Why is oil over $65 a barrel right now? [Archive]

MannyIsGod

08-11-2005, 12:52 PM

Oil surges to $66 a barrel
Crude reaches another historic mark after demand agency forecast, refinery snags and Iran concerns.
August 11, 2005: 12:18 PM EDT
LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. crude and gasoline futures rose to all-time highs Thursday as dealers continued to worry about gasoline supply amid refinery snags, sliding inventories and worries over Iran's nuclear ambitions.

NYMEX September crude hit a record $66 a barrel before easing to $65.55, up 65 cents. The previous intraday record of $65 was set Wednesday.

September gasoline traded up 2.87 cents to $1.925 after setting a record at $1.955 per gallon, while U.S. heating oil futures surged 2.62 cents to $1.865 after reached a record $1.903 per gallon on refinery woes.

London Brent was up 92 cents at $64.91 after touching a record $65.66.

Earlier the International Energy Agency said non-OPEC output was falling short of expectations, compounding supply concerns.

"The presence of significant headline risk, most particularly from Iran's international relations, the Atlantic hurricane season and from tightness in refining, is continuing to support prices at higher levels," said Barclays Capital.

In Vienna, the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency approved a resolution demanding that Iran suspend all nuclear activities, a diplomat said.

EU diplomats said if OPEC's second biggest producer failed to comply with the resolution they would push for Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council for punitive action.

Oil prices have risen in nine of the past 11 sessions as the market has been edgy over possible disruptions to exports from Iran and Saudi Arabia, OPEC's two-largest oil producers. (Full story. (http://money.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/08/saudi.threat/index.html))

A security threat forced the United States to shut its missions in top exporter Saudi Arabia for two days earlier this week. And OPEC's second biggest producer Iran is pushing ahead with its nuclear work in defiance of the European Union.

With the oil cartel pumping almost flat out, lead producer Saudi Arabia alone holds significant spare production capacity.

Refinery strain In the United States, where refinery problems have strained gasoline stocks during the peak demand season, BP (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?shownav=true&symb=BP) (up $0.13 to $70.71, Research (http://cnnfn.investor.reuters.com/Reports.aspx?ticker=BP)) shut several units at its Texas City refinery, a source familiar with the plant's operation said.

And ConocoPhillips (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?shownav=true&symb=COP) (up $0.71 to $66.35, Research (http://cnnfn.investor.reuters.com/Reports.aspx?ticker=COP)) Wood River refinery suffered a power problem, market trading sources said.

The news came on the heels of U.S. stock data on Wednesday that showed another fall in gasoline inventories (http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/10/markets/oil/index.htm) in the world's biggest consumer.

Edward Meir of Man Energy said oil price forecasts were running the gamut. "In markets like these, it is best to let things run their course, especially given the fact that there are no resistance 'signposts' to guide us."

The International Energy Agency, adviser to 26 industrialized nations, earlier nudged up its world oil demand growth forecasts for this year and next, leaving already stretched OPEC to fill the supply void.

The IEA cut non-OPEC supply growth this year by 205,000 barrels per day, with production problems in the U.S. Gulf, Mexico, Norway and Britain accounting for most of the shortfall. Russia is also pumping less than expected.

"The extent to which (the IEA) felt compelled to cut its estimates of non-OPEC production is a bullish factor," said Deborah White, senior energy analyst at SG Commodities.

Even with U.S. crude averaging above $53 a barrel for the year to date, in real terms prices are still below the $80 a barrel average of 1980, after the Iranian revolution.

SWC Bonfire

08-11-2005, 12:56 PM

Even with U.S. crude averaging above $53 a barrel for the year to date, in real terms prices are still below the $80 a barrel average of 1980, after the Iranian revolution.

So, eating horse shit is much better than cow shit. :lol

Nbadan

08-11-2005, 02:47 PM

AAA is warning of record gas prices as soon as this weekend...

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. drivers, already paying the highest retail gasoline prices on record, should expect further increases at the nations pumps due to skyrocketing costs for crude oil and a flurry of recent refinery problems, the AAA motorists group said on Thursday. "We think American drivers should brace themselves for a fairly large increase, as soon as this weekend," said Geoff Sundstrom, AAA spokesman. "It could be an increase of around five cents a gallon nationwide."

Prices at the pumps are already zipping along at a record near $2.40 a gallon on average, up more than a dime from last month, according to the AAA's daily survey of 60,000 stations. But a recent surge in the cost of crude oil to $66 a barrel, and a spate of problems at the nation's refineries, from California to the Gulf Coast, will mean further steep increases in fuel prices.

"The price of crude oil is a big reason pump prices are in record high territory," said Sundstrom. "On the other hand, we have a long-term issue to resolve with regards to refining capacity. With fires and operational problems of various kinds recently, it looks like gasoline supplies have become crimped," he said.

Around 10 U.S. refineries have reported unplanned unit shutdowns since mid-July. Refineries typically become more prone to outages in late-summer as they try to keep up with strong demand. While U.S. retail gasoline prices are at a record in nominal terms, when adjusted for inflation they remain below the peak of around $3 a gallon hit in the early 1980s.

© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.

Reuters (http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=9349463&src=rss/topNews)

Ouch!

clubalien

08-11-2005, 04:56 PM

electricity =regualted
natural gas=regulated
water=regulated

why isn't gas more regulated?
compaines with all time high profits

if they are making to much profit they could loser price

simple this is price guaaging

MannyIsGod

08-11-2005, 04:59 PM

Actually, this is a free market it work. Perhaps you should look up the world collusion before you start throwing it around.

Cheap gas is not a constitutional right. Companies do, however, have a right to make money.

clubalien

08-11-2005, 05:06 PM

all I am saying is if you are going to regualted the price of elecrcity why cannot you regualte gas prices.

MannyIsGod

08-11-2005, 05:08 PM

Maybe the problem is you shouldn't regulate the price of electricty either?

SWC Bonfire

08-11-2005, 05:46 PM

Maybe it wouldn't be very profitable/practical if other companies had to string their own power lines. Otherwise, there has be deregulation of electical companies and you can buy energy from a company over existing lines put up by another company.

In terms of price, I don't know how much regulation goes on. I know CP&L charges almost twice per kW/hr than GVTC, but I am not on their lines and do not think the Co-op operates on third party lines. I am currently looking into it.

Cant_Be_Faded

08-11-2005, 06:00 PM

Why do gas prices go higher when the oil companies fuck up and have problems at refineries

why must we pay for their fuckups

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-11-2005, 06:14 PM

Why do gas prices go higher when the oil companies fuck up and have problems at refineries

why must we pay for their fuckups

It's called supply and demand.

Of course, for someone who creams himself over the greatness of tu 24-7, you'd think he'd understand simple economic theory.

MannyIsGod

08-11-2005, 06:34 PM

Why do gas prices go higher when the oil companies fuck up and have problems at refineries

why must we pay for their fuckups
What fuck ups? And how are you paying for fuckups? If a company has a refinery problem, I guarntee you it is costing them more money than it is making them.

Hook Dem

08-11-2005, 06:50 PM

Cant_Be_Faded

08-11-2005, 07:46 PM

It's called supply and demand.

Of course, for someone who creams himself over the greatness of tu 24-7, you'd think he'd understand simple economic theory.

keep it in the aggie fight song thread, or get bent
you guys still lost to BAYLOR

What fuck ups? And how are you paying for fuckups? If a company has a refinery problem, I guarntee you it is costing them more money than it is making them.

when that refinery in florida or on the gulf coast somewhere had an accident, gas went up 15 cents the very next day in austin

it was a fuck up i think, the workers' incompetence. We pay the extra gas cuz of all that. It makes sense that they're still losing more money overall in the short term because of the refinery problem.

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-11-2005, 09:30 PM

Since it equates to supply and demand, I wonder how many on this board(or the country for that matter), have even considered lowering their consumption. I'll bet not too many! Thats the problem.....just pay the price and continue to bitch. If everyone in this country would lower their consumption by 10 gallons per week, we just might see the price come down. Just a thought!

I live 5 minutes from work in city (Dallas) where the average commute is 45 minutes. I fill up once a month :D

keep it in the aggie fight song thread, or get bent
you guys still lost to BAYLOR

:lol Every streak has to end at some point. We had won 20 straight. tu had lost to Baylor since '85 when we started owning Baylor. It was a fluke (kind of like you having a point in any discussion on this board).

MannyIsGod

08-11-2005, 10:02 PM

Why the fuck would they cut profits?

I don't want them to cut profits. I want this country to pay for the damn oil they use, so that they'll start to use less of it. I want oil execs rolling in the money so that when there is 4 dollar gas people will actually start looking into car pooling, hybrid cars, and mass transit.

Cant_Be_Faded

08-11-2005, 10:19 PM

why people dont already car pool is beyond me. my mother's been carpooling for over 20 years

i take the bus to school, on a typical day, and hardly use my car at all

mass transit would be the best thing to do, in fact texas would be 3lit3 if it had a metropolis-to-metropolis train system or super japanesesque train

i don't see that stuff happening though, people are just gonna keep bitching about the oil companies and using lots of gas

MannyIsGod

08-11-2005, 10:24 PM

Then they are going to get poor as fuck. Especially those assholes in Tahoes.

Clandestino

08-11-2005, 11:16 PM

adjusted for inflation, oil would have to be over $90 a barrel to be record setting.

Clandestino

08-11-2005, 11:17 PM

also, if you can't afford to drive, then take the bus...

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-12-2005, 12:04 AM

I'm kinda with Manny on this one - when it really gets up there, the chorus for alternative energy/hybrid engines will be deafening.

Vashner

08-13-2005, 05:37 AM

Fuck cars .. .look how much fuel a Jet takes...
It's only a matter of time b4 we suck it dry (all the oil)..

cecil collins

08-13-2005, 07:44 AM

Maybe the problem is you shouldn't regulate the price of electricty either?

Sure, and let the assholes charge any price they want. May not be terrible in competing markets, but there are areas with no alternative. Also, when California deregulated, the electricity bills skyrocketed, doubling in some areas. Free market capatilism can only be beneficial to everyone when the owning class has a conscience. Therefore, I think regulation of some resources are necessary.

MannyIsGod

08-13-2005, 11:05 AM

Sure, and let the assholes charge any price they want. May not be terrible in competing markets, but there are areas with no alternative. Also, when California deregulated, the electricity bills skyrocketed, doubling in some areas. Free market capatilism can only be beneficial to everyone when the owning class has a conscience. Therefore, I think regulation of some resources are necessary.
In other words, the free market laws that work in every other aspect don't work for electricty? Bullshit. There are no exceptions to the rule of supply and demand. Thats why it is a rule.

You want to see alternative energies and energy consumption? You want to see the level of CO2 emmited by the US come down? Deregulate the prices and allow a proper free market system to raise the price and not keep it artifically low.

However, I will agree there should be competition in place.

Clandestino

08-13-2005, 11:09 AM

actually, they don't... not any company can just build power plants. just like cable... there is only one cable company accessible to all.. grande still barely covers any of san antonio...

clubalien

08-13-2005, 11:10 AM

cecil I was just about to post something like that

basicly what happeend with electricity with enron in calfi is happening with oil

artifically the price is getting mulitpilated

MannyIsGod

08-13-2005, 11:11 AM

What Enron did was flat out illegal, and that should be watched over. But that is not the same as deregulation itself. Government mediation within markets ends up costing the consumer in the long run.

Democrats want to bitch about the environment and they want cheap energy too. You can't have it both ways and you have to pay for something of that nature.

Dos

08-13-2005, 12:02 PM

just think of the energy we'd be saving if true enviromentalist actually practiced what they'd preach... less cars on the roads with save our planet stickers on them, less light pollution at night since they wouldn't be buy energy from the evil energy companies and less liberals online since they wouldn't be buying ISP access from the evil corporate communication companies... bah..

Clandestino

08-13-2005, 12:34 PM

haha... but so, soo true!

Nbadan

08-13-2005, 01:46 PM

I don't see how Republicans can sit around and gloat about how they are selling us out to the Chinese with debt, making us all even more oil dependent on MIddle East oil, and coming soon, indentured slaves to credit companies, but it seems to me that the enviromental types are the ones REALLY solving the worlds problems...not the corporations.

CORTE MADERA, Calif. -- Politicians and automakers say a car that can both reduce greenhouse gases and free America from its reliance on foreign oil is years or even decades away. Ron Gremban says such a car is parked in his garage.

It looks like a typical Toyota Prius hybrid, but in the trunk sits an 80-miles-per-gallon secret - a stack of 18 brick-sized batteries that boosts the car's high mileage with an extra electrical charge so it can burn even less fuel.

Gremban, an electrical engineer and committed environmentalist, spent several months and $3,000 tinkering with his car.

Like all hybrids, his Prius increases fuel efficiency by harnessing small amounts of electricity generated during braking and coasting. The extra batteries let him store extra power by plugging the car into a wall outlet at his home in this San Francisco suburb - all for about a quarter.

more...

Seattle.PI (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/aptech_story.asp?category=1700&slug=Hybrid%20Tinkerers)

Clandestino

08-13-2005, 01:50 PM

that is nothing. for 800 bux anyone with a diesel vehicle can convert their car to burn used cooking oil that restaurants pay companies to haul away.

Nbadan

08-13-2005, 01:52 PM

hat is nothing. for 800 bux anyone with a diesel vehicle can convert their car to burn used cooking oil that restaurants pay companies to haul away.

You just don't get the meaning of words 'environmentally friendly', do you?

Clandestino

08-13-2005, 01:58 PM

batteries are worse for the environment than anything else.. how evironmentally friendly are they?

Clandestino

08-14-2005, 08:43 AM

:lmao

it's been 24 hrs.. what is your reponse to this nbadan?

Hook Dem

08-14-2005, 11:23 AM

Then they are going to get poor as fuck. Especially those assholes in Tahoes.
Why do you and others continue to attack tahoe owners? Have you done any research as you preach to others? My Tahoe gets 21 MPG and that is considerably better than some of the others. Is it just because you can't afford one? Get an intellegent take on this.

