Bush Ends Executive Ban on Off-Shore Drilling and Oil Prices Drop 7% in two trading sessions
[Posted by WLS]
June 20, 2008 — USA Today:
Democrat Barack Obama’s campaign released remarks he plans to make at the start of a news conference in Jacksonville, Fla. in just a few minutes. The lead: Unlike Republican John McCain, he will preserve the federal ban on off-shore oil drilling.
In the advance remarks, Obama tweaks McCain. “In what is becoming a bit of a regular occurrence in this campaign, Senator McCain once had a different position on offshore drilling,” Obama says. “And it’s clear why he did –- it would have long-term consequences for our coastlines but no short-term benefits since it would take ten years to get any oil.”
Obama says that “offshore drilling would not lower gas prices today. It would not lower gas prices this summer. It would not lower gas prices this year. In fact, President Bush’s own Energy Department says that we won’t see a drop of oil from this proposal until 2017. It will take a generation to reach full production. And even then, the effect on gas prices will be minimal at best.
July 15, 2008: President Bush rescinds Executive Order banning offshore drilling.
Price of oil at close on July 14 — $145.18.
Price of oil at close on July 16 — $134.60.
“Crude-oil futures tumbled $4.14 to $134.60 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, bringing the contract’s loss to $10.58 over the past two sessions – the biggest two-day drop in crude prices since January 1991. Crude has lost $10.58 over the last two sessions, the biggest two-day price drop since January, 1991. It’s now 8.6% lower than the $147.27 record high hit last Thursday. Earlier in the session, futures slumped $6.74 to an intraday low of $132, the lowest for a front-month contract since June 12.”
Yes, I understand there was an unexpected rise in oil and gas inventories reported today, and that spooked traders into thinking that a significant decrease in demand may be beginning to make itself known. But, there is not mistaking the fact that commodities markets price NEWS into their trading, not just the number of barrels that come out of the ground on any given day.
So much for Obama’s understanding of futures trading in commodities.
— WLS
Now, you are confusing hope and change with pesky little…facts. How dare you! We need to heal as a nation, and facts don’t heal. Only feelings do!
If only McCain would run tough ads. Heck, if the MSM made this information clear—-juxtapose Obama’s statements with facts, repeatedly.
Oh well.
Eric Blair (e8a68b) — 7/16/2008 @ 5:57 pm“…but no short-term benefits since it would take ten years to get any oil.”
Even though I don’t believe this line, let’s say it’s completely true. SO WHAT? Do you have something against Americans who will be alive ten years in the future?
Do it anyway.
Kevin (834f0d) — 7/16/2008 @ 5:58 pmBecause Bill Clinton knew that it would take 10 years to get any oil from ANWR in 1996 – we have no oil from ANWR in 2008.
Marshall (cf5a9c) — 7/16/2008 @ 6:00 pm#2 They said the same thing more than ten years ago. The damn oil would be flowing by now. Juan McCain’s dissent against opening up ANWR was enough to squelch that effort. No new refineries in over thirty years. No nuclear plants since? Better to kiss the environmental wackos butts or seek oil independence? Liberals claim we don’t have the reserves but the oil shale out west alone is estimated to contain 2 TRILLION barrels of oil.
madmax333 (0c1adb) — 7/16/2008 @ 6:05 pmWhy should it be ok for the Chinese to drill in Caribbean, but not the USA to do so? Will Chinese be at allc concerned about environmental impact or spills? Look how they ignore problems in their own country.
Shorter Obama: You can’t drill your way out of high oil prices.
Paul (ae2fbe) — 7/16/2008 @ 6:12 pmPrice of fresh fruit should drop due to lower transportation costs. Michelle must be very happy.
Old Coot (cb828a) — 7/16/2008 @ 6:28 pmDemocrats don’t do economics ! Haven’t you figured that out yet ?
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/16/2008 @ 6:55 pmI’m sure that oil price drop is from the surge, which isn’t working, or maybe it is in a funny meaningless way, but how does it help your kids? The American people know it’s a distraction from the big issues that face us, the lack of a sense of humor, my logo, and did you see that tasteless New Yorker cover? I’m a Christian but I fail to see how knowing my pastor, which I never really did, anyway, even though I sat in the pew for 20 years, is relevant. It’s just a distraction, and, oh, did I mention he’s black too? If you know what I mean. How does that help us change the way we need to change?
Patricia (f56a97) — 7/16/2008 @ 6:55 pmHindsight is not moot, fer cryin’ out loud. Clinton had the opportunity to get the ball rolling and caved, supported by Liberman, Kerry, etc. This is when its prudent to look back and revisit the situation. Does Obama really believe there will be less people populating the earth thus less drivers come 2017? Perhaps he will introduce a ration ticket plan but this for gasoline purchases?
It may be hitting below the belt to quote Chuck Schumer now considering that little banking issue, but this clarifies the nutty thinking of the left:
“If Saudi Arabia were to increase its production by 1 million barrels per day that translates to a reduction of 20 percent to 25 percent in the world price of crude oil, and crude oil prices could fall by more than $25 dollar per barrel from its current level of $126 per barrel. In turn, that would lower the price of gasoline between 13 percent and 17 percent, or by more than 62 cents off the expected summer regular-grade price – offering much needed relief to struggling families. “
Yet Schumer’s daily magic number of 1 million barrels is the exact increase experts believe we would today be pumping through the Alyeska pipeline had Bill Clinton not vetoed ANWR drilling back in 1995. And even the most rabid anti-domestic-drilling Democrats don’t take issue with that figure.
So then, the increase he demands of “Bush’s friends,” the Saudis – which he claims would reduce prices by up to 25 percent — is the exact amount he argued earlier this month would only “reduce the price of oil by a penny” were it coming from ANWR – eco-sacred breeding ground of the Porcupine Caribou.
Dana (f3e2a8) — 7/16/2008 @ 6:59 pmObama said “offshore drilling would not lower gas prices today. It would not lower gas prices this summer. It would not lower gas prices this year. ”
And he he was right. Offshore drilling did NOT cause the price of oil to go down today. Trader speculation — the same thing that has caused the price to go up so much — caused the price to go down.
Are you saying McCain should make policy decisions in an attempt to influence trader speculation?
Phil (276c70) — 7/16/2008 @ 7:09 pmYes, Phil…
McCain should fight to open all areas for drilling, fight Congress to set a single blend of fuel for the “Regular” grade of gasoline, fight to eliminate ethanol as a mandatory additive…
All of which would influence trader speculation, and make the price of oil drop…
Thanks for playing….
reff (11f4f8) — 7/16/2008 @ 7:11 pmAre you saying that Obama is actually doing this? And that you are okay with his interference?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/16/2008 @ 7:18 pmA two session lowering of the futures price of oil does not translate into a lowering of consumer gas prices, today, this summer or this year, as Obama said. The gasoline refining industry isn’t so tied to the somewhat speculative futures market snapping at its flanks that it won’t pay more attention to actual supply and demand trends than blips in the news.
Bush himself understands this, where he said among other things “there is no immediate fix” and “there is not [sic, probably no] short term solution.”
If you read the link I included, Bush himself indicates his move was directed more to futures market psychology than anything that will in fact affect supply and demand any time soon.
Unless gas prices actually decline significantly soon, and decline specifically because of this symbolic and mostly meaningless act, I think I will agree with both Bush, that this was a gesture poised toward the futures market with little impact on actual deliverable supply and demand and thus long term consumer gas prices, and Obama, that Bush overturning his father’s Executive Order will have little impact on gas prices today, this summer or this year.
Aplomb (b6fba6) — 7/16/2008 @ 7:18 pmTrader speculation is going to be driven by policy. Policy should be made on the basis of what is in the public’s interest. More oil supply is in the public’s interest, even weighing it against the potential for environmental harm.
The point is that the price of oil is not determined solely by the number of barrels pumped today and tomorrow. Its also determined by where traders think the price will be in 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 5 years, 10 years. But their expectations are a reflection of what they think supply and demand will be. And policies that influence both influence their expectations.
What do you think would happen to the price of oil tomorrow if the Congress passed and the Pres. signed a bill making the internal combustion engine illegal on 1/1/09? The demand for tomorrow would be the same as the demand for today, and the supply tomorrow would be the same supply as today. Would the price be the same?
WLS (68fd1f) — 7/16/2008 @ 7:21 pmAplomb — I’ll respond in detail later, but I’ve got to run right now. I think you make a good point, but leave out a signficant issue.
WLS (68fd1f) — 7/16/2008 @ 7:25 pmTrue. Congress now has to get off its collective ass and lift the Federal restrictions in order to actually have an impact.
Given that the gas prices have almost doubled in the last 20 months (since the Democrats took over), and that the Dems are adamantly opposed to any new domestic production, I don’t expect the prices to drop anytime soon.
Thanks, Nancy!
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/16/2008 @ 7:28 pmSo then, Aplomb, we do nothing because we can’t everything at once?
Sacrificing the good for the sake of the perfect is a losing game–if we had had such a “meaningless act” 10 years ago, and oil exploration opened, we wouldn’t be in this fix. Who knows, maybe we wouldn’t even be in Iraq or worrying about Iran. It’s all about economic independence, not ideology.
Patricia (f56a97) — 7/16/2008 @ 7:31 pm“And he he was right. Offshore drilling did NOT cause the price of oil to go down today. Trader speculation — the same thing that has caused the price to go up so much — caused the price to go down.”
Like I said, Democrats don’t do economics. Do you know what goes into price decisions ? Do you know what the accelerator principle is ? Have you ever heard of Adam Smith ?
Sheesh !
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/16/2008 @ 7:43 pm“The point is that the price of oil is not determined solely by the number of barrels pumped today and tomorrow. Its also determined by where traders think the price will be in 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 5 years, 10 years.”
Wrong. The price of the stock of companies whose economics are currently significantly dependent on the price of oil might be affected by projections as far out as 5 or 10 years, and even then it would be tempered by considering how well the companies weathered fluctuations in the price of oil (and consumer user directed companies, the gasoline wholesalers and refiners specifically) have not traditionally suffered because of these fluctuations. The oil companies just charge more to ensure they have a profit, and all the industries dependent on the petroleum stock (like chemicals) or those highly dependent on transportation energy (like say airlines or I guess UPS) are put in a bind.
The petroleum futures market isn’t concerned with long term prices. That market is pretty much a series of bets concerning existing short term contracts, picking the over or under of where those prices might be when the actual delivery is made. The experts who are actually making the contracts use the best information at the time to set prices, sell off some of their risk either way to avoid fluctuations, and the futures market is basically a society of gambling second guessers.
Significantly, the petroleum futures market isn’t betting on Obama’s proposition, that consumer gas prices will decline today, this summer, this year. That market is betting on crude oil deliveries, the price made at the time of contract and the prevailing price when the delivery is made.
If it turns out that Bush’s announcement causes the gasoline retailers to significantly lower prices this summer and year, then you are right and I am wrong. If prices to consumers don’t decline, or decline for other reasons, then I and Obama are right, that short term two day trading session fluctuations in the futures market don’t really mean much to consumers. Fair enough?
