0
   

Oil at $87 and rising - still no alternative energy

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 01:25 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Just how much would the price of oil drop? A few bucks? Worthless savings.

Stupid question, cyclops, I don't know, but one thing is certain, it would drop the price some, over what it would otherwise be in the future, and it would give us a slightly better energy picture in terms of producing more of our own energy, which helps us in many different ways.

Quote:
What you posit is akin to the recent housing crisis. Your situation only works if the amount of oil being drilled CONSTANTLY increases and the supply never diminishes. This is not going to happen. It's just setting us up for a crash in the future.

Cycloptichorn

My post just recognizes reality, which points out the intelligence of self sufficiency and that there is no free lunch. Arrogance expects to do nothing and still be able to live comfortably, and it won't happen. I don't see the logic of your comparison to housing, but one thing is sure, if you made it against the law to build new houses, what do you suppose would happen to home prices and housing availability. You must be exremely dense, cyclops, when it comes to reality and the free market.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 01:30 pm
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Just how much would the price of oil drop? A few bucks? Worthless savings.

Stupid question, cyclops, I don't know, but one thing is certain, it would drop the price some, over what it would otherwise be in the future, and it would give us a slightly better energy picture in terms of producing more of our own energy, which helps us in many different ways.

Quote:
What you posit is akin to the recent housing crisis. Your situation only works if the amount of oil being drilled CONSTANTLY increases and the supply never diminishes. This is not going to happen. It's just setting us up for a crash in the future.

Cycloptichorn

My post just recognizes reality, which points out the intelligence of self sufficiency and that there is no free lunch. Arrogance expects to do nothing and still be able to live comfortably, and it won't happen. I don't see the logic of your comparison to housing, but one thing is sure, if you made it against the law to build new houses, what do you suppose would happen to home prices and housing availability. You must be exremely dense, cyclops, when it comes to reality and the free market.


Now, that's not called for, Okie.

The point is that you cannot simply plan on the supply increasing to match the demand. That ship is long sailed. The ONLY policy which makes sense is to transition to other sources as quickly as we can, while using the current supply to get us through the tough times. Building more oil infrastructure is a waste of money; as we transition increasingly away from it, it becomes wasted. That money spent on solar plants - or even nuclear, which you know I support - remains useful far beyond the time we can see oil going down in both supply and demand.

As I wrote in the post above, your political party has done everything it can to hold back progress in these areas WHILE giving big tax breaks and special deals to oil companies. It's disingenuous to claim that the Republicans are trying to do anything about the energy crisis other then profit off of it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 01:33 pm
(Just noticed heating fuel is up to $4.49 a gallon. I think Dick and Bush make a dime on every gallon.)
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 01:34 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why is it then that the Republican party NEVER pushes for more renewables, or solar, or for better hybrid cars, or any of the things you list, Okie? Your leaders work to strip money for those things out of the same bills they try and inject money FOR more oil drilling into.

The dichotomy has been put in place by obstructionists and oil-friendly Congressmen and Senators from YOUR party, not ours.

Cycloptichorn

Another false premise. Republicans are totally pushing anything and eveything that is economically and technically efficient. What we don't do is promote pie in the sky government research programs which tend to go down the wrong road. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that we have confidence in the free market to develop practical technologies and bring them to reality. Democrats believe it requires robbing private companies to run some government run boondoggle to develop something. I think recent history shows it has been private companies developing wind turbines, solar, hybrid cars, etc. Government research has aided the process at the margins, but the mainstream of progress lies in the very powerful market of private enterprise pushing things forward.

Government can encourage things with tax policies, etc., but even those tend to go off on the wrong tangent, witness ethanol. We just need to stay private enterprise friendly with our government policies. That is crucial to moving forward with alternated energies and the best energy mix.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 01:38 pm
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why is it then that the Republican party NEVER pushes for more renewables, or solar, or for better hybrid cars, or any of the things you list, Okie? Your leaders work to strip money for those things out of the same bills they try and inject money FOR more oil drilling into.

The dichotomy has been put in place by obstructionists and oil-friendly Congressmen and Senators from YOUR party, not ours.

