1
   

Gas Prices Pump Up Support for Drilling; Big Oil winning?

 
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 02:17 pm
I've already posted this over here, but it's kinda relevant to this thread, too...


Quote:
Germans plan to build 2,000 offshore windmills

Amid rocketing oil prices, the German government has proposed a law to increase output of renewable energy as part of a long-waited environmental package and plans to construct 2,000 offshore windmills by 2030.


The German government wants to build up to 30 offshore windfarms in a bid to meet its renewable energy targets, Transport Minister Wolfgang Tiefensee said in an interview published Sunday.

Tiefensee told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper that the windfarms would be built in the Baltic and North seas and said some 2,000 windmills should soon be producing 11,000 megawatts of electricity.

The government is aiming to obtain "25,000 megawatts of energy from windfarms by 2030", Tiefensee said.

"The rise in the oil price has made this all the more pressing and the interest from investors shows that it is economically viable," he added.

The first windfarm will go up off Borkum island in the North Sea later this year, according Welt am Sonntag.

Earlier this year, the French energy giant Areva announced that it would sell windmills to the German renewable energy company Prokon Nord to enable it to build a windfarm near Borkum.

Germany's Bundestag or lower house of parliament passed a law last month aimed at increasing the amount of power generated by renewable energy sources like wind or solar power to 30 percent from the current 14 percent by 2020.

Wind energy currently makes up seven percent of the nation's energy consumption.

The new law was part of a long-awaited package aimed at fighting climate change agreed by Chancellor Angela Merkel's left-right coalition government.

The government has agreed to honour a decision to close the country's 17 nuclear power plants by 2020 but remains divided over the issue.

Merkel insists that a nuclear phase-out would hinder efforts to slash Germany's dependency on greenhouse gas-producing fossil fuels.

But Tiefensee, a member of Merkel's Social Democrat coalition partners, said that investing in windfarms was better than keeping the nuclear plants running.

"We believe in renewable energy and not in nuclear energy."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 02:17 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
No, I was correct on the other thread in asserting that the largest wind turbines yet installed on a large scale basis were 1.5MW maximum power. old euriope posted information about new design 5 and 7 MW turbines being installed in offshore applications in the Baltic and possibly in the Irish Sea -- however these are very recent, and new, innovations.

Germany is heavily invested for political reasons in the rapid deployment of wind turbines, and I believe they are likely to achieve 20% of total electrical power generation within a few years. This is being driven by political forces there that wish to see the demolition of their nuclear power stations that today produce about 40% of their electrical power. Their problem is that even their most optimistic projections for wind power can't hope to replace the nuclear component in any reasonable time - even with very heavy government subsidies for the wind turbines. The public will soon feel the economic impact of the more expensive new sources and the political issue appears quite uncertain.

Here the situation is very different. With fewer subsidies wind generation is still less than 3% of total output, and, given the "environmental" concerns expressed by the liberal elite who summer on Cape Cod, it appears that implementation of offshore large wind turbines is likely to be very slow - even with the government subsidies that may be enacted. A similar story could be told for solar. Improvements in both technologies will likely continue, however we are at best looking at several decades before they can be major contributors.

You identified yourself as favoring reduced demand for energy as the primary solution. Short of a sudden major reduction in the population, how do you propose to force this on an unwilling public? Regulation?? taxation?? A government-managed economy?? Perhaps a police state??


Oh, catch your breath before you start hyperventilating, George. I think that plenty of reduction in energy usage can be accomplished through simply asking people to do so, and emphasizing the importance of doing so. I do not believe the public is as unwilling to save energy as you do. It does not require huge sacrifice on anyone's part to make a difference; simple things like turning off lights and driving a little bit slower or less will not only help our energy problem, but also save them money, personally. Not exactly a hard sell. Efficiency gains in electronic devices and various aspects of home building will also help

As for Nuclear, you know I am a proponent of building more nuke plants ASAP. As for NIMBYs, you know I am against them as well. It isn't as if we have every solution right now, or there are no roadblocks; of course there are, just as there are problems with any complex situation.

Today's 'recent and new' innovation will quickly become tomorrow's standard - IF the proper amount of money and time are spent on making that happen. That same money and time could be spent stretching out yesterday's technologies, but which do you think will serve us best in the end?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 02:50 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
No, I was correct on the other thread in asserting that the largest wind turbines yet installed on a large scale basis were 1.5MW maximum power.


