 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / May 2008Oil prices expected to rise above $200 per barrel
The price of oil is expected to rise above $200 per barrel. That will push the price of gasoline above $6 / gallon. The bottom line is that the supply of crude oil is limited and not increasing as fast as the demand. Jeff > The price of oil is expected to rise above $200 per barrel. That will > push the price of gasoline above $6 / gallon. The bottom line is that > the supply of crude oil is limited and not increasing as fast as the > demand. > > Jeff Oopsie: forgot the link: http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/05/22/oil_study/ >> The price of oil is expected to rise above $200 per barrel. That will >> push the price of gasoline above $6 / gallon. The bottom line is that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Oopsie: forgot the link: > http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/05/22/oil_study/ How about speculators buying and selling oil futures? >>> The price of oil is expected to rise above $200 per barrel. That will >>> push the price of gasoline above $6 / gallon. The bottom line is that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > How about speculators buying and selling oil futures? How about the evidence that the speculators are having a marked influence, say more than 10% of the price? Jeff > Hachiroku ???? wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Jeff Why is 10% significant? Why should day traders/players/gamblers (pick a name you like) be allowed to have ANY effect on your household budget, just so they can live in huge mansions in fancy towns? Here are some of the players who are wrecking other people's household budgets: http://nymag.com/news/features/2007/hedgefunds/30342/ Here's an idea: Let's set up a new game at OTB parlors. Let any slob with enough money gamble on futures representing your family's 50 favorite grocery items. Let them gamble on individual items, or for lazy gamblers, there'll be a commodity representing "All Jeff's groceries" - sort of a mutual fund thing. If the OTB slobs end up bidding up the price of your groceries until the prices are quadrupled, that's what you and your wife have to pay at the grocery store. Would that be OK with you? >> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > prices are quadrupled, that's what you and your wife have to pay at the > grocery store. Would that be OK with you? None of this demonstrates that hedge funds or oil speculation has had any significant impact on the price of oil. Jeff >>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Jeff Why do you believe they have not had any significant impact? I say 1% is significant, by the way. You say 10%. We're both right. >>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Why do you believe they have not had any significant impact? I have yet to see any evidence that these speculators have had this sort of impact that you suggest. Listing a bunch of hedge fund traders doesn't show that they affect the market. > I say 1% is significant, by the way. You say 10%. We're both right. >>>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > of impact that you suggest. Listing a bunch of hedge fund traders doesn't > show that they affect the market. With few exceptions, every news article about oil prices mentions speculators. In that context, the word "speculators" refers to investors not related in any way to the oil industry. If you disagree, tell me what "speculators" refers to. >>>>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > With few exceptions, every news article about oil prices mentions > speculators. Actually, they don't. They say things like, "on fear of additional refinery problems, the price of gasoline spiked." However, they don't say who caused the price of gasoline to spike. > In that context, the word "speculators" refers to investors not > related in any way to the oil industry. Really? Or is it airline companies trying to lock in the price of jet fuel before it goes up even more? > If you disagree, tell me what "speculators" refers to. Now, if you were smart, you would use google to find articles like this, which do argue that speculators are responsible: http://www.financialpost.com/reports/oil-watch/story.html?id=535626 However, these articles don't convince me that it is the speculators or that there is something wrong with the market as it is. After all, both OPEC and the oil companies are motivated to blame someone else. Jeff http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_35/b3897042_mz011.htm >>>>>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > that there is something wrong with the market as it is. After all, both > OPEC and the oil companies are motivated to blame someone else. I'm not claiming that all factors aren't true (supply & demand, for instance). If oil companies were run by saints blessed by you and I, they'd still have to buy their raw material and tack on a profit. My beef is with extraneous factors which affect the price of the raw material. By the way, in another message, you said something about whether you should not be allowed to buy stock in oil companies. That was a few minutes ago, so you've had a chance to think about why that question is a mistake. Have you figured out why? >>>> The price of oil is expected to rise above $200 per barrel. That will >>>> push the price of gasoline above $6 / gallon. The bottom line is that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Jeff Based on what I have seen at the pumps, at current prices, 10% would be $13 a barrel, and would translate into a $0.06 rise in the price of a gallon. Over a period of a couple weeks, this could reult in a $0.60 rise in the price of a gallon. Like Joe said, so someone can get rich for doing nothing? >> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Like Joe said, so someone can get rich for doing nothing? In all fairness, some speculators *do* need to deal with that nasty commute from Greenwich into lower Manhattan. >> Based on what I have seen at the pumps, at current prices, 10% would be >> $13 a barrel, and would translate into a $0.06 rise in the price of a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > In all fairness, some speculators *do* need to deal with that nasty > commute from Greenwich into lower Manhattan. LOL! Of course! Who are we to deny them a hired limo rode?! Hey, if they can (and want to) pay for it, more power to them! > The price of oil is expected to rise above $200 per barrel. That will push > the price of gasoline above $6 / gallon. The bottom line is that the > supply of crude oil is limited and not increasing as fast as the demand. > > Jeff I posted about this a month ago. I think some folks in many groups that I posted it in told me I was full of sh.t. I know a bit about oil because I live in one of the cities in Texas that has a lot of headquarters for oil. Also, my uncle works for one of the major oil companies. He himself acknowledges that oil is finite and that those in his company expect it to reach over 200 a barrel. When I posted about 200 a barrel, the cost of barrel was at 112... It is now 138? >> The price of oil is expected to rise above $200 per barrel. That will push >> the price of gasoline above $6 / gallon. The bottom line is that the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > When I posted about 200 a barrel, the cost of barrel was at 112... It is now > 138? Actually, I think $200 is conservative. And it won't come back down. Jeff > Actually, I think $200 is conservative. And it won't come back down. > > Jeff I think oil execs are right in one area. We need to drill at home while we change to other sources of energy. There is enough oil in the gulf, alone, to take care of our needs as we turn the other page. "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <N0one184@N0Where.com> wrote : >> Actually, I think $200 is conservative. And it won't come back down. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > while we change to other sources of energy. There is enough oil in > the gulf, alone, to take care of our needs as we turn the other page. One expert was saying we have 65 BILLION barrels off the coasts of the U.S.! The enviro-extremists won't allow access to it. > "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <N0one184@N0Where.com> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > The enviro-extremists won't allow access to it. Well, it is technically two people who won't allow access to it. They are Republican's and Democrats. I think that is about to change though. "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <N0one184@N0Where.com> wrote : >> "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <N0one184@N0Where.com> wrote : >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > are Republican's and Democrats. I think that is about to change > though. You think? Maybe when it reaches $5 a gallon? I heard on one news show, that for about $4.50 a gallon we could produce all the synthetic gas we'd ever need, right here in our own country. I'm not sure what it would be produced from, does anyone know? I also heard that we have LOTS of natural gas, so can't cars be converted to that cleaner burning fuel, cost effectively, at some point in this mess? > "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <N0one184@N0Where.com> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > all the synthetic gas we'd ever need, right here in our own country. I'm > not sure what it would be produced from, does anyone know? It comes from coal. Back in the 80's the government gave a grant to someone, I don't know who, to set up a fuel systhesis plant. Hearing this, the Saudis (or rather, OPEC) dropped the price of a barrel of crude from ~$50 to ~$10. If we start drilling for our own oil, the price across the board will drop. > I also heard that we have LOTS of natural gas, so can't cars be > converted to that cleaner burning fuel, cost effectively, at some point > in this mess? Sure. But the oilmen are getting rich, the lobbyists are getting rich, and the environuts are happy. Those of us that actually have ambitions and need to drive are taking it..er, on the chin...! All it takes is for the Sultan of Ooompapamaumau to sneeze tomorrow and the price of a barrel will double. > I heard on one news show, that for about $4.50 a gallon we could produce > all the synthetic gas we'd ever need, right here in our own country. I'm > not sure what it would be produced from, does anyone know? Coal. > I also heard that we have LOTS of natural gas, so can't cars be > converted to that cleaner burning fuel, cost effectively, at some point > in this mess? Cars can be converted to burn natural gas, cost effectiveness is determined by each persons definition of those words. CNG does not work well in cold climates, you'll give up most of the trunk space for the gas bottle and even then, range will be limited. Larger vehicles lend themselves better to CNG than smaller vehicles. The refueling infrastructure isn't in place, and in fact it may actually be destructured compared to 15 or so years ago... And once it's all said and done, the market speculators will just drive up the price of NG just like they're doing to petroleum. > "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <N0one184@N0Where.com> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > all the synthetic gas we'd ever need, right here in our own country. I'm > not sure what it would be produced from, does anyone know? I'd guess coal. But to convert to coal, you need lots of processing plants. That's lots of money to build the plants and lots of time (5 to 10 years) until the plants are working. > I also heard that we have LOTS of natural gas, so can't cars be > converted to that cleaner burning fuel, cost effectively, at some point > in this mess? That takes a couple of years to make the cars and lots of money for the infrastructure, like equipment to pump the natural gas into the natural gas tanks in the cars (which is at much higher pressure than the gas coming into one's house). Plus, how much spare natural gas do we really have? > I heard on one news show, that for about $4.50 a gallon we could produce > all the synthetic gas we'd ever need, right here in our own country. I'm > not sure what it would be produced from, does anyone know? That optimistic news probably came from companies in the tar sand or coal industry that are trying to attract investors. But even if the process was practical at $4.50, it would come at far more financial risk because its costs are so much higher than deriving it from crude oil. > I also heard that we have LOTS of natural gas, We don't have that much. > so can't cars be converted to that cleaner burning fuel, > cost effectively, at some point in this mess? No. Gasoline-burning cars are so clean now that natural gas won't give an improvement. Several years ago in Arizona, the legislature and then-governor passed a fiasco of a subsidy program for cars that could run from both gasoline or natural gas, and even the good conversions (the minority) didn't burn more cleanly on methane. >> One expert was saying we have 65 BILLION barrels off the coasts of the >> U.S.! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well, it is technically two people who won't allow access to it. They > are Republican's and Democrats. I think that is about to change though. I'll drill through a Polar Bear's head to get oil. > I'll drill through a Polar Bear's head to get oil. But you also crushed a baby kitten, just to eat baby kitten brain. Evil, pure evil you are. >> I'll drill through a Polar Bear's head to get oil. > > But you also crushed a baby kitten, just to eat baby kitten brain. Evil, > pure evil you are. No, I prefer chilled monkey brain... > "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <N0one184@N0Where.com> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > One expert was saying we have 65 BILLION barrels off the coasts of the > U.S.! That's about one year's world usage. While it is obviously a lot, it would take several years to develop an oil field. And, several years until peak production is reached. So, at best, it would supply about 10% of the world's production for a while. So it will lower prices, but not that much. > The enviro-extremists won't allow access to it. What percentage of Americans want the US to drill off the coasts? And, if the percentage is over 50%, why don't they vote for people who will make that happen? Jeff > > One expert was saying we have 65 BILLION barrels off the coasts of > > the U.S.! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 10% of the world's production for a while. So it will lower prices, > but not that much. Why is that one year's world usage? Who cares about the world's needs when we should be using that oil for the US needs. That will have the effect of lowering demand for the rest of the world and ultimately the price. >>> One expert was saying we have 65 BILLION barrels off the coasts of >>> the U.S.! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Why is that one year's world usage? Who cares about the world's needs > when we should be using that oil for the US needs. It's a global market. The US is only a small part of that market, but in the supply of oil and the demand of oil. > That will have the > effect of lowering demand for the rest of the world and ultimately the > price. Only a little. jeff >>>> One expert was saying we have 65 BILLION barrels off the coasts of >>>> the U.S.! [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > jeff Well, it is a world market, but the data I have heard of pegs the US supply at closer to 100 years than 1 year. I would suggest that the US producers can and should be compelled to supply the US market place and let the rest of the world deal with what's left with the remainder of the resources. If the USA moved towards nuke electric plants, this would take a huge demand off of the table, leaving more petrol for other markets. I'm all in favor of profits for oil companies, but record profits ought to arise from record sales not record prices. There is something horribly wrong with the pricing stucture today. The problem I have is that I am dangerously close to demanding a regulated market place. I don't know what a reasonable profit would be on a gallon of gasoline, but for the sake of illustration, let's say if should be $0.05. If the oil companies are willing to make $0.04 to sell more gallons then so be it, but they can't make more than $0.05. If they are going to report record profits for any given quarter, they should do it because they also report record sales. The fact is, American consumption is flat to lower as compared to one year ago. Prices ought to be dropping as a result. But, it is a world market and there is more at play than US consumption. >>>>> One expert was saying we have 65 BILLION barrels off the coasts of >>>>> the U.S.! [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > let the rest of the world deal with what's left with the remainder of > the resources. First tell us where this 100 years' worth of oil is. > If the USA moved towards nuke electric plants, this would take a huge > demand off of the table, leaving more petrol for other markets. Really? Only a tiny percent of the electric power comes from oil. > I'm all in favor of profits for oil companies, but record profits ought > to arise from record sales not record prices. They have had near record sales. Plus, their profit margins are close to the profit margins of utilities. > There is something > horribly wrong with the pricing stucture today. The problem I have is > that I am dangerously close to demanding a regulated market place. And what should the pricing structure be? > I don't know what a reasonable profit would be on a gallon of gasoline, > but for the sake of illustration, let's say if should be $0.05. If the > oil companies are willing to make $0.04 to sell more gallons then so be > it, but they can't make more than $0.05. Well, Valero, an independent refiner lost money last quarter. Sunoco's profits were down, too. > If they are going to report > record profits for any given quarter, they should do it because they > also report record sales. Actually, they are having near record sales in terms of volume and record sales in terms of dollars. > The fact is, American consumption is flat to > lower as compared to one year ago. Prices ought to be dropping as a > result. But, it is a world market and there is more at play than US > consumption. At lot more. > >>>>> One expert was saying we have 65 BILLION barrels off the coasts of > >>>>> the U.S.! [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Really? Only a tiny percent of the electric power comes from oil. 25 percent is not tiny. -- > ...If the USA moved towards nuke electric plants, this would take a huge > demand off of the table, leaving more petrol for other markets. Nukes would mostly affect coal, right? Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >> ...If the USA moved towards nuke electric plants, this would take a >> huge demand off of the table, leaving more petrol for other markets. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with the letter 'x') If we used cars with really long extension cords or big batteries (i.e., plug-in hybrids).... >> ...If the USA moved towards nuke electric plants, this would take a huge >> demand off of the table, leaving more petrol for other markets. > > Nukes would mostly affect coal, right? Yeah, coal and natural gas. "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote : >>>>> One expert was saying we have 65 BILLION barrels off the coasts >>>>> of the U.S.! [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > ought to be dropping as a result. But, it is a world market and there > is more at play than US consumption. Marxism? "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." - Karl Marx ""I do not see why industrialists should be considered at all," said Scudder. "When the masses are destitute and yet there are goods available, it's idiotic to expect people to be stopped by some scrap of paper called a property deed. Property rights are a superstition. One holds property only by the courtesy of those who do not sieze it. The people can sieze it at any moment. If they can, why shouldn't they?" "They should", said Claude Slagenhop. "They need it. Need is the only consideration. If people are in need, we've got to sieze things first and talk about it afterwards." - Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > consideration. If people are in need, we've got to sieze things first > and talk about it afterwards." - Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand What in Hell are you talking about? I don't think I took either one of those positions. Karl Marx called for an equal distribution of wealth, I only said that wealth should come from sales not from prices. Gasoline sales are down in this country (USA) relative to a year ago, yet oil company profits are up. This can only happen when price drives profit, not sales. I think any company should make as much as it can when the consumer of its products steps up to buy them. In the instance of gasoline (any energy product for that matter), the consumer is herded through shoots to buy stuff at the other end of the line, and he can't escape the shoot through any reasonable means that he controls. The consumer can avoid entering the shoot for a while -- buy more efficient energy-consuming machines and appliances -- but he must eventually get in line to buy more energy, and since this is the case the producers of said energy have no restraints that keep them from abusing those consumers. Karl Marx was not about consumer protection, and consumer protection is not about taking property away from anybody. Neither of your quotes applies even remotely to anything I said. Petrol sales in the US may "be down" (I'm not sure what you mean by that, compared to the same quarter last year, maybe? I'd wanna see your reference before I bought into it) But global consumption has not waned in the least... we are a thirsty people. The only recent change is that the US is now not the only customer. Within recent memory about half of all the autos on the planet were in the US, but this is changing... the US demand no longer has the power to sway the market as it has in the past. You may see this as the invisible hand giving US the finger but it's really just a free market in action. Talk of killing the rich people and splitting up their stuff may sound nice within the context of a few oil execs, but the numbers indicate that all of the 5% of the global population that resides within the US is part of the top 10% wealthiest of the planet... So all the USofAliens would probably be targeted by any kinda of revolutionary redistribution program. That not withstanding there are probably a few oil execs whose heads belong on sticks for purely ethical reasons, but not all of thems is local boys. At the end of the day, the rising price of gas doesn't seem to be that big of a problem, certainly not the kind of problem that I would want the government to try to 'fix'. If you feel like you're spending too much on gas maybe you need to figure out a way that you can drive less. "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote : >> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote : >> [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > of those positions. Karl Marx called for an equal distribution of > wealth, You see the quote above. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." You appear to be saying that because people "need" inexpensive gas, those with the abilities ( the oil companies ) should be forced by the government to limit their profits? Correct me if I misread what you were saying. > I only said that wealth should come from sales not from > prices. You want to dictate over the free market and legislate where wealth comes from? > Gasoline sales are down in this country (USA) relative to a > year ago, yet oil company profits are up. So? Is "profit" a dirty word? Perhaps we should nationalize the oil companies and force them to operate without profit incentives? > This can only happen when > price drives profit, not sales. I think any company should make as > much as it can when the consumer of its products steps up to buy > them. That's what's happening now. If the consumers found an alternative source of fuel for their cars, they could tell the oil companies, OPEC etc., to pound sand. > In the instance of gasoline (any energy product for that > matter), the consumer is herded through shoots to buy stuff at the > other end of the line, and he can't escape the shoot through any > reasonable means that he controls. Nonsense. No one is forcing me to buy a thing, I can stop anytime. I can take a bus, I can walk, ride a bike, even maybe a horse. > The consumer can avoid entering > the shoot for a while -- buy more efficient energy-consuming machines > and appliances -- but he must eventually get in line to buy more > energy, No one is stopping anyone else from competing with oil, with another form of energy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUrB7KRvxUk http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/ From Beck: Someone in another group pointed out that it takes energy to produce and recycle the aluminum-gallium alloy that runs this engine's reaction. Ok fine, so what about using nuclear plants for that? ESPECIALLY in their off-peak hours? Think maybe 11 PM to 6 AM? You could build processing plants right next to the nuclear plants and use the nuclear energy during off peak hours to process the AL-GA metals back into usable form for these engines? Interesting? http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/31/gb.01.html BECK: Now, from one incompetent government agency right to another. Last night, I told you how tenuous our foreign oil supply is and how we are just one world event away from $7-a-gallon gasoline. It is becoming ever clearer that we need to identify clean, realistic and domestic energy alternatives. Our continued way of life depends on it. The real story is, a Purdue University engineer and National Medal of Technology winner says he`s found a way to replace gasoline with -- get this -- water, but the U.S. Department of Energy is now standing in his way. As I`m sure you have figured out if you`ve watched this show for more than 10 minutes, I`m not exactly a genius, really even book smart, or really, quite honestly, all that literate, but even I understand that desperate times call for desperate measures, and anyone who says they`ve got a solution to our dependency on foreign oil deserves all the support that we can give them, especially if the answer lies in water. Energy independence is good for America, and you would think that the Department of Energy would know that. Now, if you`re already suspicious about the government being in bed with big oil and big business, the next few minutes not really going to help all that much. Professor Jerry Woodall is a professor at Purdue University, who is trying to develop this technology. Professor, talk down to me for a minute. How do you power a car with water? JERRY WOODALL, PHD, PURDUE UNIVERSITY: Well, you need to split it first. You need something that will take the hydrogen away from oxygen, and the way I do it is I make alloys of aluminum and gallium, two different elements. As you know, aluminum by itself doesn`t do anything when you put it in water, but if you add gallium to it, the gallium removes the oxide on aluminum and allows it to react with water. It will split water, forming hydrogen and aluminum oxide. So that`s how we do it. BECK: And you`re saying that the key to this is, you don`t actually need a pumping station. WOODALL: Right. I can carry my aluminum in the back of my car. BECK: And so who -- is the problem that nobody is going to make a lot of money on this? Is that what it is? WOODALL: Well, I think you can. The problem right now is that this is very new and, if I do say so myself, it`s revolutionary, and it takes time for revolutionary ideas to permeate society where they become recognized as useful things. BECK: OK, so the government is not helping you. They`re starting to withhold funding, is that accurate? WOODALL: Well, I wouldn`t say they`re withholding it. I haven`t had a chance to get any from them yet, but I`m not panicked yet, because it takes time to get people on board about new ideas. BECK: Yes. And what about private enterprise? Why not just go to private enterprise? WOODALL: Well, I`ve been doing that. I`ve actually started a small company with an entrepreneur in Indianapolis, and we`re going to try to brand this stuff on a small scale and let it grow from that, hopefully. BECK: OK. Now, do we have to change over? Can this power a regular combustion engine? WOODALL: Yes. As you probably already know, the major automobile companies have experimental vehicles running on hydrogen. And, remember, all I`m doing is I`m making a stored form of energy that will convert water into hydrogen on demand. BECK: OK. How long would it take? Let`s say, all of a sudden, our gas prices spiked up to $7. How long would it take for us to be able to have this technology and me to run my car with it? WOODALL: OK, that`s a good question. I`m not an economist, and I`m not a market guy. It will take -- so there will have to be some sort of infrastructure, because you can`t just throw aluminum cans into your trunk, although it`s a great idea. You will need to be able to make up cassettes or some form of this aluminum alloy that I make and add water to it in a vehicle, so it has to be engineered. If I had to guess -- so I`m quite confident that my grandchildren will be using aluminum in cars. Whether my older son will be using it any time soon, I`m not sure of, but it`s going to be done -- it`s all about money and the marketplace. BECK: All right, Jerry. Thanks a lot. That is "The Real Story" tonight. > and since this is the case the producers of said energy have > no restraints that keep them from abusing those consumers. Just the free market. > Karl Marx was not about consumer protection, and consumer protection > is not about taking property away from anybody. Neither of your > quotes applies even remotely to anything I said. <sigh> > You want to dictate over the free market and legislate where wealth > comes from? Maybe for this one product, it wouldn't be such a bad idea. Name ten other products whose prices are determined daily in a gambling parlor, and which have such a powerful ripple effect throughout the economy. >> In the instance of gasoline (any energy product for that >> matter), the consumer is herded through shoots to buy stuff at the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nonsense. No one is forcing me to buy a thing, I can stop anytime. I > can take a bus, I can walk, ride a bike, even maybe a horse. Many people do not have a choice but to drive. So yes, they *are* forced to buy fuel. >> You want to dictate over the free market and legislate where wealth >> comes from? > > Maybe for this one product, it wouldn't be such a bad idea. Name ten other > products whose prices are determined daily in a gambling parlor, and which > have such a powerful ripple effect throughout the economy. None are determined in a gambling parlor. However, please provide a better alternative with evidence that the alternative would be better, including back up the need for the controls. XOM, F, MSFT, GM, UNTD, GOOG, PPL, TGT, GE, WLMT, and the price that utilities pay for electricity in times of peak demand. >>> In the instance of gasoline (any energy product for that >>> matter), the consumer is herded through shoots to buy stuff at the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Many people do not have a choice but to drive. So yes, they *are* forced to > buy fuel. They are usually not forced to drive a Ford F150 or Hummer one a 50-mile commute each day. Thay have the option of getting a Prius or Civic hybrid and buy 10 or 15 gallons of fuel each week instead of every day. >>> You want to dictate over the free market and legislate where wealth >>> comes from? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > None are determined in a gambling parlor. You don't like the words "gambling parlor", but as I taught you earlier, the commodities market is exactly that. When price movements are partially based on "fears" and "concerns" expressed by traders who are in no way connected with any oil-related company, we are dealing with nonsense. > However, please provide a better alternative with evidence that the > alternative would be better, including back up the need for the controls. Alternative to what? Hedge funds playing with oil prices? They serve no function other than to make money for a select group of investors in those funds, as well as the managers of the funds. The alternative is to close oil trading to non-related investors. There's no reason not to that you can describe. > XOM, F, MSFT, GM, UNTD, GOOG, PPL, TGT, GE, WLMT, and the price that > utilities pay for electricity in times of peak demand. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > commute each day. Thay have the option of getting a Prius or Civic hybrid > and buy 10 or 15 gallons of fuel each week instead of every day. We agree that some people could make a better choice of vehicle. But, no matter what you drive, you MUST buy fuel. >>>> You want to dictate over the free market and legislate where wealth >>>> comes from? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You don't like the words "gambling parlor", but as I taught you earlier, the > commodities market is exactly that. The only thing that you taught me is that you don't know what you're talking about. > When price movements are partially based > on "fears" and "concerns" expressed by traders who are in no way connected > with any oil-related company, we are dealing with nonsense. You have yet to show: 1) Why these people shouldn't be allowed to trade. After all, these open markets are what drive the American economy and other free economies. 