Aplomb (b6fba6) — 7/16/2008 @ 7:57 pmWrong. This was the first step to increasing domestic production, and if “you and Obama” can get off your ass and open up some of these domestic production fields, that will have a HUGE impact on what the supply will be when today’s futures markets come due.
That will have quite a large impact on prices. Downwards.
If you ever wonder why your gas prices are so high, ask the Democratic Congressional leadership (and I use that oxymoron simply because there is no other way to describe the phenomenon), who took office when gas was selling for just a smidge over half of what it is selling for today.
That means gas prices have almost doubled since San Fran Nan took the Speaker’s gavel.
Three guesses which branch of government writes the laws allowing or disallowing domestic production…….
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/16/2008 @ 8:07 pmDrumwaster hit it. There actually will be a bill restricting speculators of commodities. Two main aspects (I am not a lawyer nor an expert but this is what I took from a segment on Fox Biz Network this afternoon) are 1) buyers MUST take possession of the commodity (not literally, but close enough) and 2) the elimination of the “London Rule” which somehow gives the speculators a way to end-run certain American regs that cramp their style. See? Real technical, I am.
Anyway, the expert said that the “word” is that something along these lines will pass BOTH Houses within 10 days and enforcement will begin within a month. The traders/speculators are not pleased.
I do, however, agree with the OP that Bush’s new executive order allowing offshore drilling added to the psychology that led to the $10 drop in the barrel price.
Ed (d17ceb) — 7/16/2008 @ 8:10 pmDo gas prices drop following daily oil price drops?
afall (57aa5a) — 7/16/2008 @ 8:49 pmNot unless the first impetus is followed up by concrete action.
Gee, wouldn’t it be nice if our national legislature would allow us to produce a critical material within our own borders? Especially since new technology has shown that we have enough of this material to last us for decades.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/16/2008 @ 8:59 pmThe Democrats will try to prevent any relief of the fuel crisis until Obama is elected. It will be interesting to watch that the next few months.
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/16/2008 @ 9:24 pmYou mean that the Democrats would make the American citizenry suffer needlessly just to score political points and gain political power?
The hell you say!
Then why do we have all these handy lampposts going unused?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/16/2008 @ 9:35 pmI wonder how much the price of gasoline would go down if:
The deficit was smaller and consequently the value of the dollar wasn’t being kept afloat by the Chinese buying trillions of dollars worth of debt.
Or if the Iraq war had been managed effectively
or never even happened…and destabilized the whole region.
or if Iran hadn’t become the most powerful player in the Middle East using it’s oil exponentially increasing oil wealth to send money and boatloads of weapons to the insurgency, Moqtada al Sadr and the Iraqi Shia, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Using every Bush admin mistake to threaten the flow of oil through the straits of Hormuz.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens Israel with one sentence and the price of oil goes through the roof. It’s probably better than printing money for the guy.
Yet the U.S. has no cohesive or functioning strategy towards that country, because they’ve painted themselves in a corner as the 600 pound gorilla the Iranians do not want to mess with. So all stick, no carrot. Equals a dysfunctional policy. Courtesty of the same incompetent crew who brought us the Iraq war and well…a messed up economy and ridiculous oil prices.
But no you say NO!! As you beat your breast: That isn’t true. None of that is true!! It’s about supply and demand!! Look at China!! Look at India!! They need more oil!!!
And I say: Quiet down my angry little wingnutters, calm down. Sure, supply and demand has a lot to do with it..sure it does. But it’s not like an administration with deep connections to the U.S. oil industry wouldn’t have access to projections for future oil supply and demand. Of course they would, yet…what was done about it?
They attacked Iraq. And perhaps that was the big plan to deal with the shortage of oil that they must’ve completely completely and utterly aware of yet they had no plan to address it. I mean what really happened behind close doors when Cheney met with the CEO’s of Enron and Big Oil and the like? Why is it still a secret? What are they hiding? makes me think they knew this spike would be coming. A gift from this generrous administration to its friends in high places (they love doing that, being the generous folks that they are Dick and George the “no-bid” gunslingers). Ha ha. Makes me chuckle. I guess they didn’t realize things could get so out of hand and the spike would go through the roof.
So where were those governmental controls that should’ve been regulating and tempering the speculation that has run rampant. Were was the foresight of an administration that should’ve been on the forefront of preparing for the rise in demand? Where were the preparations to truly invest in alternative fuels or the courage to lead and impose a small gas tax to encourage the automakers to work on newer and more efficient cars and hybrid engines as well as conservation?
So now Bush asks for Offshore drilling. NOW he asks. Too little too late. The price of gas is a lead weight on the economy, as is the ever flowering banking and credit crisis.
I will bet money that the price of oil will break a new record very shortly and this move will be effectively shown for the superficial gesture it is. There’s just too many variables and too many people who’re getting rich of of this oil debacle. I’ve heard it called the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world. A lot of it going to some very unfriendly people sending it to terrorist organizations.
I think the price will go down eventually, but not until there’s a new President.
So I ask what do people think of these factors? and who’s responsible? Also, please I am asking this in seriousness so if you could refrain from the attacks, simply because I am presenting a different worldview I’d appreciate it.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/16/2008 @ 10:13 pmSince when does the President write the laws?
And why did gas and oil prices only start skyrocketing in November 2006? What major change in the makeup of the government took place at that point in time?
Think hard.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/16/2008 @ 10:23 pm“But it’s not like an administration with deep connections to the U.S. oil industry wouldn’t have access to projections for future oil supply and demand.”
Peter – You’re a genius! You figured out the secret no one else could find! Amazing. You should write a book about this. Nobody has ever mentioned this before.
America imported 24% of its oil in 1970 and 70% now. I forget what the figure was in 2000, but the change didn’t happen all on Bush’s watch. Get over it dicksneeze.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/16/2008 @ 10:26 pmDrummy, there are lots of factors here, I think it is a bit facile to pin the price of oil on the Democratic majority that took over in 2006. Remember who controlled Congress for the decade before that. And who’s geopolitical policies have dominated for the last 7 years. How could an administration with such close ties to the oil companies not have been aware of the spike in demand that would result a few years down the line? I mean obviously they can’t predict how much oil is in the ground, but their had to be quantifications and projections for world demand, especially in emerging economies in China and India and accurate numbers for how many barrels of oil would be available based on global per day production.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/16/2008 @ 10:32 pmThe per annum oil requirement for emerging economies based on expansion and GNP was quantifiable. The per annum production of barrels of oil was also a quantifiable projection. In spite of how much oil is in the ground, the supply is dictated by the output capabilities of the respective nations with oil fields. This is a more or less static number. There’s only so much oil that can be taken out of the ground and refined and put on the world market.
Where was the energy policy to deal with it? Was an occupation of Iraq and access to its oil fields an element of that policy? If not, where was the governmental and hydrocarbon industrial complex policy to address the projected demand?
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/16/2008 @ 10:48 pmIf Harry Reid stood next to Nancy Pelosi and said:
We encourage our party to support offshore drilling and to build more nuclear power plants in order to have our country become totally self sufficient on its energy needs. Our goal is to reduce our oil imports to zero. We will work with our friends across the aisle in the Republican Party to make it happen in the fastest way possible. Simply put, we are fast tracking this and we will get it done. We’re drilling our way out of it and we’re starting NOW.
Every trader on the Merc who was long crude would have a heart attack as the price of crude would tank—in seconds. I’m not up on that contract enough to know whether or not there is a daily limit, but if there is, the market would be limit down for days and every moderately capitalized long would be severely hurt. In fact, the psychological damage would be so bad that crude would never recover.
That’s it. That is all it would take. But it involves Harry and Nancy and we all know that’s not going to happen.
A simple solution and instantaneous results…too much to ask for.
PC14 (ec0516) — 7/16/2008 @ 10:56 pm“The per annum oil requirement for emerging economies based on expansion and GNP was quantifiable. The per annum production of barrels of oil was also a quantifiable projection. In spite of how much oil is in the ground, the supply is dictated by the output capabilities of the respective nations with oil fields.”
Peter – Your comments reek of real world experience in their mastery of the complexities of the global energy industry and your understanding of the futures markets. With great thinkers such as yourself it is no wonder the democrat party finds itself where it is today.
Unlike the typical liberal troll who spouts talking points taken from the latest post at a popular progressive blog, you actually put misguided thought into you comments in an attempt to make them sound reasonable. Facts are usually missing, but thought is present.
I am very impressed that you believe American businesses have a ctystal ball when it comes to predicting the future, oil supply and demand in this case. Did someone plant this idea in your head or did you think of it all by yourself? The obvious implications of your idea being that those business would be able to make a freaking mint on the futures market with that perfect information. Am I going too fast here Peter?
Obviously I sense a flaw in your theory. I believe you should think about it before I embarrass you further. I think you should also think about in the forecasting process who controls supply and whether that can be adjusted up or down over the course of the year. Apply some of that real world business experience that seems to guide your thinking.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/16/2008 @ 11:17 pmThe back and forth following WLS’ post contains a good deal of insight, in my opinion (thanks in particular to Aplomb). There isn’t just one or a couple of factors at work; this is an instance where multiple explanations can be “right.”
Over the long term, three factors loom largest in influencing the price of oil. (1) Supply, (2) Demand, (3) The value of the US dollar.
Supply is the most controversial. Two sides to the same question are, How much oil remains in the ground?, and How expensive will it be to recover? Kenneth Deffeyes’ book Hubbert’s Peak (excerpted on Google) is a plain-spoken presentation of the Peak Oil theory; lots more at The Oil Drum blog and elsewhere. Peak Oil holds that the largest, easiest-to-find oil fields have already been discovered.
In contrast, optimists believe that the general rule of the past eight decades can continue: increased exploration will be rewarded with increased discovery and thus with growing reserves of cheap-to-recover oil. This strikes me as wishful thinking–notably, it is economists rather than geologists who tend to subscribe to this view.
Demand is plainer. The First World, including the U.S., has grown more energy-efficient since the Seventies. Oil consumption has modestly declined on a per-capita basis. There’s a lot of room for further improvement, at the cost of diverting society’s resources away from other things and towards conservation. High prices will be the main driver of this, spurred at the margins by government policies and Green sensibilities. Similarly, there are lots of opportunities in conversion, e.g. replacing oil-fired generating stations with nuclear or wind power, or encouraging people who heat with oil (me) to move to natural gas.
But oil is a fungible commodity; the price/bbl is a function of worldwide supply and demand (DOE forecasts here) (and speculation). In particular, as China continues to industrialize and as more Chinese climb out of poverty, projected oil consumption increases faster than projected production. Considering the emergence of China (and India, the Tigers, etc.) as major markets, this means that, long term, crude oil prices are going up. This trend can be moderated but not reversed by First World conservation and subsitution efforts. Only a widespread depression or similar-scale disaster would alter the fundamental dynamics.
