| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/23/2008 11:22:34 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
Dollartics : P
... Be sure to walk, bike or take public transportation to the shooting locations though. : ) |
Won't be happening here as I currently only have one good leg and there is no public transportation out here in the farmlands.
Ray |
Sorry if I offended you Ray. I would never expect that you only had one working leg by looking thru your portfolio. You are on my "good guy" list. |
No offense taken my friend... I guess I was simply feeling a tad sorry for myself due to the limitations I am currently experiencing.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/23/2008 11:40:36 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by BHuseman:
Originally posted by nomad469:
[quote=BHuseman]
The point of all of this is the technology is out there. |
It is naysayers like yourselves that has left us in the position we are in. |
Tension Buster!
|
|
|
|
06/24/2008 12:29:14 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by SDW:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
While I'm not an economist, I'd say it is because we are getting closer to that point where we are consuming more than we are producing. By "we" I mean the world. Many businesses depend on oil or its byproducts (eg. the airlines, food transport, etc.) being available in a timely manner. You can't keep tomatoes waiting around two months while you wait for your diesel to transport them. When demand is greatly outpaced by production, nobody really worries about this. There is little risk the oil and gas you need won't be there when the time comes. When demand approaches production then there is more risk. If your income is entirely dependent on getting those tomatoes to market, then you are willing to pay a premium to guarantee you will have the oil/gas in two months when you really need it. Enter oil futures and the rise in price without demand actually outstripping production. Also, as demand approaches production the risk an unforseen event temporarily causes demand to outstrip production goes up. These events can range from natural disasters (eg. hurricanes) or political instability (eg. Nigeria). |
If this was or is the case then why haven't the government's of the world placed restrictions on gas consumption like during 1973-1974? |
Because unlike 1973-1974 where the trigger for the spike in prices was a political event, the spike in prices currently is because 2.5 billion people are starting to want to live like Americans. You can't white knuckle it through this. It's not going away.
Message edited by author 2008-06-24 00:29:47. |
|
|
|
06/24/2008 11:04:18 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by signal2noise:
We've pumped all the easy, light, sweet crude and are now working on lower grade crudes from those reservoirs, which require more refining, and are producing from newer, more expensive reservoirs that are deeper, farther out and in more difficult environments - geophysical and geopolitical. That accounts for the cost of operations. The run-up in crude prices beyond that is due to speculated (commoditized)demand concerns. |
I understand that the cost of finding new oil and refining lower grade oils is more expensive. But its not so expensive so as to more than double and sometimes triple the cost of gas. There is a lot of demand concerns, but the fact that production hasn't increased and we haven't met the peak of supply and demand is where the problem lies. I think it is possible for oil companies to pump more oil and the fact that they all posted record profits in the billions of dollars in the past year is a great way to tell that they are just leaning back in their private jets and taking it all in. I'm sorry if I come across as being arrogant, but I think this energy thing is getting ridiculous at this point and something needs to be done about it. Whether that something comes from the government or from oil companies is what I don't know.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2008 11:11:11 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
While I'm not an economist, I'd say it is because we are getting closer to that point where we are consuming more than we are producing. By "we" I mean the world. Many businesses depend on oil or its byproducts (eg. the airlines, food transport, etc.) being available in a timely manner. You can't keep tomatoes waiting around two months while you wait for your diesel to transport them. When demand is greatly outpaced by production, nobody really worries about this. There is little risk the oil and gas you need won't be there when the time comes. When demand approaches production then there is more risk. If your income is entirely dependent on getting those tomatoes to market, then you are willing to pay a premium to guarantee you will have the oil/gas in two months when you really need it. Enter oil futures and the rise in price without demand actually outstripping production. Also, as demand approaches production the risk an unforseen event temporarily causes demand to outstrip production goes up. These events can range from natural disasters (eg. hurricanes) or political instability (eg. Nigeria). |
I agree that this is a lot about supply and demand. But the supply is there and hasn't yet been overtaken by demand. The thing is that, as you said, people are willing to pay the extreme gas prices only because they have no choice. You can only back off on how much you drive or buy a more efficient car only to a certain extent and for some people, it's not possible at all. Airlines also have no choice but to pay out for the jet fuel because that is their business, same with your tomato company example. I also agree that there is now a risk of overtaking the supply with higher demand. But can this not be solved by improving production? I do also see the company's way of thinking about this situation. They are simply raking in the cash at this point and posting massive profits. I wouldn't want to change if I was the head of a major oil company either because they are living the american dream.
