Real Energy Policy....

mack59 said:
Fifth, standardize nuclear plant construction and clear legal and lawsuit barriers for construction.

It's amazing that with all the hand-wringing over energy independence and oil prices, nobody is seriously looking at authorizing new nuclear power plants. I guess that's to be expected when the President can't even pronounce the word.

Has the oil industry completely bought off the Bush administration? More importantly, will they buy off the next administration as well?

Nuclear power is not a panacea; for instance, it will not help with most existing motor vehicles (only electrics benefit) or things like gas-powered heaters/stoves/etc. But it will help reduce the oil dependence of the power grid.
 
It *will* help with those areas. If we can eliminate our dependence on oil fired electricity and start moving to electric powered transportation, oil for existing cars and other uses will be met to a greater degree out of our domestic production. The ratio will only get better over time as more gasoline and diesel powered vehicles and appliances leave service.
 
Much of the price inflation in the commodities markets recently is simply the result of speculation rather than a real change in the amount of oil being produced and consumed.
Wrong, this from August 2004:

China's demand for oil rose by 11.4 percent in 2003, making it the world's second largest oil importer after the United States.

Industry insiders predict that China's oil demand may surge to 400 million tons in 2020, with an average increase of 12 percent per year.

...
The annual average fuel consumption per car in China is 2.28 tons, 10 to 20 percent higher than the United States and 100 percent higher than Japan.

Less than 4 years later, this estimate had to be revised, due to a rapid increase in consumption:

China is expected to consume 62.5 percent more oil in 2020 compared with 2006 as fast economic growth will continue to fuel domestic oil demand, says a government think tank.

China's oil consumption would rise from 346.6 million tons in 2006 to 407 million tons in 2010 and 563 million tons in 2020, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences forecast in a new report.


Note that they will break the 400 million ton mark 10 years sooner than expected.
[/QUOTE]
I will happily take your point, there are certainly long term demand side pressures. Global demand is certainly increasing and supply will contract in the long term. However, these are long-term factors and if they were entirely responsible I would expect to see gradually increasing prices rather than sudden jumps.

Short term hikes like the one we find ourself in presently are symptomatic of speculation. Yes the underlying market price of oil is going up; not not this fast! For that you need a bunch of speculators with expectations of rising prices to hold back oil and bid up the price.

Remember in 2006 when oil hit $75 a barrel and everyone freaked out? Well by January 2007 it was at $50ish. Then, by mid-2007 it was back up at $75, oh and then it fell back to $70 before beginning it's unsteady climb to the heady heights of mid 2008 (NYMEX Light Sweet prices).

This isn't a stable rise dictated by the gods of supply and demand, this is human created dislocation which is the result of an unusually panicked financial system trying desperately to protect itself. It's hardly a coincidence that we began our present climb in the immediate aftermath of the first wave of the mortgage crises.

Once the bubble bursts, the price of oil will stabilise and will then trend upwards at a less scary pace.

Hopefully anyway.....
 
Nuclear power? Are you kidding? Mother Earth, May She Live Forever, has been cooling for the last decade. We need more oil to burn and burn it now. We're going to get snowed under here in the UP of Michigan!

Somebody get Al Gore on the case, some other well qualified knowitall who failed out of grad school twice.
 
I've been reading up on the coal to liquid process by which we could transform coal into gasoline. Apparently this can be done currently around $55-60/barrel and at full scale estimated around $35/barrel. This wouldn't require new vehicles or engines, just investing in the technology.

While not a solution to environmental concerns, it is cleaner than processing oil (as we can recapture most coal emissions from newer facilities) would significantly reduce "prices at the pump" and has the added bonus of not funding the Middle East.

I still need to read more on this, but considering the amount of coal available it seems pretty viable.

That is interesting; I've heard a little bit about that but not enough to make an educated assessment. I will ask some people about it tomorrow; two of my clients are the largest coal mines on the continent. The seam we're mining in this area has a life expectancy of 200-300 years at current expansion rates with current technological advances. It would be nice to get away from allowing the hostiles to control our entire country through their oil supplies.