Cycloptichorn

Another false premise. Republicans are totally pushing anything and eveything that is economically and technically efficient. What we don't do is promote pie in the sky government research programs which tend to go down the wrong road. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that we have confidence in the free market to develop practical technologies and bring them to reality. Democrats believe it requires robbing private companies to run some government run boondoggle to develop something. I think recent history shows it has been private companies developing wind turbines, solar, hybrid cars, etc. Government research has aided the process at the margins, but the mainstream of progress lies in the very powerful market of private enterprise pushing things forward.


The oil and gas industry has also pushed it's way forward into efficiency; but they have gotten BILLIONS of dollars of subsidies from the gov't in order to do so. I don't see you complaining about that, or your elected leaders; in fact, they are the ones who got their oil-company allies the subsidies.

The Republicans HAVE fought against subsidies for renewables and the research into making them more efficient. You think that solar energy is a pie in the sky technology? Just in the last few years there have been MAJOR increases in the technology which WOULD have come sooner with more money involved.

You're not being logical on this issue. You should admit that your party has favored the oil and gas industry for a long, long time, to the detriment of other technologies. And at least part of the reason you keep pushing for more and more and more gasoline and oil - despite the fact that it's a highly pollutive technology at pretty much every level - is because of the money that your party and its' supporters make off of it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 01:40 pm
You will have to present specific examples of subsidies to the oil companies, which pay alot of income tax by the way, and also provide specific evidence of where government has stymied solar. You need more than innuendo.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 01:47 pm
Start here.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/subsidizing-big-oil.html

http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/08/03/bush-administration-threatens-veto-of-house-clean-energy-bills/

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 02:42 pm
Hey Okie.
I pay lots of taxes. Do you think they would give me a subsidy. Docent have to be billions, a hundred thousand would make me happy as a clam!
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 03:52 pm

Propaganda websites. And I am expected to take their word for it because they said it , with no evidence? In your own words, provide evidence of lower taxes oil companies. I don't feel like doing your own research. You will need to do it. And don't throw everything up against the wall, hoping one thing will stick. Provide one good point, with evidence.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 04:05 pm
okie wrote:

Propaganda websites. And I am expected to take their word for it because they said it , with no evidence? In your own words, provide evidence of lower taxes oil companies. I don't feel like doing your own research. You will need to do it. And don't throw everything up against the wall, hoping one thing will stick. Provide one good point, with evidence.


I already did. The fact that you discount the evidence doesn't mean that it isn't evidence.

It isn't my responsibility to do **** for your satisfaction, Okie; try doing some research yourself. But, because you want me to hold your widdle hand, here's some more sites.

http://www.ilsr.org/carbo/costs/truecostes.html

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/4/14329/49036

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/03/opec_meeting.html

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 04:53 pm
okie wrote :

Quote:
We drill for oil, we build nuclear, we mine coal, we produce natural gas, we build wind turbines, develop solar, we build hybrid cars, fully electric cars, and we continue to research all the other ideas and technologies under development, but we don't scrap the primary and most efficient energy source intentionally now, which is oil. Basically, we allow the market to determine the most economical and efficient energy mix.


quite an ambitious agenda !
i wonder who'll be footing the bill for all that ? will it be okie through higher taxes and higher gas prices ... or the fairy godmother ?have you checked the U.S. debt load lately ?
i understand that lenders are a little skittish right now . apparently many investors are sitting on their cash and are unwilling to invest in an uncertain market .

repeating what okie said :

Quote:
Basically, we allow the market to determine the most economical and efficient energy mix.


i hope okie is ready to allow the market to arive at the right mix . i'm afraid that he might not like the price the market will set .
hbg
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 05:17 pm
where is the oil price going to go : up , down , sideways ?
here are two opposing points of view and you can decide which one you think has more validity .
those saying that the price will go down , talk of an "oil bubble" and that as in prvious "bubbles" it will burst and bring the price down sharply .
those saying that the price will go up , say that there is no "cheap" oil left , that costs of exploration are going up sharply and that the demand is increasing .
are you willing to bet one way or the other ?
(personally , i'm not the betting type . i'm content to sit back and wait for things to unfold - one way or the other .)
hbg


Quote:
MSNBC REPORT

Some see oil bubble; others see troubleThe fears of a supply cutoff aren't without merit. There is so little excess production capacity today that the loss of a major supplier could create a shortage of oil. That has led to worries that oil prices could jump even further. Last week, a Goldman Sachs analyst created a stir by advising clients that oil prices could reach $150 to $200 a barrel over the next six months to two years, though he said the outlook "remains a major uncertainty." (His official forecast: oil will sell for $108 at the end of this year and gradually rise to $120 in 2010.)