Hook Dem

08-14-2005, 11:27 AM

that is nothing. for 800 bux anyone with a diesel vehicle can convert their car to burn used cooking oil that restaurants pay companies to haul away.
Calf tongue used to be cheap until the people found out it was actually a delicacy. Your used vegetable oil would follow the same course.

jochhejaam

08-14-2005, 11:45 AM

Especially those assholes in Tahoes.

Let's put the blame where it belongs:

Least Efficient Pickup Trucks
Dodge Ram1500 Pickup, 2WD 10 cyl, 8.3 L, Auto(4) 9C/ 12H

Least Efficient Sport Utility Vehicles
Mercedes-Benz G55 AMG, 4WD 8 cyl, 5.4 L, Auto(5) 12C/ 14 H

Least Efficient Minivans
Kia Sedona, 6 cyl, 3.5 L, Auto(5) 16C/ 22H

Least Efficient Passenger Vans
Ford E150 Club Wagon , RWD 8 cyl, 5.4 L, Auto(4) 13C/ 17H

Least Efficient Cargo Vans
Chevrolet Astro , AWD 6 cyl, 4.3 L, Auto(4) 14C/ 17H
Ford E150 Econoline, 2WD 8cyl, 5.4 L, Auto(4) 14C/ 17H
GMC Safari , AWD 6 cyl, 4.3 L, Auto(4) 14C/ 17H

Chevy Tahoe:
MPG: City: 16 Highway: 20

MannyIsGod

08-14-2005, 12:52 PM

:lmao

Ok, Ok, my bad.

Tahoe is the generic word we use for an SUV based on the popularity. But I will correct myself. According to Joch's stats, all the Dodge Ram driving assholes will be poor as fuck.

Cant_Be_Faded

08-14-2005, 12:54 PM

Government mediation within markets ends up costing the consumer in the long run.

Are you sure about this? Why must it cost in the long run?

indentured slaves to credit companies,
don't remind me

Let's put the blame where it belongs:

its more because Tahoes are like the SUV poster boy

MannyIsGod

08-14-2005, 01:03 PM

Look at the Energy Bill that was just passed CBF. That is mediation in the market. The government is trying to control the energy market by passing tax brakes and credits in order to pursuade companies to do certain things.

And what sucks most of all, is that energy bill gets press for having a hybrid car tax credit, but what is overlooked is how much money is giving to the companies in the form of exploration and drilling tax breaks.

So, we lose the tax money that comes in. Thats not that big of a deal, the government wouldn't spend it well.

And in exchange for a shitty hybrid tax credit, the oil companies get a shitload of breaks.

Anything run by the government is inevitably run very poorly. Look at SS. Private firms would have turned that money and made it profitable very easily but the government doesn't do shit but SPEND it. There were tons of safe investments that would have allowed that money to grow.

Take government provided health care. Canda's system has wait times of over a month to see a damn doctor for a simple procedure and the costs run at an astronomical rate because people do not have to choose when a doctors visit is nessecary. When it is "free" it is always nessecary.

If the government intervenes in today's oil markets - more than it is already doing - it will only serve to hurt us. Cheaper oil is going to mean more consumption, and a smaller damned for renewable energy. And if it subsidized by the government, then thats money we are spending either way in taxes.

This government's job isn't to provide cheap commidities.

Cant_Be_Faded

08-14-2005, 01:19 PM

I see.
But it's difficult to get the public to accept the idea of non-artificially low gas prices, because we've had them our whole lives. I remember spending .89. even in the .70's once.
If we did let the companies set their own price in accordance with demand, and gas went sky high, wouldn't you get pissed off Manny? Or would you be satisified knowing that people are finally 'paying' for their gas?

There are things I do (sometimes, not weekly or anything) that I would not be able to do if gas went to like 5 dollars a gallon or something like that.

beirmeistr

08-14-2005, 05:22 PM

cecil collins

08-14-2005, 08:11 PM

They still make ethanol fuel. I know of a company, I believe called FS(farm services) that has pumps that sell it. I don't know if just anyone can use it, and it is some miles away from where I live. I think that the government runs more effectively than we think. Who is hurt most during a recession? The poor, and it's not by accident. While the fat cats are getting loans, and tax cuts out the ass, the working class poor get laid off, cut off from unemployment, and a tax refund of 300(oh wow) dollars. Next more jobs are created, but the wages are depressed due to high unemployment rates. A lot of the good jobs, are now barely living wage jobs in an underdeveloped nation.

boutons

08-14-2005, 10:08 PM

shrub's paymasters in the oil companies aren't into non-oil energy, duh. They'r makin windfall $B's with oil at current prices. The energy bill, more corporate welfare with $15B in tax breaks for energy companies rolling in unearned, inflated oil profits.

==========================

August 5, 2005

Too Much Pork and Too Little Sugar

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Wow, I am so relieved that Congress has finally agreed on an energy bill. Now that's out of the way, maybe Congress will focus on solving our energy problem.

Sorry to be so cynical, but an energy bill that doesn't enjoin our auto companies to sharply improve their mileage standards is just not serious. This bill is what the energy expert Gal Luft calls "the sum of all lobbies." While it contains some useful provisions, it also contains massive pork slabs dished out to the vested interests who need them least - like oil companies - and has no overarching strategy to deal with the new world.

And the world has changed in the past few years. First, the global economic playing field is being leveled, and millions of people who were out of the game - from China, India and the former Soviet empire - are now walking onto the field, each dreaming of a house, a car, a toaster and a microwave. As they move from low-energy to high-energy consumers, they are becoming steadily rising competitors with us for oil.

Second, we are in a war. It is a war against open societies mounted by Islamo-fascists, who are nurtured by mosques, charities and madrasas preaching an intolerant brand of Islam and financed by medieval regimes sustained by our oil purchases.

Yes, we are financing both sides in the war on terrorism: our soldiers and the fascist terrorists. George Bush's failure, on the morning after 9/11, to call on Americans to accept a gasoline tax to curb our oil imports was one of the greatest wasted opportunities in U.S. history.

Does the energy bill begin to remedy that? Hardly. It doesn't really touch the auto companies, which have used most of the technological advances of the last two decades to make our cars bigger and faster, rather than more fuel-efficient. Congress even rejected the idea of rating tires for fuel efficiency, which might have encouraged consumers to buy the most fuel-efficient treads.

The White House? It blocked an amendment that would have required the president to find ways to cut oil use by one million barrels a day by 2015 - on the grounds that it might have required imposing better fuel economy on our carmakers.

We need a strategic approach to energy. We need to redesign work so more people work at home instead of driving in; we need to reconfigure our cars and mass transit; we need a broader definition of what we think of as fuel. And we need a tax policy that both entices, and compels, U.S. firms to be innovative with green energy solutions. This is going to be a huge global industry - as China and India become high-impact consumers - and we should lead it.

Many technologies that could make a difference are already here - from hybrid engines to ethanol. All that is needed is a gasoline tax of $2 a gallon to get consumers and Detroit to change their behavior and adopt them. As Representative Edward Markey noted, auto fuel economy peaked at 26.5 miles per gallon in 1986, and "we've been going backward every since" - even though we have the technology to change that right now. "This is not rocket science," he rightly noted. "It's auto mechanics."

It's also imagination. "During the 1973 Arab oil embargo Brazil was importing almost 80 percent of its fuel supply," notes Mr. Luft, director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. "Within three decades it cut its dependence by more than half. ... During that period the Brazilians invested massively in a sugar-based ethanol industry to the degree that about a third of the fuel they use in their vehicles is domestically grown. They also created a fleet that can accommodate this fuel." Half the new cars sold this year in Brazil will run on any combination of gasoline and ethanol. "Bringing hydrocarbons and carbohydrates to live happily together in the same fuel tank," he added, "has not only made Brazil close to energy independence, but has also insulated the Brazilian economy from the harming impact of the current spike in oil prices."

The new energy bill includes support for corn-based ethanol, but, bowing to the dictates of the U.S. corn and sugar lobbies (which oppose sugar imports), it ignores Brazilian-style sugar-based ethanol, even though it takes much less energy to make and produces more energy than corn-based ethanol. We are ready to import oil from Saudi Arabia but not sugar from Brazil.

The sum of all lobbies. ...

It seems as though only a big crisis will force our country to override all the cynical lobbies and change our energy usage. I thought 9/11 was that crisis. It sure was for me, but not, it seems, for this White House, Congress or many Americans. Do we really have to wait for something bigger in order to get smarter?

=================================

The Republican insanity continues.

MannyIsGod

08-14-2005, 10:09 PM

Nbadan

08-15-2005, 04:35 AM

What this country needs is an alternative fuel. Back in the oil crisis of the 70s and maybe early 80s, there was a fuel being sold for automobiles that was made from corn, I think. The name was ethanol? Anybody remember this. I don't know why they quit selling it---maybe it was not economically feasible to produce.

They still do sell it. You can get some in the flat-country but the octane level is wrong for most cars. Either way, ethanol is not the long term solution either because it takes much effort and ironically enough, oil to convert, what is it? Wheat? Whatever into ethanol fuel. Nothing beats cheap oil. Only, it's not so cheap anymore.

cecil collins

08-15-2005, 07:52 AM

Extra Stout

08-15-2005, 08:54 AM

I'm not sure I can provide an acceptable example, but let me know. A lot of what I spouted off is from one of Michael Parenti's book, and I'm not sure which. I can sometime skim and try to find his examples. If you mean corporations getting loans and tax cuts, look at the airline industry after 9-11. Nevermind all the profits from the good years, one terrible recession and big daddy government comes in with the handouts. What happens to factory Joe when he gets laid off and there are more people than jobs in his town. He can get 6 months of unemployment(that he paid into), but no big loans or handouts. Unemployment goes up, wages go down. I don't know if I did, or could answer your question, perhaps I just reaffirmed your belief that I'm on crack.I don't see an example of 'efficient government' there. I see an example in the airline industry where companies are able to maintain their outdated, inefficient, unprofitable business models because they know the government will bail them out when things get bad. That doesn't help consumers or taxpayers. It helps employees in the short term, but inhibits growth in the long term that would create more jobs, and place upward pressure on wages as skilled workers become scarce.

As for factory Joe, now, rather than his plant closing and being replaced by one in Japan or Mexico, Joe lives in Ohio or Michigan and the new plant is in Texas or Alabama. Factory Joe could get his job back if his state had laws similar to the states whose economies are growing and creating high-paying jobs, but his area is over-regulated by government and is dominated by unions that have become corrupt and bloated, and are themselves in cahoots with the government.

Where government steps in and helps is in the short term. If somebody loses their job, they usually can't wait six months to a year without income, or just uproot their family and follow the jobs the way Sioux could follow the buffalo. But protectionist policies and regulation in the long term hurt the economy. If Washington had done more to thwart the import market for autombiles, for example, we still wouldn't have all these Toyota, Nissan, and Hyundai plants in the South creating all these new jobs.

clubalien

08-15-2005, 11:01 AM

Anything run by the government is inevitably run very poorly. Look at SS. Private firms would have turned that money and made it profitable very easily but the government doesn't do shit but SPEND it. There were tons of safe investments that would have allowed that money to grow.

SS=RUNNING SURPLUSES
private pension funds=UNDERFUNDED, going bankrupt by being pushed onto a GOVERNMENT garunettee corportation

so in fact the government has contuined to make surpluses on socialk secruity currently and for a while and the busineesses are the ones that have had their great pension funds fail

the facts shwo the exact opposite of what you claimed

clubalien

08-15-2005, 11:12 AM

it was protectionistest policies they ae why forieng plants are in US

they are only allowed to import so many cars, however if the plants are in the US all cars don't count as imports since they are made here

question is is it mroe American to buy a japanese owened company car made in Texas or a Ford US owened company car made in mexico?

I think you have to say protectionism was a win there.

Duff McCartney

08-15-2005, 02:27 PM

If everyone in this country would lower their consumption by 10 gallons per week, we just might see the price come down. Just a thought!

Why do you and others continue to attack tahoe owners? Have you done any research as you preach to others? My Tahoe gets 21 MPG and that is considerably better than some of the others. Is it just because you can't afford one? Get an intellegent take on this.

Oh the irony of it all.

gtownspur

08-15-2005, 04:29 PM

Spurminator

08-15-2005, 04:37 PM

Hook Dem

08-15-2005, 06:06 PM

Oh the irony of it all.
Figures coming from you!

Hook Dem

08-15-2005, 06:06 PM

Hook Dem

08-15-2005, 06:11 PM

Oh the irony of it all.
Judging from discussions we've had in the past, I'd say you still have a pimple on your ass. Get it healed! :nope

Trainwreck2100

08-15-2005, 06:16 PM

***Tune of Kum-ba-yah begins to play in the background***
Furthermore, with an influx of people back to the cities, the racial divide would be less extreme. Whites and blacks and Hispanics would live closer to one another, building trust and neighborly friendship, all working towards the ultimate goal of racial harmony.

Just trying to put some kind of positive spin on it...

Or the white people will kick the minorities out of the city redevelop it and make the smaller people work even harder.

Duff McCartney

08-15-2005, 06:54 PM

Figures coming from you!

Yeah right..telling everybody to cut back on their gas usage while you go around driving a tahoe is the ultimate irony.

Maybe you should practice what you preach you freaking hypocrite, but you won't do that.

Clandestino

08-15-2005, 09:54 PM

MannyIsGod

08-15-2005, 10:39 PM

Haha, nice catch Duff.

Club, if you think SS is running a surplus then you have no idea how the system works. And private pension has and always will outperform SS.

There is no point in arguing the obvious.

MannyIsGod

08-15-2005, 10:45 PM

people are going to drive no matter what.. at least until we run out of oil... manny must hate the poor people. they suffer most from high gas prices.. i don't give a fuck about this gas.. i just pump and forget it.. i fill up every time.. i don't put 5-10 bucks at a time like the poor do...

http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smiblabber.gifhttp://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smiblabber.gifhttp://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smiblabber.gifhttp://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smiblabber.gifhttp://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smiblabber.gifhttp://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smiblabber.gifhttp://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smiblabber.gif

Clandestino reminds me so much of Charlie Brown's teacher.

Clandestino

08-15-2005, 10:56 PM

well, you must.. if you say, i want gas to go sky high... tell that to the poor people.. tell that to the mexican man who doesn't speak any english who cuts my grass...