Coal to liquids has been around for a long time and is economic with oil at its current price. Clean process. USAF is testing a 50/50 blend for aircraft fuel and finds the synthetic reduces "coking" in jet engines which reduces maintenance. more work to be done, but between coal reserves in the US and tar sands in Canada, there is more than Saudi has ever pumped plus what they still have in the ground. Couple that to the Brazilian and North Dakota AND West VA to TN oil fields recently discovered AND what is known to be offshore...we can be independent for a very long time. And the supplies, if brought on stream, will meet our needs and others so that price will come down considerably.

Now that MMGW is off the table for the next ten years (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml) we ought to get going on this stuff rather than starving people.
 
From thew WSJ:
Exxon, the world's largest company by market capitalization, reported first-quarter net income of $10.89 billion, or $2.03 a share, up from $9.28 billion, or $1.62 a share, a year earlier. Revenue climbed to $116.85 billion from $87.22 billion.

The results mark the best first quarter ever for the energy giant, though weak production volumes and low refining margins blunted the impact of the record-high crude prices and the results missed the mean estimate of analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters for earnings of $2.14 a share. Exxon's shares were down $4.02, or 4.3%, to $89.05 in midday New York Stock Exchange composite trading.

Earnings at the company's oil-and-gas production unit -- the so-called upstream side of Exxon's business -- surged 45% to $8.79 billion amid record-high crude oil and natural gas prices. Liquid oil production fell 9.9%, in part because of last year's asset seizure in Venezuela, while natural gas output rose 1.3%.

Profits in the downstream segment, refining crude oil into gasoline, plunged 39% to $1.17 billion, reflecting lower margins as prices for crude oil rose faster than the price of gasoline.

Profit on sales Q1-07 is $9.28B divided by $87.22B or 10.64%

Profit on sales Q1-08 is $10.89B divided by $116.85B or 9.32%

DECLINE in profit on sales is 1.32%.

DECLINE IN PROFITABILITY IS 1.32% divided by 10.64% or 12.41%

Exxon is making less per dollar of sales by 12.41%.

Exxon is making less per dollar of sales by 12.41%.

Exxon is making less per dollar of sales by 12.41%.

Profit in dollars on gasoline sales FELL 39% as Exxon DID NOT PASS ON TO THE CONSUMER INCREASING CRUDE PRICES.

EAT ME, CHUCK SCHUMER.
 
Last edited:
EAT ME, CHUCK SCHUMER.

Now thats disgusting :)

I had the displeasure of meeting Chuckles at a political affair once. He is more annoying and obnoxious in person.

WildthoughtiwouldtossthatoneinAlaska TM
 
need a tax brake of tax subsidy

WOW if the profit went down they surely are justified in receiving a tax subsidy or other lowering of their taxes. Lets get our Republican posters to start a petition to congress to get them this deserved tax relief. :D

However in their plight have you noticed the lack of reference to how much executive compensations has gone up over the same time period. :rolleyes:
 
WOW if the profit went down they surely are justified in receiving a tax subsidy or other lowering of their taxes. Lets get our Republican posters to start a petition to congress to get them this deserved tax relief.

However in their plight have you noticed the lack of reference to how much executive compensations has gone up over the same time period.

I disagree, they are making about what the average S+P 500 company is doing, probably a little better but not alot. They don't need any help, but getting whacked is unfair.

Exec comp can be seen in their SEC filings, if you are interested. I am not particularly interested. Miley Cyrus made $18M last year, for singing and "acting", Heidi Klum about $30M to be a clothes rack. Whoever is running Exxon is doing a real job and if Miley and Heidi cannot get onto your radar scope as overpaid for value created, don't talk to me about CEO's, except the guys who crash their companies, like a Ken Lay.
 
There was just a large oilfield discovered up to the NE of us in ND
You are referring to the Bakken Formation and it was discovered in 1951, over 50 years ago. It was never seriously developed because of higher drilling costs. I remember in the early 90s, driving with my parents in western ND. Quite a few oil wells sitting idle simply because the price of oil was so low that it cost too much to pump it. Now it does make economic sense to pump it and better surveying is revealing the quantity of oil and how best to get at it.
 