2) That these speculators have a marked influence on the price of oil. In other words, the people who are driving up the prices are the people who have a vested interested in the price of oil, like refiners, transportation companies and utilities, all of which buy energy futures. >> However, please provide a better alternative with evidence that the >> alternative would be better, including back up the need for the controls. > > Alternative to what? Hedge funds playing with oil prices? Alternative to an open market. If you don't think that hedge funds should be doing this, write to the SEC and your elected representatives, asking for proper regulation of the market. > They serve no > function other than to make money for a select group of investors in those > funds, as well as the managers of the funds. The alternative is to close oil > trading to non-related investors. Well, write your representives. > There's no reason not to that you can describe. >> XOM, F, MSFT, GM, UNTD, GOOG, PPL, TGT, GE, WLMT, and the price that >> utilities pay for electricity in times of peak demand. By the same argument, I shouldn't have been able to buy shares of XOM (ExxonMobil). >>>>> In the instance of gasoline (any energy product for that >>>>> matter), the consumer is herded through shoots to buy stuff at the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > We agree that some people could make a better choice of vehicle. But, no > matter what you drive, you MUST buy fuel. Gee, when I drive my bicycle, I buy my fuel at the grocery store. jeff >>>>> You want to dictate over the free market and legislate where wealth >>>>> comes from? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 1) Why these people shouldn't be allowed to trade. After all, these open > markets are what drive the American economy and other free economies. Because their trades are often completely disconnected from reality. Example: Fears of renewed violence in a country which contributes next to nothing in terms of crude oil. > 2) That these speculators have a marked influence on the price of oil. In > other words, the people who are driving up the prices are the people who > have a vested interested in the price of oil, like refiners, > transportation companies and utilities, all of which buy energy futures. Let's stick to one financial entity which we KNOW is unrelated to the businesses you mentioned: HEDGE FUNDS Are you saying such speculators have ZERO effect on the price of oil? Yes or no? ZERO effect? >>> However, please provide a better alternative with evidence that the >>> alternative would be better, including back up the need for the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > be doing this, write to the SEC and your elected representatives, asking > for proper regulation of the market. I work in an open market - the grocery biz. My customers (chains & wholesalers) can buy from anyone they want and sell to anyone they want. Although there are commodity investments representing some grocery products, that arena has little or no effect on prices in my business. Do you know why there's little or no effect? While we're on the subject, what business are you in? It might help to know, in terms of providing analogies. >> We agree that some people could make a better choice of vehicle. But, no >> matter what you drive, you MUST buy fuel. > > Gee, when I drive my bicycle, I buy my fuel at the grocery store. > > jeff Gee...that's cute, but not an option for everyone. You know that. But you will now disagree. At how many grocery stores will you need to shop, between your place and Disney Land? >> We agree that some people could make a better choice of vehicle. But, no >> matter what you drive, you MUST buy fuel. > > Gee, when I drive my bicycle, I buy my fuel at the grocery store. > > jeff How does one factor in the cost of BUYING those cars against the difference in the amount of fuel used to drive 50 miles a day? ;) >>> You want to dictate over the free market and legislate where wealth >>> comes from? > They are usually not forced to drive a Ford F150 or Hummer one a 50-mile > commute each day. Thay have the option of getting a Prius or Civic hybrid > and buy 10 or 15 gallons of fuel each week instead of every day. > How does one factor in the cost of BUYING those cars against the difference > in the amount of fuel used to drive 50 miles a day? ;) Total cost of ownership = cost of fuel + cost of vehicle + cost of insurance + cost of maintenance The cost of fuel = price per gallon * miles driven / mileage (in mpg) Jeff >>>> You want to dictate over the free market and legislate where wealth >>>> comes from? > >> They are usually not forced to drive a Ford F150 or Hummer one a 50-mile >> commute each day. Thay have the option of getting a Prius or Civic hybrid >> and buy 10 or 15 gallons of fuel each week instead of every day. > The real story is, a Purdue University engineer and National Medal of > Technology winner says he`s found a way to replace gasoline with -- get > this -- water, but the U.S. Department of Energy is now standing in his > way. > Professor Jerry Woodall is a professor at Purdue > University, who is trying to develop this technology. > JERRY WOODALL, PHD, PURDUE UNIVERSITY: Well, you need to split it > first. You need something that will take the hydrogen away from oxygen, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > will split water, forming hydrogen and aluminum oxide. So that`s how we > do it. This may be a better way of extracting hydrogen from water, but it still needs more energy than available from the hydrogen, and you don't help your case by claiming the government is trying to repress the research. "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote : >> The real story is, a Purdue University engineer and National Medal of >> Technology winner says he`s found a way to replace gasoline with -- get [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > This may be a better way of extracting hydrogen from water, but it > still needs more energy than available from the hydrogen, Doesn't matter, just use nuclear to generate it for cars. > Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand Why did you quote an adultress who wanted to commit murder? "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote : >> Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand > > Why did you quote an adultress who wanted to commit murder? ? Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote : >> "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <N0one184@N0Where.com> wrote : >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > That's about one year's world usage. Who says we have to export it? > While it is obviously a lot, it > would take several years to develop an oil field. And, several years > until peak production is reached. So, at best, it would supply about > 10% of the world's production for a while. So it will lower prices, > but not that much. Who says we have to export it? >> The enviro-extremists won't allow access to it. > > What percentage of Americans want the US to drill off the coasts? > And, if the percentage is over 50%, why don't they vote for people > who will make that happen? Stay tuned... People are fed up and it's only so long before they realize that they can't just blame the oil companies for this, that something else needs to be done. Oh, and increasing refineries would lower our prices here too. I even heard that stabilizing the dollar against foreign currencies would, being much of these current prices are based on wild speculation, because our government is so far in debt and printing funny money as a way out. > Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Who says we have to export it? I have seen that, between oil and coal that could be turned into gasoline (and coal that can just be used as coal) we have enough energy right here for ~100 years. If we don't come up with some alternative in the next 10~20, we deserve everything we get. It's said we are the Saudi Arabia of coal, we have so much. The problems are that coal is difficult to extract; if you use a regular mine then the workers are in danger, and if you go with much safer strip mining the land where the mine is located is destroyed. Frankly, I'm not much of an environmentalist, so if strip mining means we get to keep our economy humming, then strip away! (Er, not you, the miners! ;) Again, the environmentalists step in with lawsuits and their lobbyists get new laws passed, and progress comes to a halt. >> While it is obviously a lot, it >> would take several years to develop an oil field. And, several years [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > because our government is so far in debt and printing funny money as a > way out. <...> > I have seen that, between oil and coal that could be turned into gasoline > (and coal that can just be used as coal) we have enough energy right here [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > environmentalist, so if strip mining means we get to keep our economy > humming, then strip away! (Er, not you, the miners! ;) That could be dangerous, particularly when the miners use sharp tools. However, destroying the land and the life on the land is short-sighted at best. Right now, a.sholes are destroying moutaintops in West Virgina and fouling up the land for coal. Extremely stupid. > Again, the environmentalists step in with lawsuits and their lobbyists > get new laws passed, and progress comes to a halt. That's far better than destroying our environment. Jeff > <...> >> I have seen that, between oil and coal that could be turned into [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Jeff I'd rather get the coal than have my balls squeezed by Arabs... >> hachiroku ???? wrote: >> <...> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > I'd rather get the coal than have my balls squeezed by Arabs... .....until YOUR neighborhood is destroyed by nasty mining operations. As long as it's far away where it doesn't affect you, you're cool with the idea. >> I'd rather get the coal than have my balls squeezed by Arabs... > > .....until YOUR neighborhood is destroyed by nasty mining operations. As > long as it's far away where it doesn't affect you, you're cool with the > idea. A good deal of our energy reserves are far away from anyone. And, if there is a major coal reserve in my back yard, I would gladly sell to the highest bidder... =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote : >>> I'd rather get the coal than have my balls squeezed by Arabs... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And, if there is a major coal reserve in my back yard, I would gladly > sell to the highest bidder... We have enough nuclear energy to power the whole country for 2 billion years, all we have to do is build the plants. Once we had them up to 200% capacity of what we need for fixed power, the left over capacity could power cars. Build it and the technology will come. > =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > left over capacity could power cars. Build it and the technology will > come. If we have enough nuclear capacity to produce all the electricity we need, then the oil and coal reserves in this country could probably provide enough gasoline for ~150 years. If nobody figures out a solution before that, they deserve what they get. ...LONG before that... >>> I'd rather get the coal than have my balls squeezed by Arabs... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And, if there is a major coal reserve in my back yard, I would gladly sell > to the highest bidder... That's because you know almost nothing..... >>>> I'd rather get the coal than have my balls squeezed by Arabs... >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >That's because you know almost nothing..... He knows enough to have swatted your arse around like a little limp thang that you are.....  SignatureScott in Florida >>That's because you know almost nothing..... >> > He knows enough to have swatted your arse around like a little limp > thang that you are..... Kinda like shooting fish in a barrel... >>>> I'd rather get the coal than have my balls squeezed by Arabs... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > That's because you know almost nothing..... You would sell to the lowest. I know better. I can heat with coal or fuel oil in my two homes in Pa. The cost to heat with coal is half that of oil. On average I use about five tons of coal verses 1,100 to 1,200 gallons of oil. In addition Anthracite coal burns cleaner than fuel oil >>>>> I'd rather get the coal than have my balls squeezed by Arabs... >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You would sell to the lowest. I know better. > I can heat with coal or fuel oil in my two homes in Pa. The cost to > heat with coal is half that of oil. On average I use about five tons of > coal verses 1,100 to 1,200 gallons of oil. In addition Anthracite coal > burns cleaner than fuel oil Sounds good to me. How much is 5 tons of coal? > Oh, and increasing refineries would lower our prices here too. Which is why the oil companies are not only not building new refineries, but closing existing ones. Nor will they sell the existing refinery that is being closed to anyone. They want the capacity off-line. >> Oh, and increasing refineries would lower our prices here too. > > Which is why the oil companies are not only not building new refineries, > but closing existing ones. Nor will they sell the existing refinery that > is being closed to anyone. They want the capacity off-line. How true! Local refinery was sold to Shell and they wanted to close it down saying the cost to upgrade and rebuild would be prohibitive. Luckily, some representatives got involved and the plant is still operating. Wonder where all the billions they are making are going if not to building, remodeling, or searching? B~ > >> Oh, and increasing refineries would lower our prices here too. > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > B~ Go to CSPAN, watch the video of the hearings with big oil that was on this week. CEO's on the hot seat, actually their set wasn't too hot. They handled themselves quite well. -- >> >> Oh, and increasing refineries would lower our prices here too. >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >this week. CEO's on the hot seat, actually their set wasn't too hot. >They handled themselves quite well. ,,,and they told the idiots that a big part of the problem was our Congress... SignatureScott in Florida Did you EVER see a report from ANY of those Committees? You will not see any in the media, you need to search the Congressional Record for their report. You never see the Congress doing ANTHING to increase our supply to help meet our demand. Dims that control Congress pretend to be the party of the "workingman." In reality they are the party of the "non-working men". That's sad; all they care about is buying your votes with taxes paid by those that work.. >>> >> Oh, and increasing refineries would lower our prices here too. >>> > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > ,,,and they told the idiots that a big part of the problem was our > Congress... > Did you EVER see a report from ANY of those Committees? You will not see > any in the media, you need to search the Congressional Record for their [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Come January 2009 you will be seeing a whole bunch of reports. If the Dims get the Presidency the first report will say it's all about supply and demand, like all of the previous reports. "BUT, we Dims tried to stop crude from going to $200, we shut down refineries and oil wells to cut carbon admissions and we doubled the taxes on big oil and spent trillions on the newer cleaner much more expensive alternate energy sources, and we even shut down those dangerous nuclear power plants, hoping to reduce our dependence on imported oil and lower the cost of a barrel of crude but we could not because of what the Bush administration did, sorry" LOL On May 24, 9:42 pm, "Mike hunt" <mikehun...@lycos.com> wrote: > Did you EVER see a report from ANY of those Committees? You will not > see [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Come January 2009 you will be seeing a whole bunch of reports. > If the Dims get the Presidency the first report will say it's all about > supply and demand, like all of the previous reports. "BUT, we Dims tried [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > - Show quoted text - We have better things to do - impeach bush & cheney, report how they stole 2 elections, packed the justice department, politcized all departments of the government, and maybe put Karl Rove in a cell for a few years. Download an mp3 file of "It's Over" by Roy Orbison and just put it on an endless loop. > Come January 2009 you will be seeing a whole bunch of reports.