Yes, there is a limited quantity of oil to be found on the planet but do you think we've reached the point where there just isn't any more? I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2008 11:21:20 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
Yes, there is a limited quantity of oil to be found on the planet but do you think we've reached the point where there just isn't any more? I don't think so. |
Not yet but soon and demand is already starting to overtake supply thus the increase in cost that is how it works. Sure the oil guys are getting rich but it is after all a business. OPEC is going to increase production but China is going to take all of that increase and more. The only thing that could help in the short term is for the state subsidised fuel, like in China and Iran and Venezuela, cost to get more in line with what the rest of the world is paying that would decrease demand thus lowering the cost. Renewable energy is the only way we will ultimately survive. |
|
|
|
06/24/2008 11:25:37 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
I still believe that solar power and all of us being more efficient is going to be the way we get things done in the future. Even hydrogen power is made by splitting water, which is an electrochemical thing, and takes more energy to do the splitting than is recovered by the burning of the hydrogen later. |
I agree with you on this. Hydrogen isn't an immediate alternative energy unless the electricity needed to split the water atom comes from a clean source (unlikely). The fact is that you cannot create energy, it is always conserved. But you will always destroy some amount of exergy when splitting the water molecule. This is true for any process. Come up with one where it's not true and you'll be a trillionare. :)
Domestic ethanol is also very iffy. It comes from corn and isn't nearly as efficient as sugar cane based ethanol from south america.
Bio diesel is a great idea though. It just needs to be implemented and the fuel systems of cars have to be adapted to use the fuel. It is renewable, clean, cheaper, and just as efficient as normal diesel.
/rant
|
|
|
|
06/24/2008 11:29:18 AM · #83 |
You keep talking about gas instead of oil Sam. Our gas consumption DOES very closely equal our production capacity due to the lack of investment in refineries.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2008 11:42:40 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You keep talking about gas instead of oil Sam. Our gas consumption DOES very closely equal our production capacity due to the lack of investment in refineries. |
I apologize for that, but I do mean them interchangably even though they aren't. But if the cost of oil was at $80-90 a barrel instead of at $136 a barrel or where ever it is now, the cost of gasoline would be cheaper.
Also, shouldn't some of the billions in profits oil companies had in the past few years go towards the repair and/or reconstruction of refining capacity lost in Katrina?
|
|
|
|
06/24/2008 11:57:44 AM · #85 |
Refining capacity affected by Katrina/Rita was very minimal. The issues with refining is that no new refineries have been built in the US in the last 30-some years as permitting and regulations make it next to impossible to get approval for a new one. Beyond permitting, there is also the "not in my back yard" issue that always comes up.
There are opportunities to expand existing refineries, but that isn't without strong opposition and permitting as well.
A new refinery was zoned and approved (voted) in South Dakota earlier this year, which is a good sign.
Message edited by author 2008-06-24 12:02:03. |
|
|
|
06/24/2008 12:42:57 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by signal2noise:
A new refinery was zoned and approved (voted) in South Dakota earlier this year, which is a good sign. |
Great, now all we need are vast herds of camels to tow the supertankers to South Dakota... |
|
|
|
06/24/2008 12:58:27 PM · #87 |
Oil Shortage = Where are the restrictions? NONE!
***
B-I-N-G-O
The issue is that we have the reversed.
The shortage is DUE to restrictions. Largely those preventing us from building refineries, using domestic oil, and using nuclear power.
Eradicate those, and instead put good governance and environmental cleanliness laws. And you'll have a strong energy economy that is affordable.
AND
Of course China coming into play and greatly increasing it's utilization of oil is another factor.
AND
The devaluation of the U.S. dollar. Which is falling against oil, gold, silver, grain, autos, Big Macs, etc. |
|
|
|
06/24/2008 01:59:13 PM · #88 |
If everything was as simple and straightforward as Saj says, we'd be doing great! Unfortunately it isn't.
One one hand he says the shortage is "DUE to restrictions". on the other hand he says we should rather put "good governance and environmental cleanliness laws" into effect. I'm afraid by that he just means environmental laws at whatever level necessary to get gas back to $1.50/gallon.
Personally I think we are at a sentinal moment where we can possibly move beyond fossil fuels. The American Will rarely moves without financial prodding. We are getting to that point and can perhaps take advantage of it. To merely look for ways to remove the prodding so we can maintain the status quo is frankly the typical American way of thinking and is both shortsighted and ethically bankrupt.
Message edited by author 2008-06-24 13:59:59.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2008 02:17:20 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If everything was as simple and straightforward as Saj says, we'd be doing great! Unfortunately it isn't.
On one hand he says the shortage is "DUE to restrictions". on the other hand he says we should rather put "good governance and environmental cleanliness laws" into effect. I'm afraid by that he just means environmental laws at whatever level necessary to get gas back to $1.50/gallon.