Clandestino

08-15-2005, 10:57 PM

do you even speak spanish manny...

Hook Dem

08-15-2005, 11:09 PM

Yeah right..telling everybody to cut back on their gas usage while you go around driving a tahoe is the ultimate irony.

Maybe you should practice what you preach you freaking hypocrite, but you won't do that.
Did I exclude myself? You really are ignorant aren't you? Read the previous posts and you will realize that Tahoes aren't the problem. I'm talking about everybody cutting back on gas usage. Can you comprehend that? What good is it for you to go to school when you don't learn anything?

MannyIsGod

08-15-2005, 11:35 PM

I do speak/read/write Spanish. I do not however, speak Charlie Brown's Teacher's Woh Woh language.

Johnny_Blaze_47

08-15-2005, 11:38 PM

I think the question on everybody's mind is whether or not Clandestino is using a legal worker to do his gardening.

Clandestino

08-15-2005, 11:40 PM

I think the question on everybody's mind is whether or not Clandestino is using a legal worker to do his gardening.

when he offered to cut the grass, weed eat, edge, etc for $20 bucks i didn't ask for papers... i'm not totally cold.. i give him an extra 5 every time...

Johnny_Blaze_47

08-15-2005, 11:41 PM

when he offered to cut the grass, weed eat, edge, etc for $20 bucks i didn't ask for papers... i'm not totally cold.. i give him an extra 5 every time...

So you're willfully breaking the law?

MannyIsGod

08-15-2005, 11:43 PM

I'm going to report Clandestion to the authorities for breaking the law then I'm going to be unsympathetic when he gets convicted because you shouldn't break the law according to him. Unless it saves you some money on landscaping.

j-6

08-15-2005, 11:43 PM

I read this earlier today...seemed relevant to the discussion.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/08/15/hybrid.tinkerers.ap/index.html

250 miles per gallon? They're doing it
Tinkerers fiddle with hybrids to increase efficiency

Monday, August 15, 2005; Posted: 4:25 p.m. EDT (20:25 GMT)

CORTE MADERA, California (AP) -- Politicians and automakers say a car that can both reduce greenhouse gases and free America from its reliance on foreign oil is years or even decades away.

Ron Gremban says such a car is parked in his garage.

It looks like a typical Toyota Prius hybrid, but in the trunk sits an 80-miles-per-gallon secret -- a stack of 18 brick-sized batteries that boosts the car's high mileage with an extra electrical charge so it can burn even less fuel.

Gremban, an electrical engineer and committed environmentalist, spent several months and $3,000 tinkering with his car.

Like all hybrids, his Prius increases fuel efficiency by harnessing small amounts of electricity generated during braking and coasting. The extra batteries let him store extra power by plugging the car into a wall outlet at his home in this San Francisco suburb -- all for about a quarter.

He's part of a small but growing movement. "Plug-in" hybrids aren't yet cost-efficient, but some of the dozen known experimental models have gotten up to 250 mpg.

They have support not only from environmentalists but also from conservative foreign policy hawks who insist Americans fuel terrorism through their gas guzzling.

And while the technology has existed for three decades, automakers are beginning to take notice, too.

So far, DaimlerChrysler AG is the only company that has committed to building its own plug-in hybrids, quietly pledging to make up to 40 vans for U.S. companies. But Toyota Motor Corp. officials who initially frowned on people altering their cars now say they may be able to learn from them.

"They're like the hot rodders of yesterday who did everything to soup up their cars. It was all about horsepower and bling-bling, lots of chrome and accessories," said Cindy Knight, a Toyota spokeswoman. "Maybe the hot rodders of tomorrow are the people who want to get in there and see what they can do about increasing fuel economy."

Plugged or unplugged?

The extra batteries let Gremban drive for 20 miles with a 50-50 mix of gas and electricity. Even after the car runs out of power from the batteries and switches to the standard hybrid mode, it gets the typical Prius fuel efficiency of around 45 mpg. As long as Gremban doesn't drive too far in a day, he says, he gets 80 mpg.

"The value of plug-in hybrids is they can dramatically reduce gasoline usage for the first few miles every day," Gremban said. "The average for people's usage of a car is somewhere around 30 to 40 miles per day. During that kind of driving, the plug-in hybrid can make a dramatic difference."

Gremban promotes the CalCars Initiative, a volunteer effort encouraging automakers to make plug-in hybrids.

Backers of plug-in hybrids acknowledge that the electricity to boost their cars generally comes from fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases, but they say that process still produces far less pollution than oil. They also note that electricity could be generated cleanly from solar power.

Gremban rigged his car to promote the nonprofit CalCars Initiative, a San Francisco Bay area-based volunteer effort that argues automakers could mass produce plug-in hybrids at a reasonable price.

But Toyota and other car companies say they are worried about the cost, convenience and safety of plug-in hybrids -- and note that consumers haven't embraced all-electric cars because of the inconvenience of recharging them like giant cell phones.

Automakers have spent millions of dollars telling motorists that hybrids don't need to be plugged in, and don't want to confuse the message.

Nonetheless, plug-in hybrids are starting to get the backing of prominent hawks like former CIA director James Woolsey and Frank Gaffney, President Reagan's undersecretary of defense. They have joined Set America Free, a group that wants the government to spend $12 billion over four years on plug-in hybrids, alternative fuels and other measures to reduce foreign oil dependence.

Gaffney, who heads the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy, said Americans would embrace plug-ins if they understood arguments from him and others who say gasoline contributes to oil-rich Middle Eastern governments that support terrorism.

"The more we are consuming oil that either comes from places that are bent on our destruction or helping those who are ... the more we are enabling those who are trying to kill us," Gaffney said.

Now vs. later

DaimlerChrysler spokesman Nick Cappa said plug-in hybrids are ideal for companies with fleets of vehicles that can be recharged at a central location at night. He declined to name the companies buying the vehicles and said he did not know the vehicles' mileage or cost, or when they would be available.

Others are modifying hybrids, too.

Monrovia-based Energy CS has converted two Priuses to get up to 230 mpg by using powerful lithium ion batteries. It is forming a new company, EDrive Systems, that will convert hybrids to plug-ins for about $12,000 starting next year, company vice president Greg Hanssen said.

University of California, Davis, engineering professor Andy Frank built a plug-in hybrid from the ground up in 1972 and has since built seven others, one of which gets up to 250 mpg. They were converted from non-hybrids, including a Ford Taurus and Chevrolet Suburban.

Frank has spent $150,000 to $250,000 in research costs on each car, but believes automakers could mass-produce them by adding just $6,000 to each vehicle's price tag.

Instead, Frank said, automakers promise hydrogen-powered vehicles hailed by President Bush and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, even though hydrogen's backers acknowledge the cars won't be widely available for years and would require a vast infrastructure of new fueling stations.

"They'd rather work on something that won't be in their lifetime, and that's this hydrogen economy stuff," Frank said. "They pick this kind of target to get the public off their back, essentially."

Johnny_Blaze_47

08-15-2005, 11:46 PM

I find this information to be relevant, too.

http://www.directionsmag.com/article.php?article_id=445

There are hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals residing in the US. Most entered the country with a valid work visa, however, many of them are still in the country with expired visas - considered “out of status”. Given that Geographers are eligible to apply for US-based employment under the TN or H1B categories you should need to protect yourself and your company’s interests.

You’ve likely seen the recent headlines… “More than 250 Illegal workers employed by Wal-Mart… one law that Wal-Mart forgot to warp in its favor was the one that prevents U.S. companies from employing or taking advantage of the services of individuals who are not authorized to work in the United States.” So now I ask you, are your employees, consultants, and sub-contractors legal employees? I would wager that in 9 out of 10 cases you likely have no idea.

Until just recently, I had spent more than 4 years working in the US as a foreign national working as a “Geographer”. Of course I always had legal employment status, starting out with a TN visa, and then jumping to H1B status. My employer was also protected and was in no way breaking any employment or immigration laws, however, you may be surprised to learn that this is frequently not the case.

Here are some commonly overlooked facts to keep mind (particularly if your company employs alien workers)

* The employer petitions INS for a work visa, NOT the employee
* A work visa (i.e. TN, H1B) is tied to a specific job with a specific employer. Therefore, a person holding such a visa is not permitted to sub-contract, offer consulting services, or work for anyone other than the petitioner of his/her visa.
* A person’s work visa is technically not expired simply because the employer has returned to his home country. The onus is on the petitioning employer to contact INS and instruct them that the alien’s term of employment has ended.
* When the term of employment ends so too does the visa.

Having spent more than 4 years as a Canadian working in the US, I have spent much time listening in on immigration chat/discussion boards and have been amazed at the constant abuse that exists with both alien employees and American-based employers as well. Given the current political climate and the latest homeland security initiatives that exist in this post 9/11 era, employers need to be educated and should safe-guard themselves from potential immigration issues… you don’t want INS showing up at your office!

Some things to watch out for which could get your company in trouble:
It is quite common for foreign nationals to search for work once they have been laid off. This may seem like no big deal, however, it’s not legal. Here’s an example; Joe is working in the US as a geographer with H1B visa status. Then, he receives layoff notice. Joe starts shopping his resume around the country in search of employment as a geographer; he may even boast to potential employers that he has a valid work visa. The reality, Joe actually has 30 days [roughly] to leave the country and return to his native country or, he may switch status to a visitor’s Visa. A new company may employ him; however, they will need to move very fast in order to petition Joe for a new work visa. Realistically, the only visa that can be secured on such short notice is a TN. Without doing so Joe’s new employer would have hired an illegal foreign worker. Something to keep in mind, Joe may have 30 days to clean up his personal matters and leave the country, however, he’s not “officially” terminated [along with his visa status] until his petitioning employer reports to INS that they have laid him off.

Other things to watch out for:
If you employ a foreign national, is her Visa current or has it lapsed. This is very easy to overlook, particularly with the short-term TN visa, frequently used to employ Canadians in the US. To check, look at the employee’s passport and check the stamp, also, look at the I-94 card [white paper stapled inside the passport] – if they don’t have an I-94 you should be very concerned!

As an employer, have you inspected your foreign employee’s papers? Additionally, do you have copies of all communications with INS? Final approval for a work visa may be sent directly to the foreign national, however, the employer should always request to see all records and notices – make copies!

Do you hire consultants or sub-contractors? Have you ever asked about their employment status? I have heard of people who were “moonlighting” while on TN status in the US and working a second job on the side – this is illegal. The simplest way to do this is request to view a Social security card. Foreign nationals with approval to work will possess such a card.

Do you have access to an immigration attorney? Your lawyer may offer up advice, however, unless they are trained in labor law, and in particular, immigration labor, they likely can’t offer much advice.

As part of employees “perks” an employer may offer to hire a foreign national’s spouse for part-time work. A spouse is not entitled to work unless he/she has a work visa.

What about paying taxes? Foreign nationals must possess a social security number. Without one you cannot possibly deduct taxes and subsequently remit taxes to the government. Of note; a foreign national with a Tax ID (TID) rather than a social security number (SSN) is likely not permitted to work.

Finally, as an employer you should be involved in the entire application process. Many employers simply sign on the dotted line and have no active involvement in the process, instead letting the petitioning employee handle all the paperwork. Be involved and make sure you know what you are signing!

Suggested Resources:
Grasmick - www.grasmick.com – this website offers an immigration handbook for sale which is worth every penny!
NAFTA Chapter 16 - http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/nafta-alena/chap16-en.asp
US Immigration forms - http://www.immigration.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/index.htm

Clandestino

08-15-2005, 11:47 PM

just because he doesn't speak english doesn't mean he is illegal.

Johnny_Blaze_47

08-15-2005, 11:48 PM

just because he doesn't speak english doesn't mean he is illegal.

Who's making assumptions? You're the one unable to answer our question as to his job status?

You said he was Mexican, so he has to have either a work permit or maybe he's even naturalized - the point is, you can't answer if you're breaking the law as an employer.

MannyIsGod

08-15-2005, 11:48 PM

Extra expenses will always provide the motivation and become catalysts for improvements in efficency. Always.

Johnny_Blaze_47

08-15-2005, 11:51 PM

We're just looking out for you, Clan.

We wouldn't want you to break the law or anything. Hell, he might be a terrorist using the borders of Mexico to come through the country.

Your gardener could be building a dirty bomb, Clan...then what would happen if he did something. In this "War On Terror...", oh wait, I mean the "Global Struggle Against Extremism," you might be on the front line of all of this, Clan.

We'd just hate for you to end up being charged with something like aiding the terrori...uh, extremists and end up at Gitmo or some place.

Clandestino

08-15-2005, 11:51 PM

Clandestino

08-15-2005, 11:52 PM

Johnny_Blaze_47

08-15-2005, 11:53 PM

I am unable to answer the question as to his status because I have not asked to see his papers. Nor will I....ever..

What's your address, I'll send him over. He does great work and you want to hire him you can check his papers...

Unfortunately, I do the yard work at my parent's place and I live in an apartment in San Marcos - the complex has hired a company which has performed the checks necessary for ensuring right-to-work status.

And I'm a citizen.

Clandestino

08-15-2005, 11:56 PM

Unfortunately, I do the yard work at my parent's place and I live in an apartment in San Marcos - the complex has hired a company which has performed the checks necessary for ensuring right-to-work status.

And I'm a citizen.

wow, good for you... and i'm sure that company is not 100% legit. I bet they pay some workers straight cash...

MannyIsGod

08-15-2005, 11:56 PM

Isn't failing to confirm his contractor is legal breaking the law? Clandestino who has the sermon on not breaking the law down pat is breaking the law? No, Fucking, Way!

Johnny_Blaze_47

08-16-2005, 12:01 AM

and i'm sure that company is not 100% legit. I bet they pay some workers straight cash...

But don't all businesses break the law, Clan?

If so, then I'm sure you wouldn't mind the gov't going to your house and doing random searches for illegal workers, right?

Clandestino

08-16-2005, 12:02 AM

Isn't failing to confirm his contractor is legal breaking the law? Clandestino who has the sermon on not breaking the law down pat is breaking the law? No, Fucking, Way!

i'd get a slap on the wrist... no biggie...