Alex45ACP has it exactly right.

Frankly, all this support for increased drilling or exploitation of coal (Karrick or Fischer-Tropsch process) simply demonstrates how we got into this mess in the first place. Instead of increasing our dependence on resources which are finite in supply, we should be developing advanced nuclear (thorium, neutron-beam activated fission, and fusion), wind, tidal, geothermal, solar (solar thermal as well as more economical photovoltaics). Algae-produced petroleum might be a decent renewable source of oil for transportation.

But we must address the population growth rate. There aren't enough resources on this planet for many billions of people. That is the most fundamental problem. China's solution is admittedly brutal (and not as effective as they'd like) but consider the situation if they had 2 billion people instead of 1.3 billion... :eek:
 
[QUOTEBut we must address the population growth rate. There aren't enough resources on this planet for many billions of people. That is the most fundamental problem.][/QUOTE]

Bingo, global warming(that's for Al Gore) is not the problem it is population growth.
 
Any comprehensive US energy policy has to have an extensive and viable mass transit system as a key component. We ain't got the money to do that.

During WWII Germany made most of its' oil from coal. US energy companies are not interested in it or oil shale extraction.

US political hacks have had 35 years to develop an energy policy. They chose not to do so. One political party is worried about oil spills in coastal waters and Alaska tundra. The other party is in the pockets of the oil companies. It is highly unlikely that anything will get done soon.
 
For those of you who favor more domestic drilling, doesn't it make sense for us to buy and use up the oil of other countries before we use ours, even if we have to pay more for it?

In other words, leaving domestic oil un-tapped is in our national interest at this point. Oil is still very cheap. If it wasn't, people would quit driving so much, and turn off the lights when they aren't using them. If we use up the oil of other countries, then we can use ours as a last resort, while they all sit in the dark.

I don't think we should drill for that reason. Its kinda like if you stockpile food and survival supplies, and then eat it up because you are too lazy to go the grocery store when you get low on something.

I also would probably support increasing the tax on gasoline to the point that demand for it goes down. Not sure what that amount would be, but significantly more than the current tax that McCain and Hillary are trying to eliminate.

I can see why you would want to drill if your only concern is keeping price down. But that is not in the best long term interst in my opinion.
 
Oil prices aren't going anywhere until biodiesel can start accounting for a considerably higher percentage of our oil use (like Brazil)

Does Brazil produce a lot of bio-diesel? I though it was cane based ethanol.

And keep in mind that Brazil is working hard to do exactly what the author of the article supports the US undertake: drilling for domestic sources of oil.

In fact, Brazil has had great success lately in discovering new sources of domestic oil and looks to become a major oil exporter soon.

Underwater oil discovery to transform Brazil into a major exporter

By Alexei Barrionuevo Published: January 11, 2008

RIO DE JANEIRO: While some of the world's largest oil producers, including Mexico and Iran, are struggling to remain exporters, Brazil is moving in the opposite direction. A huge underwater oil field discovered late last year has the potential to transform South America's largest country into a sizable exporter and win it a seat at the table of the world's oil cartel.


more at:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/11/business/oil.php
 
For those of you who favor more domestic drilling, doesn't it make sense for us to buy and use up the oil of other countries before we use ours, even if we have to pay more for it?

Not when the money we spend goes to terror-sponsoring states like Iran.
 
Gas Taxes, and the result they never mention

I also would probably support increasing the tax on gasoline to the point that demand for it goes down.

This is an idea constantly floated about, and like gun control, sounds reasonable to many people. Raise the price of gas (by higher taxes), and people will use less. People will take fewer trips, etc.,etc, and so we'll have more gas to use, and having more gas means the price will go down, due to the law of supply and demand, right?