Personally I think we are at a sentinal moment where we can possibly move beyond fossil fuels. The American Will rarely moves without financial prodding. We are getting to that point and can perhaps take advantage of it. To merely look for ways to remove the prodding so we can maintain the status quo is frankly the typical American way of thinking and is both shortsighted and ethically bankrupt. |
Well put!
I've heard alot of people talking about solutions that would take 5-10 years to implement. (Most experts state that it takes seven years to even see one drop of gas once construction begins on a new refinery). Not only is there the time impact there is also money involved. A new nuclear plant is estimated to cost about $2 billion and take 7-10 years. Is it worth putting the money into Nuclear plants, or a new refinery or would we be better off investing the money into new cleaner technologies? Turn the US into a world energy leader instead of a follower.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2008 02:31:07 PM · #90 |
It's pretty simple economics. The world demand for oil is going up, so the price goes up. The only way to lower the price is to lower the demand or increase the supply. Since bombing China isn't a good option and we can't seem to figure out how to cut our demand the only option is to increase the supply.
Do the big oil companys make too much? Maybe, maybe not. For the sake of argument lets say they have a 20% profit margin on gas and pocket about $1 for every gallon (that's probably higher then reality). If the government spanks them for making too much money and they cut their profit in half, now instead of paying $4.50 you are paying $4/gallon. Does that resolve the problem? |
|
|
|
06/24/2008 03:39:35 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by OPEC:
Conventional Resources
The global reserve/resource base can easily meet forecast demand growth for decades to come. Estimates of ultimately recoverable reserves (URR) have increased over time, with advancing technology, enhanced recovery and new reservoir development. For example, according to an established industry source, reserve growth from improved recovery alone in existing fields amounted to 175 billion barrels in 1995–2003; combined with new discoveries of 138 billion barrels, total reserve growth was therefore well above the cumulative production of 236 billion barrels for that period. Moreover, technology continues to blur the distinction between conventional and non-conventional oil, of which there is also abundance, as well as with other fossil fuels. We expect the world’s URR to continue to increase in the future. Therefore, the real issue is not reserve availability, but timely deliverability, and here enhanced cooperation and dialogue among all parties is essential to ensure security of demand, as well as security of supply.
*Resouses are Plentiful
|
Ok this is from OPEC.ORG - Again I ask, where is the shortage?
|
|
|
|
06/24/2008 04:01:11 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by SDW:
Originally posted by OPEC:
Conventional Resources
The global reserve/resource base can easily meet forecast demand growth for decades to come. Estimates of ultimately recoverable reserves (URR) have increased over time, with advancing technology, enhanced recovery and new reservoir development. For example, according to an established industry source, reserve growth from improved recovery alone in existing fields amounted to 175 billion barrels in 1995–2003; combined with new discoveries of 138 billion barrels, total reserve growth was therefore well above the cumulative production of 236 billion barrels for that period. Moreover, technology continues to blur the distinction between conventional and non-conventional oil, of which there is also abundance, as well as with other fossil fuels. We expect the world’s URR to continue to increase in the future. Therefore, the real issue is not reserve availability, but timely deliverability, and here enhanced cooperation and dialogue among all parties is essential to ensure security of demand, as well as security of supply.
*Resouses are Plentiful
|
Ok this is from OPEC.ORG - Again I ask, where is the shortage? |
Your answer is in your own post...
Message edited by author 2008-06-24 16:01:31.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2008 04:29:57 PM · #93 |
Well yesterday when McCain said he would offer $300 million to the person/company that comes up with a battery "that would basically replace the internal combustion engine" (my words)...many in the media poo pooed the idea. He released his $300 million statement yesterday and today no one is talking about it.
I'm wondering why no one mentioned McCain's idea on this thread...(if it is here...I missed it)
Skid
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If everything was as simple and straightforward as Saj says, we'd be doing great! Unfortunately it isn't.
One one hand he says the shortage is "DUE to restrictions". on the other hand he says we should rather put "good governance and environmental cleanliness laws" into effect. I'm afraid by that he just means environmental laws at whatever level necessary to get gas back to $1.50/gallon.
Personally I think we are at a sentinal moment where we can possibly move beyond fossil fuels. The American Will rarely moves without financial prodding. We are getting to that point and can perhaps take advantage of it. To merely look for ways to remove the prodding so we can maintain the status quo is frankly the typical American way of thinking and is both shortsighted and ethically bankrupt. |
|
|
|
|
06/24/2008 04:39:33 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
I'm wondering why no one mentioned McCain's idea on this thread...(if it is here...I missed it)
Skid |
I'm guessing because when asked how he'd pay for it his response was "I could pay for it by canceling three pork-barrel projects that are unnecessary and unwanted."
|
|
|
|
06/24/2008 04:42:15 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Well yesterday when McCain said he would offer $300 million to the person/company that comes up with a battery "that would basically replace the internal combustion engine" (my words)...many in the media poo pooed the idea. He released his $300 million statement yesterday and today no one is talking about it.
