OT: Here're the savings from Arctic drilling — 75 cents a barrel

[A Muzi]

-snip oil-
> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Somewhat true. But demand is not in constriction, nor will it be,
>> nor has it ever been.

Tim McNamara wrote:
> Continuing population growth, if nothing else, will ensure this.
> Continually increasing energy consumption per capita will multiply this.
-snip-
> Rapidly increasing demand in China and India, stable to gradually
> increasing demand in much of the rest of the world, combined with what
> appears to be the peak oil phenomenon in action.

Wood/steam, then coal, then oil (eventually hopefully nuclear) all make
the prior major energy sources, slavery & draft animals, obsolete.

'No energy at all' ain't gonna happen.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:

> -snip oil-
> > "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Somewhat true. But demand is not in constriction, nor will it be,
> >> nor has it ever been.
>
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > Continuing population growth, if nothing else, will ensure this.
> > Continually increasing energy consumption per capita will multiply
> > this.
> -snip-
> > Rapidly increasing demand in China and India, stable to gradually
> > increasing demand in much of the rest of the world, combined with
> > what appears to be the peak oil phenomenon in action.
>
> Wood/steam, then coal, then oil (eventually hopefully nuclear) all
> make the prior major energy sources, slavery & draft animals,
> obsolete.
>
> 'No energy at all' ain't gonna happen.

Nope, it won't. But hopefully there are creative people in the private
sector who can come up with better solutions than nukes. Pushing off
problems into the future, while the center of Republican policy since
1980, is a failed strategy for coping with the world (it is also
completely at odds with the conservative idea of taking personal
responsibility).

Individuals can easily practice conservatism by doing things like
walking to destinations, riding a bike, being more organized about
running errands by car, driving less and driving more efficient
vehicles. Thanks to economies of scale, saving one gallon of gasoline
per American per week adds up to a very large boatload of petroproducts
every year, and sticks it in the eyes of the terrorists who depend on
funding from oil-rich countries. Personal responsibility ain't just for
granola-eatin' lefties any more!

 

[A Muzi]

>> -snip oil-
>>> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Somewhat true. But demand is not in constriction, nor will it be,
>>>> nor has it ever been.

>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> Continuing population growth, if nothing else, will ensure this.
>>> Continually increasing energy consumption per capita will multiply
>>> this.
>> -snip-
>>> Rapidly increasing demand in China and India, stable to gradually
>>> increasing demand in much of the rest of the world, combined with
>>> what appears to be the peak oil phenomenon in action.

> A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Wood/steam, then coal, then oil (eventually hopefully nuclear) all
>> make the prior major energy sources, slavery & draft animals,
>> obsolete.
>> 'No energy at all' ain't gonna happen.

Tim McNamara wrote:
> Nope, it won't. But hopefully there are creative people in the private
> sector who can come up with better solutions than nukes. Pushing off
> problems into the future, while the center of Republican policy since
> 1980, is a failed strategy for coping with the world (it is also
> completely at odds with the conservative idea of taking personal
> responsibility).
>
> Individuals can easily practice conservatism by doing things like
> walking to destinations, riding a bike, being more organized about
> running errands by car, driving less and driving more efficient
> vehicles. Thanks to economies of scale, saving one gallon of gasoline
> per American per week adds up to a very large boatload of petroproducts
> every year, and sticks it in the eyes of the terrorists who depend on
> funding from oil-rich countries. Personal responsibility ain't just for
> granola-eatin' lefties any more!

Regarding policy, dithering, procrastination, indolence, 'ostrichness',
myopic outlook, all bi-partisan sins. Total lack of leadership.

No one directing policy is blameless on this subject. In India, where
electric lines don't get run because some local politico always objects
to a couple meters' worth of power pole placement, we see our future.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

 

[[email protected]]