Well, it's a nice story, but it leaves out a few things that just might be important to some of us. One thing is that "recreational use" of gasoline that they want to discourage. On one hand, there are a great many people who do not use large amounts, or hardly any gas "recreationally". I'm talking about the poor working class stiffs what are getting by, but not really well off. Lower middle class, if you will. People who use their cars and trucks for work, getting to work, and getting to the grocery store once a week. The folks that aren't getting govt assistance (they earn too much) but don't have a lot of "disposable income" either. These people get absolutely hammered when the price of a basic necessity doubles (as gas has) their earnings do not, and cannot keep up. And most of them are stuck driving the rigs they've got, older and less fuel efficient, costing them even more to keep running day to day, because they cannot afford the payments on a new car. The increased fuel efficiency of newer cars doesn't cover or significantly offset the cost of car and insurance payments, even at today's gas prices.

Most of these people are not located in major cities. The live in the smaller cities, in towns, in small towns, and out in the country. They cannot benefit from inner city mass transit, except by driving 20 or 30 miles in order to take the bus!!! And the soccer moms driving their kids all over town to go to this class/sport/activity in their gas guzzling SUVs? Tale a look around. They carpool already, in huge numbers, and while the raises in fuel prices hurt, they have enough reserve income to adjust. They gripe, and maybe buy generic peanut butter instead of the name brand, but that's about it. They have the money so they don't have to worry about which is more important, getting to work for a week, or eating meat that week. The middle and upper classes that use "all that fuel" recreationally aren't going to stop overnight. Many won't stop at all, or even cut back, even though it is more expensive, as they have the money to play with.

And the other side of the coin, if the increased gas tax actually does stop people from driving when they need not, from taking those recreational trips, then all that money that they pump into the economy when on those trips goes away as well. What then for the hotels, restaurants, shops theme parks, even national parks and monuments, all those places that depend on tourist dollars as a significant portion of their income? Beach resorts ans ski resorts as well. Where is the money for them going to come from when you get people to stop taking trips because the gas is too high? And the people working those resorts are going to be doubly screwed, having to pay high gas to get to work, and facing reduced hours or even their jobs going away entirely. Not to mention the ripple effect from all kinds of businesses (and especially food producers) having to raise prices even further to balance the increased cost of doing business. We are seeing it already, and not too many people are happy about it. Raising the gas prices even more through in increase in taxes will only make this bad situation far worse! And it certainly won't do anything to make people feel better about the people in government, who they will (rightly) see as adding to their troubles.

Upping the gas tax (in addition to the runaway market) will only inconvenience the well to do, and the really well off won't even notice. The rest of us are going to get hammered! And it will hit hardest on suburban and rural America. The "fly over" part of the country that so many politicians only care about during election cycles. And sometimes not even then.

If they think we are clinging to our religion and our guns now, just wait until the effects of increased gas taxes hit. I've got a compact car, new in 02. You couldn't get $20 gas in it when I bought it, the tank wasn't big enough. Today $20 is barely half a tank. If my wages had gone up like that, I wouldn't complain (much), but they didn't. Everything I have to buy has gone up hugely (and with no end in sight) leaving me and a lot of other folks precious little for those things I want to buy, unless I do it on credit. And that isn't turning out to be such a good idea either.

Sorry for the rant, but this is one subject where we all need to do some careful thought before just agreeing with it. Like gun control, the folks you think it is a good idea and reasonable are the ones least likely to be affected by it directly. We don't mindlessly repeat the anti gunner's talking points (because they are senseless), we shouldn't repeat we are in favor of a hike in fuel taxes, to reduce consumption, without thinking it all the way through.
 
I understand you points and agree with most of them. I agree the lower middle class would be hurt the most, and the upper crust would not be affected much at all.

I also agree various aspects of the economy would be hurt, such as anything in the tourism industry.

But, ultimately sooner or later, gas is going to run out. Maybe it wont be during your lifetime, but it will be in someone's lifetime. How much more will gas increase in price before the lower middle class can't drive anyway? $6, $10 a gallon? I don't know. If we tax now and force the money to be funnelled into research we might be able to prevent a bigger problem for future generations. Until cheap gas goes away, there is no incentive to do anything else.
 
The oil companies know their major profit earning days are coming to an end. They're trying to make as much $$$ as they can, while they can. They don't care what it does to the national or world economy.

Limbaugh can deny it all day long. We're getting gouged.
 
Back
Top