Clandestino

08-16-2005, 12:03 AM

But don't all businesses break the law, Clan?

If so, then I'm sure you wouldn't mind the gov't going to your house and doing random searches for illegal workers, right?

most do in one way or another...

nah, they'd have to have probable cause...

Johnny_Blaze_47

08-16-2005, 12:06 AM

Well, maybe they'll just use the PATRIOT Act to investigate.

Immigration and the prevention of terrori...uh, extremists crossing the border is of utmost importance to our gov't.

scott

08-16-2005, 01:56 AM

I go on vacation for 4 days and this forum drops about 40 IQ points...

Nbadan

08-16-2005, 02:01 AM

I go on vacation for 4 days and this forum drops about 40 IQ points...

Well 20 points of that drop is due to two posters - Clandestino and Hook Dem

:lol

scott

08-16-2005, 02:08 AM

I was thinking more along the lines of clubalien, boutons, and cecil collins. I am skeptical that Clandestino got an stupider while I was gone - that would be a mighty task.

Nbadan

08-16-2005, 02:22 AM

I was thinking more along the lines of clubalien, boutons, and cecil collins. I am skeptical that Clandestino got an stupider while I was gone - that would be a mighty task.

Ouch!

It's all good. Let these new guys find their legs, they'll be fine.

:hat

cecil collins

08-16-2005, 06:36 AM

Just glad to make the list.

Extra Stout

08-16-2005, 08:56 AM

It certainly would change the lifestyles of a lot of people. Perhaps there would be a reverse in the current flock to the suburbs. More people would live in the city, closer to work. They would probably walk/bike more, and maybe as a whole the nation would be in better shape. Cities would become more vertical... and more expensive.

Suburbs that are employment centers would become cities of their own, for example, Tyson's Corner, VA.

Furthermore, with an influx of people back to the cities, the racial divide would be less extreme. Whites and blacks and Hispanics would live closer to one another, building trust and neighborly friendship, all working towards the ultimate goal of racial harmony.Or, with the influx of more affluent people back into the central cities, property values would skyrocket, and rents would follow suit.

Luckily, there would be a plentiful supply of comfortable tract homes out in the suburbs with low property values for them to move into.

Extra Stout

08-16-2005, 09:00 AM

Oh, by the way, for it to make sense for a suburbanite to give up his $200,000 house for a $300,000 condo in the city, oil needs to get up around $400 a barrel or so. At that price, it's probably economical to make gasoline out of McDonald's wrappers and old cell phones.

So I guess this whole hypothetical is just that.

Spurminator

08-16-2005, 09:23 AM

Had to be a downer...

:lol

clubalien

08-16-2005, 09:59 AM

I would also like to point out that under law it is descrimination to turn someone down because you think their papers are illegal or somethng. forgot what it was but the employers say it is a catch 22 but they just use it or something else as an excuse.

Hook Dem

08-16-2005, 10:26 AM

Well 20 points of that drop is due to two posters - Clandestino and Hook Dem

:lol
It's good to know I bother you that much! Spread the love. :lol

MannyIsGod

08-16-2005, 12:22 PM

I would expect a large work from home movement before the migration back the the city.

However, I would like to know where ES pulled the 400 dollar a barrel figure from as the turning point.

mookie2001

08-16-2005, 12:46 PM

gas prices up=world economy, greedy oil companies, higher demand, low production

gas prices down=my leader, leading!!!!

Clandestino

08-16-2005, 12:58 PM

i love how everyone says bush is the biggest dumbass on earth, but yet they think he is responsible for everything in the world!

you guys make him a God!

mookie2001

08-16-2005, 01:01 PM

he is
a living god
at least thats what i pick up from watching The 700 Club

Nbadan

08-16-2005, 01:49 PM

i love how everyone says bush is the biggest dumbass on earth, but yet they think he is responsible for everything in the world!

you guys make him a God!

In the grown up world, sometimes the real power lies beyond the man. The NeoCons have been around much longer than W. W's part of the new world order crowd his daddy belongs too. It just so happens that both groups saw the opportunity to push their agendas on 911.

mookie2001

08-16-2005, 01:52 PM

In the grown up world, sometimes the real power lies beyond the man. The NeoCons have been around much longer than W. W's part of the new world order crowd his daddy belongs too. It just so happens that both groups saw the opportunity to push their agendas on 911.
OWNED!
he even dropped the nwo (the most blatent story never talked about in here because it would be dismissed as "leftyleft liberal tin foil" stuff)

Clandestino

08-16-2005, 02:46 PM

owned? haha.. stfu.. he didn't own shit.. i'm suprised nbadan is even connected to the net.. he is so fucking paranoid it is ridiculous.. new world order... stfu! :lmao

Extra Stout

08-16-2005, 04:07 PM

I would expect a large work from home movement before the migration back the the city.

However, I would like to know where ES pulled the 400 dollar a barrel figure from as the turning point.I figured a savings of 15,000 miles per year on a vehicle getting 16 mpg. That's 938 gallons per year. The condo is $100,000 more expensive, which means about $12,000 a year more in mortgage payments. That means gas would have to be $12.80 a gallon in order for the switch to be worth it.

Right now gas is $2/gal on the mercantile exchange with $66/barrel oil. Let's say without taxes, we'd be talking $12.20/gal wholesale. If it's proportional, then we're talking $400/bbl.

Cant_Be_Faded

08-16-2005, 04:13 PM

wow
clandestino has officially become the victim of a massive blogging attack

you're such a hypocrite, destino

i hope they lock up prisoners like you in gitmo!

Duff McCartney

08-16-2005, 05:05 PM

Did I exclude myself? You really are ignorant aren't you? Read the previous posts and you will realize that Tahoes aren't the problem. I'm talking about everybody cutting back on gas usage. Can you comprehend that? What good is it for you to go to school when you don't learn anything?

Uh yeah Tahoes are the problem dumbass. You're telling me that a car that gets 21 MPG is the same problem as a car that gets 35 MPG? Please. Give me a break.

You're part of the problem Hook Dem and you telling anybody to cut back on their gas usage when you're driving a Tahoe is laughable.

Cant_Be_Faded

08-16-2005, 05:09 PM

You're part of the problem Hook Dem and you telling anybody to cut back on their gas usage when you're driving a Tahoe is laughable.

:tu :tu :tu __--==>>Owned.

Clandestino

08-16-2005, 05:27 PM

wow
clandestino has officially become the victim of a massive blogging attack

you're such a hypocrite, destino

i hope they lock up prisoners like you in gitmo!

i'm not a prisoner dumbass!

cecil collins

08-16-2005, 07:04 PM

I don't assume he was being literal.

scott

08-16-2005, 10:02 PM

I'm not sure what percentage of a barrel of crude is specifically designated for plastics manufacturing, but I do know the percentage increase in resin cost is directly proportional to the increase cost per barrel.

Interesting. Plastics manufacturing petrochemical feedstocks (beneze, toluene, xylene, propylene, etc) typically don't have a very strong correlation to the price of oil (although they products of the refining process), and it is demand for those products that have historically driven the price as opposed to supply. Either this dymanic has changed at a certain price of oil, or your resin supplier is pulling a fast one on you.

Beneze, toluene, and xylene prices have actually come down in the last year. Using a proxy that I'm a bit proud (since I developed it) that we use at work, a BTX Composite barrel (15% B, 30% T, 55% X) is running $97.15 a barrel so far in the third quarter of 2005, compared to $103.26/bbl in the third quarter of 2004.

http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/nys/vlo/custom/Commodity_815.pdf

PS... I just realize I responded to this in the wrong thread.

boutons

08-16-2005, 10:06 PM

"wrong thread."

you can edit/delete it and post in right thread. too bad to lose a decent post amongst all the garbage.

The oil price has short up recently. How long is the pipeline before those recent high prices percolate through the pipeline to be petroleum derivatives?

When US invaded Kuwait, the price of French gasoline went up by many % overnight, but the journalists pointed out that oil bought on the day after the invasion at high prices wouldn't be sold as gasoloine for 3 months.

ie, the French govt, who charges 90% tax on gasoline, raised the price on gasoline with 3 months of cheap oil in the refining pipeline.

scott

08-17-2005, 06:42 PM

The oil price has short up recently. How long is the pipeline before those recent high prices percolate through the pipeline to be petroleum derivatives?

Effect is immediate.

Hook Dem

08-17-2005, 06:54 PM

Uh yeah Tahoes are the problem dumbass. You're telling me that a car that gets 21 MPG is the same problem as a car that gets 35 MPG? Please. Give me a break.

You're part of the problem Hook Dem and you telling anybody to cut back on their gas usage when you're driving a Tahoe is laughable.
How many cars get 35mpg? Your tricycle and what else? Dumbass! Why shouldn't I drive a Tahoe if I desire to do so? I'll bet I drive less miles per week than you do. Explain to me once again how I am the problem. What difference does it make what you drive when you don't drive many miles? Me thinks your young ass is eaten up with jealousy. Go back to playing your playstation and leave the adult discussion. I can always count on a personal attack from you. Maybe someday we will meet in person and then you can try that shit!

jochhejaam

10-10-2005, 08:48 PM

Gas at the pump is still crazy. It was $1.39 in January of this year, escalated quickly all the way up to $2.99 after Katrina, dropped to $2.59 before Rita, back up to $2.94 after Rita and is now $2.66! Longing for that cheap $2.00 gas. :lol

Some relief in site?

Oil Prices Slip on Continued Low Demand
Oct 10 3:30 PM US/Eastern

Crude oil fell slightly Monday as traders weighed the approach of the Northern Hemisphere cold season against the drag of continued low demand.

Diminishing fuel demand has eased concerns about inadequate oil supplies following hurricanes Katrina and Rita _ a development reflected by prices last week that hit lows not seen since August. Still, the approaching winter in the Northern Hemisphere typically pushes prices higher.

After rising for much of the electronic session, light, sweet crude for November delivery fell 4 cents to settle at $61.80 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange late Monday

Crude is off its recent high of $70.85, reached briefly on Aug. 30 after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast. That level was still about $20 below the all-time highs reached in the early 1980s, when adjusting for inflation.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/10/D8D5C2PO0.html

scott

10-10-2005, 11:10 PM

I think we'll see the gas price equalize somewhere around $2.20-2.60, depending on your part of the country... demand is falling, it has yet to be seen if Americans will have continued restraint on filling up.

Heating oil prices, on the other hand, I will expect to continue to set record highs. Demand for heating oil isn't like gasoline where people can just decide to not drive - if it is cold, people will want to be warm.

jochhejaam

10-11-2005, 05:31 AM

I think we'll see the gas price equalize somewhere around $2.20-2.60, depending on your part of the country... demand is falling, it has yet to be seen if Americans will have continued restraint on filling up.

I'd like to see it level off to closer to $2.00 a gallon but that might be a pipe dream. I recall an oil minister recently stating that he thought the price per barrel would eventually level off to around $40.00 a barrel that might bring the price closer to $2.00 a gallon...?
I can deal with the higher prices but it makes it tough on those who were already struggling to make ends meet.
Two of my sons still live at home and work part-time at UPS while taking college courses, that $3.00 a gallon gas takes a nice chunk out of there $170.00 weekly take home. They do seem to be home more often and my youngest son no longer chauffers his buddies around every time they go womewhere.

jochhejaam

10-11-2005, 06:22 AM

Still falling...

WORLD OIL PRICES FALL
11.10.2005. 12:03:16

World oil prices have fallen on reports that there were sufficient crude supplies and on the back US refineries returning to work.

In New York, the price has dropped by four cents on Friday’s closing price to US$61.80 per barrel.

Prices in Europe fell more sharply.

In London, the price of crude for November delivery plunged US$1.05 dollars to close at US$58.16 dollars per barrel.

It had earlier slumped to US$57.82 which is the lowest level since July 28. :tu

"The world right now is awash with crude supply," said Jason Schenker, analyst at Wachovia Securities.

Prices had initially risen on Monday, owing to a technical bounce after
heavy falls last week, analysts said.
I hate technical bounces :lol

World oil prices had sunk to their lowest points for more than two months last week.

The drop followed evidence that the high cost of energy had curtailed gasoline demand in the United States, the world's biggest consumer.

"Several refineries, closed by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, have also
re-started and several more are due to reopen shortly," noted Sucden analyst Sam Tilley.

Little impact in Australia

The Australian Automobile Association predicts there will be little impact on petrol prices across Australia.

Executive director, Lauchlan McIntosh, said there may be some falls in capital cities but little impact on regional and rural areas.

“It’s quite alarming that regional Australia is paying the price as price gouging continues,” said Mr McIntosh.

Price gouging is the practice of maintaining artificially high prices despite drops in world oil prices.

Mr McIntosh cited falls of up to 14 cents in Sydney over the past month but he said regional areas such as Goulburn did not enjoy the same reductions.

He told SBS online that local domestic margins remain far too high in the face of current prices, and has again called on politicians, industry and the media to review why they are being maintained at punishing levels.

http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=122786&region=4

RandomGuy

10-11-2005, 10:14 AM

Prices will fall a bit in the short term (6 months or less) for crude as facilities damaged in the hurricanes come back online.

The reason it affects Australia a bit less, is that the US production affects US prices more than Australian prices.

In the mid to long term(1-10), expect to see a very steady climb in crude prices that will exceed overall inflation rates.

Long term forcasts 10+ years get ugly.

We still have some time to do something about our oil dependence, but I am not going to hold my breath that the current administration has the vision or ability to plan adequately to do something to stave off the economic unpleasantness that the above implies.

RandomGuy

10-11-2005, 10:20 AM

Bush has laid out some positive vision for space exploration that I think are good, but (surprise!) has not laid out a workable plan that I have seen yet. Par for the course.

I think the best alternative for providing for energy needs will come from space-based power generation. Imagine a solar cell 15 miles wide by 15 miles tall with 24 hour noon sun, and replicating that a hundred times over.

FYI, mankind gets most of it's electricity from coal at the moment.

Hope that isn't too off topic.

SWC Bonfire

10-11-2005, 11:05 AM

FYI, mankind gets most of it's electricity from coal at the moment.

And the US has a BUNCH of coal.

Our research dollars should be going to coal research - emissions reductions, fuel viability, etc.