Well, george, if your intent is to compare the latest conceptual innovation for conventional plants with (say) a 30 year old wind farm, then I would suggest you are being deceptive.

:wink:
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 03:02 pm
okie wrote:
Again revel, your info appears to quote dollars, not percent profit, so it is pretty meaningless. Also, if you want proof about non producing areas of current leases, go talk to the geologists. I am sure if they thought they were very hot potential, they would drill there. I am sure all businesses wish to ignore their current best customers so they are not interested in richer customers in order to expand sales? I don't think so. That is just basic business principles that you are arguing against, revel.

Exxon Mobil, the largest domestic company, is only the 14th largest oil company worldwide in terms of oil reserves, etc.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020589.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/OilChart9.php


I am not going to go talk to geologist, you made the statement; it is up to you to back it up. (concerning the approved drilling land.)

Also; ok, provide some kind of graph or an article backed up with some kind of proof which shows what the percentage profit is for oil companies in the US in comparison to the profits before the change in windfall taxes and loopholes and before the hikes in gas prices. If there is a decline in percentage profits then I can understand why you all keep citing overhead (so to speak) and supply and demand problems contributing to the high prices in gas. You brought up the percentage profits; so you should be able to show some kind of proof that the percentage profits has not been rising as much as the record oil profits has in recent years.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 03:08 pm
revel, you made the claim about profits, not me. You need to show the profits are too high, not in dollars, but in comparison to dollars spent or invested. Besides, regardless of what profits they make, unless there is price fixing involved, then it doesn't matter anyway.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 03:26 pm
okie wrote:
revel, you made the claim about profits, not me. You need to show the profits are too high, not in dollars, but in comparison to dollars spent or invested. Besides, regardless of what profits they make, unless there is price fixing involved, then it doesn't matter anyway.


The article I left previously did cite how much it cost extract and import oil and other such matters and then cited how much profit various US made in the year 2007. (I assume the facts are correct; I could be wrong, this is really not something i know a whole lot about) I never mentioned percentage costs. You did by inferring that though there have been record profits for US oil companies the percentage cost negates their record profits. You have to prove your inference or the point is not valid.

I have never claimed there is price fixing involved and it not relevant to the main point. The reason why the profits the companies make is important is because it is just not fair the rest of us have to pay out the nose (or nozzle) for gas while they keep racking it in. The whole economy is suffering because of the rising gas prices. Drilling off shore will not help this situation in a timely enough manner to make any difference to our current economy.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 03:32 pm
Part of what is wrong with the energy system is that all the gas production is controlled by a minority of producers. No competition. Without competition the oil companies will control energy supplies. They own or control the oil fields, coal fields and most of the shale fields. Its to their advantage to refuse to open fields that they control as long as they control production and price. We need to Sinclairize them, that is force them to devest themselves of their control of production and supply. Our system is supposed to be controlled by competition which is presently nonexistent.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 03:39 pm
Ted (NIMBY) Kennedy should be consulted regarding the windmills.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 05:46 pm
old europe wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
No, I was correct on the other thread in asserting that the largest wind turbines yet installed on a large scale basis were 1.5MW maximum power.


Well, george, if your intent is to compare the latest conceptual innovation for conventional plants with (say) a 30 year old wind farm, then I would suggest you are being deceptive.

:wink:


I appreciate your ironic triumph. Smile However the 30 year old wind farms around here all involve 500KW machines. The MW machines came much later.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 05:51 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Oh, catch your breath before you start hyperventilating, George. I think that plenty of reduction in energy usage can be accomplished through simply asking people to do so, and emphasizing the importance of doing so. I do not believe the public is as unwilling to save energy as you do. It does not require huge sacrifice on anyone's part to make a difference; simple things like turning off lights and driving a little bit slower or less will not only help our energy problem, but also save them money, personally. Not exactly a hard sell. Efficiency gains in electronic devices and various aspects of home building will also help

Perhaps so. However the results to date do not support your stated position that this could or should be or become the principal means by which we reduce dependence on imports and fossil fuels generally. I can see persuasion accomplishing a 10% or so reduction, but nothing more. So far the data suggests an even smaller figure would be more accurate. Even in economic terms demand appears to resist even very large cost increases. Hard then to believe persuasion could do more.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 06:48 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Oh, catch your breath before you start hyperventilating, George. I think that plenty of reduction in energy usage can be accomplished through simply asking people to do so, and emphasizing the importance of doing so. I do not believe the public is as unwilling to save energy as you do. It does not require huge sacrifice on anyone's part to make a difference; simple things like turning off lights and driving a little bit slower or less will not only help our energy problem, but also save them money, personally. Not exactly a hard sell. Efficiency gains in electronic devices and various aspects of home building will also help