I'm wondering why no one mentioned McCain's idea on this thread...(if it is here...I missed it)
Skid
|
I think it's a great idea. We need a real mandate and momentum to get something like this done. I said earlier that the American Will is most often moved by financial prodding. There is an exception and that is a challenge. Of course we haven't had something truly like this since going to the moon, but if we could get the scientific community as excited about replacing the internal combustion engine I bet we could do it.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2008 04:47:00 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by SDW:
Originally posted by OPEC:
Conventional Resources
The global reserve/resource base can easily meet forecast demand growth for decades to come. Estimates of ultimately recoverable reserves (URR) have increased over time, with advancing technology, enhanced recovery and new reservoir development. For example, according to an established industry source, reserve growth from improved recovery alone in existing fields amounted to 175 billion barrels in 1995–2003; combined with new discoveries of 138 billion barrels, total reserve growth was therefore well above the cumulative production of 236 billion barrels for that period. Moreover, technology continues to blur the distinction between conventional and non-conventional oil, of which there is also abundance, as well as with other fossil fuels. We expect the world’s URR to continue to increase in the future. Therefore, the real issue is not reserve availability, but timely deliverability, and here enhanced cooperation and dialogue among all parties is essential to ensure security of demand, as well as security of supply.
*Resources are Plentiful
|
Ok this is from OPEC.ORG - Again I ask, where is the shortage? |
Your answer is in your own post... |
Yes and No! There is not shortage in oil but there seems to be the lack in delivering it in a timely manner. The only way to solve that issue is to restrict the consumption used leveling supply and demand.
My theory is the current situation is no more than price gouging.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2008 04:47:51 PM · #97 |
You are probably right....no one wants "their" pork project cancelled !
Originally posted by signal2noise:
Originally posted by kenskid:
I'm wondering why no one mentioned McCain's idea on this thread...(if it is here...I missed it)
Skid |
I'm guessing because when asked how he'd pay for it his response was "I could pay for it by canceling three pork-barrel projects that are unnecessary and unwanted." |
|
|
|
|
06/24/2008 04:52:59 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Well yesterday when McCain said he would offer $300 million to the person/company that comes up with a battery "that would basically replace the internal combustion engine" (my words)...many in the media poo pooed the idea. He released his $300 million statement yesterday and today no one is talking about it.
I'm wondering why no one mentioned McCain's idea on this thread...(if it is here...I missed it)
Skid
|
I think it's a great idea. We need a real mandate and momentum to get something like this done. I said earlier that the American Will is most often moved by financial prodding. There is an exception and that is a challenge. Of course we haven't had something truly like this since going to the moon, but if we could get the scientific community as excited about replacing the internal combustion engine I bet we could do it. |
I also think this is a good idea. 100+ years after the invention of the combustion engine it should have place it in a museum and we should have [by now] invented an alternative source to powering automobiles. But we are still using it.
Message edited by author 2008-06-24 16:54:05. |
|
|
|
06/24/2008 04:54:32 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
You are probably right....no one wants "their" pork project cancelled !
Originally posted by signal2noise:
Originally posted by kenskid:
I'm wondering why no one mentioned McCain's idea on this thread...(if it is here...I missed it)
Skid |
I'm guessing because when asked how he'd pay for it his response was "I could pay for it by canceling three pork-barrel projects that are unnecessary and unwanted." |
|
Well, that and you have to remember McCain changes his position on all kinds of things every few days. By his own admission, he's not an economist, and proposed paying for $300 million in tax cuts by dropping $18 million in "earmarks" (thinks like housing support for military families, aid to Israel, etc). |
|
|
|
06/24/2008 05:02:04 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by meyers:
Originally posted by kenskid:
You are probably right....no one wants "their" pork project cancelled !
Originally posted by signal2noise:
Originally posted by kenskid:
I'm wondering why no one mentioned McCain's idea on this thread...(if it is here...I missed it)
Skid |
I'm guessing because when asked how he'd pay for it his response was "I could pay for it by canceling three pork-barrel projects that are unnecessary and unwanted." |
|
Well, that and you have to remember McCain changes his position on all kinds of things every few days. By his own admission, he's not an economist, and proposed paying for $300 million in tax cuts by dropping $18 million in "earmarks" (thinks like housing support for military families, aid to Israel, etc). |
Not trying to change this into a political thread [don't want to see it go to rant] but personally I don't like either of the choices we have for President this election.
Back to the oil issue and how WE as a global community can help our fellow mankind and environment. |
|