FYI, the first Diesel engine ran on coal oil.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2005, 11:31 AM

And the US has a BUNCH of coal.

Our research dollars should be going to coal research - emissions reductions, fuel viability, etc.

FYI, the first Diesel engine ran on coal oil.
No, reasearch dollars should be going torwards energy conservation and renewable energy sources such as wind farms and solar energy. Coal may be cleaner than it was, but it isn't clean.

Not by a long shot.

JoeChalupa

10-11-2005, 11:50 AM

Mopeds.

SWC Bonfire

10-11-2005, 12:02 PM

No, reasearch dollars should be going torwards energy conservation and renewable energy sources such as wind farms and solar energy. Coal may be cleaner than it was, but it isn't clean.

Not by a long shot.

But is much more viable as an energy source than all of the wind farms and solar energy arrays that will be built in the next 100 years X 100.

MannyIsGod

10-11-2005, 12:30 PM

Conservation will save just as much energy as coal can produce and in the not too distant future you're going to see buildings with an independent power supply due to solar power.

Cant_Be_Faded

10-11-2005, 03:23 PM

Conservation will save just as much energy as coal can produce and in the not too distant future you're going to see buildings with an independent power supply due to solar power.

That would be awesome. Who woulda thought it would take this long to utilize the most powerful, constant energy source in the solar system.

SWC Bonfire

10-11-2005, 03:26 PM

Cloudy day. Oops.

Cant_Be_Faded

10-11-2005, 03:31 PM

It's not cloudy every day on every part of the world, even then, im sure theres a method to setting up solar capturers in space, somehow relaying that back to earth

if not then soon

SWC Bonfire

10-11-2005, 03:40 PM

It's not cloudy every day on every part of the world, even then, im sure theres a method to setting up solar capturers in space, somehow relaying that back to earth

Yeah, they could make a transporter beam and magically transmit the energy.

Seriously, solar power is expensive, unreliable and electricity is not easily stored on a large scale so that it is usable at a later time - unless it comes out of the ground as a hydrocarbon, or you use the energy to pump water into a huge reservoir and take a huge hit in efficiency.

Cant_Be_Faded

10-11-2005, 03:45 PM

Yeah, they could make a transporter beam and magically transmit the energy.

Well, unless you got your degree in light and energy applications, you are standing on an opinion. Technology is exponential, can you really say something is impossible these days? I never said we'd see this soon or anything.

Seriously, solar power is expensive, unreliable
Would it be more or less expensive and unreliable in the future?

and electricity is not easily stored on a large scale so that it is usable at a later time - unless it comes out of the ground as a hydrocarbon, or you use the energy to pump water into a huge reservoir and take a huge hit in efficiency.

All the more reason to put forth new research into better methods.

I dont wanna change the topic here, so thats all.

xrayzebra

10-11-2005, 03:52 PM

Have just one question, which I have asked before. If I want to buy a hummer and spend the money on the gas and ask no one to pay the tab; who the hell business is it but mine. Get a life all of you who are worried about how I spend my money. Okay?
Go back to worrying about Global Warming.

SWC Bonfire

10-11-2005, 03:58 PM

All the more reason to put forth new research into better methods.

Well, they are trying. But the fact is that capacitance banks and superconducting magnetic storage are unreliable, expensive, and not of sufficient scale to store the amounts of energy required.

I actually scratched the surface on the superconducting storage idea while at A&M w/ my Mech. Eng. degree, BTW. It only has its current energy storage properties when cooled by liquid helium - pretty expensive. A lot of research is going into more inexpensive materials that can be cooled by liquid nitrogen, which is actually at a much higher relative temperature. But even at that, it doesn't compare to opening a valve on a natural gas pipeline or turning on a coal conveyor.

RandomGuy

10-11-2005, 04:34 PM

But is much more viable as an energy source than all of the wind farms and solar energy arrays that will be built in the next 100 years X 100.

I am *sure* you have some proof to back that statement up...
:rolleyes

Coal suffers from the same problems that oil does:
We are consuming it faster than it is being created.
AND
We have been consuming it for longer. The easy to find sources have been found and exploited, leading to the diminishing returns scenario that oil faces (more invested energy for each unit of energy, leading to less available per unit produced)

As I said, solar arrays in space have more than double the power production capacity than ground ones. The cost of getting them there adds a lot to the initial requirements, but I would point out they have almost no moving parts AND don't require any supporting infrastructure, such as new mines, and trasnportation systems (rail/roads/ships). Once sufficient orbital infrastructure is in place to use space mass (asteroids) instead of lifting it off the planet that (energy) cost almost vanishes.

Wind arrays are actually coming to be cost competitive with coal, but that is with tax breaks. As time goes on, and the production of wind power benefits from the economies of scale that coal has benefitted from, it will surpass it.

RG is betting his meager IRA on that at least. :p

SWC Bonfire

10-11-2005, 04:37 PM

I am *sure* you have some proof to back that statement up...

There was actually a very good article in National Geographic a few months ago... I don't agree with some of it, but you might check it out.

RandomGuy

10-11-2005, 04:38 PM

Conservation will save just as much energy as coal can produce and in the not too distant future you're going to see buildings with an independent power supply due to solar power.

Exactly.

RandomGuy

10-11-2005, 04:39 PM

There was actually a very good article in National Geographic a few months ago... I don't agree with some of it, but you might check it out.

Cool. I am always interested in learning more about energy issues.

Nerd hobby.
:nerd

(writes reminder to stop by student library after his icky pension fund accounting test)

SWC Bonfire

10-11-2005, 04:40 PM

As I said, solar arrays in space have more than double the power production capacity than ground ones. The cost of getting them there adds a lot to the initial requirements

Do you have any idea how much a shuttle launch costs (and when the next one is)? Best case, this would be put into orbit by rocket, which is still prohibitably expensive. It would be cheaper to make a light bulb that is powered by gold. :lol

Also, check out pictures of old spacecraft. Lots of crap (the asteroids you mentioned) hit the solar panels and do serious damage in a short amount of time.

RandomGuy

10-11-2005, 04:44 PM

[IRT Random guy's snarky comment]There was actually a very good article in National Geographic a few months ago... I don't agree with some of it, but you might check it out.

Sorry about the snarky-ness. Usually people talk out their butts on stuff with little to back it up, but if you actually have read something on it, I can respect that. :oops

RandomGuy

10-11-2005, 04:51 PM

Do you have any idea how much a shuttle launch costs (and when the next one is)? Best case, this would be put into orbit by rocket, which is still prohibitably expensive. It would be cheaper to make a light bulb that is powered by gold. :lol

Also, check out pictures of old spacecraft. Lots of crap (the asteroids you mentioned) hit the solar panels and do serious damage in a short amount of time.

Launch costs are no different from any other human endeavor in that they benefit from economies of scale.

I do indeed know that it costs something on the order of $9000 per pound to lift something into orbit. That will go down over time (in real terms) as we get better at putting things in orbit.

BUT

A good number of asteroids are almost pure metal in some cases. The amount of energy needed to nudge them into processing facilities already in orbit is negligible.

Think of it this way:

A ton of iron ore far removed from the source mine on earth before railroads was really expensive because it was difficult to mine and move. We just didn't have the technology.

Invest in the infrastructure for 20-100 years and it gets cheaper, and all benefit. Getting into space will involve similar processes with historical precedents.

It seems about as fantastic to us as descriptions of a new continent to the west seemed to dark age Europeans...

MannyIsGod

10-11-2005, 05:00 PM

Cloudy day. Oops.
And on cloudy days you can draw off of the regular power grid. That might make things pointless in places like Seattle, but in San Antonio and damn near most of the country you get a good amount of days with sunlight.

People are starting to impliment this right now, but it isn't very cost prohibitive due to entities like CPS requring insane amounts of insurance before they allow them on their grid.

RandomGuy

10-11-2005, 05:02 PM

A technical bit about what asteroids are thought to be made of. (http://www.permanent.com/a-meteor.htm)

http://www.permanent.com/ is a good resource for learning more about the science and potential business aspects of future space industry.

NASA is actually studying methods of space based power generation as well. (http://www.lbst.de/sps/index.html?http://www.lbst.de/sps/main.html)

jochhejaam

10-11-2005, 05:54 PM

[QUOTE=RandomGuy]
I do indeed know that it costs something on the order of $9000 per pound to lift something into orbit. That will go down over time (in real terms) as we get better at putting things in orbit.

Here's an good article that talks about the prohibitive cost of space exploration and how that cost inhibits exploration. This article talks about the possibility of putting material into orbit for $10.00 per pound. Quite interesting. It's titled The Space Elevator.

http://www.unmuseum.org/spaceelevator.htm

RandomGuy

10-11-2005, 09:56 PM

[QUOTE]

Here's an good article that talks about the prohibitive cost of space exploration and how that cost inhibits exploration. This article talks about the possibility of putting material into orbit for $10.00 per pound. Quite interesting. It's titled The Space Elevator.

http://www.unmuseum.org/spaceelevator.htm

It is a very interesting possibility, that has been making the rounds for a while.

My thoughts:
It requires some leaps in materials technology that require a LOT of R & D.

A much better idea is mass drivers, because this tech is already here and in use. Quite a few amusement park rides already use magnetic "drivers" to accelerate roller coasters very quickly.

Most of the cost of putting something into orbit is fuel. Payloads in rockets are dwarfed by the fuel tanks required for the rockets. You have to lift the payload, plus all the fuel required to get you to orbit.

A mass driver is basically a big gun that shoots stuff into space.

Since you don't have to spend the energy accelerating fuel to suborbital speeds the actual energy involved is much less.

Das Texan

10-11-2005, 11:28 PM

you know texas could power the entire nation with solar energy?

the price for solar will go down greatly once the demand increases; the systems are becoming more and more reliable as the technologies improve greatly by the day. There are already a few buildings in this city that are powered by solar, the biggest example probably being the county jail.

And the thing with solar is that a huge commerical farm wouldnt be needed in order to produce the energy for the masses. You can also store the solar energy, whereas if you have a couple of cloudy days, you will have the reserves to power your dwelling. The main power grid is simply used as a backup...I'm not sure if you can 'sell' the power back to the city or not in San Antonio, although I know in some areas it can be done.

MannyIsGod

10-12-2005, 01:09 AM

You can do it. CPS will buy back and your meter will actually roll backwards, but you need to have an incredible amount of insurance in order to do it. It isn't cost effective because of the CPS demands at this time.

SWC Bonfire

10-12-2005, 08:31 AM

I'm not trying to say that we should not use alternative energy. Yes, they are currently researching all of the previous items, some showing much more promise than others. But it is in NASA's best interest to provide the most optimistic, Buck Rogers-like description of their projects in order to provoke as much public interest to secure their funding.

Sure, Texas can power the entire US on a sunny day... as long as you don't get massive hailstorms that destroy millions of $$ worth of solar cells every other week in the spring and fall.

It has been figured that if solar effieciency is brought up to current production goals, 25% of the rooftops in the US could meet the current electrical needs on a sunny day nationwide. Sure, that is a good thing, and steps will be taken to move that way to supplement our energy supply and decrease demand. But a realistic energy policy will be to use a domestically available, easily transportable and storable engergy source locked up in the form of coal. It is still orders of magnitude cheaper than most of the alternatives to implement on a scale large enough to make a dent in the nation's power demand.

boutons

10-12-2005, 09:16 AM

Barking up the wrong tree.

70+% of petroleum goes to transport, predominantly gasoline. So the biggest target is reducing gasoline consumption.

There should be an immediate $2/gal fed tax on gasoline, which is used to subsidize purchases of fuel cell cars. The subsidy helps offset the higher prices of first generation fuel-cell cars and the supporting infrastructure until economies of scale bring the production an operating costs down.

Infinintely better to put those $2 into fuel cell cars than into the pockets of the rapacious anti-American oilcos. The Repubs subsidize the oilcos, the Repubs are anti-American.

SWC Bonfire

10-12-2005, 10:43 AM

boutons

10-12-2005, 10:51 AM

MannyIsGod

10-12-2005, 11:28 AM

Am I supposed to get a bunch of fuel-cell tractors? Are you going to eat a fuel cell?

What do you do with the millions of worthless autos and bankrupt auto manufacturers?

FYI, coal can be turned into a fuel.
Don't take this the wrong way, but this is the way I see it and I've posted about it before.

The US military in the Persian Gulf region is directly related to gasoline consumption in this country. You can explain it any other way you want to, but the fact is if there were no oil under that sand, we wouldn't care 2 bits about the place.

Therefore, why isn't there a higher gasoline tax to pay for the military expenditures that are directly related to gasoline consumption? I don't think they need the tax to subdize anything but they should have the tax to pay for the service gasoline users get. And a gasoline would tax in proportion.

MannyIsGod

10-12-2005, 11:30 AM

CPS' own studies - that they love to ignore - show that conservation can save just as much energy if not more than new measures can produce. But there is no backbone to seriously promote conservation as a means to free up energy.

Marcus Bryant

10-12-2005, 11:35 AM

Fuck conservation. If I want to use however much energy and pay the price then that's my choice.

SWC Bonfire

10-12-2005, 11:38 AM

"Am I supposed to get a bunch of fuel-cell tractors?"

why not?

"Are you going to eat a fuel cell?"

does drinking petroleum or gasoline figure significantly in US petroleum consumption?

"What do you do with the millions of worthless autos"

recycling steel from autos is already big business. no change

"and bankrupt auto manufacturers?"

GM is already bankrupt, Chrysler was bailed out by the feds.
If they can't build what the market wants, fuck em.

Boutons, if you're willing to buy $20/lb ground beef, we'll talk. If not, you may actually want to see how farmers and ranchers are already being seriously crunched by increased fuel cost because it is responsible for producing their main income.

I'm not saying that I don't support alternative energy sources. But most people don't have any idea about how expensive it will be to replace hydrocarbon fuels, which are extremely convienient and have over a century's worth of infastructure dedicated to their dispersal.