On May 23, 2:42 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dans le message denews:4a8c2fe8-d58b-467c-840a-4b729202e006@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com,
> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
>
>
> > On May 23, 12:07 pm, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Dans le message
> >> denews:[email protected],
> >> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> >>> On May 23, 10:23 am, Eric Vey <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/38223.html
>
> >>>> WASHINGTON — If Congress were to open up the Arctic National
> >>>> Wildlife Refuge to drilling, crude oil prices would probably drop
> >>>> by an average of only 75 cents a barrel, according to Department of
> >>>> Energy projections issued Thursday.
>
> >>>> The report, which was requested in December by Sen. Ted Stevens,
> >>>> R-Alaska, found that oil production in the refuge "is not projected
> >>>> to have a large impact on world oil prices."
>
> >>>> But the report also finds that opening ANWR could have other
> >>>> benefits, particularly in Alaska, where tapping the resources in
> >>>> the Arctic refuge could extend the lifespan of the trans-Alaska
> >>>> pipeline. It estimates that if Congress agreed to open ANWR this
> >>>> year, Alaskan oil could hit the market in about 10 years.
>
> >>>> [more]
>
> >>> that looks like bs to me. Drilling ANWR has virtually no chance of
> >>> causing the global price of oil to drop.
>
> >> Completetly correct. The speculation on pricing, as well as the
> >> cartel
> >> price and volume setttings, are the only things that really
> >> influence the
> >> rise in costs. Wellhead extraction costs since 2000 have only
> >> increased
> >> about 14%, transportation costs have remained almost level, and the
> >> price
> >> point is established at the delivery point (pipeline terminus or
> >> input
> >> flange on a tanker).
>
> > While US consumption is dropping, China's demand grew 12 % over last
> > year. Supply has gone essentially flat as oil producers struggle to
> > make up for ongoing declines in big fields. Prices will rise
> > exponentially until they cause enough demand destruction in wealthy
> > economies to balance supply and demand.
>
> > Robert
>
> Somewhat true. But demand is not in constriction, nor will it be, nor has
> it ever been. I recall that in 1973, there was a gas station in Manhattan
> that (briefly) charged about $3 per gallon and had lines, so long as they
> had gas. So long as money is more elastic than supply, demand will grow.
> Note also, China has its CPEC pipeline in place, thus taking prices from the
> tap, not speculators.
>
> I would avoid the word "exponential" unless math has taken a logical
> holiday.

Oil will hit 400$/barrel and people will still be talking about
speculators and using their powers of hopefulness in attempts to wish
the price back down. The price is the price. It will come down when
people in wealthy countries stop paying it.

Robert

 

[still just me]

On Fri, 23 May 2008 21:43:16 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Pushing off
>problems into the future, while the center of Republican policy since
>1980, is a failed strategy for coping with the world (it is also
>completely at odds with the conservative idea of taking personal
>responsibility).

Neo-con vs. con(servative). The neo's only care about fulling their
own pockets in the best demonstration of fascism the world has ever
seen (pure fascism, not the obfuscated/dictator run WWII version that
most people believe fascism is).

There are very few conservatives around any more.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
still just me <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 23 May 2008 21:43:16 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Pushing off problems into the future, while the center of Republican
> >policy since 1980, is a failed strategy for coping with the world
> >(it is also completely at odds with the conservative idea of taking
> >personal responsibility).
>
> Neo-con vs. con(servative). The neo's only care about fulling their
> own pockets in the best demonstration of fascism the world has ever
> seen (pure fascism, not the obfuscated/dictator run WWII version that
> most people believe fascism is).

Fascism run by and for the private sector is acceptable since 1980.
It's the core of the Reagan and Gingrich Revolutions (both of which were
engineered by people the likes of Grover Norquist). They've been living
the self-fulfilling prophecy of incompetent government for decades.

> There are very few conservatives around any more.

I meet quite a few. They are Democrats, mostly.

 

[Ron Ruff]

On May 23, 2:45 pm, Jay Beattie <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 23, 1:29 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> Yes... follow the money. Who in the US makes money off expensive oil?
> > >> Who is in charge of the government? Who is good "friends" with the
> > >> Saudis?
>
> > > Not good enough judging by the last pow-wow. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> > Righ...t. How do you think that last meeting came down? "King, will you
> > increase production to help our poor and middle class, wink-wink." "Uh,
> > sorry George, can't do that."
>
> Wow.  That is sinister.  I would call you paranoid, except that you
> are probably right. -- Jay Beattie.

Certainly correct. Bush and Cheney do plenty of posturing, but you
have to look at who they support, and who is getting rich... rather
than what they say. They've done everything in their power to promote
high fuel prices and high consumption. The high price of oil is
artificially created... we have no more of a *real* supply issue now
than we had 10 years ago. The price is high because those who produce
it have gotten together and decided to make the price high. Anytime a
group gets this kind of control over a commodity, they can essentially
set their price. The only competition will come from alternative
fuels, but since it takes time and capital to get these going,
companies are reluctant to develop them. After all, OPEC et al could
decide to sell oil at $10 a barrel for awhile and you'd lose
everything.