The weakening dollar contributes to oil price hikes in the U.S. This problem is less sharp than it would otherwise be, because crude oil is priced in USD throughout the world. But long-term, a dollar that is weaker by X% means that Americans will pay X% more than others.
Those are the long-term determinants (years to decades). There’s a lot more that goes on in the short- and medium- term. Increased domestic production will exert modest downward pressure on (worldwide) price; probably more significant is their benefit to the U.S. trade deficit. (On the other hand, a barrel not drawn from under ANWR today is still there for our children to use tomorrow.) WLS is certainly right that futures traders are very sensitive to the factors that will affect pricing in the next few months; policy decisions such as what Bush just did will dull the edge of speculation and lower forward contract prices.
We don’t get to see the consequences of what didn’t happen (obviously). For example, Policy X might have led to gasoline rising to “only” $3.60/gal this week; Policy Y might have led to gasoline costing $4.60/gal. From our standpoint, we know that X would be better (lower prices), and Y worse. But in either case, Matt Lauer and the other teevee Talking Heads would be moaning loudly about the awfulness of the hiked prices (and the perfidy of Bush, etc.). Looking to our future, policy choices will make a significant difference to where things stand in, say, 2010. But the convergence of the three factors I’ve discussed mean that it’s a question of how much further prices are going to go up.
Barring Cold Fusion or some catastrophic clampdown on Asian demand, $2.99/gallon gasoline is not going to return.
AMac (1e0ed0) — 7/17/2008 @ 5:59 amWhat do the oil companies have to gain from drilling these newly opened areas? Bringing new oil on the market only hurts their bottom line.
Sure, an Exxon or whomever will want the lease so that they can stonewall and prevent other companies from drilling it. I’m sure that’s happening a lot already with existing contracts that they aren’t drilling. They save them for a rainy day…their rainy day, not ours.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 7/17/2008 @ 6:31 amLook at the prices of oil and gas during that period, as opposed to the last 20 months. Prices were HALF of what they are today ($2.21 a gallon in late October, 2006), and there is only one major event that took place in November, ’06, that would have had any chance of affecting oil prices so dramatically.
The weakening dollar is ALL about confidence in the governmental fiscal policies, and I have just a few questions.
Which branch is it that writes the laws allegedly implementing the government’s policies? Which party is it that has been against drilling in ANWR? Against new drilling inside the lower 48? Against drilling on the outer continental shelf? Against nuclear power plants? Against the building of new refineries?
In short, which party has been responsible for preventing us from becoming independent of foreign oil producers (most of whom don’t like us)?
This lifting of the Executive ban is a good first step, but until the Dems step up and follow suit, prices won’t be much affected, and people like you will still blame Bush.
PC14 has it right. If Harry and Nancy were to just come out and say that, the prices of oil futures would drop within seconds.
It won’t happen, because the Democrats are using this issue as a means to an end, but once they take the White House (if they do), they will enact precisely ZERO reforms to correct high prices.
If Barry is elected, get ready for double-digit inflation starting around Thankgiving.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 6:53 am“What do the oil companies have to gain from drilling these newly opened areas? Bringing new oil on the market only hurts their bottom line.”
It’s some other oil company’s bottom line that is benefitting now. If an oil company brings a new field on line, their own bottom line benefits. Simple.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 6:55 amSo I ask what do people think of these factors? and who’s responsible? Also, please I am asking this in seriousness so if you could refrain from the attacks, simply because I am presenting a different worldview I’d appreciate it.
Comment by Peter”
Sure. Congress’ approval rating is the lowest since such things were recorded.
You might consider reading Energy Victory by Zubrin, which advocates 100% flex-fuel vehicles and a transition to a methanol fuel standard. I think he has a serious point. Our new car is flex-fuel.
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/17/2008 @ 7:02 am36
What do you expect, that they will increase their supply by 20% for the purpose of dropping the price 30%? Do the math. “Big Oil” has nothing to gain and everything to lose by drilling in the US.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 7/17/2008 @ 7:22 amMark my words – if this goes through !!
BIG OIL WANTS THE US OIL FOR EXPORT! NOT FOR US.
THE PRICE WONT COME DOWN, THEY WILL HAVE ANOTHER BULLSHIT EXCUSE, (govt regulations, refining costs etc..) BIG OIL WILL POCKET THE PROFITS, WE WILL CONTINUE BUYING FORIEGN OIL ! just watch and see.
THE SAME WILL HAPPEN AS IT DOES FOR SUGAR (we pay 22c vs 7c) AMERICAN CRUDE WILL END UP STILL COSTING US $5 AT THE PUMP. THEY ARE DoING THIS FOR THEIR OWN SELF INTEREST, NOT OURS.
dave (7b2262) — 7/17/2008 @ 7:38 amIt takes 10 years to bring new oil on line?
Perfect Sense (23c691) — 7/17/2008 @ 7:41 amThen as any good liberal would say: “Do it for the children.”
#38 BS..US-oil company supplies are dwarfed by the big multi-nationals. If a US company buys oil from OPEC for $140 a barrel and processes it, they are not making what a Saudi oil pumper is. Don’t you think that oil coming from anwr or the gulf would bring significantly greater profits even at lower prices. Look at Europe and how much more they pay for gasoline. even getting it from their own nearly North Sea reserves. Much of that discrepancy if from confiscatory taxes for the nanny state. Yes, oil companies make big profits but lower as a percentage of income than many other industries. And they are taxed at every level. Plus pay out dividends to the widows and orphans and other investors. Imagine all the new jobs created if we opened up off-shore drilling, new refineries, new nuclear plants and anwr drilling, not to mention the huge oil shale reserves in Wyoming and such. In WWII, the Germans were converting coal to oil. I wonder what the cost comparison now would be between paying opec and conversion?
madmax333 (5ee1ba) — 7/17/2008 @ 7:42 amAnd if you really think that opening up the places where US oil lies would be stonewalled by industry, then let your politically motivated dem congress give the ok. They won’t because they want to use the very price rises to hammer the Republicans. Or if your effg liberals like Osama, Er I mean Obama, Reid and Pelosi just SAY it will be ok, that will drop the prices pronto. Asmuch as they prevaricate, they can always flip flop later and welch on the deal, no? The asshats should be hanging from street lights upside down for the way they piss on the public.
Again, I break my exile…
j Curtis, you simple don’t get it…
Oil companies in the US spend a LAREG amount of money to get the oil from which they make gas…
For example, lets say oil costs $134 a barrel. The oil company pays out for the oil, and then spends money refining it and the sells it as gas…
If they drill for the oil themselves, and the cost of oil drops to, say, $100, that’s still $100 dollar they aren’t paying SOMEONE ELSE. And they can sell what THEY drill, so that’s $100 extra they would never have seen had they not drilled.
If I go buy tomatoes for years, and then decide to grow my own, the cost of growing the plant myself is nothing compared to what I used to pay frequently for someone else to grow them.
Does that make sense, or shall you continue on the “Big Oil” kick that has so rotted your brain?
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 7/17/2008 @ 7:42 amwhere do these cluless moonbats come from anyway? Oh yeah, domestic oil producers are going to say, sorry we have to export this because we want to keep prices high here? OIL is FUNGIBLE. Ok, oil from Venezuela is a crappier heavier grade that requires special refining and such..as one example, but if we had more supplies, it would shows up in the overall global supply picture. Huge a$$hole Gore wants to make more AGW speeches now sans any real debate. Your liberal friends want higher gas prices so you jackoffs will use less oil and pay more for the carbon credit global taxation/get algore and friends richer boondoggle. Meanwhile St. Fatboy Teddy is NIMBY and prevents even effing WIND POWER from spoiling his island views and sailing. Is that hypocrisy or what? Is Gore using 21 times the average electric in just one of his homes hypocrisy or not when he calls for the rest of us to cut back? As he and other limo libs private jet to island paradises for more meetings on the issue? Temps have actually fallen since ’98, BUT will go up ten years from now, we are told and it is man’s fault, particularly the USA. And the sheeple buy into the whole crock, lock, stock and barrel. That makes me think RINOS are more liberal themselves because they buy into the same illogical non-scientific facts espoused by lord gore. So I include Juan McCain in the clueless asshole status for AGW.
madmax333 (5ee1ba) — 7/17/2008 @ 7:54 amTHE SAME WILL HAPPEN AS IT DOES FOR SUGAR (we pay 22c vs 7c)
dave – Check out the history of the sugar lobby.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 8:00 am“What do you expect, that they will increase their supply by 20% for the purpose of dropping the price 30%? Do the math. “Big Oil” has nothing to gain and everything to lose by drilling in the US.”
j.curtis – Are you intentionally being an idiot here?
“Big Oil” is not one big pool of dollars to be divided up at the end of the year on a friendly basis between all the players as you seem to imply.
ExxonMobil does not own all the foreign oil it imports to the U.S. It has to buy much of it from foreign state oil companies. If it has the opportunity to drill in the U.S. and get its own oil, keeping all the profit, instead of paying a middleman such as the state oil company of Nigeria, why would it not take those opportunities all day long even if the price of oil declined?
Can you answer that for me?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 8:07 amOf course the headline to this could also read:
The United States will send an envoy to talks this weekend between Iran and major powers over Tehran’s nuclear program……… and Oil Prices Drop 7% in two trading sessions. All this thanks to the advice Senator Barrack Obama has given the administration.
But you wont see that type of reporting here.
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 8:09 am“Does that make sense, or shall you continue on the “Big Oil” kick that has so rotted your brain?”
Scott – This dovetails with Peter’s “crystal ball” theory of the oil industry that all the company’s can perfectly predict demand and supply and should be secretly sharing this information with the government so we can design the perfect energy policy. I don’t know businesses that operate this way and I didn’t know we put the government in charge of the industry either.
What we should be doing is encouraging the government to pass laws which have broad implications for our energy supply, such as energy drilling and refining, and national security, reducing our dependence on foreign energy supplies. Unfortunately this gets lost among the bogus environmental and global warming propaganda and goals of the government regulating more of the economy served up by the left.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 8:17 amBut you wont see that type of reporting here.
Oiram – Because nobody believes the two are in any way linked.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 8:19 am“All this thanks to the advice Senator Barrack Obama has given the administration.”
Oiram – Do you have a citation that this is due to the Dalai Obama’s advice or just a continuarion the the diplomacy which Bush was conducting. It seems a stretch to attribute this to Obama.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 8:21 amExactly, they believe what they want to believe. I’m not saying liberals don’t do that too.
All I know is that we need alternative fuel. Maybe not right this moment, but in the future for our grand children, great grand children, great great grand children etc. We should of started on the alternative energy search 100 years ago but we didn’t. Putting a band aid on and amputated arm is not going to solve the problem. Drilling and putting our precious oceans in more danger than they already are is not the solution here.
If it really were an immediate solution, people would go back to buying S.U.V.s to drive there 30 miles per day all by themselves with total disregard to the future and the environment.
In a weird way, I almost want gas prices to go up over $6 to force into action.
Call me crazy (I know you all will)
O
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 8:24 amwhich advocates 100% flex-fuel vehicles and a transition to a methanol fuel standard.