Don't forget that the hydrogen to power your fuel cells comes from natural gas, not electolysis of water. The net energy consumption to get hydrogen from water is by the definition of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics a wasteful proposition. Basically, you will never get the amount of energy out that you put in. What kind of "energy source" is that?

boutons

10-12-2005, 12:59 PM

SWC Bonfire

10-12-2005, 01:17 PM

Separating hydrogen from other elements takes energy, ie, the hydrogen is "charged up" with that energy, the energy that is released in fuel cells. Natural gas is not the only source of hydrogen.

Name them. Oh yeah, other hydrocarbons.

Yes, energy is "stored" in the hydrogen that is in the fuel cells. But you will dam up a river or burn coal/fossil fuels to generate the energy required to break the extremely strong and stable bonds that hold water together to get "clean" hydrogen. And then never get the amount of energy that you put in back out of the process.

That is why fossil fuels are so attractive. The hard work has already been done for us when it comes out of the ground.

Don't even get me started on the beef comments, did you ever say you were from Texas? What are you going to eat if you don't eat beef/pork/chicken/corn? Do you realize that those products are the backbone of our existence as a free market economy?

It's good to know that agriculture is appreciated.

MannyIsGod

10-12-2005, 01:44 PM

Fuck conservation. If I want to use however much energy and pay the price then that's my choice.
Thats not what conservation is about. Hey, if you want to run your AC at 50 degrees with the windows open, go ahead. It's your bill.

MannyIsGod

10-12-2005, 01:46 PM

Beef costs what it costs. If the cost goes up because a lack of subsidizing then it hasnt' really gone up. The cost has simply been applied to the appropriate people as opposed to spreading it out through the tax base.

SWC Bonfire

10-12-2005, 01:54 PM

xrayzebra

10-12-2005, 02:20 PM

"$20/lb ground beef"

beef agriculture is a huge sink of resources. 90% of the corn (which itself is a huge sink for chemical/petroleum fertlizer) goes to animals. cheap sugar from corn goes into sweeten every bite the food industry can stuff it into, contributing to obesity and related diseases, which are some the most expensive sinks of medical resources. but the beef/pork/chicken, agriculture, and food industries have purchased enough politicians to get what is best for them, not what is best for the people. aka government corrupted by special interests.

Most people have been getting a damn good idea from the gas/heating bills about how expensive it will be to continue burning hydrocarbon fuels. And it will only get worse, with ONLY the energy companies profiting. and with continued geo-political dependence of the USA on Muslim countries. 9/11 WTC and Iraq is directly connected to US dependence on ME oil. Tell me that dependence is "cheap". Afghanistan, Iraq, and the war of terror will cost USA 1000's of lives and T's of $. Tell me that's cheap, cheaper than serious conservation and de-coupling the USA from the ME.

Separating hydrogen from other elements takes energy, ie, the hydrogen is "charged up" with that energy, the energy that is released in fuel cells. Natural gas is not the only source of hydrogen.

Now this is what I like. A liberal, being a liberal. If our enviromentalist had their way they would have you all riding horses and driving horse and buggies. Of course they would be griping about the residue from those animals. Like in California, right now, as we speak, only it is dairy cattle. This good old USA has more than enough resources to take care of our own, if the people who drill, could. Bye the way, it is not just the BIG oild compaies that drill for oil you know. There are many independents who wish to invest in oil exploration. Research will go on on alternative fuels, no matter what happens. But give some serious thought to the fact that most shortages of energy, water and other essential items were caused by people who want to protect our air, water and poor animals we are killing. Of course the caribu have increased in numbers with the pipeline from Alaska, but dont talk about that. And boutons, who are you to worry about someone's weight. Peole do make concious decisions about themselves, you don't have to worry about them yourself. Take care of your own business and I am sure they will take care of theirs. Of course over my many years I have found people like you get very excited if someone tries to tell you your business. What is wrong with corn syrup? Of course I can think of one other thing to do with corn, but again that is only my idea and I can purchase it, so long as I have the money. No government handout there. :drunk

Extra Stout

10-12-2005, 02:59 PM

If our enviromentalist had their way they would have you all riding horses and driving horse and buggies.If the most extreme environmentalists had their way, they would sterilize the vast majority of the world's human population so there wouldn't be as many people to impact the environment.

This good old USA has more than enough resources to take care of our own, if the people who drill, could.Bullshit. For how long? 10 years, maybe? At what cost? US oil production peaked in 1970 -- not because of environmental regulations, mind you, but because that's when we reached roughly the halfway point of resource depletion. Are there untapped fields still? Yes. Are they plentiful? No. Are they easy to get to? No. Are they inexpensive to exploit? No.

Research will go on on alternative fuels, no matter what happens. True. At the current energy prices, there is economic incentive to do that.

But give some serious thought to the fact that most shortages of energy, water and other essential items were caused by people who want to protect our air, water and poor animals we are killing.Bullshit. We had energy shortages in the 1970's because OPEC was socking it to us for our support of Israel. There were no supply issues. The most recent oil shocks have to do with demand increases in Asia with which existing suppliers could not keep up. It's not as if oil companies can just shit new rigs when demand spikes. The most recent gasoline spikes have to do with natural disasters -- which to some degree can be blamed on enviros. While it's true that limousine liberals on the East Coast sniff at the notion of having refineries near them, the big reasons oil companies put so much of their infrastructure on the Gulf Coast are 1) that's where the oil is, and 2) that's where the ports are. Good luck getting that supertanker up to Alberta.

Also, we have less refining capacity than we did 25 years ago, because: 1) demand has been largely flat over that period, 2) the big oil companies have shut down their less profitable facilities, and 3) they've done a good job of forcing the smaller independent players out of business. Environmental NIMBYism has determined pretty much where the refineries go, not how many there are.

And boutons, who are you to worry about someone's weight. Peole do make concious decisions about themselves, you don't have to worry about them yourself.The United States has a statistically unusually high rate of obesity, both compared to affluent and to underdeveloped countries. The reasons why have more to do with the quality of our food supply than they do with personal decisions.

What is wrong with corn syrup?The human body cannot digest it properly, that's what's wrong with it. It causes sudden spikes and drops in blood sugar, which causes diabetes, and, through the damage it does to arterial walls, contributes to atherosclerosis, cholesterol plaques, blood clots, and heart disease.

Corn syrup, without government subsidies, would be considerably more expensive as a sweetener than beet or cane sugar.

So, it's dangerously unhealthy, expensive, requires lots of tax money to make it appear economical to the food industry, and through the diseases it causes, leads to lots of unnecessary deaths and jacks up everybody's health insurance rates in the meantime -- if they can afford it at all. That's what's wrong with corn syrup.

I'm betting all of that is new information to you. It makes it difficult for you to make the best decisions for yourself when there is such asymmetry of information. Now, having learned this, if you shrug your shoulders and go guzzle a 1-liter Coke every day, then yeah, it's your own damn fault when doctors have to amputate your legs at the knee from your bloated 350-pound body at age 55 because of complications from diabetes.

Of course I can think of one other thing to do with corn, but again that is only my idea and I can purchase it, so long as I have the money. No government handout there. :drunkWell, your purchase of the ear of corn would be the first and only economic step in its entire life cycle that was not brought about by a government handout.

By the way, the handouts aren't going to family farmers. They're going to ConAgra, Cargill, and Archer Daniels Midland, at the expense of family farmers.

That's how the government really works. And both parties are in the corporations' pockets.

RandomGuy

10-12-2005, 07:14 PM

But a realistic energy policy will be to use a domestically available, easily transportable and storable engergy source locked up in the form of coal. It is still orders of magnitude cheaper than most of the alternatives to implement on a scale large enough to make a dent in the nation's power demand.

Coal costs a LOT more than you might think in terms of environmental damage, both in burning and mining.

Extra pollution aside, keep in mind that you have to spend energy to mine it and transport it as well. It all boils down to return on invested energy, and the fact that coal is as depletable as oil. Investing in it now only puts off investing in renewables later.

Solar cells have no moving parts, and you only really have to make them once every couple of decades, and transport them once or twice.

Here is a good website on energy issues.

http://www.abelard.org/briefings/replacing_fossil_fuels.htm

MannyIsGod

10-12-2005, 07:14 PM

Yeah, I just collect all the subsidy checks that I've received from the government for my lifetime, oh, wait, I don't have any. :rolleyes

What most people don't realize is that other than grain producers, government assistance to agriculture is just like everything else it's involved with: a joke.

Agribusiness companies are getting subsidies to produce ethanol from corn and diesel from soybeans, which is really wasteful as anything other than a fuel additive.
You don't have to recieve a check to be recieving a savings benefit because of the way they spend tax dollars. I'm sure you don't get a check directly, but you do - as do other people - reap the benefit for their protecting your source of gasoline, correct?

You countered that above with a point that the price of beef would go up if there were a higher gas tax to pay. That may very well be the case, but there would also be a place to free tax dollars that are being taken from income to pay for the protection of that oil. Those tax dollars are indirectly subsidizing the the production of beef.

The price of beef or any other product is what it is. It will not go up with a change it will simply be distrbuted to the consuming party.

And as for American agriculture being subsidized, there is no reason the government should be preaching free trade abroad and implmenting protectionist measures here. It makes absolutey no sense and it is a very sore spot to foreign producers who see the hypocrisy for what it is.

MannyIsGod

10-12-2005, 07:15 PM

good post ES.

RandomGuy

10-12-2005, 08:44 PM

[message truncated for brevity]
By the way, the handouts aren't going to family farmers. They're going to ConAgra, Cargill, and Archer Daniels Midland, at the expense of family farmers.

That's how the government really works. And both parties are in the corporations' pockets.

Out fucking standing. A whole post with clarity, scientific data, and level-headedness.

Gotta be a liberal... :tu

Marcus Bryant

10-12-2005, 08:45 PM

Libs are in favor of free markets? That's a new one.

SpursWoman

10-12-2005, 08:50 PM

Gotta be a liberal... :tu

If he is, I believe that would be a very recent occurance. :fro

Marcus Bryant

10-12-2005, 08:52 PM

If the reference is to classical liberalism, then perhaps.

RandomGuy

10-12-2005, 08:53 PM

Libs are in favor of free markets? That's a new one.

Surprise. RG is a liberal and in favor of free markets.

Marcus Bryant

10-12-2005, 08:55 PM

Surprise. RG is a liberal and in favor of free markets.

Again, classical liberalism.

scott

10-12-2005, 10:30 PM

Under my leadership, we will one day be able to turn beef into high quality crude oil.

Vote Scott in 2016

Extra Stout

10-13-2005, 07:52 AM

Out fucking standing. A whole post with clarity, scientific data, and level-headedness.

Gotta be a liberal... :tuNot really... but I'm a right-winger who recognizes that corporatism and capitalism are not the same thing.

SWC Bonfire

10-13-2005, 08:38 AM

MannyIsGod

10-13-2005, 09:41 AM

I had a neighbor who spent big money on a wind generator; he even "sold" energy back to the power company... never even came close to paying for the thing after about 10-15 years when the thing broke down and it cost too much to fix it.

I would invite anyone to purchase enough solar cells for to power their own home, install them, and tell me if you can recooperate the capital and maintenance expense in 10, 15, 20 or 30 years... at current levels you probably can't. Mind you, you will still have an energy bill on cloudy days or days when demand overcomes the output of the panels. In 10 years, maybe someone will have a more reliable and efficient panel, but even then it will take many years for the cost benefit to be seen. The cost benefit to the consumer is what will drive this technology, not benevolent intentions (unless it is purchased by those with a lot of disposable income). Tax breaks may be an incentive, but the bottom line is that this will take many years to be a proven, cost-effective technology. That is all I'm saying.

Now, if any of you want to be the guinea pig and cover your house with them, go ahead. I would venture to say that a lot of you live in apartments or rental properties. When it comes down to a new coat of paint and remodeled kitchen vs. solar panels, solar panels will get the shaft 99% of the time. Home Depot is betting on it. Question: What money spent on coal is going to see results in 10 years??

Yes, it is going to take some more time to make these measures cost effective, but using solar panels to help suplement a bulidings power supply is not nearly as far off as you think. And when I say buildings I don't mean homes I mean larger structures that are draw much larger amounts of power where a roof of solar cells would be very cost effective.

There are currently items that can utilize solar power to make homes more energy efficent as well. They now sell a fan that runs off of a roof solar panel which you place in the attic. The fan cools the attic which in turn makes cooling the house with the AC unit much easier. It'll cost you about 250 I believe, which will probably be made back in one or two months considering South Texas summers. Hail? The panel is guarnteed up to baseball sized hail which is more than I can say for most roofs.

If CPS were to provide a credit on their bills for a purchase of such a unit, they would see demand drop on their systems in the summer months. This is an example of how conservation methods are more much cleaner and cost effective than adding another souce of pollution at Calaveras.

You don't need solar panels to completely replace the current energy supply in order to them to make a significant impact.

RandomGuy

10-15-2005, 12:41 AM

Not really... but I'm a right-winger who recognizes that corporatism and capitalism are not the same thing.

Heh, I am a left-winger who recognizes the same.

RandomGuy

10-15-2005, 12:48 AM

jochhejaam

10-16-2005, 04:57 PM

Prices are slowly falling in NW Ohio. Cost per barrel is dropping and refining capacity has to be picking up. Prices at the station nearest me;

Unleaded Regular $2.47 :)

Diesel $3.19 :wow

Marlboro $3.68 (plus tax) :smokin

Brent (barrel)
8/26 $66.23
9/02 $65.95
9/09 $62.62
9/16 $60.48
9/23 $62.17
9/30 $61.70
10/7 $57.29

One year ago $49.41

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip_crude.html

RandomGuy

10-16-2005, 07:15 PM

Contrast that with what it was in nov-03, at apporoximately $30.

Still relatively cheap when adjusted for inflation and compared to the spikes in the '70s, but that will change in 5-10 years. Crude oil price increases will outpace inflation for the next 10 years or so by ever-inreasing margins. After about 10 years, my guess is that rate of crude price increases will be multiples of the inflation rate. Your grandchildren will not be driving cars powered by internal combustion engines that burn oil distillates.

scott

10-16-2005, 08:28 PM

Just one note, you want to keep an eye on West Texas Intermediate, not Brent. Brent is a North Sea crude that acts as the benchmark for most European and African production - but is suseptable to wild fluctionations. WTI is a better indicator in the US.