 

[Ron Ruff]

On May 23, 11:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>  Oil will hit 400$/barrel and people will still be talking about
> speculators and using their powers of hopefulness in attempts to wish
> the price back down. The price is the price. It will come down when
> people in wealthy countries stop paying it.

The "price is the price" only when there is a monopoly. Obviously this
is the case now... ie colusion between the producers of oil, and
certainly the "leaders" in the US. If there was competition, the price
would be reflected more by the *cost of production* rather than
whatever the producers can get. The middle eastern countries can make
a good profit with oil at $10 a barrel, but obviously they would
rather get 10 or 20 times as much. The only thing that kept them from
doing this before was lack of ability to control it and lack of US
assistance.

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:ae271d86-9734-47e2-9697-57255a04a96c@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com,
Ron Ruff <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On May 23, 11:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> Oil will hit 400$/barrel and people will still be talking about
>> speculators and using their powers of hopefulness in attempts to wish
>> the price back down. The price is the price. It will come down when
>> people in wealthy countries stop paying it.
>
> The "price is the price" only when there is a monopoly. Obviously this
> is the case now... ie colusion between the producers of oil, and
> certainly the "leaders" in the US. If there was competition, the price
> would be reflected more by the *cost of production* rather than
> whatever the producers can get. The middle eastern countries can make
> a good profit with oil at $10 a barrel, but obviously they would
> rather get 10 or 20 times as much. The only thing that kept them from
> doing this before was lack of ability to control it and lack of US
> assistance.

So, let's hear it for Hillary and the complaint at the WTO!! Actually, a
supremely good move, were one to think that this organization had teeth.

Another practical issue is the cost of money. To float the promised payment
on the various ratcheted levels of speculation contracts, one can't hold
down ratcheted margin. So while ten years ago, companies were happy to
trade for a premium of 25 cents on a barrel, today that has increased
ten-fold, and all the credit cost (in large quantity) has to be built into
the next level up, and so onto the consumption level.

--
Sandy
--
Il n'est aucune sorte de sensation qui soit plus vive
que celle de la douleur ; ses impressions sont sûres,
elles ne trompent point comme celles du plaisir.
- de Sade.

 

[Ron Ruff]

On May 24, 11:53 am, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> So, let's hear it for Hillary and the complaint at the WTO!!  Actually, a
> supremely good move, were one to think that this organization had teeth.

Just more hot air. AFAIK there is no organization that has teeth...
except for the US military. As I recall, it was the Saudis who broke
the OPEC cartel during the last oil crisis. The pumped enough to keep
the price in check, and the only reason they did this is because they
were forced to by the US. At that time Iraq was a real threat to them,
so we didn't need to threaten them directly. It was more like "do as
we say and we will protect you". Obviously Bush and Cheney et al have
gone into Iraq to make all oil producing countries and companies rich.
The Bush's friendship with the Saudis is well known. Regardless of
what Bush says, the plan was for things to happen pretty much the way
they have.

The winners are obvious. The losers in this game are working people
over most of the world... at least the ones that aren't big oil
producers. The wealthy folks are not so effected by the price of
energy, so they have little reason to complain... since they are
getting their bonuses in other ways...

 

[Paul M. Hobson]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> Certainly correct. Bush and Cheney do plenty of posturing, but you
> have to look at who they support, and who is getting rich... rather
> than what they say. They've done everything in their power to promote
> high fuel prices and high consumption. The high price of oil is
> artificially created... we have no more of a *real* supply issue now
> than we had 10 years ago. The price is high because those who produce
> it have gotten together and decided to make the price high. Anytime a
> group gets this kind of control over a commodity, they can essentially
> set their price. The only competition will come from alternative
> fuels, but since it takes time and capital to get these going,
> companies are reluctant to develop them. After all, OPEC et al could
> decide to sell oil at $10 a barrel for awhile and you'd lose
> everything.

I don't disagree with any of this, but it's also hard to ignore the
increasingly huge demand that is arising in China and India. It seems
that OPEC doesn't have to decide on a price, just a production rate.
The economics will take of the $$$ for them.

Is that an off-base assessment?