I can just imagine the size of the lawsuits for methanol poisoning.
Taltos (4dc0e8) — 7/17/2008 @ 8:25 amdaleyrocks –
A few months back, Obama was practically labeled a terrorist for wanting to sit down with Iran. The likes of Limbaugh,Coulter and even McCaine and Hillary Clinton thought this was a bad idea. Now suddenly Bush thinks it’s a good idea, suspect to me. Of course I look at from my angle and it looks like Obama is a key advisor to our current administration. That’s good, it will give Obama good batting practice for when it’s his turn at the plate come Jan. ’09.
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 8:31 amWASHINGTON – Democrat Barack Obama raised $52 million last month for his presidential campaign, more than twice as much as Republican rival John McCain in a significant boost to his financial cache for the fall contest.Where is WLS? I want him to comment on this post. I read a post from him where he was predicting that Obama could be having problems with his decision not to take public funding. He was making a point that Obama must have over estimated his money raising abilities. That his base may not be as enthusiastic about supporting his campaign as they did during the primaries. WLS was basing his analysis on the fact that the Obama campaign was delaying to release their June financial detail. He was reading that to mean they were having problems raisning and were afraid to admit people were not giving as befor. I was telling him it was too early to say that obama was having problems with money just because he was delaying to release it. I told him it was dangerous to underestimate Barack Obama. You never know what they have up their sleeves. I was right. They have just released their june income and it is more than double McCain’s. This with all the talk about Obama’s flip flopping habits and all the rest. WLS. WLS….WLS…..Where are you?……..yoo..hooo! Where are you?…WLS? WLs?..
love2008 (1b037c) — 7/17/2008 @ 8:36 am“A few months back, Obama was practically labeled a terrorist for wanting to sit down with Iran.”
Oiram – Let’s get the facts straight to start. He was labelled an idiot to want to sit down with Iran without preconditions, a stance which everybody still believe is the hallmark of stupidity and a telling example of Obama’s inexperience. The current talks are and outgrowth of the years of multilateral talks Bush has been holding with our European allies as opposed to the “Cowboy Diplomacy” for which he was derided by his friends in the democratic party. Apparently Barrack wants to bring back that Cowboy Diplomacy when it comes to Iran, much to the consternation of oue European allies.
Oiram – Can you get your story, er talking points, on this straight before embarrassing yourself?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 8:39 amoiramobamabot- pray tell why urkel is down with meeting despots with no preconditions and yet can’t even set up a negotiable date for meeting with McCain to talk to military groups? He’s have no problem figuratively fellating Imadamnutjob, but runs in panic from proposed townhall meetings with McCain sans teleprompters? Or would he feel the need to have moonbat plants in his audiences vis a vis the earlier primary debates? Just what has Urkel ever accompished in the Senate? What republicans has he reached across the aisle to for compromise? His own autobiography asserts he will look out for the best interests of Islam. Are you willfully blind to his associations or do you also idolize the likes of Wrights, Ayers, Dohrn and the various radical black separtists and nation of islam hate whitey pondscum? Enquiring minds want to know why trolls/moonbats buy BHO’s magic potion of hope! change! and fresh fruit/kickbacks/influence peddling/flip flops/voting present mumerous times/no1 lib in senate regarding when he DOES actually vote/the surge will fail and the scrub the website of that faux pas????
madmax333 (cb3d2e) — 7/17/2008 @ 8:42 amA 42-gallon barrel of crude oil can yield about 44 gallons of product; circa three-quarters are gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel. On the other hand, refining consumes about 20% of the energy value of the crude being processed (source).
As a cocktail-napkin exercise, assuming 80% efficiency and assuming that all refined products are priced the same —
$140/bbl crude oil translates to a raw-material cost of $4.17 per gallon of gasoline.
$100/bbl crude translates to $2.98 per gal.
For the price at the pump, add distribution and storage costs, refiners’, wholesalers’, and retailers’ overheads and profit margins, and taxes.
AMac (c822c9) — 7/17/2008 @ 8:50 am“I can just imagine the size of the lawsuits for methanol poisoning.
Comment by Taltos ”
Yes, they will about the same as the suits for gasoline poisoning. Why don’t you read the book before making a fool of yourself ? Do you know what “flex fuel” means ? Do you know the history of Brazil ?
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/17/2008 @ 8:58 am@Mike
I wasn’t criticizing the idea, I was making a backhanded remark about how litigious people are.
Taltos (4dc0e8) — 7/17/2008 @ 9:09 amWe should of started on the alternative energy search 100 years ago but we didn’t.
So, we should have started searching for an alternative fuel to gasoline before we started widely using gasoline for fuel ?
Taltos (4dc0e8) — 7/17/2008 @ 9:16 amBrazil mandates 100% ethanol cars from all domestic manufacturers. I don’t know if it still is since they just found a major oil field, but it used to be 50% of production. They got the ethanol from sugar cane grown in the Amozon. The 100% alcohol cars have a small gasoline tank for starting the engine as it wont start on ethanol. BTW they spell it Brasil.
Hazy (c36902) — 7/17/2008 @ 9:18 amThe reason we use gasoline today is that it was the cheapest stuff imaginable 100 years ago, being the waste product of kerosene production, with serious hazards involved in storage or even casual experimentation (it can be VERY unfriendly to those who are careless with it).
Famous last words: “Gimme a match, I think I’m outta gas.”
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 9:22 amYes and apparently the USA cannot avail ourselves of their ethanol and must instead use corn here, driving up food prices here and world-wide. And also the cost of producing our ethanol versus what energy is derived is quite high. Makes so much sense to subsidize things like corn,sugar, tobacco, etc.????
madmax333 (cb3d2e) — 7/17/2008 @ 9:23 amThe only possible alternate energy (other than individual atomic reactors) for vehicles is hydrogen. The current cost per gallon equilivent is about $20.00 per gallon. It would take massive amounts of electricity to make enough to power our domestic fleet, and the only way to get it is hydro or atomic.
Hazy (c36902) — 7/17/2008 @ 9:25 am#61 you got that right. Moltov cocktail anyone?
A schoolboy friend in Vegas many years ago lit a frying pan of gasoline to keep warm while camping in deseret. We’re talking grade school level. It exploded and really messed him up badly.
Wondering just how safe the potential of hydrogen as fuel is? Was not the big Zeppelin that exploded in Jersey filled with hydrogen?
madmax333 (cb3d2e) — 7/17/2008 @ 9:26 amIf congress fast tracked drilling and refining, it would break OPEC.
Hazy (c36902) — 7/17/2008 @ 9:27 amDaleyrocks,
The way you present the situation should have meant a hardship on the oil companies instead of record profits during the huge inflation of crude prices.
I would like to see the market flooded with as much crude as possible. I’d like to see the market so flooded that the price comes down to a buck a gallon at the pump. Do you think the league of large oil companies hopes for the same thing as I do?
j curtis (c84b9e) — 7/17/2008 @ 9:28 amBut is it not morally wrong to convert corn, meant for feeding nations to fuel? Is that not a contributing factor to the global food crisis we are seeing today? Think of what would happen if we had 100% dependence on ethanol? In 2007, biofuel consumed one third of America’s corn harvest.
love2008 (1b037c) — 7/17/2008 @ 9:40 amFilling up one large vehicle fuel tank one time with 100% ethanol uses enough corn to feed one person for a year. Thirty million tons of U.S. corn going to ethanol in 2007 greatly reduces the world’s overall supply of grain.
We will soon be driven to starvation!
“The way you present the situation should have meant a hardship on the oil companies instead of record profits during the huge inflation of crude prices.”
Bullshit j. curtis. They make money when the price goes up. If they control more of the supply chain at the same price they make more money. If they can sell even more while controlling the supply chain even if the price goes down they can still make more money. Think it through.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 9:44 am#67: who’s “we” cupcake?
let the rest of the world grow their own food.
the only problem i have with ethanol, besides the fact that it’s hard on engines, and is an inefficient mechanism for converting energy, is the amount of water it uses up in the various processes. bio-fuels are dumb.
redc1c4 (5c9f54) — 7/17/2008 @ 9:47 amDespite losing more readers than any other newspaper in the country, the LATimes reported a profit margin twice that of any oil company on the planet. Why aren’t we taxing the mass media?
Grocery stores are making higher profit margins than the gas stations are. Should we impose a windfall profit tax on them?
If not, why not?
Exxon-Mobil paid more in corporate income tax in 2006 than the bottom 50% of wage earners combined. Shouldn’t we raise taxes on those lower 50% before we increase taxes on those who are already paying more than their “fair share”? (And who gets to decide what is “fair”, when the government is already punishing those who actually succeed in their chosen fields, while using those same tax dollars to subsidize the failures, the lazy and the bureaucracy?)
Then tell Nancy and Harry to open up production fields. We could have oil from the OCS (Outer Continental Shelf) by this time next year!
Tell them to ease up restrictions on the building of nuclear power plants (which will cut oil demand) and refineries (which will increase supply by eliminating the bottleneck that currently exists). Tell them it’s For The Children (TM).
I won’t be holding my breath.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 9:57 am68
Why aren’t oil stocks going through the roof like crazy today?
j curtis (c84b9e) — 7/17/2008 @ 10:06 am#70
drumwaster,
All I keep hearing about is percentage profit margins being low for oil companies so that justifies there price increases.
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 10:32 amIf you were to ask any grocery store in the country to lower their profit margin to 5%, but that they would be only one of five companies in the market, let’s see how quickly they would jump at that deal.
Same with burgers, if Mcdonalds didn’t have a ton of competition like they do now, they would be thrilled to only make 5% on something that people bought every day.
The big oil companies need to be broken up by antitrust laws that we have in place. Then we’ll see prices come down.
Oiram – Just let the government run it, huh? I am looking forward to $7.50 gallons of gas. UGH>
JD (75f5c3) — 7/17/2008 @ 10:35 amDid I say let the government run it???
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 10:46 amLet more than 5 companies compete to provide us with something that all of us use, rather all of us have to use everyday.
We’re paying $4.50 today in part because of a week dollar created by a war to help preserve oil in the world. This was probably the first war in World History where taxes were not raised. DON’T GET ME STARTED!
Because that worked so well with the telephone companies.
Prices will not come down until there is actual competition in the field. Congress has essentially closed the door on independent speculators through overarching legislation and closing the field.
You want to break up a monopoly, eliminate about half the regulations and paperwork, and quit talking about windfall profit taxes, and the mid-range investors will flock to where the money is. Until then, why should anyone even bother, when they know that they will only get to keep 50 cents of their dollar if they succeed, and lose all of it if they get it wrong?
The various levels of government are making twice the amount per dollar in taxes than the oil companies are.
The “record profits” are only because the sheer number of gallons being sold every year. And the governments are still making more, plus the various corporate income taxes.
And you want to punish a company that has been successful? What about all of the little guys who have their retirement pensions invested in those oil companies? “To hell with the individual, we need to punish the successful by splitting them up!” What about all of the franchisees, whose profit margin is so slim as to be literally nonexistent until prices catch up with their costs?