Edit: want to point out on the fluctuations I mentioned... I meant to say fluctuations relative to WTI.

jochhejaam

10-16-2005, 08:35 PM

Just one note, you want to keep an eye on West Texas Intermediate, not Brent. Brent is a North Sea crude that acts as the benchmark for most European and African production - but is suseptable to wild fluctionations. WTI is a better indicator in the US.

Good to know, thanks scott.
I wanted to go with the lower of the two. :)

MannyIsGod

10-17-2005, 02:14 AM

Good to know, thanks scott.
I wanted to go with the lower of the two. :)
:lmao x a billion.

jochhejaam

10-19-2005, 06:21 AM

[QUOTE=jochhejaam]Prices are slowly falling in NW Ohio. Cost per barrel is dropping and refining capacity has to be picking up. Prices at the station nearest me;

Unleaded Regular $2.47 :)

Diesel $3.19 :wow
Latest rates

Unleaded Reg $2.43

Diesel $3.39 ? Regular is falling and diesel is skyrocketing...?

Haven't heard any major complaining from the truckers yet...someone's absorbing the costs...are fuel costs being passed on to the merchandise being trucked?

RandomGuy

10-22-2005, 05:45 PM

[QUOTE]
Latest rates

Unleaded Reg $2.43

Diesel $3.39 ? Regular is falling and diesel is skyrocketing...?

Haven't heard any major complaining from the truckers yet...someone's absorbing the costs...are fuel costs being passed on to the merchandise being trucked?

Trucks are three times as expensive (I forget whether this is in dollar terms or energy terms, I think energy) as trains.

Just thought I would throw that random bit in for what it is worth.

Truckers have indeed been complaining. I would think that the massive uptick in diesel costs are due to refineries making gasoline over diesel.

The costs have so far been mostly aborbed by shipping companies, but these lastest increases will have to be passed on to the consuming public, as there is no more margin left to cut in most shipping companies bottom lines. That is my understanding of my reading of business journals.

scott

10-22-2005, 10:04 PM

I wonder if I can dig up my circa 2003 posts warning of impending inflation.

MannyIsGod

10-23-2005, 05:32 AM

I used to work for a major shipper a few years ago as a dispatcher. I cordinated truck movements across the country.

Anyhow, they were bitching then and diesel was less than half what it is today. You're absoultey nuts if you don't think any of them are bitching now. Owner-Ops are probably going out of business faster than you can imagine and companies like Peterbuilt are probably suffering severely poor sales figures.

jochhejaam

10-23-2005, 07:19 AM

Quote=jochhejaam Haven't heard any major complaining from the truckers yet...someone's absorbing the costs...are fuel costs being passed on to the merchandise being trucked?

Anyhow, they were bitching then and diesel was less than half what it is today. You're absoultey nuts if you don't think any of them are bitching now.
^^^hostile response

Quote=RandomGuy: Truckers have indeed been complaining. I would think that the massive uptick in diesel costs are due to refineries making gasoline over diesel.
^^^measured intelligent dialogue response

Manny, since you didn't include any quotes i'm not sure if you're addressing my post or if your "absolutely nuts" comment was a non-personal slam so I won't go into full defensive/attack response mode.
In my part of the country there has been zero media coverage about the truckers angst towards the high diesel prices. No wildcat strikes, no bottling up the interstates to protest the high costs, etc.
That being said I'm sure, as everyone with common sense would be, that the Trucking Industry isn't happy about the costs. (nor am I since the higher fuel costs will be in part passed on to the consumer)

On a brighter note, regular gas has dropped to $2.34 a gallon around here. :)

RichieRich

10-23-2005, 08:34 AM

Who cares?

jochhejaam

10-23-2005, 08:43 AM

Who cares?

You must not be a car owner. :lol

RichieRich

10-23-2005, 09:03 AM

You must not be a car owner. :lol

I am an owner of several automobiles but the price of fuel is the least of my worries.

MannyIsGod

10-23-2005, 12:52 PM

It was a general comment.

No time for trucker coverage when another white girl has gone missiong somewhere. :lol

jochhejaam

10-23-2005, 01:15 PM

It was a general comment.

No time for trucker coverage when another white girl has gone missiong somewhere. :lol

That explains it, I keep forgetting the news mediums propensity for sensationalism. :lol

RandomGuy

10-23-2005, 05:59 PM

That explains it, I keep forgetting the news mediums propensity for sensationalism. :lol

:tu

You and I may disagree on a lot, but not that.

Since the topic interested me, I did a little research and came up with this:

[Trucking] Industry facing serious issues, Graves tell ATA delegates (http://www.thetrucker.com/showstory.aspx?id=10256)

BOSTON — From an industry that was in “pretty good shape” six months ago, the trucking industry today faces serious issues that must be addressed, American Trucking Associations’ president Bill Graves told delegates to the organization’s annual Management Conference and Exhibition here Oct. 17.

“We were having the best business in years,” Graves said.

Then, he noted, a series of events occurred that put the brakes on the good year.

First, rising oil prices sent the price of diesel to record heights, a fact that was compounded in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita when prices rose well in excess of $3 a gallon.

Truck tonnage, which had been increasing month by month during the early part of the year, has fallen for three straight months.

Finally, there has been a general softening of consumer confidence. In fact, Graves said, it’s the lowest it’s been in years.

“Less consumer spending will translate into less freight for our industry,” he said.

Graves focused on two major issues facing the industry.

“Congress must find a way to limit the negative impact of fuel prices on trucking,” Graves said, adding that the U.S. must increase its investment in oil refinery development and review environmental policies that might limit production...

Trucking isn't quite as sexy a topic, and I don't really have much sympathy for them. If we took the money we spend on trucking and sunk it into beefing up the our rail network, I really think our standard of living would be higher, as it would cost less in the long run to ship needed goods from place to place over inter-city distances.

Oscar DeLa

10-24-2005, 09:27 AM

I don't know what it is but even though gas went down a little, it's still really expensive

SWC Bonfire

10-24-2005, 09:38 AM

I don't know what it is but diesel is $3.09-$3.29 a gallon right now... heating oil must be right around the corner and eating up production.

Extra Stout

10-24-2005, 09:58 AM

“Congress must find a way to limit the negative impact of fuel prices on trucking,” Graves said, adding that the U.S. must increase its investment in oil refinery development and review environmental policies that might limit production...

Typical... they aren't competitive, so they want Congress to step in and rig the market to make them more competitive. Fuck 'em.

Trucking already is so subsidized it's ridiculous. Ordinary drivers pay road taxes for the damage 18-wheelers do to the highways. A fair and scientific formula for road maintenance would be based upon the fifth power of gross vehicle weight, which is proportional to the force exerted by the vehicle on the pavement. If that were the case, trucks would pay essentially all road taxes.

Trucking isn't quite as sexy a topic, and I don't really have much sympathy for them. If we took the money we spend on trucking and sunk it into beefing up the our rail network, I really think our standard of living would be higher, as it would cost less in the long run to ship needed goods from place to place over inter-city distances.The same would be true if shipping really were a free market, rather than a mercantile one based upon who has the best lobbyists to gobble up our tax money.

SWC Bonfire

10-24-2005, 10:03 AM

Lobbyists or no lobbyists, trucking will become less competitive over the next few years. Union Pacific should do well on their government subsidized rail lines. Hey, they have lobbyists, too.

boutons

10-25-2005, 09:22 PM

oilco's think nobody understand their business?

Trying to spin and hide their HUMONGOUS 3rd quarter profits.

Everybody understands the oilco's make windfall profits by DOING NOTHING when the price of oil goes up.

===============================

ad_icon
[0]
washingtonpost.com

Oil Doesn't Want Focus on Big Profit
Companies Stepping Up Advertising

By Frank Ahrens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 26, 2005; D01

Gigantic oil companies generally do not enjoy the best PR.

Pick your poison: Oil companies have caused tanker spills, proposed drilling into the Arctic wildlife ranges, crafted ties to shady nations and meddled in the affairs of others, and produced products that pollute.

Now, even as high gasoline prices continue to anger motorists and aggravate financial problems at General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co., the oil companies have begun to report record quarterly profit. Yesterday, British energy giant BP PLC reported $6.5 billion in third-quarter profit, up from $4.9 billion in the same period last year. And tomorrow, analysts expect Exxon Mobil Corp. to show that it earned nearly $9 billion over the past three months -- the largest corporate quarterly profit ever.

Grumbling already has begun on Capitol Hill: Last month, one senator proposed a windfall-profit tax on oil conglomerates, and yesterday, House Republicans warned energy companies against price gouging.

To deflect the damage, the energy industry is relying on an ad campaign that was escalating even before hurricanes Katrina and Rita blitzed Gulf Coast petroleum refineries. The print and television ads are designed to educate consumers and lawmakers with a "we're all in this together" tone.

In the pages of The Washington Post, for example, according to the paper's ad executives, BP has taken out seven large issue ads so far this year, compared with zero through the same time last year. Exxon Mobil has had 19 so far this year, compared with 12 last year. For Chevron Corp., it's 17 ads so far this year, compared with six last year. And the industry's trade group, the American Petroleum Institute, has purchased seven ads in The Post so far this year, compared with none last year.

Chevron and Exxon Mobil increased their ad spending in the third quarter of this year at the New York Times, the newspaper company reported in its earnings call last week.

"You still have 100 hours of press time on any oil spill versus a tiny blurb or nothing at all if a company spends hundreds of millions on pollution control," said Lyle Brinker, an analyst for John S. Herold Inc. energy research firm. "Sometimes, they just throw up their hands. The best thing they can do is keep the debate focused on educating the public."

Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Industry, said the ads partially are designed to correct no-longer-true misperceptions about his industry. For instance, he said, even though 90 percent of the Gulf Coast drilling platforms and refineries were hit by either Katrina or Rita, there were no oil spills.

The industry's ads range from simple conservation messages to those that attempt to re-brand the oil companies as something else.

An American Petroleum Institute ad implores consumers to turn down thermostats, clean furnace filters, and weatherstrip windows and doors.

Full-page ads from Chevron ominously warn: "It took us 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil. We'll use the next trillion in 30."

The most conspicuously non-oil oil ads come from the former British Petroleum, which removed the oil from its name and became BP. Now, the company advertises itself as "Beyond Petroleum." The company's logo resembles a sun with leaves.

Stumble onto a BP television ad and it is easy to assume it is a commercial for a company that makes solar panels. Or that BP is an environmental organization of some sort.

"Solar is but a tiny, tiny, tiny part of their business," Brinker said. "They make 99.9 percent of their money in the oil business."

But oil companies may have nowhere to hide as their third-quarter earnings roll in this week.

"They should be record earnings," said Jacques Rousseau, an oil analyst at Friedman Billings Ramsey Group Inc. in Arlington.

In the third quarter of 2004, for instance, Exxon Mobil earned $6.2 billion. When the company reports its third-quarter results tomorrow, David Dropsey, an analyst with Thomson First Call research, expects profit of about $8.8 billion.

Chevron made $3.2 billion in last year's third quarter; Dropsey predicts the company will hit about $4.3 billion for this year's third quarter. ConocoPhillips Co. is expecting a $3.5 billion quarterly profit when it reports today, Dropsey said, up from $2 billion last year.

"Yes, our numbers are large, but when you figure the size of the companies, we are at an all-industry average," Cavaney said. "We are half the size of the returns of the financials and pharmaceuticals."

Yesterday, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) called it "fine" that energy companies are reaping record profit. "However, there have been allegations of price gouging in the wake of the hurricanes. This is unacceptable, and any company who does it will be prosecuted," he said.

Cavaney said industry research showed that most consumers and lawmakers do not fully grasp how the energy industry works and why prices go up and down at the pumps. (He pointed out that average gas prices are back within 10 cents of their pre-Katrina level.)

This led his organization and many of the big oil companies to step up their hearts-and-minds media campaign. This is partially to help educate the consumers, but also to try to dissuade lawmakers from reinstituting a windfall-profit tax -- the last one stretched from 1980 to 1987 -- which oil companies fear. They say the tax drives up gasoline prices by reducing crude supply.

Last month, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) introduced a bill that would establish a windfall-profit tax on energy companies that would return some of the companies' earnings to consumers in the form of a rebate, exempting the percentage of profit the companies use for exploration.

Oil price hikes and corporate profit spikes are caused by supply and demand, Cavaney said. And the annual 5 to 10 percent decrease in the world's oil supply, combined with government resistance to allow drilling in places such as Alaska's wildlife refuge and the emergence of China as a major oil user has tipped the needle to the demand side of the equation, he said. The oil company ads seek to explain the complicated energy industry math to consumers, Cavaney said.

"We started back in the year 2000, trying to warn people that we were in a position that increases in demand were exceeding capacity," but no one listened, Cavaney said. "What we took too much for granted was that people understood our business."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

RandomGuy

10-25-2005, 11:35 PM

I have actually talked to financial analysts and accountants at BP during some of their recruiting jaunts to Texas State where I am studying.
They also spoke of refocusing their company over the coming decades towards solar and renewables.
This is not a cynical ploy by some company intent on "distracting the public" while they make profits on oil. Rather it is the long term view of a company that realizes that it is really at heart an energy company. At this time that energy is most profitably produced by drilling and selling oil, yes.

BUT

They, like many in the oil and gas industry have come to realize their long term futures are in renewables. A good example of this was in the Austin American Statesman today. In Texas, an oil and gas company is currently contracted to build some huge offshore... windfarms. Yes, wind farms.

What I see are not cynical attempts at propaganda. I see companies that realize their futures are at stake. The most profit for any company is in being first to market. That market in the future for energy companies will be in renewables. A smart businessperson will realize that, and believe me, these multi-billion dollar companies have some smart businesspeople in them. I have met them and talked to some of them. I like the fact that BP has taken something of a lead in this, and may go to work for them at some point after I get my Masters in Accounting for that very reason.

boutons

10-26-2005, 12:06 PM

"I see companies that realize their futures are at stake."

That realization didn't work out too well when US auto companies saw the future as "East Asian auto manufacturers".

I expect the oilco's to be as fore-warned and to be caught as flat-footed as high oil prices push demand to the floor, and push the floor of demand down.