--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Paul M. Hobson <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Ron Ruff wrote:
>> Certainly correct. Bush and Cheney do plenty of posturing, but you
>> have to look at who they support, and who is getting rich... rather
>> than what they say. They've done everything in their power to promote
>> high fuel prices and high consumption. The high price of oil is
>> artificially created... we have no more of a *real* supply issue now
>> than we had 10 years ago. The price is high because those who produce
>> it have gotten together and decided to make the price high. Anytime a
>> group gets this kind of control over a commodity, they can
>> essentially set their price. The only competition will come from
>> alternative fuels, but since it takes time and capital to get these
>> going, companies are reluctant to develop them. After all, OPEC et
>> al could decide to sell oil at $10 a barrel for awhile and you'd lose
>> everything.
>
> I don't disagree with any of this, but it's also hard to ignore the
> increasingly huge demand that is arising in China and India. It seems
> that OPEC doesn't have to decide on a price, just a production rate.
> The economics will take of the $$$ for them.
>
> Is that an off-base assessment?

If the Chinese own the extraction concession (they have quite a few, and are
digging in in Darfour), have a negotiated price on pipeline delivery, pay
the royalty to the government from which it comes, then they get the oil at
the additive cost of distributed capital investment, extraction, royalty and
transport. No other significant price component need be imputed. So,
unless they sell the oil for market prices, taking profit instead of supply,
the price is irrelevant. India has some similar interests, but not to the
same extent.

In addition, this formula remains the same for all the majors, who have
fixed costs of extraction, royalty and transportation. While they are able
to use flexible transfer pricing schemes across several nations to hide
several layers of transmission (and profit), they don't really pay market
prices. Where royalties are set in relation to market prices, the levels of
profit diminish, but not enormously.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Paul M. Hobson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ron Ruff wrote:
> > Certainly correct. Bush and Cheney do plenty of posturing, but you
> > have to look at who they support, and who is getting rich...
> > rather than what they say. They've done everything in their power
> > to promote high fuel prices and high consumption. The high price of
> > oil is artificially created... we have no more of a *real* supply
> > issue now than we had 10 years ago. The price is high because those
> > who produce it have gotten together and decided to make the price
> > high. Anytime a group gets this kind of control over a commodity,
> > they can essentially set their price. The only competition will
> > come from alternative fuels, but since it takes time and capital to
> > get these going, companies are reluctant to develop them. After
> > all, OPEC et al could decide to sell oil at $10 a barrel for awhile
> > and you'd lose everything.
>
> I don't disagree with any of this, but it's also hard to ignore the
> increasingly huge demand that is arising in China and India. It
> seems that OPEC doesn't have to decide on a price, just a production
> rate. The economics will take of the $$$ for them.
>
> Is that an off-base assessment?

It's easier and more tempting to blame greedy Arabs and greedy oil
company executives, because that's simpler and people like to pretend
that life is actually simple (e.g., I got mine, you get yours).
Thinking about dramatically rising global demand- combined with the peak
oil effect- as the driver of price increases is harder, because it
forces us to realize that $5.00 per gallon gasoline is nearer than the
horizon and that the price will inexorably go up. It also raises the
spectre of energy shortages in America with resulting economic and
social upheaval and wars over oil, given the ruling class's overt
preference for social Darwinism over compassionate Christianity since
1980.

It's much easier to blame the phantasm of greed than to deal with the
complex and intractable truth. Until the whole house of cards
collapses. My advice is to plan ahead and keep riding bike.

 

[Ron Ruff]

On May 25, 8:20 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's easier and more tempting to blame greedy Arabs and greedy oil
> company executives, because that's simpler and people like to pretend
> that life is actually simple (e.g., I got mine, you get yours).  
> Thinking about dramatically rising global demand- combined with the peak
> oil effect- as the driver of price increases is harder, because it
> forces us to realize that $5.00 per gallon gasoline is nearer than the
> horizon and that the price will inexorably go up.

I disgree about which scenario is simpler (ie simple minded). Things
like this don't happen by accident... way too much power and wealth at
stake. Exactly why did Bush invade and take over Iraq, if not for the
protection and security of the Saudis and Israel? And what has been
the immediate outcome?

