Bob (this one) wrote:
> duke wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:17:40 -0500, Alan Figgatt
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> This is getting way OT for these groups, but the core truth is that
>>> allowing off-shore drilling is not going to make any difference to
>>> the price at your pump. The amount of oil we could get from ANWAR or
>>> more off-shore rigs is a relative drop in the bucket compared to
>>> daily US and world consumption of oil. Oil is an international
>>> commodity, the price the US pays for oil is set by and large by the
>>> world wide demand. And world wide demand is up because of booming
>>> economies, namely China. More oil produced in the US will help the
>>> trade balance, but not the price we pay at the pump.
>>
>>
>> Gasoline is gasoline. We have three choices:
>>
>> 1. More drilling in the continental US and Alaska.
>> 2. Invade the Middle East.
>> 3. Pay the price.
>
>
> Actually, it's not just the supply that's the problem. It's also
> refining capacity. We haven't built a new refinery in the US in nearly
> three decades. The ones we have are essentially working at full
> capacity. The technology is older than what's being done in developing
> countries where the newest, more efficient ways are being built. But oil
> is being used unwisely around the world for things that other fuels
> could be used for. Generating electricity being the biggest.
>
>> It's going to be interesting to see if the US populace willingly pays
>> $5 at the
>> pump as good little "pc" people or screams for "more" ME oil.
>>
>>> I doubt that we will see $5 a gallon in 3 years, because if oil gets
>>> that expensive that fast, it triggers a recession which in turn
>>> lowers the demand for oil. But the long term trend (5 to 10 years)
>>> for gasoline price is up. Supply and demand still rules.
>>
>>
>> $5 a gallon is all the rage of the talk circuits right now.
>
>
> In the 1970's, I helped write about "The Impending Energy Crisis" (a
> series of energy forecasts) while working for a company that was working
> on nuclear and alternative energy sources. Many ideas were proposed
> that, at the time, were economically infeasible. As the cost of energy
> rises and petroleum stock is being used for plastic-making, and other
> industrial procedures, these alternatives become more attractive. Things
> like coal gasification, tidal power, geothermal, hydro, wind and others.
> There were many other interesting ones proposed that wouldn't fly today,
> but could be significant. Floating nukes on huge barges anchored
> offshore. All the cooling water you could want right there. Deep-mine or
> deep-water temperature differential generation where the temperature
> differences between two (or more) areas can be used to generate
> electricity. Solar panels in geosynchronous orbit microwaving power down
> to the earth's surface to giant antennae.
>
> Using alternate power sources largely reverses trends of the past
> century of concentrating energy production into small, centralized areas
> and spreads it out so it becomes much more localized. Another major
> issue is our national power grid. It's mostly old and tired, cobbled
> together from smaller grids designed for local conditions. The engineers
> who have pulled it together have done a good job with what they had to
> work with, but it's a new era that demands a different, more distributed
> system with newer controls.
>
> I paid $1.939 yesterday. Same station today was $1.999 today.
>
> Pastorio
>
There's a book I read back in the late 70's called something like
_Energy for Tomorrow, an Alternative Solution_ (that's not the actual
title, otherwise I would be able to find it now on Amazon.) It had a
bunch of interesting energy sources. One that I liked was damming up
some strait over in the middle east that was the only inlet to a narrow
bay and building a hydroelectric plant. Even though the dam would be
miles long, building it would be easy because the pressure would be the
same on both sides initially. Once it was complete, evaporation would
cause the lake level to drop to the point where you could begin
producing power. Now here's the cool part: The sea water in the lake
would become more and more concentrated until the minerals started
precipitating out. The salinitiy would not be constant in the lake, it
would have a gradient because some new sea water was coming in at the
dam. So different minerals (like gold, silver, magnesium, etc.) would
precipitate out in differnt places and could be mined economically.
The most interesting new energy development I've seen is the
organic-waste-to-oil conversion plant in Carthage, Missouri. It
converts turkey guts and feather into light sweet crude oil. The only
reason the the plant is not profitable is they have to buy the turkey
waste at a kind of high price (it is used in pet food and protein
supplements for livestock feed.) The process they use could be used to
destroy old tires, pesticide waste, mad cows, or municipal sewage.
Neither the enviromental nuts nor the Republican hawks have grasped the
significance of this -- If we convert waste to oil rather than pump new
oil out of the ground, the carbon gets recycled and new carbon stays in
the ground (that's the solution to global warming) Plus, crude oil
deposits the Middle East drops dramatically in value, shifting the
balance of power away from Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing nations.
(that's the Republican hawk part; let the Saudis sell their $2 per
barrel oil to China or something if they think they can get that much
for it. Can you imagine the affect on world politics if the USA were a
net exporter of energy? (I know we'll never get that far, but it's a
worthy goal))
Meanwhile, my portfolio is overweighted in oil production and pipeline
stocks, and doing very well.
BTW, if we drill in ANWAR (and we probably should) the oil will all end
up going to Japan most likely. Oil is an international commodity. Oil
from anywhere and everywhere flows to wherever the market takes it.
Opening a big oilfield in the USA doesn't boost our oil supply, it
insignificantly boosts the world's oil supply.
Best regards,
Bob