I would ask if you remember the gas shortage nightmares of the 70s, but the arguments you are making would make it rhetorical.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 10:53 am72
No, we need more oil companies not fewer. Put them all on the same oil field and let them drill the crude out of it out as fast as they can until it’s empty.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 7/17/2008 @ 10:54 amDONT GET ME STARTED !!!!!!!!!!! OHNOES! HERE COME THE ALL CAPS!!!!!!!!
JD (75f5c3) — 7/17/2008 @ 10:55 amDrummer: These are U.S. Energy Information Administration numbers for the median of a gas per gallon: weekly, monthly and yearly back to April of 1993.
The price is steady from April 1993, with a Democratic majority 103rd Congress, and the Republican majority 104th, 105th and midway about through the also Repub majority 106th Congress.
The chart shows that the upward trend in gas prices the country is currently experiencing began in July of 1999 when the price broke through the 125.5 range and kept rising, wavering a bit in June 2001 at 173.9 and going down to a low of 110 mid Dec. 2001 before continuing on it’s upward drive with a big jump in March of 2002 from 118.5 to 126.2 between the weeks ending March 3rd and March 11th 2002. The price hovers in the 140 range through most of the rest of 2002 and takes flight in earnest in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 ending that year at 238.7.
Observe the aggregate economic conditions and republican sponsored governmental policies that have taken shape in that time: The fiscal irresponsibility and budget deficit, the record debt, the unprecedented expansion of the government, the destabilization and turmoil in the Middle East specifically in regard to the Iran financed Hezbollah resulting in the 2006 war with Israel (3.970 rockets were fired into Northern Israel) and the Shia insurgency and the Moqtada militia, the credit crisis caused by laissez-faire policies towards the financial and banking industry (most notably the failure of the U.S. Treasury’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to exact controls on repackaged loans and the rewritten CRA regulations attained by Banking lobbyists that took hold in Sept. 1, 2005 under the Republican controlled 109th Congress).
All these things have come to fruition now. And these are all recorded facts. Cause and effect. And once again it is clear why Iraq should and could have been handled differently.
Anyhow, to address your desire to put all things that have gone wrong at the foot of the Democrats and all things that have gone right due to the Republicans is not supported by the facts. And thankfully the American people recognize that and will vote appropriately in November.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/17/2008 @ 10:55 amYet somehow government revenues increased.
It’s almost like that were supposed to happen.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 10:57 amPunish oil companies for being successful?
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:01 amI love it when people compare oil to other stuff that we use. “A 16os Latte at Starbucks cost 4 times than a gallon of gas” for example. First of all there are thousands of ways and places to get a Latte. Second of all, our economy dosn’t depend on Latte’s, but it does depend on Oil which is controlled by 5 companies in the U.S.A.
Again, if you tell a burger company that they will be taxed up the wazzoo and only make a nickel on a $2 dollar burger, but that they only will be competing agains 4 other burger joints, wont they jump at that? Wouldn’t we all?
So it’s just a “coincidence” that gas prices have almost doubled, housing markets plummeted, and the value of the dollar has dropped like a homesick rock just in the last twenty months?
It would also help if you actually provided a link that actually supported what you were arguing. (Notice how those Democratic “low” prices are the same as the Republican’s “high” prices?)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:02 amApologies this is the link to the:
U.S. Energy Information Administration Chart
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:02 amMaybe not once you tell them they are no longer allowed to breed the beef cattle they will be using here in the US, but must buy them from countries that don’t like us – at the prices those countries set….
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:04 amDrummer: The U.S. Energy Information Administration chart I’m referring to in my comment is just a tad wee bit more objective than yours.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:06 amDrum, first of all if you want to look at gas prices in the last 2 years of a democratic congress, why not go even further and compare prices from when Clinton was in office to even the first three years of Bush’s term???
We went from a budget surplus to a seriously debtor nation. Instead of raising taxes to fund the war we are asking the world to fund it through debt.
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:08 amThe dollar is week now because of this, and you don’t think this has anything to do with the price of gas???
The price in your link as of November, 2006, ranges between $2.24 and $2.29.
As of June, ’08, they are from $4.02 to $4.13, an increase of almost 80%.
Like I said. Those prices have almost doubled in the last twenty months.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:09 amDrum said:
Maybe not once you tell them they are no longer allowed to breed the beef cattle they will be using here in the US, but must buy them from countries that don’t like us – at the prices those countries set….
Your analogy still made the oil companies record profits.
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:10 amOnly if gas prices are going down for those people using other currencies?
I merely report that the latest spike in prices “just happened” to occur at exactly the same time as Nancy Pelosi took the gavel.
I’m not claiming a “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” correlation, but the fact that the Democrats are against every sort of means available to increase supply and decrease demands – no nukes, no drilling, no alternative power, no new refineries, none of it – has to have caused a few thoughts in the futures markets. And THAT is exactly what is causing the prices to skyrocket 80% in less than 2 years, to levels never seen.
Oh, and it’s “the dollar is weak“, because the dollar is not equal to a time period of seven days.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:17 amNah, no magic crystal ball required DR. It’s based on hard numbers and research and projections on a number of variables plugged into probability and statistics. It’s a whole branch of higher mathematics. The U.S. Oil Companies and the U.S. Government (not to mention the investment banks) have access to the absolute best people in the field.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:17 amThey also paid record taxes. Exxon Mobil ALONE paid more than the bottom 50% of wage earners.
You are also conflating “profits” with “profit margins”. I have already pointed out that the various levels of government are making twice the profits of the oil companies. Wouldn’t they be the ones who should be taxed on all those profits?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:19 am“It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil 10 years from now,” Gore said.
New demand from places like China means oil supplies won’t be able to meet increasing demand, Gore said.
“The way to bring gas prices down is to end our dependence on oil and use the renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1 a gallon gasoline,”
– Former vice president and Nobel laureate –
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:20 amOiram, I agree (read my comment above) and check out this chart going back to 1993 from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:20 amI love it when the dot.com bubble “surplus” is referenced by the Left as some kind of marker. The buble burst on the dot.coms, ooupled with the drunken spending of the Republican led Congress, made that surplus a figment of one’s imagination in short order.
This is the biggest pile of hoo-hah that the Left blathers about. They completely ignore the exponentially rising costs, the fact that the oil companies pay more in taxes than they earn in profit, etc …
So, they are truth tellers when what they say agrees with you, and liars when they have different opinions. How about you ask those same folks about AGW? Taxes? Drilling?
JD (75f5c3) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:23 amThanks Peter. Cheers
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:23 amIf you cannot fix it immediately, you must not attempt to try to fix it. Clinton/Gore had the opportunity to address this, and failed to do so, making the same specious arguments back then.
JD (75f5c3) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:24 am#95……….. JD you forgot to mention Papa Bush as well.
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:29 amHey JD, did the budget surplus exist or not???
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:30 amI’m really confused, because I know it’s gone now. Who’s over spending?
“The dollar is week now because of this, and you don’t think this has anything to do with the price of gas???”
Oiram – Or because we needed to import so much gas????
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:31 amWhatever the case daleyrocks, we need to stop using gas. I know you wont listen to it or read it, but just know that Al Gore talks about it in a speech he made just today at Washington’s Constitution Hall.
Ignorance is bliss isn’t it?
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:36 am“Nah, no magic crystal ball required DR. It’s based on hard numbers and research and projections on a number of variables plugged into probability and statistics. It’s a whole branch of higher mathematics. The U.S. Oil Companies and the U.S. Government (not to mention the investment banks) have access to the absolute best people in the field.”
Peter – Great. It sounds like all those global warming computer models that don’t work or are based on rigged data. Explain how relying on them is different than assuming you have a crystal ball please? If you don’t control supply, are the models any good? Especially if people like the Saudis or Kuwaitis can unilaterally increase or decrease production by significant amounts?
I am again impressed by your real world business acumen. It is getting better by leaps and bounds every day.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:41 amWhy aren’t oil stocks going through the roof like crazy today?
Comment by j curtis — 7/17/2008 @ 10:06 am
j curtis – That’s about the equivalent of asking me why you haven’t dropped dead from terminal stupidity.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:43 amWhatever the case daleyrocks, we need to stop using gas. I know you wont listen to it or read it, but just know that Al Gore talks about it in a speech he made just today at Washington’s Constitution Hall.
Ignorance is bliss isn’t it?
Comment by Oiram — 7/17/2008 @ 11:36 am
Oiram – You may be right, but that future is probably a couple of generations away. In the meantime we have to find a bridge until those alternative fuels and technologies are commercially viable and I believe that involves exploiting existing DOMESTIC resources.
I’ve read and listened to plenty of Gore’s crap and believe he is even more full of shit than both you and Peter.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:48 amClassey daley. Have a nice day 🙂
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:56 amWhy is it that the Left, folks like Oiram, are so willing to sacrifice the good at the altar of the perfect?
JD (75f5c3) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:58 amClassey daley.
Oiram – I believe you started that with the assumptions about what I would or would not listen to.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 12:01 pmJD – They feel like they can control the world with their policies here in the U.S., “Big Oil” controls the world so we need to control big oil, government and regulation are the solution to the world’s problems. If they can get the evil rethuglicans out of the way, everything will be rainbows and unicorns.
The problem is that their models of how the world works are tragically flawed. Too many of them have never operated outside of an academic or government setting.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 12:05 pmMartin Feldstein made just this point in a wonderful op-ed in the WSJ July 1. The article is a great primer on expectations of future price driving current supply (i.e. why sell now if you can get more tomorrow?). He concluded:
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 7/17/2008 @ 12:10 pmAnyone who spouts Gorisms without looking at what a hypocrite he and RFK, Jr. are, are fools not to be trafficked with.
PCD (5c49b0) — 7/17/2008 @ 12:13 pmKevin – According to Peter, he’s got computer models on his side, so everything is cool.
You know how it works, don’t you?
What do the computer models say?
What do you want them to say?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 12:16 pmIn a perfect world JD the idea of governmental non regulation and interference works beautifully. But just ask yourself if you would trust the road you drove on today if it were paved by a private company instead of the government. Or would you trust the meat you ate yesterday if it weren’t regulated.
Republicans assume that all people with money have the best interest in heart for the masses. Of course a lot of them do, but a lot of them could care less about creating a middle class so long as there companies become supremely wealthy in other words “Rainbows and Unicorns” for the top 1% of the country, Gray skies and donkeys for the rest of the people.
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 12:19 pmEvery time John McCain gets in front of a group of people he tells us that Nuclear Power is safe. Really!!? Safe!!?? Really!!? Didn’t the Russian’s kill a spy with a small amount of this “safe” technology.
Radiation found where ex-spy ate, UK officials say – CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/24/uk.spypoisoned/index.html
Would you call the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki “safe”?
JAMA — Thyroid Disease 60 Years After Hiroshima and 20 Years
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/9/1060
Hiroshima and Nagasaki Health Effects
http://www.solarstorms.org/Hiroshima.html
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
If this technology is so “safe”, then why are we afraid that it might get into the hands of Terrorists?