The rate of increase in world oil consumption/production is much lower
now than it was in the 60s. World oil reserves are higher than ever.
Yes India and China are increasing at a rapid *rate*, but their use is
still tiny compared to the US, and the effect on world consumption is
nil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

The price of oil may continue to go up in the short term, but even at
present prices there are many energy alternatives that are less
expensive. So... *if* the price is "real" as you assume, we will
quickly develop alternatives which will prevent it from going higher.
If the price is artificial, then this will be more difficult because
the huge investment required to develop alternatives will be risky...
since the price of oil could easily drop to a low level again, and the
alternatives will be bankrupt.

 

[still just me]

On Sun, 25 May 2008 08:16:22 -0700 (PDT), Ron Ruff
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I disgree about which scenario is simpler (ie simple minded). Things
>like this don't happen by accident... way too much power and wealth at
>stake. Exactly why did Bush invade and take over Iraq, if not for the
>protection and security of the Saudis and Israel? And what has been
>the immediate outcome?

Bush invaded Iraq because the Iraqies were about to cut all their oil
contracts with French companies and cut the US out of the loop. Check
out the disclosed documents from the Cheney "Energy Task Force"
Meetings.
>
>The rate of increase in world oil consumption/production is much lower
>now than it was in the 60s. World oil reserves are higher than ever.
>Yes India and China are increasing at a rapid *rate*, but their use is
>still tiny compared to the US, and the effect on world consumption is
>nil.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
>
>The price of oil may continue to go up in the short term, but even at
>present prices there are many energy alternatives that are less
>expensive. So... *if* the price is "real" as you assume, we will
>quickly develop alternatives which will prevent it from going higher.
>If the price is artificial, then this will be more difficult because
>the huge investment required to develop alternatives will be risky...
>since the price of oil could easily drop to a low level again, and the
>alternatives will be bankrupt.

The price of oil does not reflect the cost of exploration and
refinement - it reflects the cost of rampant speculation. But, lacking
a practical alternative, it will continue to be bid up.

 

[[email protected]]

On May 24, 9:53 am, Ron Ruff <[email protected]> wrote:

>The high price of oil is
> artificially created... we have no more of a *real* supply issue now
> than we had 10 years ago. The price is high because those who produce
> it have gotten together and decided to make the price high. Anytime a
> group gets this kind of control over a commodity, they can essentially
> set their price. The only competition will come from alternative
> fuels, but since it takes time and capital to get these going,
> companies are reluctant to develop them. After all, OPEC et al could
> decide to sell oil at $10 a barrel for awhile and you'd lose
> everything.

It seems more likely that KSA has just about plateaued and in fact
can't produce any more even if they wanted to, judging by ever
increasing furious sea water injections into their fields. Mexico is
in serious decline and will be an oil importer before too long.
Russia, surprise drop in production. North Sea, peetering out. Texas,
depleted. Prudhoe Bay, dropping fast. And oil producing countries are
using a much higher percentage of their own production than in the
past. Net exports are falling at a faster rate than production, and
are approaching zero much faster than people thought they would. There
certainly is more of a supply issue today than 10 years ago, although
many people were talking about looming supply issues 10 years ago.

Robert

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Ron Ruff <[email protected]> wrote:

> On May 25, 8:20 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> > It's easier and more tempting to blame greedy Arabs and greedy oil
> > company executives, because that's simpler and people like to
> > pretend that life is actually simple (e.g., I got mine, you get
> > yours).   Thinking about dramatically rising global demand-
> > combined with the peak oil effect- as the driver of price increases
> > is harder, because it forces us to realize that $5.00 per gallon
> > gasoline is nearer than the horizon and that the price will
> > inexorably go up.
>
> I disgree about which scenario is simpler (ie simple minded). Things
> like this don't happen by accident... way too much power and wealth
> at stake. Exactly why did Bush invade and take over Iraq, if not for
> the protection and security of the Saudis and Israel? And what has
> been the immediate outcome?

Record recruitment for anti-West terrorist organizations, decreased
national security, the division of American military capacity,
privatization of the US military (read: mercenaries), the decent of the
American government into moral bankruptcy, a failed state in
Afghanistan, a possibly failing state in Iraq, increased regional
instability and Iran joining the nuclear club as fast as it can.

On the upside, Halliburton and some other corporations run by cronies of
Bush and Cheney have made out like robber barons. If you can't push a
few billion dollars of the taxpayer's money towards your pals, what good
is it being the two most powerful men in the world?

Did Bush and Co. invade Iraq to drive up the price of oil? Who knows?
It seems unlikely given the inevitable political fallout from
disgruntled Americans used to some of the cheapest gasoline and energy
prices on the planet, who have seen flat to declining incomes for the
past 40 years while the rich and powerful leave the middle class in the
economic dust. The fire is laid, all it needs is a match.

