those are the unpredictable factors. And regardless of these, demand will chug ahead, as predictable as always. When asking why oil prices went up so fast in just 12 months, consider the value of the US dollar, which is how oil is priced. Also consider the recent reports that certain nations have faced dwindling production capacity. This is mainly volatility, but as time marches on, we will see the average price remain high, even after the volatility settle down (if it ever does). Generally, on this issue, one big reason the prices are high is because the increases in demand are outstripping increases in production. The first is relatively predictable, the second isn't. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

07-07-2008, 05:13 PM	#51 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	It's not for themselves that they do it, RB. It's for us. There is no limit to the sacrifices they are willing to make.

07-15-2008, 10:59 AM	#54 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	Ace, the answer is political. The politicians you are describing would like to be seen doing 'something' about high oil prices - which are painful for constituents - but advocating new drilling would usually offend their and their constituents' environmental sensibilities. The SPR is therefore seen as a safer target, since it doesn't involve opening up wildlife reserves or threatening beaches. Now that entire chain of reasoning is fairly wrong-headed and reflects a shallow understanding of why we are where we are with regard to oil, but I think it should answer your question as far as 'making sense' of these positions (with which, to be clear, I don't agree).

07-21-2008, 11:52 AM	#75 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I was not able to find more current global fuel oil consumption information, but this graph shows the trends from 1995 to 2005. BP - Statistical Review charting tool This chart shows proven oil reserves. BP - Statistical Review charting tool This chart shows oil production. BP - Statistical Review charting tool I know the obvious problems with showing these three graphs together and trying to draw conclusions, but through 2005 the general trends suggest that we are doing a good job of finding new proven reserves, increasing available supply, and moderately controlling demand. The information I find consistently leads me to the conclusion that the recent price escalation has less to do with normal supply and demand and more to do with other factors.. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."