70+% of US oil goes to transportation, so the key is finding a way to power transportation machines without gas/diesel. Importing oil to make (polluting) fertilizer to grow bio-fuels doesn't seem like a winner.

With the US greens starting to embrace nuclear as the least evil of electricity generation alternatives, I expect, NIMBY-ism notwithstanding, that the biggest impact on mid-term electrical future is more nuclear plants (while turning off coal plants), not more wind farms.

When BP spends those $Bs in windfall Repub war profits on researching, and industrializing, alternatives to oil-based transportation, I'll believe their green press campaign. Talk is cheap.

MannyIsGod

10-26-2005, 01:10 PM

I'm telling you, solar cells have a huge future.

SpursWoman

10-26-2005, 01:13 PM

Well, whatever it is ... my CPS bill was down $100 from last month. :elephant :elephant

boutons

10-27-2005, 10:36 AM

Here's LONG background info on the mystery around Saudi reserves/production capacity. Seems the China will be the spoiler, pushing total demand way past capacity. Even if the reserves are down there or are findable, will the investment be made in production capacity to deliver it.

The Repubs refusal to go after Saudis as a country soft-on/fostering terrorism can be explained by the Repubs dependence on the Saudi to pump oil to keep pump prices poltically insignificant. ie, the Repubs have done nothing to reduce the ME countries' oily hands grasping the USA's short and curlies.

===============================

The New York Times

October 27, 2005

Doubts Raised on Saudi Vow for More Oil
By JEFF GERTH

WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 - Last spring, the White House publicly embraced plans by Saudi Arabia to increase its oil production capacity significantly. But privately, some officials and others advising the government are skeptical about some of those Saudi forecasts.

The United States relies on a few producers to maintain enough spare capacity to keep prices and markets stable, even during war or disaster. As oil prices have climbed over the last few years amid surging demand and tight supplies, the Bush administration has looked to the Persian Gulf countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, to pump extra oil.

But doubts about Saudi Arabia's assurances of how much it can expand capacity - and for how long - have been raised in a secret intelligence report and in a separate analysis by a leading government oil adviser, according to a federal government official and the oil expert.

If those skeptical assessments are correct, the administration's hopes of increasing supplies would become still more difficult to fulfill. Washington's expectations about oil production from Iraq and the United Arab Emirates have proved overly optimistic, and the White House has failed to heed advice about both those countries from industry and government specialists, according to documents and interviews.

The challenges facing the Bush administration on energy come as oil companies are set to report record profits resulting from soaring prices for oil and natural gas. Exxon Mobil, the world's largest private oil company, is expected Thursday to announce a quarterly profit exceeding $8.5 billion, more than companies like Intel and Time Warner earn in a full year.

Asked about the profits on Wednesday, the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, said "the government and the private sector have a role to play" in restoring the vital infrastructure damaged by the hurricanes this year along the Gulf of Mexico and over Florida. Gasoline prices spiked after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, straining oil markets already tight because of the uncommonly low levels of spare capacity.

But when it comes to oil supply, American companies are limited: the countries that control most of the world's oil keep out private producers. So whatever the political repercussions from high energy costs, the administration has had little choice but to rely on the promises by Saudi Arabia, the world's largest exporter, that it would continue to be the market's linchpin.

"There's always been this tenet on the American side," said Nawaf Obaid, a consultant to Saudi Arabia on energy security, "that the Saudis knew what they were doing and rightfully so."

But a senior intelligence official, who insisted on remaining anonymous because he was not permitted to speak publicly on the issue, said that the Saudi plans to increase production by nearly 14 percent in the next four years were not enough to meet global demand. Even the Energy Information Administration recently scaled back its expectations of how much more oil the Saudis could pump in 20 years.

To be sure, as Mr. McClellan said Wednesday, there is more to President Bush's energy policy than seeking to ensure surplus capacity. The administration has called for increasing domestic production and refineries, development of alternative and renewable fuels, expanding nuclear energy and, recently, greater conservation. Still, the Persian Gulf countries are seen as crucial in moderating future prices.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, when high gasoline prices were an issue, Mr. Bush pledged to do a better job of influencing Persian Gulf producers to pump more oil.

Early on, the administration was mostly interested in whether the Saudis would produce more oil during the anticipated conflict in Iraq. Long before the war began, Saudi spare capacity - roughly three million barrels a day above the seven million barrels being pumped daily in 2002 - seemed adequate.

Productive capacity depends on the amount of oil in the ground as well as the infrastructure required to drill, process, store and transport the oil. In addition, increasing capacity is very costly and time-consuming.

"The long-term capacity was not considered a problem," said Robert W. Jordan, the American ambassador to Riyadh from 2001 to 2003. The Saudis, he added, "never expressed any concern about the need to expand."

"Nor did we, or at least me, engage them on this topic," he said.

In April 2002, when President Bush met Crown Prince Abdullah, now the Saudi king, the focus was not on oil but on Israeli-Palestinian matters, according to Mr. Jordan. The United States did not press the capacity issue because, even two years later, Saudi officials were publicly expressing confidence that there was no need over the next five years to add capacity.

Going to 12 million or 15 million barrels a day was possible, though, because the country had an estimated 150 billion barrels above the 260 billion in proven reserves, Nansen G. Saleri, a senior Saudi oil executive, said at an oil conference in Washington in February 2004.

Soon, though, rising demand from Asia made the need to invest in new production "a front-burner issue," according to Spencer Abraham, energy secretary in the president's first term. By May 2004, under pressure from the United States and other consumers, the Saudis promised to pump more oil. Saudi Aramco, the state-owned oil company, was planning to increase capacity to 12.5 million barrels a day by 2009.

Before long, Ali al-Naimi, the oil minister, and Saudi oil executives were saying that the country could add 200 billion barrels - from existing fields and yet-to-be-discovered resources - to its reserves, enabling production of 15 million barrels a day for 50 years or perhaps longer.

Just before meeting with Prince Abdullah in April, President Bush said he wanted "a straight answer" about how much extra oil the Saudis could pump.

At that session in Texas, the prince reaffirmed the previously announced expansion plans. Saudi Arabia's capacity now stands at about 11 million barrels a day. The Saudis pump about 9.5 million barrels, leaving a cushion of about 1.5 million barrels, mostly of heavier grades not very usable in the West. There is virtually no other global spare capacity.

Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, told reporters after the meeting that the Saudi program was "a very good plan because it addresses the underlying issue you have when you talk about price, which is an issue of availability of oil and availability of capacity."

But there are doubts about the Saudi assertions about how much oil they have. Data about reserves is tightly guarded, and the Saudis dismiss skeptics as uninformed.

But they do not dismiss Edward O. Price Jr., the former head of exploration for Saudi Aramco and an adviser to the United States government on Persian Gulf oil during both Iraq wars. He questioned future reliance on Saudi capacity in an article in The New York Times last year and wanted to know from his former colleagues how they reached their estimate of more than 150 billion barrels of extra oil. Twenty years ago, a detailed study by geologists from four large American oil companies then in partnership with Aramco found little in the way of undiscovered oil resources, he said.

Mr. Saleri, who manages Saudi reservoirs, met with Mr. Price in the United States last year. Saudi Aramco officials declined to respond to questions about the meeting. But Mr. Price said in an interview that Mr. Saleri told him that the basis for the higher oil figures was a global study in 2000 by the United States Geological Survey estimating Saudi Arabia's undiscovered resources at 87 billion barrels.

Mr. Price said he responded that the estimates "by the U.S.G.S. had no credibility and far exceeded the detailed studies by the old Aramco team." The Aramco study, unlike the survey estimate, involved detailed field work.

Questions about Saudi Arabia's long-term estimates were also raised last year in a report by the National Intelligence Council, an advisory panel that produces the government's most authoritative intelligence estimates, according to a government official who insisted on not being identified because the report was classified.

In addition to Saudi Arabia, the Bush administration has viewed the United Arab Emirates as a supplier with excess capacity. In 2001, the emirates planned to increase capacity to 3 million barrels a day by 2005 from 2.5 million barrels a day then. But capacity has not grown in four years, which one administration official attributes to a lack of urgency by emirates officials and a lack of high-level attention by American officials.

An energy policy report by Vice President Dick Cheney in May 2001 recommended that the president actively support initiatives in Persian Gulf nations allowing foreign investment that could lead to increased production. The United Arab Emirates was cited as one of the few countries that could increase its oil-production capacity.

A status report on Mr. Cheney's task force, released in January by the Energy Department, said administration officials moved to carry out the recommendation in four countries. The U.A.E. was not among them, however, and the president was not mentioned in the report.

When Mr. Bush spoke after the Iraq war with Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahayan, the emirates' ruler until his death late last year, he discussed security and Iraq, not oil investment issues, according to a Western diplomat, who spoke on condition of not being identified because of the sensitive nature of discussions between heads of state. A White House spokesman declined to comment.

Since the status report in January, the emirates announced that they would increase capacity to 2.7 million barrels a day by 2006, and long-stalled negotiations with Exxon Mobil to develop an offshore field began moving to completion. But the country's capacity remains at 2.5 million barrels a day, with nothing in reserve, according to the Energy Information Administration.

In Iraq, too, the Bush administration's hopes have been disappointed. The removal of Saddam Hussein in 2003 changed Iraq from a pariah into a possible backstop for global oil markets. Soon after the invasion, top administration officials were bullish about Iraq's production: they said it would exceed the prewar level of 2.5 million barrels a day and reach 3 million barrels by the end of 2003 or late 2004.

But a report in July by the Government Accountability Office found that Iraqi production had declined since late 2004 to 2.1 million barrels a day from 2.5 million barrels, despite White House legislative requests for almost $3 billion to restore the oil industry there to its prewar abilities.

An important reason for the decline, the report found, was improper management of the reservoirs. Gary Edson, then a deputy national security adviser, was told two years ago that Iraqi production would drop, not increase, according to an outside report presented to him.

A White House spokesman, Frederick Jones, declined to discuss the report. But, according to Wayne Kelley, a petroleum engineer who wrote the report and discussed it with Mr. Edson in November 2003, the message fell on deaf ears.

* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

boutons

10-27-2005, 11:59 AM

At $9.9B for one qtr, a record for any company, Exxon's profiits still "disappoint" vs predictions.

The Repub-Iraqi-War-As-Oilco-Enrichment-Agenda has delivered just as intended. Too bad about the damage/death done to US military and Iraqi civilians.
Repubs are all about the $$$.

You can be sure which party will get the bulk of the oilco's campaign donations and lobbying efforts.

==================================

washingtonpost.com
Exxon Mobil posts record profit

By Deepa Babington
Reuters

Thursday, October 27, 2005; 12:41 PM

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Exxon Mobil Corp. on Thursday posted a quarterly profit of $9.9 billion, the largest in U.S. corporate history, as it raked in a bonanza from soaring oil and gas prices.

Record profits for Big Oil at a time when consumers are paying sky-high prices for gasoline have brought calls for a windfall profits tax or other penalties on oil companies.

The companies have been enjoying an unusually rosy environment for months. In the third quarter, oil prices and refining margins rose sharply after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita ripped through the Gulf of Mexico, disrupting energy operations in the region.

While Exxon's quarterly profit was up 75 percent from a year earlier, and revenue rose 32 percent to more than $100 billion, the results fell short of Wall Street forecasts due to production outages caused by the hurricanes and sharply lower profit at the company's chemicals division.

"They were a bit disappointing, but this a temporary phenomenon," said Paul Kuklinski, an analyst with Boston Energy Research/Soleil Securities. "This is largely attributable to hurricane effects."

Exxon shares fell slightly in midday trade.

The world's largest publicly traded oil company said net income jumped to $9.92 billion, or $1.58 a share, from $5.68 billion, or 88 cents a share, a year earlier.

Excluding a gain of $1.62 billion from restructuring its stake in a Dutch gas transportation business, earnings were $1.32 per share, 7 cents below the average forecast among analysts polled by Reuters Estimates.

The record earnings topped the $9 billion net profit reported on Thursday by Royal Dutch Shell Plc and were well above the best quarterly performances by Citigroup Inc., the world's largest bank -- $7.2 billion -- and conglomerate General Electric Co. -- $5.6 billion -- according to Reuters Fundamentals.

EXPANSION OF CAPACITY

In addition to calls for a windfall profits tax or other penalties, lawmakers and consumer advocates have been urging oil companies to expand refining capacity and take other steps to help bring down gasoline prices.

U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said on Thursday that oil firms have a responsibility to boost refining capacity in times of record profits. Marathon Oil said it would do just that, announcing a $2.2 billion expansion of its Garyville, Louisiana, refinery.

"We're already seeing some companies yielding to pressure," said Oppenheimer & Co. analyst Fadel Gheit. "But everybody is waiting for the big lady to sing, which is Exxon."

Exxon said it did not see the point of a windfall profits tax.

"Frankly, if you're trying to encourage supply growth, it seems odd to put in place disincentives," Henry Hubble, vice president of investor relations for Exxon, said on a conference call with analysts.

PRODUCTION FALLS

Exxon's oil and gas production fell 4.7 percent in the third quarter from a year earlier as outages caused by Katrina and Rita, maintenance activities, and maturing fields more than offset higher production from new fields in West Africa.

Excluding the impact of the hurricanes, divestments and entitlement effects, output fell 1 percent.

Still, record crude oil prices -- which touched $70 a barrel in the quarter -- pushed earnings at its exploration and production unit to $5.73 billion, up $1.8 billion from a year earlier.

At its refining and marketing operations, profit rose to $2.13 billion, up $727 million from a year earlier. Stronger refining margins outweighed weak marketing margins and lower petroleum product sales.

Earnings at its chemicals division tumbled to $472 million, down $537 million from a year earlier, due to higher feedstock costs and lower margins.

Exxon's capital expenditures jumped to $4.41 billion from $3.63 billion a year earlier.

Shares of Exxon, the largest of the so-called "super-major" oil companies, were down 10 cents to $56.10 at midday on the New York Stock Exchange. The shares rose more than 10 percent in the third quarter but underperformed the broader Standard & Poor's integrated oil and gas index, which climbed more than 13 percent.

(Additional reporting by Ben Berkowitz)

© 2005 Reuters