Perhaps so. However the results to date do not support your stated position that this could or should be or become the principal means by which we reduce dependence on imports and fossil fuels generally. I can see persuasion accomplishing a 10% or so reduction, but nothing more. So far the data suggests an even smaller figure would be more accurate. Even in economic terms demand appears to resist even very large cost increases. Hard then to believe persuasion could do more.


Sure; but you'll note that I didn't recommend this as the principal means by which we should reduce our dependence, but merely described it so:

Quote:

If one is of the opinion (as I am) that NOTHING is going to provide a short-term energy solution for our country besides conservation and reductions in usage, the only strategy which makes sense to move forward with is to throw our energies into developing alternative power sources as quick as possible - such as, say, those large wind generators which were discussed in the other thread, which have progressed in technology far faster then it appears you had thought they had.


In the short-term, that is to say, the next 5 to 10 years, neither a huge investment in nuke and others renewables OR increased drilling will really make much of a dent in the energy crisis. Conservation will not reduce our dependence. It will help ease the pain during a time when there isn't much we can do about it. I'd prefer to see us start making advancement in areas in which, at the end of that period, seem best positioned to take us into the future.

I firmly believe that a significant part of our scientific and engineering advancements have come about due to innovation and research which was sponsored by our government, in many cases in partnership with private enterprise. We have been successful in the past, to the point where it provided true strategic advances over other nations which we still enjoy today. I see no reason why we cannot do so today.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jul, 2008 07:01 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

I firmly believe that a significant part of our scientific and engineering advancements have come about due to innovation and research which was sponsored by our government, in many cases in partnership with private enterprise. We have been successful in the past, to the point where it provided true strategic advances over other nations which we still enjoy today. I see no reason why we cannot do so today.

Cycloptichorn

That may prove to be true, but there is little objective evidence to support your proposition so far. I have a good deal of experience with the DOE national laboratories (Livermore, Berkeley, Los Alamos, Battelle, etc) and know that their much touted academic/industrial partnerships and capital ventures have produced damn little, apart from some self-congratulatory prose written by the Labs. They often do very good basic research themselves, but they are usually inept partners and ill suited for commercial applications. Hell they were even beaten to the punch on the human genome project by a private venture that spent about 20% as much and finished the job over a year ahead of the folks at Livermore.

The DOE renewable energy laboratory in Bolder CO has been around for a couple of decades and has consumed billions in research. However, I can't think of anything of particular import that it has accomplished.

The DOD has a somewhat better record but in fact their research has all been conducted by commercial contractors who were usually motivated by the prospect of downstream production contracts. Even there the really decisive advances generally came out of commercial competition.

Perhaps one of the few relevant exceptions is the Navy Nuclear Power program which in the early days set the standards for subsequent commercial applications of radiological controls and the uncompromising safety standards that are required to make nuclear power work in an acceptable manner. However that was mostly the result of the force of a truly unusual individual of great foresight and great skill in the arts of exercising power in government - Hyman Rickover. However, he was the exception to most rules.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 09:50 am
I think most of the advancement in this country was without government, and because of the freedom from government. Government had a need for advancement, particularly during wartime, which spurred the progress, but most of it has been due to innovation by free enterprise, such as the Wright Brothers, Henry Ford, etc. And think of all the computer guys, Bill Gates, Hewlett and Packard, Steve Jobs, etc. And much or most of the government spurring progress was done with contracted companies to do it for them.

Perhaps the Manhatten project is an exception, but progress comes with urgency. Financial gain and necessity brings urgency to a task, and World War II brought urgency through necessity in order to survive. Under normal circumstances however, the government just does not have the drive to do what private enterprise can bring to a task.

And right now, the price of energy is bringing a heightened sense of urgency and necessity to innovation, and there is no doubt in my mind that great advancements will result if the government does not hinder the process.