Many analysts see prices moving the other way. According to the consensus forecast tracked by Thomson Reuters, oil prices are expected to end this year around $91 a barrel, falling to $90 by the end of next year and $82 by the end of 2010.

Bubble proponents argue that if demand for oil continues to ease and supplies hold up, the speculative fever driving up prices could quickly evaporate, and prices could fall sharply.

It wouldn't be the first time prices have crashed. In 1986, oil prices began the year at $26 a barrel. By March, crude was selling for $10.25. In 1997, prices peaked in October at nearly $23 a barrel only to fall below $11 a little more than a year later.


But the forces that caused those oil "crashes" aren't evident today. The 1986 slide was the result of heavy overproduction by OPEC, when Saudi Arabia opened the spigots after fellow cartel members cheated on their quotas. The 1998 pullback also resulted from a huge oversupply after the Asian economy unexpectedly slowed sharply as a currency crisis swept through the region.

Today, the world's oil producers have little extra capacity, and the Asian economy is booming. Bubble skeptics say that while oil prices may be due for a pullback, the longer-term trend is clearly higher.


"When I hear bubble, I'm thinking of a technology bubble where we spike up and we just never come back to it again," said Chris Jarvis, an energy analyst at Caprock Risk Management. "I don't think that's the case. I think if anything you're talking about more of a short-term pullback. What is short term? I don't know, nine months to a year. But the trend higher is still intact. I would definitely not call it bubble."




"It's now twice as expensive to start a new oil field as it was three years ago," said Cambridge Energy Research Associates Chairman Daniel Yergin. "All of these commodity prices are interacting with each other."and here are some facts that are especially bad imo :

Despite big gains in efficiency after the surge in oil prices in the mid-1970s, the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. has remained pretty much flat since 1985. But overall mileage has fallen, as the share of lower-mileage light trucks and SUVs has risen from about 20 percent of the total fleet in 1980 to about half of all vehicles on the road today.

As suburbs have expanded, Americans are driving further to work, according to Federal Highway Administration surveys. In 1983, the average commute by car was 8.5 miles; by 2001 that had risen to 12.2 miles.


The good news is that those same surveys found that there's room for some conservation if gasoline prices do go through the roof. About a third of the vehicle-miles traveled in 2001 were work related: the rest were for family and personal business (35.4 percent) and social and recreation (24.4 percent).


© 2008 MSNBC Interactive
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24625005/

0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 06:02 pm
from a report by the EIA - ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION -
energy statistics from the U.S. government

Quote:
Global Petroleum

The oil supply system continues to operate at near capacity and remains vulnerable to both actual and perceived supply disruptions. The supply and demand balance for the remainder of the year is tighter than in last month's Outlook. World oil markets are particularly tight during the first half of 2008, with year-over-year growth in world oil consumption outstripping growth in non-Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) production by over 1 million bbl/d. The combination of rising global demand, fairly normal seasonal inventory patterns, slow gains in non-OPEC supply, and low levels of available surplus production capacity is providing firm support for prices.

The flow of investment money into commodities markets and ongoing geopolitical concerns in a number of producing countries, including Nigeria, Iraq, and Venezuela, have contributed to crude oil price volatility. OPEC appears satisfied with current market conditions, given recent statements by some members, suggesting that there are no plans to review OPEC production until the next scheduled meeting on September 9th. Also weighing on market expectations is Saudi oil minister Naimi's public statement suggesting no need to add production capacity beyond the announced plan to expand Saudi oil production capacity to 12.5 million bbl/d by 2009.

If non-OPEC production rises as expected and some OPEC members add production capacity as planned, surplus crude oil production capacity should increase and ease upward price pressures by early next year. The expected surplus capacity, however, is less than projected in last month's Outlook.