- Hide quoted text - >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >departments of the government, and maybe put Karl Rove in a cell for a >few years. I suggest you get busy. At least an impeachment would be fun to watch! ....getting the popcorn SignatureScott in Florida Please tell us how many cups of Cool-Aide do you drink in one day and what is the color of the sky in YOUR world? LOL On May 25, 3:34 pm, "Mike hunt" <mikehun...@lycos.com> wrote: > If the Dims get the Presidency the first report will say it's all about > supply and demand, like all of the previous reports. "BUT, we Dims tried [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > - Show quoted text - We have better things to do - impeach bush & cheney, report how they stole 2 elections, packed the justice department, politcized all departments of the government, and maybe put Karl Rove in a cell for a few years. Download an mp3 file of "It's Over" by Roy Orbison and just put it on an endless loop. > Please tell us how many cups of Cool-Aide do you drink in one day and > what is the color of the sky in YOUR world? LOL LOL! > On May 25, 3:34 pm, "Mike hunt" <mikehun...@lycos.com> wrote: >> If the Dims get the Presidency the first report will say it's all about [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > Download an mp3 file of "It's Over" by Roy Orbison and just put it on an > endless loop. "edspyhill01@yahoo.com" <edspyhill01@yahoo.com> wrote : > We have better things to do - impeach bush & cheney, report how they > stole 2 elections, packed the justice department, politcized all > departments of the government, and maybe put Karl Rove in a cell for > a few years. Make sure to wear a tinfoil hat while you do all that. Bush has orbiting mind-control lasers beaming down republican thoughts. >> Come January 2009 you will be seeing a whole bunch of reports.- Hide >> quoted text - [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > We have better things to do - impeach bush & cheney, report how they > stole 2 elections Impeach them for what? Up until now, you haven't played the k00k card, but you're starting to sound like the starry-eyed morons that live in my area. Put the blunt down and rejoin reality, please. "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22@lycos.com> wrote : > If the Dims get the Presidency the first report will say it's all > about supply and demand, like all of the previous reports. "BUT, we [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and lower the cost of a barrel of crude but we could not because of > what the Bush administration did, sorry" LOL I'm waiting for them to start suggesting nationalizing the oil companies. ""I do not see why industrialists should be considered at all," said Scudder. "When the masses are destitute and yet there are goods available, it's idiotic to expect people to be stopped by some scrap of paper called a property deed. Property rights are a superstition. One holds property only by the courtesy of those who do not sieze it. The people can sieze it at any moment. If they can, why shouldn't they?" "They should", said Claude Slagenhop. "They need it. Need is the only consideration. If people are in need, we've got to sieze things first and talk about it afterwards." - Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand >I'm waiting for them to start suggesting nationalizing the oil companies. You must have taken the week off - Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D CA) was in on the "Grill Big Oil Fest" and was at a loss for words in mid tirade, couldn't grasp the word "nationalize" - and after phumphering around for a while she used the term "Socialize" instead - a rather Freudian slip, and quite telling. If we get a (strike)Socialist(strike) Democratic administration and Legislature at the same time, the government might well think they can solve all out energy problems by Nationalizing the oil companies - and if you think the situation is bad now, you ain't seen NOTHIN' yet. The real fix: We need to start carefully drilling in ANWR right NOW - go really slowly so they don't spill or foul anything - build a base-camp this summer, engineer the ice-road and bring in the heavy gear through the winter, and start the exploratory drilling in earnest next summer. Invent a double-wall pipeline out to civilization. Allow for long-term oil purchase contracts, so the speculators in the Spot Market aren't the ones driving the price of oil up, up, up for everyone. Large oil consumers like airlines, marine shipping and railroads have long bought a large portion of their fuel in long term contracts, and that works great to moderate prices in the short term - but when the contracts expire and they can't get a new one at a reasonable price they're going to get raped like the rest of us. Offshore drilling - slant-drill from a few semi-permanent platforms. Go to town with Wind - Solar - Geothermal - Clean Coal - Nuclear. Get away from oil wherever possible, if it isn't a lubricant come up with another fuel source. Trash incineration for part of the fuel for fluidic-bed "clean coal" steam electric plants then stack scrubbers afterwards - kill three or four birds with one stone, reduce landfills, destroy small amounts of hazmat, and reduce usage of oil or natural gas. Encourage a few new refineries - and allow accelerated depreciation if they're afraid that they'll be made obsolete before their time. Get working on cellulosic ethanol from wild field grasses, and production plantings of canola/rapeseed for BioDiesel. We're going to screw up the economy if we keep using foodstocks and food producing land to raise corn for Ethanol feedstocks - even though the corn can be used for animal feed after distilling, it isn't human food grade anymore. --<< Bruce >>-- Bruce L. Bergman <blnospambergman@earthlink.invalid> wrote : >>I'm waiting for them to start suggesting nationalizing the oil >>companies. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > phumphering around for a while she used the term "Socialize" instead > - a rather Freudian slip, and quite telling. LOL! > If we get a (strike)Socialist(strike) Democratic administration and > Legislature at the same time, the government might well think they > can solve all out energy problems by Nationalizing the oil companies > - and if you think the situation is bad now, you ain't seen NOTHIN' > yet. Oh but I have. I was around when Commissar Carter pulled his marxist plan, back in the 70's. Wage and price freezes, windfall profits taxes on gas. I remember the long lines at the gas stations as the supply dried up. And some people still remember the 5 year plans "back in the USSR", when they'd tell the factories to make 20 million pairs of size 10 shoes and the people who wore other sizes would have to wear size 10, no matter how big their feet were. There's only one legitimate purpose for government and anytime it strays from those boundaries, there's hell to pay. "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-1785) "The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may only resort to force only against those who start the use of force." -- Galt's Speech, “Atlas Shrugged”, 1957 "Since the protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of a government, it is the only proper subject of legislation: all laws must be based on individual rights and aimed at their protection." -- Ayn Rand > Go to town with Wind - Solar - Wind power only works when there' wind and solar only works when the sun shines. >Geothermal - Clean Coal - Nuclear. Nuclear. We could power everything with it and tell OPEC to go pound sand ( to put it politely, or to shove their oil where the sun don't shine ) >Bruce L. Bergman <blnospambergman@earthlink.invalid> wrote : >>>I'm waiting for them to start suggesting nationalizing the oil >>>companies. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >I remember the long lines at the gas stations as the supply dried up. Dad was a salesman - we had the big white-on-blue "C" windshield sticker on the LTD Station Wagon he used to haul his sample cases around. Commercial Use vehicle, meaning he didn't have to follow the every-other-day rationing plan. Artificial control of supply doesn't work - any system you come up with can and quickly will be gamed. Look at Prohibition. The only way to drop prices is to increase supply (build more refineries or enlarge the existing ones) prevent collusion and artificial constraints (like the scheduled semi-annual fires at the existing refineries that cause "unexpected" shutdowns and spike the prices) and/or decrease demand. >And some people still remember the 5 year plans "back in the USSR", when >they'd tell the factories to make 20 million pairs of size 10 shoes and [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >Wind power only works when there' wind and solar only works when the sun >shines. But when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, make use of it. And that includes putting wind farms where they'll work best and go in for a reasonable cost, despite what the "Beautiful People" in Hyannisport, Martha's Vineyard, and Malibu think. The Malibu and Santa Barbara Illuminati crowd just got done blocking the construction of an offshore Liquefied Natural Gas shipping terminal that would have been a mere speck on the horizon several miles offshore. And it was deliberately sited way out there for safety - even if it went "BOOM!", at that distance at worst it might crack a few picture windows. In the middle east the excess Natural Gas is a waste byproduct available for cheap. And once it's liquefied it's very economical to transport and use, there are entire city fleets of garbage trucks running on it. LNG would be better for city buses than CNG, the tanks are much smaller and safer than the high-pressure fiberglass wrapped aluminum CNG tanks that take up the entire roof. And you get a bit of refrigeration help from vaporizing the fuel. LNG is easier and safer in use than CNG - the only drawback is there's some boil-off to keep the tank contents cold, so the vehicles have to be used pretty much daily or stored with an empty fuel tank. If not, then they vent a little natural gas from a relief valve. The "Hot Trick" would be to install a little Motorhome style ammonia adsorption refrigerator in the vehicle cab - the burner would consume enough gas to act as a flare tower for the LNG boil-off, and you put the energy to good use keeping lunch and drinking water cold. (Or medications and ice-pack ice in the back of an ambulance, etc.) And with some thermopiles in the flame, you can generate enough electricity to keep the starting batteries topped off and run a fan to keep it cooler in summer - or use that little bit of heat to keep it above freezing in winter. >>Geothermal - Clean Coal - Nuclear. > >Nuclear. We could power everything with it and tell OPEC to go pound >sand ( to put it politely, or to shove their oil where the sun don't >shine ) Well, not *everything*, but a whole lot more than we're doing now - for lighting and motion loads, sure. But it's still more efficient to generate process heat at the load with a fuel, rather than the ineffiencies of long distance electric transmission and resistance heat generation. (And the fuel doesn't have to be oil.) Go look up "Wampfler Inductive Power Transmission", they can put a power strip coil in one lane of the freeway /right now/ and a pickup coil on the bottom of all the Hybrid Cars - shut down the engine and drive from Los Angeles to Las Vegas on all electric. Except when you pull out to pass, or off for a Gyro at "The Mad Greek" in Baker. Automatic guidance and braking are in prototype, for practical purposes (and tested so the carmakers don't get their a.ses sued off for any failures) it's a few decades down the road, but the power coupling part of it is here right now. If we get busy and do it - at least get a head start by running power lines all the way along the main routes. Heck, how hard would it be to really scale it up and build Hybrid Semi's and trailers with electric motors in the hubs helping to push, and have them in their own electrified lane? You'd have to scale the power coupling system way up to power a row of trucks, but that still gets us away from OPEC. --<< Bruce >>-- >> Oh, and increasing refineries would lower our prices here too. > > Which is why the oil companies are not only not building new refineries, > but closing existing ones. Nor will they sell the existing refinery that > is being closed to anyone. They want the capacity off-line. Technically (in my state) they have not built a new refinery due to environmental restrictions. But you can continue to think there is a conspiracy if you want ... >>> Oh, and increasing refineries would lower our prices here too. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > But you can continue to think there is a conspiracy if you want ... There is no conspiracy. The oil companies simply understand that excessive refining capacity leads to price competition that is not in their best interest. If the reason for lack of refining capacity was their inability to build new refineries due to environmental restrictions, then the insufficient refining capacity would be understandable, and they would be operating all their existing refineries at full capacity. Instead, they are shutting down existing refineries, and refusing to sell them to independent producers that want to operate them. >>>> Oh, and increasing refineries would lower our prices here too. >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > are shutting down existing refineries, and refusing to sell them to > independent producers that want to operate them. True. But if the profits were based on sales instead of price, they would be encouraged to produce. Currently, profits are based on price not sales. They are not refusing to build refineries, they are prohibited from building them. > They are not refusing to build refineries, they are prohibited from > building them. Not sure where you are, but in California they are shutting down refineries so they obviously don't want to build new ones. > Not sure where you are, but in California they are shutting down > refineries so they obviously don't want to build new ones. Yes, as the oil companies merge, they are faced with upgrading old refineries or shuttering them. The refinery can run as it is as long as the original owner is running it. When the companies merge, the new owner is not allowed to run the old refinery as it is, and must do extensive upgrades. The new owner shutters it instead. The result in our state, California, is that there have not been any new refineries built in (round numbers) 3 decades, and the number of companies that operate refineries has dwindled from somewhere near 100 to somewhere under 30. The result is, there is increasingly less competition, and coupled with the special blend of gas that we use here, there is no way to tap supplies in other parts of the country, so when the crew calls in sick for a shift, the price jumps a quarter because there is insufficient supply. It takes them a week to replenish the supply, so the price never comes back down, because the crew calls in with a hangover, and misses another shift and the price rises another quarter. The bottom line is, gasoline profits are driven by the price, not the sales. We have a structure that lets oil companies sell a half gallon of gas for two dollars, there is no way in hell they are going to volunteer to sell a full gallon for one dollar. >> Not sure where you are, but in California they are shutting down >> refineries so they obviously don't want to build new ones. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > old refinery as it is, and must do extensive upgrades. The new owner > shutters it instead. This sounds suspect to me. When there is a merger or buyout, the licenses and rights to run a facility (of any type) usually automatically are passed on to the new owners of the facility, if there is a new owner. A lot of times, the ownership of the facility technically doesn't changer, rather, the owner of the facility is a subsidiary of a company; only the owner of the subsidiary changes. > The result in our state, California, is that there have not been any new > refineries built in (round numbers) 3 decades, and the number of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the crew calls in sick for a shift, the price jumps a quarter because > there is insufficient supply. Even if there is sufficient supply in say New Orleans, getting it to California in any quantity rather difficult, too. > It takes them a week to replenish the > supply, so the price never comes back down, because the crew calls in > with a hangover, and misses another shift and the price rises another > quarter. I really doubt that the lack of crews to man the refineries is an issue. > The bottom line is, gasoline profits are driven by the price, not the > sales. We have a structure that lets oil companies sell a half gallon of > gas for two dollars, there is no way in hell they are going to volunteer > to sell a full gallon for one dollar. Actually, the refineries have been having a difficult time making money. Between the price of crude and the competition, the profits on the refinery part have not been very high. Companies like ExxonMobil have been high, because as the cost of crude goes up, they are able to make more money getting the stuff out of the ground. Jeff >>> Not sure where you are, but in California they are shutting down >>> refineries so they obviously don't want to build new ones. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >technically doesn't changer, rather, the owner of the facility is a >subsidiary of a company; only the owner of the subsidiary changes. No Jeff, the license doesn't transfer to the new owner. I own and operate a small business. My business license doesn't transfer if I sell my business. I have to cancel it and the new owner has to obtain a new business license in his name even though the company name may remain the same. The same is true of TV and radio stations, their FCC license is issued to the corporation that owns the station. If the station changes hands, the new owner has to obtain a new FCC license. The FCC may decide to reissue the same call letters to the new owner but they don't have to. The license to operate is not issued to the facility, it is issued to the owner of the facility. If the holding company is sold, the facility has a new owner and that new owner has to obtain a new license. >> The result in our state, California, is that there have not been any new >> refineries built in (round numbers) 3 decades, and the number of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Even if there is sufficient supply in say New Orleans, getting it to >California in any quantity rather difficult, too. It's pretty easy to send product cross country through a pipeline and a lot cheaper than sending it by rail or truck. >> It takes them a week to replenish the >> supply, so the price never comes back down, because the crew calls in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Jeff Jeff, most of the oil companies own everything from the well head to the pump nozzle at the gas station. So any and all profit is theirs to keep, they don't have to share any money with anyone other than their stock holders. Jack "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote : >> Not sure where you are, but in California they are shutting down >> refineries so they obviously don't want to build new ones. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > crew calls in with a hangover, and misses another shift and the price > rises another quarter. Are you saying that socialists get what they deserve? >>>>> Oh, and increasing refineries would lower our prices here too. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > would be encouraged to produce. Currently, profits are based on price > not sales. Profits are based on both price and sales. I mean, if ExxonMobil sold one gallon of gas at $100, it would make like $96 in profit. > They are not refusing to build refineries, they are prohibited from > building them. It's called a free-market economy. How are you going to regulate refineries? >>>>>> Oh, and increasing refineries would lower our prices here too. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > It's called a free-market economy. How are you going to regulate > refineries? If your last question means "Show me the legislation preventing the building of new refineries", I'll wait here with you for the answer. We've had a "they" plague here recently, begun by Hach. "They" won't let anyone drill for oil. "They" won't allow new refineries. Never the actual name of the legislation, though. > Instead, they are shutting down existing > refineries, and refusing to sell them to independent producers that want > to operate them. Evidence that they refuse to sell existing refineries to independent producers that want to refine oil, please. >> Instead, they are shutting down existing >> refineries, and refusing to sell them to independent producers that >> want to operate them. > > Evidence that they refuse to sell existing refineries to independent > producers that want to refine oil, please. Actually, in this case, Shell was forced to sell the Bakersfield refinery to an independent, even though they just wanted to shut it down. "http://lawnorder.blogspot.com/2005/03/shell-sells-aging-refinery-in.html" >>> Instead, they are shutting down existing >>> refineries, and refusing to sell them to independent producers that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > "http://lawnorder.blogspot.com/2005/03/shell-sells-aging-refinery-in.html" One case, reported on a blog. Not very impressive. >>>> Instead, they are shutting down existing >>>> refineries, and refusing to sell them to independent producers that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > One case, reported on a blog. Not very impressive. Name a news source you would not complain about, and then maybe someone will find a similar story in that news source. >>> Instead, they are shutting down existing >>> refineries, and refusing to sell them to independent producers that want [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > "http://lawnorder.blogspot.com/2005/03/shell-sells-aging-refinery-in.html" As true as this example is, it is somewhat of an anomoly. This is a plant that had been upgraded already, and the cost to do more upgrades is small in the grand scheme of things. Most of the plants that are closed due to a merger are closed because it is too costly to bring them up to date. >> Instead, they are shutting down existing >> refineries, and refusing to sell them to independent producers that want >> to operate them. > > Evidence that they refuse to sell existing refineries to independent > producers that want to refine oil, please. Nobody wants to buy those old refineries because they will be required to spend millions upon millions of dollars to bring them up to current specs. >>> Instead, they are shutting down existing >>> refineries, and refusing to sell them to independent producers that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to spend millions upon millions of dollars to bring them up to current > specs. So they companies are willing to sell them, just that there aren't buyers who are willing to pay the price of keeping them online. That's different than oil companies not wanting to sell them. > >> Instead, they are shutting down existing > >> refineries, and refusing to sell them to independent producers that want [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Nobody wants to buy those old refineries because they will be required to > spend millions upon millions of dollars to bring them up to current specs. If companies can't build new refineries, as some claim, why wouldn't refiners prefer to buy old ones and modernize them? How can it cost more to modernize an old refinery than to build a new one from scratch? Also by purchasing a used refinery, the company already has permission to create some emissions, something it wouldn't have to obtain with a new plant. >> >> Instead, they are shutting down existing >> >> refineries, and refusing to sell them to independent producers that want [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >permission to create some emissions, something it wouldn't have to >obtain with a new plant. If I buy an old refinery, the EPA permission slips are canceled. I have to start the process all over again. Add to that the fact that I will be required to pay to 'clean up' any 'contaminated' dirt and it's a LOT cheaper to build a new refinery that meets all the applicable requirements. The only problem is that a lot of state EPAs won't issue permits for new refineries. They don't want them in their state, let some other state deal with the emissions. You make to most return on your investment if your plant is running at 100% of capacity so where is the incentive for an oil company to spend money building new refineries? Jack On May 29, 2:52 pm, Retired VIP <jackj.extradots....@windstream.net> wrote: > On Thu, 29 May 2008 00:53:04 -0700 (PDT), "larry moe 'n curly" > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > - Show quoted text - . > so where is the incentive for an oil company to > spend money building new refineries? Entropy. Everything wears down and becomes very inefficient and unreliable. American business people are short-sighted and bottomline oriented for the next quarter only. It's why we are now sliding down the value scale and the dollar will soon be like the peso and the Euro will be the base currency for the world market. Too bad everybody believed we could bomb people into submission. >On May 29, 2:52 pm, Retired VIP <jackj.extradots....@windstream.net> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > >Too bad everybody believed we could bomb people into submission. You are 110% right! When I was working full time for a couple of different companies, my management incentives were based on the quarter's performance. Some incentives must be based on the quarter's performance, like aged receivables. The problem we have is that it's hard to set management incentives over years. Most managers aren't in that job for more than a couple of years. Planning for the future survival of the company requires establishing goals that can't be met for decades. It's too HARD to set long term goals so let's just worry about the quarter and let tomorrow take care of it's self. Jack >>> Instead, they are shutting down existing >>> refineries, and refusing to sell them to independent producers that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to spend millions upon millions of dollars to bring them up to current > specs. In reality, somebody _does_ want to buy them, that was Shell's problem. They wanted to just shut it down, not sell it, because they didn't want that refining capacity to be on-line. In the end, the public outcry is what forced them to sell it rather than just shut it down. > Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Who says we have to export it? We're part of the world economy. I was trying to put it into perspective. No said anything about exporting it. >>> The enviro-extremists won't allow access to it. >> What percentage of Americans want the US to drill off the coasts? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Oh, and increasing refineries would lower our prices here too. Really? How much do companies that just refine oil and sell it (like Valero and Sunoco) make on the refining operations? Right now, close to nothing (Valero lost money last quarter). > I even heard that stabilizing the dollar against foreign currencies > would, being much of these current prices are based on wild speculation, > because our government is so far in debt and printing funny money as a > way out. I haven't seen any jokes on money. Maybe when they put Bush's picture on it. ;-) But seriously, some of the oil markets are moving to the Euro as the currency. But, the lowest the dollar has been against the Euro is about $1.5 to one Euro and the highest is about $0.80. The swing in dollar value doesn't explain most of the price of crude oil. The level supply and increasing demand, however, does. Jeff >> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote : >> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Jeff Do you think the price increase is directly proportional to increased demand in the same time period? Let's look at 2003 onward, since Year / Nominal / Inflation Adjusted 2003 / $27.69 / $31.62 2004 / $37.66 / $41.84 2005 / $50.04 / $53.77 2006 / $58.30 / $60.73 2007 / $64.20 / $64.92 Source: http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp What are we looking at here? Increased car ownership which matches the percentage of increase? >>> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote : >>> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > Do you think the price increase is directly proportional to increased demand > in the same time period? Let's look at 2003 onward, since Of course it isn't. As you point out, the price of energy is not elastic. If the price of energy goes up, the usage still remains high. People are driving less by making all their little trips around town at once (going to the store, the mall, getting the dry-cleaning) and staying a little closer to home, but their overall spending on fuel is increasing. The price of fuel is not the limiting factor in the expansion of the Indian and Chinese economy. With a limited supply, and increasing demand, the price will continue to increase. > Year / Nominal / Inflation Adjusted > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > What are we looking at here? Increased car ownership which matches the > percentage of increase? No, we are looking at an product (energy) whose price is inelastic. You can read about inelastic prices and the law of supply and demand on Wikipedia and other online sources. Jeff >>>> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote : >>>> [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > > Jeff Would you agree that supply & demand are not the ONLY factors affecting oil prices? We all know anybody can put whatever they want on Wikipedia. Naturally that MUST be the most authoritive place to gets ones information ;) >>>> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote : >>>> [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > > Jeff > We all know anybody can put whatever they want on Wikipedia. Naturally > that MUST be the most authoritive place to gets ones information ;) You will also notice that there are references to the info in the article, as well. Jeff >>>>> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote : >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] >> >> Jeff Mike hunt wrote > No, we are looking at an product (energy) whose price is inelastic. You > can read about inelastic prices and the law of supply and demand on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You will also notice that there are references to the info in the > article, as well. Before Mike got to the references, the scotch got to Mike. > it > would take several years to develop an oil field. If KKKlinton had signed the ANWR bill in 1994 that oil would be flowing by now. Do you want another KKKlinton or Barry Hussein God Damn America blocking it for ANOTHER decade? >> it >> would take several years to develop an oil field. > > If KKKlinton had signed the ANWR bill in 1994 that oil would be flowing by > now. Do you want another KKKlinton or Barry Hussein God Damn America > blocking it for ANOTHER decade? What about when Bush was in the White Hosue and the Republicans controlled the House and Senate? They had the ability to get things passed, but didn't. Jeff In message news:fsKZj.42$QW.22@trndny04, Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> burned some brain cells writing: >>> it >>> would take several years to develop an oil field. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > They had the ability to get things passed, but didn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy The repeated phrase is "Democrat filibuster". > The enviro-extremists won't allow access to it. Kill them. Now. >> The enviro-extremists won't allow access to it. > >Kill them. Now. Not a bad plan. Nuke all of em.... SignatureScott in Florida > "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <N0one184@N0Where.com> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > The enviro-extremists won't allow access to it. Don't let JSB hear you say that. Don't you know there aren't any hindrances to drilling our own oil? On Fri, 23 May 2008 13:34:33 GMT, $)Chachiroku +O+A+m+/ <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote: >> "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <N0one184@N0Where.com> wrote : >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Don't let JSB hear you say that. Don't you know there aren't any >hindrances to drilling our own oil? Just the 'god damned democratic party'....that's all..... SignatureScott in Florida On Sun, 25 May 2008 04:29:01 -0400, Scott in Florida wrote: >>Don't let JSB hear you say that. Don't you know there aren't any >>hindrances to drilling our own oil? > > Just the 'god damned democratic party'....that's all..... And Greenpeace...PITA...Friends of the Earth.... Scott in Florida wrote: > On Fri, 23 May 2008 13:34:33 GMT, $)Chachiroku +O+A+m+/ > <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote: > > Don't let JSB hear you say that. Don't you know there aren't any > > hindrances to drilling our own oil? > > Just the 'god damned democratic party'....that's all..... You should talk. Didn't you once approach Soviet agents and try to give them some US Navy communications secrets? > Scott in Florida wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You should talk. Didn't you once approach Soviet agents and try to give > them some US Navy communications secrets? I wouldn't even say that in jest.... http://www.israelnewsagency.com/jonathanpollardisrael6490428.html >> Actually, I think $200 is conservative. And it won't come back down. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > change to other sources of energy. There is enough oil in the gulf, alone, > to take care of our needs as we turn the other page. Yet most of the oil and the oil market is outside the US. Even with the addition of the gulf oil, there won't be enough oil to affect the price of oil that much. Of course, it will help the national deficit. Jeff >>> Actually, I think $200 is conservative. And it won't come back down. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Jeff The old thought was "save it for when its needed..." or "eat whats on their plate before you eat whats on yours." I think the time has come to eat whats on ours. >>>> Actually, I think $200 is conservative. And it won't come back down. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > plate before you eat whats on yours." I think the time has come to eat whats > on ours. That's not on our plate. It is under ground. what about global warming? Jeff > That's not on our plate. It is under ground. what about global warming? > > Jeff What's under ground under our land is in our basket. ;-) I believe global warming is real. However, the reality is that we have to use gasoline while we continually move to cleaner resources. Therefore there is nothing wrong with using our resources during that transition. We are making great strides that are leading us to cleaner sources of energy without the commie laden kyoto protocol. Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote : >>>>> Actually, I think $200 is conservative. And it won't come back >>>>> down. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > That's not on our plate. It is under ground. what about global > warming? scam. > Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > scam. Gee, I think I like this woman! ;) I have posted *plenty* of links refuting GW, but the AlGore kool-aid drinkers refuse to read it. Now it's said the Earth may be entering a cooling period. Hey, what a surprise!!! >> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote : >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Now it's said the Earth may be entering a cooling period. Hey, what a > surprise!!! Don't hold your breath waiting for one of them to acknowledge that 1939 was the coldest year on recent record vs. 2005 that they keep citing before NASA threw that into a cocked hat by correcting their previously erroneous data. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') =?iso-2022-kr?q?hachiroku_=0E+O+A+m+/=0F?= <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote : >> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote : >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I have posted *plenty* of links refuting GW, but the AlGore kool-aid > drinkers refuse to read it. Gore and his cronies are profiting from the GW scam. > Now it's said the Earth may be entering a cooling period. Hey, what a > surprise!!! Yes. >> I have posted *plenty* of links refuting GW, but the AlGore kool-aid >> drinkers refuse to read it. > > Gore and his cronies are profiting from the GW scam. Glenn Beck had a story on his radio program last week and his TV show yesterday about a woman who was nominated for the Peace Prize the same time as AlGore. She had rescued 2500 Jewish children from the Nazis, was captured, tortured, and released when the war was over. She dug up the list she had buried in her yard and reunited the children that still had living parents, and found families for the others. AlGore beat her out with his slide show. hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote : >>> I have posted *plenty* of links refuting GW, but the AlGore >>> kool-aid drinkers refuse to read it. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > children that still had living parents, and found families for the > others. AlGore beat her out with his slide show. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353844,00.html And even if GW WAS true, they estimate that the oceans would rise .1" per hear for the next century, causing a total of about a 10" ocean level rise. Whoa! Scary stuff! Oh wait, isn't that usually called "high tide"? > hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Oh wait, isn't that usually called "high tide"? LOL! I have gotten into heated debates here, because I studied Geology for 6 years between HS and college, and one of the things you learn is, the Earth goes through phases of heating and cooling, 10-15,000 years apart. It's been 10,000 years since the last Ice Age. If we are entering a pre-Ice Age condition, WTF are we going to do for heat? =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote : >> hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote : >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > If we are entering a pre-Ice Age condition, WTF are we going to do > for heat? Why even worry about it? The time frames are so vast that we won't even be around that long personally. People will deal with it as they have to. “There is enough nuclear fuel to last far longer than man will inhabit the earth.” - Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden, author of The Energy Advocate >> LOL! >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > People will deal with it as they have to. Because I think we have already hit the 'apogee' of the temperature rise and it's all downhill from here. >=?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno@ae86.GTS> >wrote : [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >the earth. - Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden, author of >The Energy Advocate ....and when we perfect fusion reactors the energy produced will be limitless. SignatureScott in Florida > On Fri, 23 May 2008 23:13:42 -0500, Sarah Houston > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Tell us what you know about fusion energy production, you know, temperatures, containment vessels, etc. >> ....and when we perfect fusion reactors the energy produced will be >> limitless. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Tell us what you know about fusion energy production, you know, > temperatures, containment vessels, etc. I'm sure if he were a nuclear engineer, he would. However, even a layman that has read up on fusion knows what Scott said is correct. Shoot, watch the History Channel once in a while, will 'ya? > >> ....and when we perfect fusion reactors the energy produced will be > >> limitless. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Shoot, watch the History Channel once in a while, will 'ya? What are his qualifications beyond being a toothless sot and a drain on federal funds. >> I'm sure if he were a nuclear engineer, he would. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What are his qualifications beyond being a toothless sot and a drain on > federal funds. All in all, about the same as yours. >>> I'm sure if he were a nuclear engineer, he would. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > All in all, about the same as yours. I think not. At least Scott served his country. God only knows what Ed Syphilis has done. He sounds like the typical Leftwingnut most of the time. Charles the Curmudgeon Slightly to the right of Ronald Reagan >>>> I'm sure if he were a nuclear engineer, he would. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Charles the Curmudgeon > Slightly to the right of Ronald Reagan Serving in the military does not automatically grant someone with intelligence, or any special privileges in terms of being able to comment on the affairs of the nation. >>>>> I'm sure if he were a nuclear engineer, he would. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >intelligence, or any special privileges in terms of being able to comment on >the affairs of the nation. It most certainly does. We served. You did not. Couldn't you qualify? SignatureScott in Florida >>>>>> I'm sure if he were a nuclear engineer, he would. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > It most certainly does. How? Do you get fitted with a special kind of brain when you put on a uniform? Of course not. > We served. You have some nerve saying "we". You learned to field strip a Smith-Corona. > You did not. > > Couldn't you qualify? A real warrior and his brother, a Navy chaplain, told me it wasn't a good idea at that particular moment in history. <...> > How? Do you get fitted with a special kind of brain when you put on a > uniform? Of course not. But there is a lot of training and indoctrination that goes with the uniform. The military lifestyle has affected a lot of people, both for good and ill. And think Senator McCain and President Carter are two people whose lives have been shaped by the military. There was a book by a Navy pilot, Shane Osborn, whose job was to fly an electronic propeller-driven spyplane near China on April Fool's Day, 2001. A Chinese J-8 airplane hit the wing of the aircraft. The aircraft was forced to make an emergency landing on a Chinese island. The captain of the plane and his crew were taken captive by the enemy. Reading this book (_Born_to_Fly:_The_Untold_Story_of_the_Downed_American_Reconnaissance_Plane_) gives and idea of the Navy way of doing things. >> We served. > > You have some nerve saying "we". You learned to field strip a Smith-Corona. Actually, that was my dad's job during WWII (and anyone else's who could type). He was drafted in April, 1945. He was temporarily reassigned to Fort Wheeler, where his job was to help process discharge papers for our troops, I think mostly in Europe. He never needed to go overseas himself. >> You did not. >> >> Couldn't you qualify? > > A real warrior and his brother, a Navy chaplain, told me it wasn't a good > idea at that particular moment in history. > <...> > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > He never needed to go overseas himself. I'll bet that like other real men, your dad never pretended he had a bigger dick because of his military service. And, I'll bet your dad didn't become sexually aroused every time he heard the words "nuke 'em". Now Sot, on the other hand..... >> <...> >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Now Sot, on the other hand..... This type of talk is disgusting and totally irrelevant. If you have to use this to attack another person, you are sad. >>> <...> >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > If you have to use this to attack another person, you are sad. You should read Sot's messages before commenting the way you just did. Have you ever seen the movie "Dr. Strangelove"? That's Sot. A sick man who gets thrills from discussing weaponry the way a baby gets a happy look when it craps in its diaper. >>>> <...> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > thrills from discussing weaponry the way a baby gets a happy look when it > craps in its diaper. You're not responsible for Sot's messages. You are responsible for your messages. >>>>> <...> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > You're not responsible for Sot's messages. You are responsible for your > messages. You're weird. Someone compliments your father (and indirectly, you), and you whine about it. > >>>>> <...> > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > You're weird. Someone compliments your father (and indirectly, you), and you > whine about it. I'm sure his father wouldn't have appreciated the totally irrelevant remark that you made about another poster either. -- > >>> <...> > >>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > thrills from discussing weaponry the way a baby gets a happy look when it > craps in its diaper. Which character in that movie were you referring to joe? -- > >> <...> > >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > If you have to use this to attack another person, you are sad. When talking with joe you have to learn to expect this from him or stop altogether communicating with him, in other words ignore, he hates being ignored. -- > <...> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > of the plane and his crew were taken captive by the enemy. Reading this > book Did the Chinese gut the plane of it's electronic equipment and reverse engineer it? What did he have to say about that? > (_Born_to_Fly:_The_Untold_Story_of_the_Downed_American_Reconnaissance_Plane_) > gives and idea of the Navy way of doing things. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > A real warrior and his brother, a Navy chaplain, told me it wasn't a good > > idea at that particular moment in history. -- >> Couldn't you qualify? > >A real warrior and his brother, a Navy chaplain, told me it wasn't a good >idea at that particular moment in history. Bullshit! We now know....you could not qualify... SignatureScott in Florida >>> Couldn't you qualify? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > We now know....you could not qualify... Actually, that's partially true. I tried for Air Force. I wanted to fly crazy aircraft, just like the real warrior I mentioned earlier. My eyesight disqualified me. The discussion with the real warrior and the chaplain came a bit later. >>>> Couldn't you qualify? >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >disqualified me. The discussion with the real warrior and the chaplain came >a bit later. Like I said...you could not qualify..... Those of us that can....do Those of us that can't....spend our lives making arses out of ourselves.... SignatureScott in Florida >> I think not. At least Scott served his country. God only knows what >> Ed Syphilis has done. He sounds like the typical Leftwingnut most of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > intelligence, or any special privileges in terms of being able to > comment on the affairs of the nation. So, where do yours come from? Mine come from living here, and having the *RIGHT* to criticize government. Plenty of people who live in my area also do the same. Unfortunately, they're k00ks... >>> I think not. At least Scott served his country. God only knows what >>> Ed Syphilis has done. He sounds like the typical Leftwingnut most of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Plenty of people who live in my area also do the same. Unfortunately, > they're k00ks... Do ONLY comment in newsgroups, where it achieves nothing. You bitch constantly about politics, but you're too much of an infant to actually send your complaints to your elected barnacles. That is pathetic. >> So, where do yours come from? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > That is pathetic. See my response to your other post regarding this. Perhaps when we get someone in there that doesn't pander to the Left Wing so much, I'll take your dare. With these guys, one letter from a k00k equals 1,000 from people that make sense. >>> So, where do yours come from? >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > With these guys, one letter from a k00k equals 1,000 from people that > make sense. That's a bullshit excuse and you know it. You're a lazy sack of sh.t who cares nothing for his country. > >>> So, where do yours come from? > >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > That's a bullshit excuse and you know it. You're a lazy sack of sh.t who > cares nothing for his country. There joe twit goes again, making a remark for which he has nothing to back it up with. -- >> >>> So, where do yours come from? >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > There joe twit goes again, making a remark for which he has nothing to > back it up with. I have exactly what I need to back it up: Hach said he was a member of the "silent majority". That's his excuse for never communicating his opinions to his elected barnacles. He said that. You saw it. Ask him about it. >>> > See my response to your other post regarding this. >>> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > opinions to his elected barnacles. He said that. You saw it. Ask him about > it. one letter from a k00k equals 3000 letters from Conservatives to these guys. Olver was a State rep before being elected to Congress to take the place of Silio O. Conte. Richie Neal was the Mayor of Springfield, and I think the only reason he was elected to the Cogress was to get him the hell out of Springfield. Barney Frank is...well, Barney Frank. His reputation speakes for itself. Once these Bozos vacate, maybe we'll get Reps with *BRAINS*. > >>> > See my response to your other post regarding this. > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Haven't seen a Rep with *BRAINS* since they took over congress in Clinton's second term. The very few left the party. Republicans have shown themselves to be good lemmings and easy to cow. Why anyone would fear Dubya and Rove is beyond me. Rove couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag. Same with Dubya. They just get their "muscle" after you - detectives tapping phones and taking pictures of republicans in men's rooms offering blow jobs. Then the blackmail begins and the votes follow. >> one letter from a k00k equals 3000 letters from Conservatives to these >> guys. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > shown themselves to be good lemmings and easy to cow. Why anyone would > fear Dubya and Rove is beyond me. I think it's called <SHUDDER!> "party unity". Boy, I can't wait til 01/20... >>>> > See my response to your other post regarding this. >>>> > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Once these Bozos vacate, maybe we'll get Reps with *BRAINS*. Keep making those excuses. The country you get is the one you deserve. >>> Do ONLY comment in newsgroups, where it achieves nothing. You bitch >>> constantly about politics, but you're too much of an infant to actually [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > That's a bullshit excuse and you know it. You're a lazy sack of sh.t who > cares nothing for his country. WRONG! When we get someone is office that does more than pander to the k00ks, I'll start writing letters. You obviously don't know these guys, and didn't take a lot of time looking them up. Olver chained himself up with some PETA k00ks! A real bunch of winners here in Mass, for sure. >>>> Do ONLY comment in newsgroups, where it achieves nothing. You bitch >>>> constantly about politics, but you're too much of an infant to actually [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > A real bunch of winners here in Mass, for sure. I know all "those guys". You're a lazy sack of sh.t. "Those guys" do what they do because they think you're OK with it. Since you do nothing to inform them of your preferences, you must be OK with it. >> WRONG! When we get someone is office that does more than pander to the >> k00ks, I'll start writing letters. You obviously don't know these guys, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > they do because they think you're OK with it. Since you do nothing to > inform them of your preferences, you must be OK with it. I'm waiting till some people with brains show up to vote them out. However, Mass is suffering a 'brain drain', with a lot of people with Bachelor's degrees or higher leaving the state. >>> WRONG! When we get someone is office that does more than pander to the >>> k00ks, I'll start writing letters. You obviously don't know these guys, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > However, Mass is suffering a 'brain drain', with a lot of people with > Bachelor's degrees or higher leaving the state. cyclical redundancy.... >>> I know all "those guys". You're a lazy sack of sh.t. "Those guys" do >>> what [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> > cyclical redundancy.... I guess you could call it that...they come here, go to an excellent college, get a degree, and then leave. Democrats bleeding the high-tech companies that were here bone dry had a lot to do with that... >>>> I'm sure if he were a nuclear engineer, he would. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Charles the Curmudgeon > Slightly to the right of Ronald Reagan I meant in terms of his qualifications to post to this group. >> On Fri, 23 May 2008 23:13:42 -0500, Sarah Houston >> [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] >Tell us what you know about fusion energy production, you know, >temperatures, containment vessels, etc. Why? It how the sun produces energy and looks very promising as a power source on earth. https://lasers.llnl.gov/ http://www.iter.org/a/index_nav_2.htm SignatureScott in Florida Scott in Florida <MoveOn@outa.here> wrote : >>“There is enough nuclear fuel to last far longer than man will >>inhabit the earth.” - Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden, >>author of The Energy Advocate > > ....and when we perfect fusion reactors the energy produced will be > limitless. http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/about_finance.html Each module will cost $25 to $30 million. A couple of delivery dates starting in 2013 are available, Hyperion Fast Facts Small -1.5 meters across, approx size of a residential "hot tub" Produces 70 MWt or 25 MWe, enough to power 20,000 average American homes or the equivalent Buried underground out of sight and harm's way Transportable by train, ship, truck Sealed module, never opened on site Enough power for 5+ years After 5 years, removed & refueled at original factory Uniquely safe, self-moderating using a natural chemical reaction discovered 50 years ago No mechanical parts in the core to malfunction Water not used as coolant; cannot go "supercritical" or get too hot No greenhouse gases or global warming emissions Think: Large Battery! Scott in Florida wrote: > ....and when we perfect fusion reactors the energy produced will be > limitless. It's predicted that practical fusion reactors will be developed in 50 years. However that prediction has been made every year for the past 50+ years. So in the mean time, don't bet on anything but hydrocarbons, fission, hydro, wind, and solar, mostly the first three. >Scott in Florida wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >50+ years. So in the mean time, don't bet on anything but >hydrocarbons, fission, hydro, wind, and solar, mostly the first three. There is a ton of money to be made with fusion. Money will drive the technology. Always has, always will. SignatureScott in Florida > If we are entering a pre-Ice Age condition, WTF are we going to do for > heat? Induce global warming, as we've been doing. BTW almost none of the experts says we're entering a cooling period. RealClimate.com. >> If we are entering a pre-Ice Age condition, WTF are we going to do for >> heat? > > Induce global warming, as we've been doing. I love it when people think people have more power then the Universe. When the cooling starts, 'Global Warming' will be a fart in the wind. > BTW almost none of the experts says we're entering a cooling period. AlGore's experts, maybe. > Actually, I think $200 is conservative. And it won't come back down. So why did oil drop to $10 in late 1998 or early 1999? Demand from China was increasing greatly back then, too. > The price of oil is expected to rise above $200 per barrel. That will > push the price of gasoline above $6 / gallon. The bottom line is that > the supply of crude oil is limited and not increasing as fast as the demand. > > Jeff I think you'll see the price of crude drop soon. Just my opinion of course. It will be up and down over the next dozen or two dozen years till the fact finally comes home that there is only so much oil in mother earth, then shxx will hit the fan. I hope we have a plan B in place by then. -- >> The price of oil is expected to rise above $200 per barrel. That will >> push the price of gasoline above $6 / gallon. The bottom line is that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I think you'll see the price of crude drop soon. Why? IS the supply going to increase? Saudi Arabia is already maxed out. And the other supplies are close to maxing out. But demand is growing in countries like India and China. > Just my opinion of > course. I mean, what is your opinion based on? > It will be up and down over the next dozen or two dozen years > till the fact finally comes home that there is only so much oil in > mother earth, then shxx will hit the fan. Shxx? I think it is called sh.t. (it begins with 's' and ends in 't' It comes out of and it comes out me I know what you're thinking, but lets not call it that Let's be scientific and call it scat) I think the sh.t is already hitting the fan. Unfortunately, the US is not very fuel-efficient. Jeff I hope we have a plan B in > place by then. It's probably a good thing. Whenever I'm driving to and from sales calls during the day the streets in S. Florida are full of cars. Where are all these people going, who's minding the store and doesn't anyone work.. are often my thoughts. Maybe people will finally realize the worthlessness of their SUV's and downsize once and for all. All you see are SUV's with one person in them. When you ask SUV owners why they own them, they say 'how else will I cart all my kids and the dog around'... Also it is forcing auto maufactureres into a miles per gallon arms race. While sitting in my chiropracter's office recently I read an article about a 2015 model volvo that will get 160 miles per gallon. They are just fine tuning the software and other details. The electric motors are at the wheels and it's a hybrid with no transmission. The theory is the transmission is responsable for up to 20% loss of energy...I just think technology will rise above. In the mean time, while the arms race is not so quietly underway, one would be foolish to buy a new vehicle in the next 30 months or so.. > It's probably a good thing. Whenever I'm driving to and from sales calls > during the day the streets in S. Florida are full of cars. Where are all > these people going, who's minding the store and doesn't anyone work.. > are often my thoughts. Many people in S. Florida are retirees. With that said, people drive for jobs all of the time. People have to go to lunch meetings, meetings, etc. > ...Whenever I'm driving to and from sales calls > during the day the streets in S. Florida are full of cars. Where are all > these people going, who's minding the store and doesn't anyone work.. > are often my thoughts. Maybe they're all looking at you thinking the same baseless thought. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') Maybe they're all looking at you thinking the same baseless thought. Bill Putney ================ Or they could be looking for that hard to find and much sought after real estate under the shadow of a cell phone tower so they could soak up some waves...? CP > Maybe they're all looking at you thinking the same baseless thought. > Bill Putney [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > some waves...? > CP Hah hah! That too. :) Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > Maybe they're all looking at you thinking the same baseless thought. > Bill Putney [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > some waves...? > CP What are you talking about? If you left relevant parts of the previous post in, we could understand what you are replying to. Jeff >>> The price of oil is expected to rise above $200 per barrel. That will >>> push the price of gasoline above $6 / gallon. The bottom line is that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And the other supplies are close to maxing out. But demand is growing in > countries like India and China. China and India are going to learn the hardway. We have a chance to be prepared when they are not... Bacteria eventually die because they have a natural instinct to maximize until there is nothing left to feed on. I hope we are not as small as bacteria. >>>> The price of oil is expected to rise above $200 per barrel. That will >>>> push the price of gasoline above $6 / gallon. The bottom line is that [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > until there is nothing left to feed on. I hope we are not as small as > bacteria. Basically Americans are energy hogs. Can't blame us, energy was cheap and there wasn't all that much of an incentive to conserve. Times are changing and like it or not we will change. Six dollar gasoline and Carribu dog food at Wal-mart before it's all over. Moe <BubbleleLand@Fat.City> wrote : >>>>> The price of oil is expected to rise above $200 per barrel. That >>>>> will push the price of gasoline above $6 / gallon. The bottom [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Times are changing and like it or not we will change. Six dollar > gasoline and Carribu dog food at Wal-mart before it's all over. One of the experts was saying we could see $15-$20 a gallon. > One of the experts was saying we could see $15-$20 a gallon. What's that expert's track record? I mean actual, not self- proclaimed, and over the long term (10-20+ years)? Predictions, except those based directly on demographic trends or almost purely on science, haven't been trustworthy. >> One of the experts was saying we could see $15-$20 a gallon. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Predictions, except those based directly on demographic trends or > almost purely on science, haven't been trustworthy. Actually, anything's possible with the price of oil, since the price is disconnected from reality. I wonder how many people realize that speculators can make money when certain investments go DOWN as well as UP. >>> One of the experts was saying we could see $15-$20 a gallon. >> What's that expert's track record? I mean actual, not self- [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > disconnected from reality. I wonder how many people realize that speculators > can make money when certain investments go DOWN as well as UP.\\ And what is wrong with that? >>>> One of the experts was saying we could see $15-$20 a gallon. >>> What's that expert's track record? I mean actual, not self- [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > And what is wrong with that? Nothing, as long as it doesn't affect anyone who doesn't want to be part of the game. You know that. Do I have to explain it again? >>>>> One of the experts was saying we could see $15-$20 a gallon. >>>> What's that expert's track record? I mean actual, not self- [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Nothing, as long as it doesn't affect anyone who doesn't want to be part of > the game. You know that. Do I have to explain it again? You didn't explain it the first time. Jeff >>>>>> One of the experts was saying we could see $15-$20 a gallon. >>>>> What's that expert's track record? I mean actual, not self- [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Jeff Sure I did. But, like many people, you think hedge funds are somehow an example of the "free enterprise system" that's entitled to affect oil prices. That is obviously nonsense. There's a big difference between that, and your right to start any legal business you like. >>>>>>> One of the experts was saying we could see $15-$20 a gallon. >>>>>> What's that expert's track record? I mean actual, not self- [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > example of the "free enterprise system" that's entitled to affect oil > prices. That is obviously nonsense. Why is it nonsense? The hedge funds also help create the market system that gets capital to finance purchases of things like oil rigs and tankers. Please provide that the evidence that the hedge funds are actually markedly affecting the price of oil and provide a better alternative. > There's a big difference between that, > and your right to start any legal business you like. While I don't like the capital markets in general, without the capital markets we would be all be farming for our own food. >>>>>> Actually, anything's possible with the price of oil, since the price >>>>>> is disconnected from reality. I wonder how many people realize that [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > While I don't like the capital markets in general, without the capital > markets we would be all be farming for our own food. In another message, I asked you if you thought the effect of hedge funds on oil prices was ZERO. You never answered the question. Now, we can't continue without that answer. Is their effect ZERO? If you say NO, please provide your estimate of their effect. >>>>>>> Actually, anything's possible with the price of oil, since the price >>>>>>> is disconnected from reality. I wonder how many people realize that [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > If you say NO, please provide your estimate of their effect. I know of no data that provides for an accurate estimate. The oil companies and oil producing nations say the speculators are causing oil to go up, but I don't know of any independent analysis that supports this. Jeff >>>>>>>> Actually, anything's possible with the price of oil, since the >>>>>>>> price is disconnected from reality. I wonder how many people [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Jeff Then the discussion is over. >>>>> The price of oil is expected to rise above $200 per barrel. That will >>>>> push the price of gasoline above $6 / gallon. The bottom line is that [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > changing and like it or not we will change. Six dollar gasoline and > Carribu dog food at Wal-mart before it's all over. It's been 30 years since the last oil 'crisis' and the richest, most technologically advance and, for the time being, most powerful nation on Earth is having it's balls squeezed by Arabs. Thirty years squandered. > It's been 30 years since the last oil 'crisis' and the richest, most > technologically advance and, for the time