Oh, I edit this post to add this to the list of great advancements by private enterprise, the oil business, probably one of the greatest, if not THE greatest advancement of the 20th Century, which allowed us to harness oil and natural gas to fuel the modern world and much of how we live now in this modern world. That and electricity, Thomas Edison, etc. etc. etc.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 10:49 am
okie wrote:
I think most of the advancement in this country was without government, and because of the freedom from government. Government had a need for advancement, particularly during wartime, which spurred the progress, but most of it has been due to innovation by free enterprise, such as the Wright Brothers, Henry Ford, etc. And think of all the computer guys, Bill Gates, Hewlett and Packard, Steve Jobs, etc. And much or most of the government spurring progress was done with contracted companies to do it for them.


The 'computer guys' got where they were thanks to large Gov't investments in code-breaking technology during WW2. Once again, gov't influence is what eventually leads to innovation and new markets. Same thing with aerospace and NASA, same thing with the internet itself, same thing with many areas of our scientific research today.

Quote:
Perhaps the Manhatten project is an exception, but progress comes with urgency. Financial gain and necessity brings urgency to a task, and World War II brought urgency through necessity in order to survive. Under normal circumstances however, the government just does not have the drive to do what private enterprise can bring to a task.


Wrong; the gov't DECIDES what it has the drive to do. Once again I remind you of aerospace and NASA; we decided that going to the moon was important, and we made it happen. Renewable energy is not only a popular notion at the moment, it has the potential to realize a large strategic advantage for our nation. If the next president decides to focus on it, talk about it all the time, and spend money and time on it, we will see gains.

Quote:
And right now, the price of energy is bringing a heightened sense of urgency and necessity to innovation, and there is no doubt in my mind that great advancements will result if the government does not hinder the process.


Hinder? We're talking about them assisting the process with research funding! That you could believe this would 'hinder' things shows a little bit of bias on your part, as it most certainly sped progress along in the past in several areas.

Quote:
Oh, I edit this post to add this to the list of great advancements by private enterprise, the oil business, probably one of the greatest, if not THE greatest advancement of the 20th Century, which allowed us to harness oil and natural gas to fuel the modern world and much of how we live now in this modern world. That and electricity, Thomas Edison, etc. etc. etc.


If you can't figure out for yourself how much gov't money was spent on creating the infrastructure to support the oil and electricity industries, there's not much anyone can do for ya, Okie. Seriously. Think for a second before you write stuff.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 11:29 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
If you can't figure out for yourself how much gov't money was spent on creating the infrastructure to support the oil and electricity industries, there's not much anyone can do for ya, Okie. Seriously. Think for a second before you write stuff.

Cycloptichorn


Well, let's examine this question, just as Cyclo has stated it. How much government money was spent creating the infrastructure that supports the oil and electricity industries?? Coal and petroleum are extracted by private corporations, operating on private land or property leased by them for that purpose. They are transported to the point of use principally in pipelines or by rail, both systems constructed and operated by private funds. A small fraction of coal & petroleum products are transported by truck on government-built highways, so there, at least there is an element og government support. All of the petroleum refining complex in the country was developed by the private sector. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created by the government in the late 1970s to provide a storage facility for emergency reserves - it continues to operate today and is an example of government operated infrastructure, however, it plays no role in the routine, day-to-day operation of petroleum refining & distribution in the country.

The electrical power grid was constructed by private companies and is operated by them. The only substantial electrical power generator with any meaningful government funding is the Tennessee Valey Authority, the rest are all pricate sector corporations that use private capital. In addition most of our hydroelectrical power infrastructure was indeed constructed by the government - it amounts to about 6.5% of our total electrical power generation.The technology for power generation using coal, natural gas and other conventional sources was all developed by private sector corporations using their own capital. A principal exception is nuclear power technology, the foundations of which were largely developed by the government. However the designs for the 100 reactor plants in the country were all performed by Westinghouse, General Electric and (a few) by Combustion Engineering corporations, all using private capital. The plants were all built by utility corporations, again using private capital. The Federal government for many years controlled and operated the uranium enrichment industry that fabricated the fuel for the reactors. However, that infrastructure is now in private hands.

Government regulation strongly effects this and other industries, however, that has virtually nothing to do with the creation or operation of ther infrastructure that supports them. It is often argued that our military establishment and foreign policy are themselves dedicated to the protection of various industries. However that idea would necessarily apply equally to all economic activity, and it is a bit of a stretch to connect that with "the infrastructure that supports it".