Nuclear Plants Subject to Terrorism, Earthquakes, States Warn
http://a4nr.org/library/security/11.16.2007-ens
—
America’s most vulnerable terrorist targets today include the more than 100 nuclear reactors throughout the country. But, despite being repeatedly warned that terrorists have plans to attack nuclear power plants, the Bush Administration will continue to push for legislation that designates the Yucca Mountain Repository in Nevada as the nation’s premier storage facility for over 77,000 tons worth of radioactive nuclear waste. Upon completion of this project, Nevada and its neighbor states will become the deadliest terrorist target on Earth.
Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste to a Repository
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/trans/trfact03.htm
—
The following is some information that some politicians and pundits either “DON’T KNOW” or “DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW”:
—
Spent Fuel (Nuclear Waste) Facts
================================
– Low-level radioactive waste requires between 10 to 100 years of decay to be rendered safe.
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1530/Nuclear-Energy-TYPES-RADIOACTIVE-WASTE.html
– High-level radioactive waste remains dangerous for thousands of years.
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1530/Nuclear-Energy-TYPES-RADIOACTIVE-WASTE.html
– Radioactive plutonium isotopes remain dangerous for a period of at least 100,000 years.
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1531/Nuclear-Energy-RADIOACTIVE-WASTE-DISPOSAL.html
– Radiation from the Big Bang is still measurable today; 13.7 billion years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_from_Big_Bang_to_Heat_Death
– Cancers, birth defects, DNA mutations, and reproductive, immune and endocrine system disorders.
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/radrecycleupdate3-01.htm
– OCRWM: The Results – Dealing with the unknown over tens of thousands of years.
http://www.ymp.gov/ym_repository/people/unknown/index.shtml
—
Half-life of Spent Nuclear Fuel
===============================
U-236 = 14 billion years (Uranium)
U-238 = 4.46 billion years (Uranium)
Sr-90 = 28.90 years (Stronium)
Tc-99 = 213,000 years (Technetium)
Sn-126 = 230,000 years (Tin)
Pu-238 = 87.7 years (Plutonium)
Pu-239 = 24,110 years (Plutonium)
Pu-240 = 6,561 years (Plutonium)
Pu-241 = 14 years (Plutonium)
Pu-242 = 373,300 years (Plutonium)
Pu-244 = 80.8 million years (Plutonium)
Cl-36 = 301,000 years (Chlorine)
Cs-135 = 2.3 million years (Cesium)
Cs-137 = 30.2 years (Cesium)
Bi-208 = 400,000 years (Bismuth)
Bi-209 = 19 billion years (Bismuth)
Bi-210 = 5.01 days (Bismuth)
Bi-210m = 3 million years (Bismuth)
Bi-211 = 2.15 minutes (Bismuth)
Bi-212 = 60.5 minutes (Bismuth)
Bi-213 = 45 minutes (Bismuth)
Bi-214 = 20 minutes (Bismuth)
Nb-93m = 14 years (Niobium)
Nb-94 = 20,000 years (Niobium)
—
Despite several reasons to help Shoshone protect their territory:
– Paleo-Indian stewardship spanning thousands of years (honoring stewardship and perseverance)
– Territory held sacred by several Indian tribes (federal protection and religious freedom)
– Ancient Paleo-Indian rock art (federally protected and historically significant)
– Treaty of Ruby Valley 1863 (agreement does not allow nuclear waste disposal)
– Federal Protection (historic sites and religious artifacts)
– Yucca Mountain above an active earthquake fault line (the Bow Ridge earthquake fault line)
– Ancient volcanic region (how long will it remain dormant)
The agreed uses of the Treaty of Ruby Valley 1863 do not include a disposal site for highly radioactive waste, but despite this fact President Bush has designated Yucca Mountain, a site within the Ruby Valley lands, as the nation’s first nuclear waste repository.
—
Southern California Scientist’s in the 1950s questioned the responsibility of using fossil fuels. In 1957, scientists began to talk about the lasting effects on the planet (Global Warming & Climate Change) and on human health (carciogenic effects & pollution) from burning fossil fuels.
We are currently seeing the effects of being controlled by this enormously powerful world-wide industry and lobby with little to no recourse built into the decision making process. We concolidate the power of the masses into the hands of a few extremely rich and extremely powerful people with little to no oversight whatsoever.
Is it any surprise that when we do this, an industry like the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership becomes poised to take the place of “Big Oil” and the Fossil Fuel Industry. We start off by placing all of our eggs in one basket. We tout the supposed benefits and deny the real costs. Then when the industry grows exponentially in power and influence and eventually gains the backing of Presidents, Dictators, and Governments around the world who use it as a political weapon. Then we find it difficult to change until are backs are against the wall.
We are now making the same mistakes with the 1940s Nuclear Energy Industry, that we once made with fossil fuels. We allow a world-wide dependency to be built on this industry so that it controls people and not the other way around. We are now going down the same road with Nuclear Energy by calling continuing to call it “safe” while, at the same time, brushing aside the truth. We are doing the same thing, but expecting different results.
—
The NEW “Big Oil” / “Fossil Fuel Industry” that is waiting securely in the wings.
DOE – Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
http://www.gnep.energy.gov/
—
Native American Pride &
Indigenous Peoples Pride
– Peaceful Protester
Peaceful Protester (11ec50) — 7/17/2008 @ 12:46 pmOil production in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia has remained constant with SA recently announcing this summer it would increase oil production by 500,000 barrels a day.
Regardless, there’s still only so much oil that can be refined at any given time, SA, Kuwait, Nigeria, Russia could all announce they’re going to increase daily output, it still wouldn’t effect the short term price until there’s the capacity to refine it. It begs the question: Why haven’t the traditional U.S. Oil Co’s expanded their capacity to refine? I make a distinction because there’s a difference between the traditional old school Oil Co.s who’re in terminal liquidation and buying back their own stock (link). They are really no different than investment companies at this point and should entail greater SEC oversight. They’re priority is protecting their respective brands, retaining their lock on distribution networks and the speculative stock market, not what’s happening out in the actual field. They’ve shown little drive to actually develop many oil fields they already own or have access to. Oil co’s don’t want to develop new oil fields. It is no longer in their best interest.
See also.
The amount the big oil co.s once spent (in the 70s and early 80s) on new technology and reinvestment is disturbing compared to what they’re spending today and the trend these last 20 years. Again, I repeat it doesn’t take a genius to realize that the need for oil will increase as economies (especially in Asia) expand.
It is actually smaller and newer oil co’s, who are, reinvesting profits in new fields and infrastructure and new technology.
So, the problem here is deeper. It’s industry dysfunction and gaming of the markets. It’s the weakening dollar (due to the credit problems and the national debt) and it’s the instability of the Middle East caused by the Iraq war, the rise of Iran’s political and financial power (due to increased oil porfits) and it’s influence over the Shia, not only in Iraq but in Lebanon through the Hezbollah.
The big oil companies with the infrastructure to make a real difference in the price of oil, will not make a serious effort to drill for any new oil. Offshore or in ANWAR or what have you. If they do it will be a token effort to feed the media and their Public Relations specialists.
This is the all sacred free market. It kills the golden goose for some short term gain, but considering they’re looking at the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world I guess they figure it’s worth it. The sad thing if this wasn’t enough is that if and when there’s an alternative to hydrocarbons in the future they big oil co.’s are probably going to be the organizations with the distribution networks to deliver that as well….and so the whole mess begins anew.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/17/2008 @ 12:49 pmWith the need for energy (which is directly related to quality of life) being filled by what, exactly?
Be specific as to what form of energy you would propose, including the cost per megawatt-hour where available.
Or are you arguing that we don’t need to replace all of the quadrillions of BTU that is currently supplied by hydrocarbons?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 12:54 pmGood piece on the inefficiency of Big Oil Companies.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/17/2008 @ 12:59 pmSo let’s give control to that model of efficiency, the Federal Government!
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 1:01 pmdaleyrocks,
So after this news that Bush ends ban on off-shore drilling and news that millions of acres in Alaska have received the ok for drilling, I asked curiously why the oil stocks haven’t skyrocketted on the news. Your reply is “yur stoopid!”.
Is this news extremely positive news for the oil companies or isn’t it?
j curtis (c84b9e) — 7/17/2008 @ 1:02 pmNot until Congress lifts its ban, too.
Let’s ask Nancy and Harry why they haven’t followed suit yet, shall we?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 1:06 pmThe abusive individual’s mantra.
I respectfully ask that WLS and Patterico take note of Daley’s continual and relentless offensiveness and invective towards anyone who threatens his worldview. Thanks.
Later for now.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/17/2008 @ 1:08 pmDrummer:
I have a couple of better ideas: 1.) Let’s give tax incentives and other rewards to smaller and new energy companies that actually want to reinvest development and new technology and actually drill for oil in the fields that are available. 2.) Let’s take away contracts and land deals from energy companies that are just sitting on them and doing nothing.
Okay. NOW I’m really going. So long Drummer.
Peter (e70d1c) — 7/17/2008 @ 1:13 pmDrumwaster-Not until Congress lifts its ban, too.
Then why did the oil market react to Bush’s action? That is the premise of this thread, remember?
Are you saying that once congress lifts its ban the oil stocks will skyrocket?
Also, Bush opened up four million Alaskan acres without any other approval needed to drill it and the oil stocks didn’t go higher on the news.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 7/17/2008 @ 1:29 pmYou are missing the difference between speculators (which is about the commodity being bought and sold) and shares (which reflects the value of the companies, not the commodity).
The futures market took a hit because of the merest possibility that Congress might follow suit, and prices would drop, leaving them having to pay hugely inflated prices when those futures contracts come due.
However, the value of the companies wouldn’t change very much until Congress gets off its ass and follows suit.
Do you see where you made your mistake now?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 1:33 pmUntil those leases are negotiated, the companies’ values wouldn’t change, because nothing has yet changed in the real world. Check the oil markets again in a few weeks, comparing “who got the new leases” to “which companies had a climb in share value”
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 1:35 pm121
Exxon, Chevron, Conoco, BP and Shell took a dive as the rest of the stock market was way up today.
They did indeed react to the news.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 7/17/2008 @ 1:52 pm“2.) Let’s take away contracts and land deals from energy companies that are just sitting on them and doing nothing”
Peter – Could you identify these please and let me know whether they are “sitting on them” because ther is no oil under the tracts or because they are prohibited from exploring the tracts by environmental whackos.
As always, your real world wisdom and acumen is appreciated in these situations.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 2:01 pmGot link? Wow, if you’re not just making that up, I guess the stock market knows that the upcoming “fast-tracked” legislation of “dig or else” (not quite understanding that there are technical reasons you don’t place drills too close together, nor that every acre of land is not necessarily suitable for drilling) isn’t very good news for the future of the retirement portfolios of their millions of clients.