Consumption.
World oil consumption is projected to grow by 1.2 million bbl/d in 2008. Almost all of the growth in 2008 is expected to come from the non-Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, led by China, Middle East oil producing countries, and Russia, as well as Brazil and India (World Oil Consumption). China's oil consumption is expected to rise by 0.4 million bbl/d in 2008, with Chinese oil imports in March showing an increase of 0.8 million bbl/d from year-earlier levels. OECD oil consumption is projected to remain relatively unchanged, with growth in consumption in Europe, where weather factors constrained oil consumption in 2007, offsetting declines in the United States.





full report :
U.S. ENERGY INFO ADMINISTRATION
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 06:10 pm
Ive invested a significant amount in energy funds in the last 5 years. Im thinking of getting out .

The govt should once again reward efforts in energy research and provide rebates for installation of alternative energy.That was the poor leadership that began with Reagan and continues to today. If the market is allowed to progress without direction other than pure speculative greed, and without any concern for the future times when oil will be scarce, then the whole planet is screwed.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 10:29 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

I already did. The fact that you discount the evidence doesn't mean that it isn't evidence.

Cycloptichorn

You gave me propaganda websites, with nothing but assertions without specific evidence. Show me the evidence instead of spouting your talking points that are based on prejudice and myths. And as I said, don't throw everything against the wall hoping one thing will stick, pick one item and then provide specific evidence. Every industry has loopholes and government support in some kind of convoluted way, and I don't think oil companies have it any easier with special treatment than other industries.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 10:34 pm
farmerman wrote:
Ive invested a significant amount in energy funds in the last 5 years. Im thinking of getting out .

The govt should once again reward efforts in energy research and provide rebates for installation of alternative energy.That was the poor leadership that began with Reagan and continues to today. If the market is allowed to progress without direction other than pure speculative greed, and without any concern for the future times when oil will be scarce, then the whole planet is screwed.


I think the government still does, farmerman.

Speculative greed, better know as possible profit in the free market system, is the fuel behind innovation and invention. Profit provides an incentive. Unless you want people to do things for the sheer fun of it, I don't think a better incentive has ever been found.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 10:41 pm
hamburger wrote:
okie wrote :

Quote:
We drill for oil, we build nuclear, we mine coal, we produce natural gas, we build wind turbines, develop solar, we build hybrid cars, fully electric cars, and we continue to research all the other ideas and technologies under development, but we don't scrap the primary and most efficient energy source intentionally now, which is oil. Basically, we allow the market to determine the most economical and efficient energy mix.


quite an ambitious agenda !
i wonder who'll be footing the bill for all that ? will it be okie through higher taxes and higher gas prices ... or the fairy godmother ?have you checked the U.S. debt load lately ?


Duh? The people that use the products, no different than it has been since time began, unless you want the government to nationalize the industries and tax the bejeebers out of the people to pay for it, which hasn't worked out very well any time it has ever been tried. Unless you want to shut down all of those industries because they are too expensive you seem to be asserting, and then you are going to provide energy out of thin air, I have no clue what your argument is, hamburger. Whatever you are trying to say, doesn't make alot of sense. You don't get something for nothing. I would suggest you go find out how to drill for oil or mine a ton of coal and see if it is easy to do, and if it can be done free of charge??????

And the price of energy is going to go down if companies do not develop all of the above, is that your argument? I am continually amazed by the intelligence portrayed on this forum every day.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 11:08 pm
I think we should turn dead Iraqi cilvilians into gas.

Hey, what happened to Halliburton???

Oh yea, when we started to find out they screwed us with no grease so they split to that Arab paradise.

YOU IDIOTS

Cost of war - $519,949,237,190

Cheney (Halliburton) - Started war

Halliburton - Moves to Dubai

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/12/business/main2558620.shtml

$25.7 billion In governments contract to Halliburton and now you stupid ass Americans pay 4.00 a gallon. Laughing
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 09:27 am
Saudi Arabia rebuffs Bush on oil production link
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 09:43 am
hamburger wrote:
from a report by the EIA - ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION -
energy statistics from the U.S. government

Quote:
Global Petroleum

The oil supply system continues to operate at near capacity and remains vulnerable to both actual and perceived supply disruptions. The supply and demand balance for the remainder of the year is tighter than in last month's Outlook. World oil markets are particularly tight during the first half of 2008, with year-over-year growth in world oil consumption outstripping growth in non-Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) production by over 1 million bbl/d.



There's something about that wording. World oil consumption exceeds non-OPEC production. Kind of like saying world consumption of rice exceeds South Dakota production of rice by x-many bushels per year. Not the kind of precise writing I would have expected here.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/03/2021 at 01:39:05