being, most powerful nation on > Earth is having it's balls squeezed by Arabs. > > Thirty years squandered. Because US energy policy was changed almost 30 years ago, and the free market has spoken. >> It's been 30 years since the last oil 'crisis' and the richest, most >> technologically advance and, for the time being, most powerful nation on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Because US energy policy was changed almost 30 years ago, and the free > market has spoken. No, because everyone agreed to the status quo and did nothing. Oil price mocks fuel realities By F William Engdahl As business and consumers consider the implications for them of crude oil selling at US$130-plus per barrel, they should bear in mind that, at a conservative calculation, at least 60% of that price comes from unregulated futures speculation by hedge funds, banks and financial groups using the London ICE Futures and New York Nymex futures exchanges and uncontrolled inter-bank or over-the-counter trading to avoid scrutiny (see Speculators knock OPEC off oil-price perch, Asia Times Online, May 6, 2008). US margin rules of the government's Commodity Futures Trading Commission allow speculators to buy a crude oil futures contract on the Nymex by paying only 6% of the value of the contract. At the present price of around $130 per barrel, that means a futures trader only has to put up about $8 for every barrel. He borrows the other $120. This extreme "leverage" of 16 to one helps drive prices to wildly unrealistic levels and offset bank losses in subprime and other disasters at the expense of the overall population. The hoax of "peak oil" - namely the argument that oil production has hit the point where more than half all reserves have been used and the world is on the downslope of oil at cheap price and abundant quantity - has enabled this costly fraud to continue since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, with the help of key banks, oil traders and big oil majors. Washington is trying to shift blame, as always, to Arab oil producers and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). The problem is not a lack of crude oil supply. In fact, the world is in over-supply now. Yet the price climbs relentlessly higher. Why? The answer lies in what are clearly deliberate US government policies that permit the unbridled oil price manipulations. World oil demand flat, prices boom The chief market strategist for one of the world's leading oil industry banks, David Kelly, of JP Morgan Funds, recently admitted something telling to the Washington Post: "One of the things I think is very important to realize is that the growth in the world oil consumption is not that strong." One of the stories used to support the oil futures speculators is the allegation that China's demand for imported oil is exploding out of control, driving shortages in the supply-demand equilibrium. Yet the facts do not support the China demand thesis. The US government's Energy Information Administration (EIA) concluded in its most recent monthly Short Term Energy Outlook report that US oil demand is expected to decline by 190,000 barrels per day (b/d) this year. That is mainly owing to the deepening economic recession. Chinese consumption, the EIA says, far from exploding, is expected to increase this year by only 400,000 barrels a day. That is hardly the "surging oil demand" blamed on China in the media. Last year, China imported 3.2 million barrels per day, and its estimated usage was around 7 million b/d total. The US, by contrast, consumes around 20.7 million b/d. That means the key oil-consuming nation, the US, is experiencing a significant drop in demand. China, which consumes only a third of the oil the US does, will see a minor rise in import demand compared with the total daily world oil output of some 84 million barrels, less than half of one percent of total demand. OPEC has its 2008 global oil demand growth forecast unchanged at 1.2 million barrels per day (mm bpd), as slowing economic growth in the industrialized world is offset by slightly growing consumption in developing nations. OPEC predicts that global oil demand in 2008 will average 87 million bpd, largely unchanged from its previous estimate. Demand from China, the Middle East, India and Latin America is forecast to be stronger, but the European Union and North American demand will be lower. So the world's largest oil consumer faces a sharp decline in consumption, a decline that will worsen as the housing and related economic effects of the US securitization crisis in finance de-leverages. The price in normal open or transparent markets should presumably be falling not rising. No supply crisis justifies the way the world's oil is being priced today. Big new oil fields coming online Not only is there no supply crisis to justify such a price bubble. There are several giant new oil fields due to begin production over the course of 2008 to further add to supply. The world's single-largest oil producer, Saudi Arabia, is finalizing plans to boost drilling activity by a third and increase investments by 40%. Saudi Aramco's plan, which runs from 2009 to 2013, is expected to be approved by the company's board and the Oil Ministry this month. The kingdom is in the midst of a $50 billion oil production expansion plan to meet growing demand in Asia and other emerging markets and is expected to boost its pumping capacity to a total of 12.5 mm bpd by next year, about 11% up from the present capacity of 11.3 mm bpd. In April this year, Saudi Arabia's Khursaniyah oilfield began pumping and will soon add another 500,000 bpd to world oil supply of high grade Arabian light crude. In addition, the country's Khurais oilfield development, the largest of Saudi Aramco's projects, will boost the production capacity of Saudi oilfields from 11.3 million bpd to 12.5 million bpd by 2009. Khurais is planned to add another 1.2 million bpd of high-quality Arabian light crude to Saudi Arabia's export capacity. Brazil's Petrobras is in the early phase of exploiting newly confirmed oil reserves offshore in its Tupi field that could be as great or greater than the North Sea. Petrobras says the new ultra-deep Tupi field could hold as much as 8 billion barrels of recoverable light crude. When online in a few years it is expected to put Brazil among the world's "top 10" oil producers, between Nigeria and those of Venezuela. In the US, aside from rumors that the big oil companies have been deliberately sitting on vast new reserves in Alaska for fear that the prices of recent years would plunge on over-supply, the US Geological Survey (USGS)recently issued a report that confirmed major new oil reserves in an area called the Bakken, which stretches across North Dakota, Montana and south-eastern Saskatchewan. The USGS estimates up to 3.65 billion barrels of oil in the Bakken. These are just several confirmations of large new oil reserves to be exploited. Iraq, where the Anglo-American Big Four oil majors are salivating to get their hands on unexplored fields, is believed to hold oil reserves second only to Saudi Arabia while much of the world has yet to be explored for oil. At prices above $60 a barrel huge new potentials become economic. The major problem faced by Big Oil is not finding replacement oil but keeping the lid on world oil finds in order to maintain present exorbitant prices. Here they have some help from Wall Street banks and the two major oil trade exchanges - Nymex and London-Atlanta's ICE and ICE Futures. Then why do prices still rise? There is growing evidence that the recent speculative bubble in oil, which has gone asymptotic since January, is about to pop. Late last month, in Dallas, Texas, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists held its annual conference, with major oil executives and geologists present. According to one participant, knowledgeable oil industry chief executives reached the consensus that "oil prices will likely soon drop dramatically and the long-term price increases will be in natural gas". Just a few days earlier, Lehman Brothers, a Wall Street investment bank, had said that the current oil price bubble was coming to an end. Michael Waldron, the bank's chief oil strategist, was quoted in Britain's Daily Telegraph on April 24 saying, "Oil supply is outpacing demand growth. Inventories have been building since the beginning of the year." In the US, stockpiles of oil climbed by almost 12 million barrels in April according to the May 7 EIA monthly report on inventory, up by nearly 33 million barrels since January. At the same time, MasterCard's May 7 US gasoline report showed that gas demand has fallen by 5.8%. And refiners are reducing their refining rates dramatically to adjust to the falling gasoline demand. They are now running at 85% of capacity, down from 89% a year ago, in a season when production is normally 95%. The refiners today are clearly trying to draw down gasoline inventories to bid gasoline prices up. "It's the economy, stupid," to paraphrase Bill Clinton's infamous 1992 election quip to daddy Bush. It's called economic recession. The May 8 report from Oil Movements, a British company that tracks oil shipments worldwide, shows that oil in transit on the high seas is also quite strong. Almost every category of shipment is running higher than it was a year ago. The report notes that, "In the West, a big share of any oil stock building done this year has happened offshore, out of sight." Some industry insiders say the global oil industry from the activities and stocks of the Big Four to the true state of tanker and storage and liftings, is the most secretive industry in the world with the possible exception of the narcotics trade. Goldman Sachs again in the middle The oil price today, unlike 20 years ago, is determined behind closed doors in the trading rooms of giant financial institutions like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank or UBS. The key exchange in the game is the London ICE Futures Exchange (formerly the International Petroleum Exchange). ICE Futures is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Atlanta Georgia International Commodities Exchange. ICE in Atlanta was founded in part by Goldman Sachs, which also happens to run the world's most widely used commodity price index, the GSCI, which is over-weighted to oil prices. As I noted in my earlier article, ICE was the focus of a recent congressional investigation. It was named both in the Senate's Permanent Sub-committee on Investigations' June 27, 2006, Staff Report and in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce's hearing in December 2007, which looked into unregulated trading in energy futures. Both studies concluded that the energy price climb to $128 and beyond is driven by billions of dollars' worth of oil and natural gas futures contracts being placed on the ICE. Through a convenient regulation exception granted by the George W Bush administration in January 2006, the ICE Futures trading of US energy futures is not regulated by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), even though the ICE Futures US oil contracts are traded in ICE affiliates in the US. And at Enron's request, the CFTC exempted the over-the-counter oil futures trades in 2000. So it is no surprise to see in a May 6 report from Reuters that Goldman Sachs announces oil could in fact be on the verge of another "super spike", possibly taking oil as high as $200 a barrel within the next six to 24 months. That headline, "$200 a barrel!" became the major news story on oil for the next two days. How many gullible lemmings followed behind with their money bets? Arjun Murti, Goldman Sachs' energy strategist, blamed what he called "blistering" (sic) demand from China and the Middle East, combined with his assertion that the Middle East is nearing its maximum ability to produce more oil. "Peak oil" mythology again helps Wall Street. The degree of unfounded hype reminds one of the self-serving Wall Street hype in 1999-2000 around dot.com stocks or Enron. In 2001, just before the dot.com crash in the NASDAQ, some Wall Street firms were pushing the sale to the gullible public of stocks that their companies were quietly dumping. Or they were pushing dubious stocks for companies where their affiliated banks had a financial interest. In short, as later came out in Congressional investigations, companies with a vested interest in a certain financial outcome used the media to line their pockets and that of their companies, leaving the public investor holding the bag. It would be interesting for Congress to subpoena the records of the futures positions of Goldman Sachs and a handful of other major energy futures players to see if they are invested to gain from a further rise in oil to $200, not forgetting that 16 to one leverage with which a hedge fund or bank can buy oil futures. We are hit with an endless series of plausible arguments for the high price of oil: a "terrorism risk premium", a "blistering" rise in demand of China and India; unrest in the Nigerian oil region; oil pipelines' blown up in Iraq; possible war with Iran ... And above all the hype about peak oil. Oil speculator T Boone Pickens has reportedly raked in a huge profit on oil futures and argues, conveniently, that the world is on the cusp of "peak oil". So does the Houston investment banker and friend of Vice President Dick Cheney, Matt Simmons. As noted in the June 2006 US Senate report, The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices, "There's a few hedge fund managers out there who are masters at knowing how to exploit the peak oil theories and hot buttons of supply and demand, and by making bold predictions of shocking price advancements to come they only add more fuel to the bullish fire in a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy." Will a Democratic Congress act to change the carefully crafted opaque oil futures markets in an election year and risk bursting the bubble? On May 12, the House Energy and Commerce Committee stated it will look at this issue in June. F William Engdahl is author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order (PlutoPress), and Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation (Global Research, available at www.globalresearch.ca). He may be reached at info@engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net > Oil price mocks fuel realities > By F William Engdahl [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > World oil demand flat, prices boom The world oil demand is expected to grow about 1.3% this year. Non-OPEC supply is expected to rise by 0.6 million barrels per day this year, while, except for Saudi Arabia, OPEC is pumping out as much oil as it can. Saudi Arabia has an additional 1.9 million barrels per day capacity, which is not much considering that the total oil demand is around 85 million barrels per day and Iraq and Nigeria have rather unstable political environments at the moment. http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo Jeff > >> The price of oil is expected to rise above $200 per barrel. That will > >> push the price of gasoline above $6 / gallon. The bottom line is that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And the other supplies are close to maxing out. But demand is growing in > countries like India and China. Because we are still well supplied at the moment Remember back in the carter years and the spot gas shortages, I was caught up in it back in Chicago on a Friday night trying to get home. I'd rather have high gas prices than shortages and rationing. Long lines at the pump for 2 gallons. > > Just my opinion of > > course. > > I mean, what is your opinion based on? Opinion, sheeezz. > > It will be up and down over the next dozen or two dozen years > > till the fact finally comes home that there is only so much oil in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I think the sh.t is already hitting the fan. You ain't seen nuttin yet. When we start fighting over the remaining oil supply that's when shxx hits fan. We're not there yet and quite a few years off. > Unfortunately, the US is not very fuel-efficient. Yea, well we'll get there, eventually. For that matter neither is the rest of the world. > Jeff > > I hope we have a plan B in > > place by then. -- > The bottom line is that > the supply of crude oil is limited... ... by environmentalist a.sholes and their socialist lapdogs in Congress. >> The bottom line is that >> the supply of crude oil is limited... > > ... by environmentalist a.sholes and their socialist lapdogs in Congress. No, by the fact that most of the crude oil in the world is outside the US, and that there is a limited amount of it that can easily be pumped out while the demand keeps rising. Jeff >>> The bottom line is that >>> the supply of crude oil is limited... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Jeff Current prices make it a lot easier to pump oil in the US. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.