So which branch is it that makes the laws again? And which party controls that branch?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 2:01 pm“I respectfully ask that WLS and Patterico take note of Daley’s continual and relentless offensiveness and invective towards anyone who threatens his worldview. Thanks.”
Heh. From a relentless comment spammer not actually here for a discussion.
Let’s talk Peter, if you’re not too afraid.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 2:03 pm“I asked curiously why the oil stocks haven’t skyrocketted on the news. Your reply is “yur stoopid!”.”
Absolutely, moron. If I had the key to how the stock market worked I wouldn’t be hanging around on blogs with idiots such as you. Q.E.D.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 2:05 pm“The big oil companies with the infrastructure to make a real difference in the price of oil, will not make a serious effort to drill for any new oil.”
O’rly. Peter, what did ExxonMobil spend on exploration and development last year? How did that compare to ten years ago?
Plus they gots those crazy higher order math computer models, remember.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 2:11 pm125
Well, I just looked up the stock quotes of these companies one by one and also saw what the total stock market did today. I can’t think of any way to link that.
You’d think that would be curious enough thing to start some media discussions, but they probably won’t bring it up.
j curtis (c84b9e) — 7/17/2008 @ 2:16 pm“Every time John McCain gets in front of a group of people he tells us that Nuclear Power is safe. Really!!?”
Peaceful Protester – Ftance doesn’t seem to have a problem getting 70%+ of it’s electricity needs from nuclear and they seem to have a lot more environmental whackos than we do.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 2:24 pmQuick Story Daley referencing your environmental whackos.
I grew up in Los Angeles back in the 70’s. On certain days they wouldn’t let us out of class for P.E. This of course saddened the hell out of me. When I went home my parents could care less if I went out and played. That night before going to bed, it would actually hurt my lungs to take a breath.
It’s not like that anymore, something was done about it by some environmental whackos out here in California.
Way off topic sorry, but had to defend.
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 2:37 pmGood Allah. Lord help us all if these clowns get to play with the economy.
JD (5f0e11) — 7/17/2008 @ 2:38 pmThose same whackos created the legislation requiring as many as 37 “boutique blends” of gasoline, which means that the prices here are 30 cents a gallon higher than neighboring states that don’t have such requirements.
So almost 8% of the current cost of gasoline here in CA is a result of those whackos, and not a drop of gasoline has been saved.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 2:45 pmHopefully God is helping us with the clowns that are currently playing with our economy.
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 2:46 pmAnd we could breath better Drum. Good deal don’t you think?
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 2:52 pmOil drops for third straight day…
Stock market jumps!
Move along now, nothing here to see.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 7/17/2008 @ 2:54 pmI know it’s the lunatic fringe of the right wing that thinks the end of days are near. Hopefully it’s a very small percentage and they are not influencing the intelligent right wingers who want to see mankind continue well into the millenniums.
Ask any environmental whacko if they think end of days are near and they will tell you hopefully not and here is what we need to do to prevent it.
Have a nice day 🙂
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 2:56 pmYou seem to think that smog is a 20th century phenomenon.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 2:59 pmNo I think that smog is symptom of 20th century greed that could of been avoided and in some cases has.
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:01 pmAnd, what greed explains the “smog” described by Richard Henry Dana in “Two Years Before The Mast”?
Another Drew (8018ee) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:05 pmOiram is a talking point Turing machine. Cause and effect have no meaning in its world.
JD (5f0e11) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:07 pmI haven’t read Henry Dana’s 1868 book. I’m guessing he refers to Smog, and your talking point is what? That there was smog long before the 20th century?
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:15 pmWow, you guys really want to destroy this planet of ours don’t you?
There is a very old word to describe their programs – Luddite. Back to the age of growing our own food, burning only wood and peat, and the population about 2% of what it is now.
“The Good Old Days”, where people lived to the ripe old age of 45 (if they were lucky), most children died in childhood from one disease or another (animal testing of vaccines should be banned, right?).
Like it or not, the amount of energy available per capita is directly responsible for standard of living. And, like it or not, there is only one source of energy that puts out more tera-ergs per dollar than hydrocarbons, and that is nuclear. Nothing else comes close.
And I will start worrying about the damage to the environment when all of those liberals who tell me I should care stop using their limos to get back and forth from their multi-million dollar houses do the same. Like “Nobel Laureate” Al “I’m selling carbon credits from myself” Gore?
Further, like it or not, those sources you hope for are still a long way off, and we have to have some source of energy to power our planet.
If we leave the status quo, we are sending more than a billion dollars a day to other nations to buy their gas. If we start drilling here, that money will stay here as well, improving our quality of life right away. Let’s not forget that half the price of the oil is getting it from oil well to refinery storage, before the first drop is touched. How much would we save if the oil were coming from Boulder instead of Basra? From Salt Lake City instead of Sadr City? (I know, I know, I chose the alliteration to make a point.)
Finally, oil is a critical national resource, and we have to be ready for future upsets if the Iranians start getting antsy again. They have already threatened to close the Straits in and out of the Arabian Gulf, which affects more than 40% of the world’s oil. Those nations will pay ever higher prices, forcing us to do the same, since oil is fungible, and tankers can turn around on a moment’s notice if better offers can be had.
The only way to guarantee our supply is to have domestic production. We currently import 70% of our oil. Why is this?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:16 pm“Cause and effect have no meaning in its world.”
That’s part of the problem. This mentality is going to ensure “End Of Days”.
Is that what you want? Or do you imagine a life long into the third Millennium?
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:17 pmBy George I think he’s got it!
Way to regurgitate more talking points.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:20 pmOiram likes fellating strawmen too.
JD (5f0e11) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:21 pmWhat mentality? Understanding Cause and effect? Or pointing out that you don’t?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:23 pmBTW, Oiram…
Though “Mast” was published in 1868, it is a journal of a voyage that occurred in the 1830’s, when Dana was a young man.
And, why did oil drop today for the third-straight day?
Another Drew (8018ee) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:25 pmWe currently import 70% of our oil because every idea to use non carbon based energy has been squashed by big oil companies and car manufactures.
Our backs are up against the wall and we need a permanent fix, not one that might take care of us in 10 years and last only a generation.
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:26 pmI know, I am supposed to play nice, but these twatwaffles drop by, spew their Leftist claptrap, erect some super-sized strawmen, and then whack off while they burn the strawmen. Yes, we want to destroy Mother Gaia. Any more BS you feel like spewing. Let’s get it all out. Gas bad. Nuclear bad. Power bad. Does that cover it?
JD (5f0e11) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:30 pmPeople like you were making the “500 miles on a cup of urine” claims since the 70s. Not a single one has panned out. (Cue the “the oil companies are paying them off to keep quiet” conspiracy in 3… 2… 1…)
Do you really think that if any of these were even remotely financially viable that there wouldn’t be investors clubbing each other for the opportunity to throw money at such a money maker? Literally BILLIONS of dollars to be made by the first one who comes up with a power source with more bang for the buck than gasoline.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:30 pmLOL, Yeah I do get it Drum. Your not the first right wing I’ve spoken with. I know a bit about your talking points.
Please go out and compare smog pre 20th century to now and then get back to me.
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:31 pmYou guys are truly blind.
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:34 pmGo rent “Who killed the electric car”
I’m just as familiar with your talking points. Have you learned about how ozone is made, too?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:34 pmYou know JD, I felt I needed to come here and spew my b.s. because of all the twatwaffles (nice) Republicans who show up on Huffington’s post. I need to even the playing field a bit. LOL
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:35 pmI’ve seen “Loose Change”, too. I’m not into fables.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:35 pmBIG OIL KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR !!!! OHNOES !!!!!!!
JD (5f0e11) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:37 pmOiram came here from HuffPo? SHOCKA !
JD (5f0e11) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:40 pmAnd, don’t forget the powerful oil executive who killed wind-power in Nantucket Sound…
Another Drew (8018ee) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:41 pmOh, sorry, that was Teddy!
Nope sorry Drum, I’m not a scientist, but I do listen to what about 600 of them say. I know you have your set of scientists as well paid for by hmmmmm………..
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:42 pmOilman – LIHOP or MIHOP ?
JD (5f0e11) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:42 pm“We currently import 70% of our oil because every idea to use non carbon based energy has been squashed by big oil companies and car manufactures.”
No Oiram, it was the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:43 pmWho killed the electric car, “a fable” Tell that to all the people who had there cars repoed for no good reason by GM.
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:46 pmGotta run, my snakes are calling me. Time for their evening Scripture.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:46 pm…….. one down ? to go.
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:47 pmWho pays the UN scientists? And what about the growing number who are demanding that their names be pulled from that nonsense being perpetuated by them?
How about the data that no longer supports the theory that the earth is getting warmer, and is actually starting to cool off a bit? Or the evidence that shows that the CO2 levels follow the temperature changes by several decades? (Hard to spot that on a scale showing a few hundred thousand years, but it is irrefutable, nonetheless.)
Consensus does not equal accuracy. Just ask the Catholic Church. Their priests were the most highly educated people on the continent, and they couldn’t be bothered to actually look at the data because it conflicted with their deeply held beliefs.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:51 pmGM did not “repo” those cars, they re-acquired them at the conclusion of the no-purchase leases they were marketed under.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:51 pmIf you objected to the terms that were offerred, you were under no obligation to go forward with the deal.
Or, as Forrest Gump would say: Stupid is, as stupid does.
Nonetheless Drew, who leases a car without the option to buy?
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:55 pmDrum, you keep your scientist I’ll keep mine.
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:55 pmI’ll say it again: if there were a profitable alternative to cars, or for the engines that power them, people would be throwing money at it like they were selling orgasms.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:55 pmNow they might Drum. Now that Oil companies have made record profits and opinion of them is in the toilette (for most people anyways)
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:57 pmI need to get this straight, you guys really believe that engines that get 50 miles per gallon is the best we could do?
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 3:59 pmThose who aren’t given the option to buy. (Seems to me you could have noodled this one out for yourself.)
Fine. How about answering some of the questions? Or do you only spew random talking points?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 4:00 pmOiram, #149:
OK, I’ll byte. Care to provide a link showing the oil companies and car manufacturers are responsible for blocking nuclear power?
Kenny (76922b) — 7/17/2008 @ 4:02 pmProvide proof that there are actually engines out there who can do better, at the same or lower fuel cost.
Electric motors? How do you get the electricity to charge the battery? Coal, fuel oil or nuclear? What about battery disposal problems, such as lead or mercury disposal? What about the infrastructure in between distant towns?
Until there is an ECONOMICAL alternative, things will not change.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 4:06 pmAnd how about the planetary data from Mars, Venus, and even Jupiter showing rising temperatures recently?
Yet they conclude that we must CONSERVE and reduce our standard of living because it is all mans fault!
Kenny (76922b) — 7/17/2008 @ 4:07 pmBig Oil. Big Car. LIHOP. Oilman has to be related to David Petranos Esp and MKDP.
JD (5f0e11) — 7/17/2008 @ 4:13 pmToo Sad 🙁
Go buy a hummer people.
I’m out.