> The rate of increase in world oil consumption/production is much
> lower now than it was in the 60s. World oil reserves are higher than
> ever. Yes India and China are increasing at a rapid *rate*, but their
> use is still tiny compared to the US, and the effect on world
> consumption is nil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

As I said, the current price of oil is being driven by escalating demand
and decreasing production (the peak oil effect). China, by dint of
having billions of US dollars in its coffers thanks to out of control
Republican deficit spending 20 of the past 28 years as well as our
massive trade deficit, has been outmaneuvering and out-bidding the US
for access to energy.

> The price of oil may continue to go up in the short term, but even at
> present prices there are many energy alternatives that are less
> expensive. So... *if* the price is "real" as you assume, we will
> quickly develop alternatives which will prevent it from going higher.
> If the price is artificial, then this will be more difficult because
> the huge investment required to develop alternatives will be risky...
> since the price of oil could easily drop to a low level again, and
> the alternatives will be bankrupt.

Over the long haul, the alternatives will prevail because ultimately
there is no other option. Oil is a finite resource. We've known this
for decades and wilfully ignored it. Development of alternative
energies will require massive government subsidy and a change of
reference. There will be no one replacement for oil- it will have to be
replaced by a dozen technologies as well as changes in personal behavior
and social policies.

 

[A Muzi]

>> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> It's easier and more tempting to blame greedy Arabs and greedy oil
>>> company executives, because that's simpler and people like to
>>> pretend that life is actually simple (e.g., I got mine, you get
>>> yours). Thinking about dramatically rising global demand-
>>> combined with the peak oil effect- as the driver of price increases
>>> is harder, because it forces us to realize that $5.00 per gallon
>>> gasoline is nearer than the horizon and that the price will
>>> inexorably go up.

> Ron Ruff <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I disgree about which scenario is simpler (ie simple minded). Things
>> like this don't happen by accident... way too much power and wealth
>> at stake. Exactly why did Bush invade and take over Iraq, if not for
>> the protection and security of the Saudis and Israel? And what has
>> been the immediate outcome?

Tim McNamara wrote:
> Record recruitment for anti-West terrorist organizations, decreased
> national security, the division of American military capacity,
> privatization of the US military (read: mercenaries), the decent of the
> American government into moral bankruptcy, a failed state in
> Afghanistan, a possibly failing state in Iraq, increased regional
> instability and Iran joining the nuclear club as fast as it can.
>
> On the upside, Halliburton and some other corporations run by cronies of
> Bush and Cheney have made out like robber barons. If you can't push a
> few billion dollars of the taxpayer's money towards your pals, what good
> is it being the two most powerful men in the world?
>
> Did Bush and Co. invade Iraq to drive up the price of oil? Who knows?
> It seems unlikely given the inevitable political fallout from
> disgruntled Americans used to some of the cheapest gasoline and energy
> prices on the planet, who have seen flat to declining incomes for the
> past 40 years while the rich and powerful leave the middle class in the
> economic dust. The fire is laid, all it needs is a match.
>
>> The rate of increase in world oil consumption/production is much
>> lower now than it was in the 60s. World oil reserves are higher than
>> ever. Yes India and China are increasing at a rapid *rate*, but their
>> use is still tiny compared to the US, and the effect on world
>> consumption is nil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
>
> As I said, the current price of oil is being driven by escalating demand
> and decreasing production (the peak oil effect). China, by dint of
> having billions of US dollars in its coffers thanks to out of control
> Republican deficit spending 20 of the past 28 years as well as our
> massive trade deficit, has been outmaneuvering and out-bidding the US
> for access to energy.
>
>> The price of oil may continue to go up in the short term, but even at
>> present prices there are many energy alternatives that are less
>> expensive. So... *if* the price is "real" as you assume, we will
>> quickly develop alternatives which will prevent it from going higher.
>> If the price is artificial, then this will be more difficult because
>> the huge investment required to develop alternatives will be risky...
>> since the price of oil could easily drop to a low level again, and
>> the alternatives will be bankrupt.
>
> Over the long haul, the alternatives will prevail because ultimately
> there is no other option. Oil is a finite resource. We've known this
> for decades and wilfully ignored it. Development of alternative
> energies will require massive government subsidy and a change of
> reference. There will be no one replacement for oil- it will have to be
> replaced by a dozen technologies as well as changes in personal behavior
> and social policies.