The inescapable conclusion here is that the government is and has been an important, but minor player in the creation and operation of the infrastructure that supports the oil and electricity industries. The only exceptions are the TVA, hydroelectric dams, the basic research behind nuclear power, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 11:43 am
All cyclops has to do is look around the world and see which countries are progressing the best, and historically it has been those countries driven by free enterprise innovation and progress, not countries dominated and operated solely by government.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 12:15 pm
okie wrote:
All cyclops has to do is look around the world and see which countries are progressing the best, and historically it has been those countries driven by free enterprise innovation and progress, not countries dominated and operated solely by government.


And nobody is suggesting that the gov't dominate or operate innovation or progress; in fact, if you look at what I suggested, the government basically sponsors and pays for research which is run by or in concert with various companies and corporations. I don't have a problem with those companies holding patents on what is created (I'm not a fan of that system, but it works well for us at this time).

George, I would add that the petroleum industry would never, ever have risen to it's current prominence without the creation and maintenance of the Interstate Highway system; and the decision to focus money on the continuation of the current system, rather then build up our rail transportation, as other countries have done. I'm not arguing with this decision, merely pointing out that there are massive amounts of money spent which directly support the continuation of a system which supports oil industry in America.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 12:37 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
All cyclops has to do is look around the world and see which countries are progressing the best, and historically it has been those countries driven by free enterprise innovation and progress, not countries dominated and operated solely by government.


And nobody is suggesting that the gov't dominate or operate innovation or progress; in fact, if you look at what I suggested, the government basically sponsors and pays for research which is run by or in concert with various companies and corporations. I don't have a problem with those companies holding patents on what is created (I'm not a fan of that system, but it works well for us at this time).

Admit it cyclops, government lays out the rules of the game, but private enterprise pretty much plays the game, and when they win, we don't celebrate the officials for their accomplishments. Rules for a game mean nothing if nobody plays, and no game is won, nobody excels, nobody makes a play, in short, nothing happens.

Quote:
George, I would add that the petroleum industry would never, ever have risen to it's current prominence without the creation and maintenance of the Interstate Highway system; and the decision to focus money on the continuation of the current system, rather then build up our rail transportation, as other countries have done. I'm not arguing with this decision, merely pointing out that there are massive amounts of money spent which directly support the continuation of a system which supports oil industry in America.

Cycloptichorn

The petroleum industry would be alive and well without Interstate highways. By the way, it was a Republican, good old Ike, that did that. Also, how many millions or billions have been thrown at AmTrak, with miserable results. The country is simply too spread out to utilize a rail system very well. By the way, with all the gas taxes collected, we should have something to show for it in roads, don't you think?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 12:43 pm
Quote:
Quote:
George, I would add that the petroleum industry would never, ever have risen to it's current prominence without the creation and maintenance of the Interstate Highway system; and the decision to focus money on the continuation of the current system, rather then build up our rail transportation, as other countries have done. I'm not arguing with this decision, merely pointing out that there are massive amounts of money spent which directly support the continuation of a system which supports oil industry in America.

Cycloptichorn

The petroleum industry would be alive and well without Interstate highways. By the way, it was a Republican, good old Ike, that did that. Also, how many millions or billions have been thrown at AmTrak, with miserable results. The country is simply too spread out to utilize a rail system very well. By the way, with all the gas taxes collected, we should have something to show for it in roads, don't you think?


Bull ****, Okie. We could have a very well developed and robust rail system in this country if we wished. The US is not much bigger then the EU and they have an extremely fine rail system. Our country is not 'too spread out' to utilize rail systems; we simply haven't created the systems, emphasized their use, or structured anything around them. Instead, we've structured our cities around the gas-burning automobile; that's where suburbs came from, the easy and cheap gasoline prices. We wouldn't produce or consume near as much oil today if things had been structured differently in the past.

I think it's also fair to say that our government has massively subsidized the oil and gas industries through the use of our foreign policy apparatus... when you are willing to go to war to protect the supplies, and you pay for that war with taxpayer money, you are subsidizing the industry.

You just can't admit that the gov't plays an important role in what goes on; you are so wedded to your stupid f*cking Republican dogma that everything govt = bad, that everything Corporate = good, that you can't even carry on an intelligent discussion on the topic...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 01:40 pm
Gee Okie. I wonder how much land was granted to the "private" railroad companies by the government and how many acres of government ground the "private" oil companies lease for pennyes an acre while they suck $140 a barrel oil from our public land. Like I have been saying big business runs our government with bought politicians and have for almost 100 or more years.
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
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 12:21:33