Oiram (983921) — 7/17/2008 @ 4:18 pmNice piece in The Australian yesterday on the AGW fraud.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
Loved the Goreacle’s trillion dollar proposal for ridding ourselves of carbon based energy.
Tax what we burn, not what we earn. Suuwweeeeeett!!!!!
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 4:23 pmHaw haw,
I see that Big D is off his meds again…
Thank you Peter#78 and 82. So tired of hearing the “Democrat congress” theory of high gas prices. That theory was always a No Sale. Sorry Drumwaster and other true believers but you got served.
Besides, there is a better looney thoery for why gas prices spiked when the Dems took over…
The BIG OIL multinationals and their sinister bottom line driven minions got so pissed off that they couldn´t buy a Rep majority forever that they intentionaly lowered thier fuel production which caused prices to go up…yeah…
And if Obama wins in Nov they will lower production MORE making prices go UP even more so that the wingnuts can start squawking about how everything including high gas is the Dems fault! ALL OF IT! All their fault! Tammany Hall!!
EdWood (9df7cb) — 7/17/2008 @ 4:25 pmIf McCain wins then they will open the floodgates and gas will go back to 1 buck a gallon so that the world can see that when PURE, perfect, unselfish, conservatives, and the free market system which works perfectly like in the models that it is based on, are all allowed to run things the sun shines and the angels sing! And everyone gets a free SUV! Do you see? The evil manipulations and machinations of Big Oil are endless. Evil Big Oil will do anything to rule the world forever!!
Man, comment with a link to a nice article on the AGW scam got stuck in the filter or disappeared.
Oiram, loved your man Goreacle’s trillion dollar boondoggle speech today.
Burn baby burn.
Tax what we burn, not what we earn.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 4:26 pmPart of the article from The Australian here:
David Evans | July 18, 2008
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I’ve been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you’d believe anything.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the “urban heat island” effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 4:28 pmThe remainder here:
None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician’s assertion.
Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn’t noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.
If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don’t you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.
Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 4:30 pmI’m having a Yogi Berra moment here, in that a question was asked, and has IIRC been pointedly ignored; and, like dealing with the L-child, it’s deja-vu all over again:
Another Drew (8018ee) — 7/17/2008 @ 4:34 pmOiram: Why has the price of oil dropped for the third consecutive day?
The facts are irrefutable. the connection can be argued but the facts aren’t going to change just because you want to close your eyes.
The week before the Democrats won the midterm election, gas prices were only 60% of what they are today. Prices had held fairly steady for the preceding years, barring inflation and a war or two, but the spike began coincident with the holiday season of 2006 (Nov/Dec).
Speculators are the main reason, but those same speculators were not projecting such a shortage while the GOP was in charge.
Close your eyes until the sparkles come, but the facts won’t disappear.
“Reality is that which refuses to go away when I stop believing in it.” — Philip K. Dick
There’s another reason they call it a “straw man” argument, and it has to do with the Scarecrow’s theme song.
And he says that I’m the one off his meds.
Which side of this argument are you defending here? Do you even know? Or is this just another long rambling ad hominem that I can ignore?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 4:41 pmHaw haw Drumwaster, that whole “Evil Oil” scenario that you are quoting in comment #184 was just a looney scenario I made up (well, or channelled from the conspiracy theory zone… I’m certainly not the first person to say all that) as the counterpoint to your looney “Its all the Democrats fault” scenario. I consider them both to be equally ridiculous.
Dammit Big D, Now I am going to go have to read all about Dr Evans’ new position. I certainly agree with him that governments and businesses need to be very careful about the steps they take to “fix” the “problem”.
EdWood (9df7cb) — 7/17/2008 @ 5:00 pmUh actually I call Daleyrocks Big D drumwaster. have to fix that.
EdWood (9df7cb) — 7/17/2008 @ 5:02 pmCall me “Drum”. Seems to work pretty well elsewhere on the Tubes.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 5:11 pmHallo, Drum, I’m Fox. ;^p
I’m having a Yogi Berra moment here, in that a question was asked, and has IIRC been pointedly ignored; and, like dealing with the L-child, it’s deja-vu all over again:
Oiram: Why has the price of oil dropped for the third consecutive day?
Comment by Another Drew — 7/17/2008 @ 4:34 pm
Because Actual Humans– the folks who are involved in said pricing– react like humans, rather than the Theory Humans required for liberal fantasies like communism, etc.
Foxfier (15ac79) — 7/17/2008 @ 5:36 pmThe GM Electric car was considered an engineering vehicle, and had to be crushed at the end of the test. It cost GM about $100,000.00 per car (the battery pack alone cost $15,000) and they knew they couldn’t sell them for anywhere near this. The newer electric vehicles use lithium ion which has much higher energy per pound. If we switched to electric cars, where would the electricity come from? We don’t have the generating or distribution capacity for much more than our current needs.
Hazy (d671ab) — 7/17/2008 @ 5:42 pmHazy, but Al Gore assures us that we could eliminate all fossil fuel use in just 10 years …
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/17/2008 @ 5:46 pmHazy,
Your view of American ability to meet our energy needs is pessimistic. For several years, Texas entrepreneurs have been experimenting with renewable energy sources and alternatives aren’t in the distant future. Just last night the Lamesa, Texas, city council authorized permits that allow residents to install wind turbines on in-town residential property to meet their personal energy needs.
DRJ (92ca6f) — 7/17/2008 @ 6:05 pmDRJ, of course there exist renewable energy sources and other alternatives. However, there is no reason to believe that such sources are going to even be able to keep up with increasing energy demand, much less replace significant existing generation capacity.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/17/2008 @ 6:07 pm“If we switched to electric cars, where would the electricity come from? We don’t have the generating or distribution capacity for much more than our current needs.”
Yeah Hazy, there´s just NO WAY we can get away from oil for our cars is there? Just too many problems… and innovation is just SO expensive why try to innovate at all? Let´s just give up till the lights go out or we are all working for some China based multinational…. at minimun wage of course…
Daleyrocks- Followed up on some of Dr Evans’ and more interestingly Roy Spencer´s work. Intersting new satellite data (from Spencer, I couldn´t find any recent peer rewieved articles from Evans) especially the data suggesting that low altitude rainfall may act as a carbon sink (there are a lot of people who have been looking for an “mystery” carbon sink for a long time).
EdWood (9df7cb) — 7/17/2008 @ 6:08 pmBUT… how does Mr Know it all Smartypants ” I am a big important climate sceptic” explain this?
“baby Antarctic penguins are freezing to death due to “freak rain storms,”
BABY PENGUINS!!!!!
No one is arguing that, dimwit. We’re saying that we have to have SOMETHING to use in the meantime while you’re dancing your “free energy rain dance”. Gasoline provides more BTU per dollar than any other source out there.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/17/2008 @ 6:18 pmTwisted Clinton spin cannot be overlooked. Hillary recently commented it would be years before any new extraction would give results. The Clintons were in the White House for eight years, and she is still a Senator. They are now saying that new oil extraction should be banned not because of the caribou, but because it wouldn’t affect prices in the short term.
Marshall:
Wesson (f6c982) — 7/17/2008 @ 6:20 pmBecause Bill Clinton knew that it would take 10 years to get any oil from ANWR in 1996 – we have no oil from ANWR in 2008.
SPQR,
Here in West Texas, I don’t know anyone who wants to limit oil and gas exploration or production. After all, most US-produced oil and gas comes from right here in Texas, much of it from West Texas, and Alaska. But I also want to develop other energy sources so America will have plenty of energy for the future. I don’t want my children’s future to depend on whether other countries will be willing to sell us energy.
DRJ (92ca6f) — 7/17/2008 @ 6:37 pmSPQR,
I’m still perplexed by your comment. Texas has built or has in construction enough wind turbines to generate power for 4 million homes. More projects are planned and today the Texas PUC authorized additional transmission lines to move power generated by the wind farms throughout Texas. Is it the answer to all our energy needs? No, but it’s not small potatoes either.
DRJ (92ca6f) — 7/17/2008 @ 6:57 pmDRJ, you do realize that because of variability, wind turbine generation requires natural gas generation as backup? And that natural gas is the most expensive way to generate electricity currently?
You can’t use coal fired generation to backup wind turbines because coal fired generation takes a long time to come online, ramp up and shut down.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/17/2008 @ 7:08 pmEdWood – The Baby Freakin’ Penguins are atragedy getting a lot of traction on the intertubes. How does this happen?
Freak storms? Why do they call them freak storms Ed? How often have they happened in the past? I need answers here Ed. This penguin slaughter by Gaia is unacceptable at the same time the Antarctic ice mass is growing. Clearly something is amiss or the propaganda machine is in overdrive.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 7:18 pmDRJ and SPQR – I worked on some wind project financings in the early 1980s. They only made sense back then because of tax credits. Wind power still seems to me an incredibly inefficient method of electricity generation. Does it make any sense currently without tax credits?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/17/2008 @ 7:21 pmSo, let’s build nuke plants. I’ll take a Tesla.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/17/2008 @ 7:32 pmPablo, better build them fast since Al Gore says we’ll no longer use fossil fuel in 10 years.
( If the audience does not realize it, it is literally impossible to build a nuke plant from a standing start in 10 years )
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/17/2008 @ 7:46 pmOn wind: my uncle, the electrician, swears by the vertical type wind generator to supplement.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/jay_leno_garage/4216780.html?series=11
Foxfier (15ac79) — 7/17/2008 @ 7:50 pmI hope that the Hyperion nuclear battery technology matures as fast as the company claims. They intend to manufacture 4,000 of them, at a cost of $25 to $30 million each, starting in 2012.
The systems are about the size of a hot tub (1.5 meters tall and slightly smaller in diameter) and provide 25 MW of electrical power and another 70 MW of process power (waste heat) that might be perfect for oil shale extraction.
The system is self-contained and automated, with no operators required. It uses uranium hydride fuel, with hydrogen gas as the operating fluid and neutron moderator, and can burn up about 50% of the U238 in the fuel in addition to the normal U235. As a result, the nuclear waste is between 10 and 40 times less volume than a normal reactor for the same power output.
It is called a “battery” because it is a sealed unit that is installed on site and then just supplies energy for 5-10 years, at which time it is replaced by a new unit. The old unit could be buried intact, but it is likely to be more profitable to send back to the manufacturer for recycling, the same way that lead-acid batteries are handled.
Hyperion nuclear battery
There are other companies that are developing comparable small nuclear reactors, although they do not appear to be as fuel efficient. Toshiba is one.
GaryC (2f99a9) — 7/17/2008 @ 11:26 pm( If the audience does not realize it, it is literally impossible to build a nuke plant from a standing start in 10 years )
I recall hearing a guy talking to Glenn Beck saying that it basically takes around 3 years just to write up the report to send to get consideration for a permit and takes a couple years from there for them to actually process it.
Taltos (4dc0e8) — 7/18/2008 @ 1:01 amThe baby penguins comment was a JOKE big D. No really.. joke…
EdWood (3489cb) — 7/18/2008 @ 12:29 pm