When I notice fewer cellphone impaired idiots driving 6000-lb behemoths
drifting across my lane (they actually drive while juggling food an
drink!), I'll believe it. The barriers to driving are way too low now.

Until then, it's all wishful thinking.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

 

[Ron Ruff]

On May 25, 12:16 pm, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> Record recruitment for anti-West terrorist organizations, decreased
> national security, the division of American military capacity,
> privatization of the US military (read:  mercenaries), the decent of the
> American government into moral bankruptcy, a failed state in
> Afghanistan, a possibly failing state in Iraq, increased regional
> instability and Iran joining the nuclear club as fast as it can.

Yes, but it is difficult to tell who has profited from those things in
a big way, though I believe they knew these would occur. I find it
simpler to look at who profited via money, power and influence... most
likely the ones with the means who gained the most are directly
responsible.  

> Did Bush and Co. invade Iraq to drive up the price of oil?  Who knows?  
> It seems unlikely given the inevitable political fallout from
> disgruntled Americans used to some of the cheapest gasoline and energy
> prices on the planet, who have seen flat to declining incomes for the
> past 40 years while the rich and powerful leave the middle class in the
> economic dust.  The fire is laid, all it needs is a match.

I don't see a revolt happening anytime soon. It boggles my mind that
Bush was extremely popular after 9-11, had enough of following to
invade Iraq for no reason in 2003, and was *still* popular enough to
get re-elected in 2004. And consider that McCain will probably get
elected in 2008... no, there is no revolt about to happen... the mind
control is working well enough.

> As I said, the current price of oil is being driven by escalating demand
> and decreasing production (the peak oil effect).

Doesn't pass the sniff test. Why would oil or the production of any
other commodity "peak"? If the demand (or desire) rises steadily, then
so will production, unless the *cost* of production becomes so high
that alternatives are more attractive. Oil production will peak when
the cost of extraction makes it more expensive than other energy
alternatives. Right now the cost of extraction in much of the world is
what... $10 a barrel or less?

According to data I've seen oil production/consumption has increased
steadily at less than 2% per year for quite awhile. Such steady demand
is quite easy to plan for.

> Over the long haul, the alternatives will prevail because ultimately
> there is no other option.  Oil is a finite resource.  We've known this
> for decades and wilfully ignored it.  Development of alternative
> energies will require massive government subsidy and a change of
> reference.  There will be no one replacement for oil- it will have to be
> replaced by a dozen technologies as well as changes in personal behavior
> and social policies.

Sure, oil is a finite resource, but there is no indication that it is
about to be used up. Like I said earlier, world oil reserves are
reportedly as high as they've ever been. Add to this a very large
quantity of oil sand and shale that is available and efficient to
extract if the price of oil remains high. We have enough to last 3 or
4 decades at least!

Subsidies aren't even necessary at the present price of oil. The only
issue is that it takes some time to develop and increase electric and
biofuel production... and we need to be fairly certain that the price
of oil will not drop significantly.

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:32be41cb-de2a-4fae-b99e-eb54e8ba34ba@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
Ron Ruff <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

> Right now the cost of extraction in much of the world is
> what... $10 a barrel or less?

But don't forget the transportation cost, which has been mounting,
non-linearly. The key problem being the lack of transport between known
fields and pipelines or seaports. That cost also gets higher as the
hostility of the field environment degrades. Environment includes
political. There is a reasonable chance that the proposed route from
Darfour to the coast will be as leaky as the one through Chechnja.

> Sure, oil is a finite resource, but there is no indication that it is
> about to be used up. Like I said earlier, world oil reserves are
> reportedly as high as they've ever been.

You need to distinguish theoretical, proven and recoverable reserves, first.

> Add to this a very large
> quantity of oil sand and shale that is available and efficient to
> extract if the price of oil remains high. We have enough to last 3 or
> 4 decades at least!

Not to mention (though I will) that there are tens of thousands of wellheads
which were abandoned when they stopped "gushing". A majority of these were
recovered only to the range of 3%, and as profit from them becomes more
likely, they can be resuscitated, even those which were flooded and thus
spoiled by earlier engineering practices.

--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

"Le Vin est la plus saine et la plus hygiénique des boissons."
- Louis Pasteur