Oil: The Inconvenient Truth 66 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
The title alludes to my feeling that the biggest challenge facing mankind (especially mankind in the USA) is not "global warming", but a future in which worldwide oil supply will not keep pace with worldwide oil demand. I have often commented on Seeking Alpha that the "oil problem" has the ability to induce catastrophic consequences by 2015 and is therefore the more imminent issue to be addressed. Since the solutions to both global warming and the "oil problem" are the same, focusing on the nearer term problem would seem more logical to me. The problem, of course, is that those in power apparently disagree.
In this day and age of media and political double-speak, it did not surprise me that hurricane Gustav actually made oil and natural gas prices fall dramatically. After all, Gustav only shut-in the majority of US oil and natural gas production in the Gulf of Mexico along with a few refineries in the area. The Bush administration announced it would be ready, willing, and able to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to those companies requesting it. This apparently calmed the market and oil sold off to $109/barrel, or thereabouts. Oil swings so wildly these days, it's hard to keep track of its daily moves.
Yesterday morning on CNBC, Larry "Goldilocks" Kudlow was ebullient as the market was up over 200 points early on and oil was selling off with a vengeance. Kudlow predicted further gains for the market and further drops in oil. Unfortunately for Larry, later in the day oil firmed up and the market sold off, ending down for the day.
Of course the inconvenient truth for the equity markets is OIL. The US has this little problem of needing to import 15 million barrels of oil a DAY to satisfy its economic (hedonistic?) thirst. Kudlow would have you believe that the price of oil has come way down, but everything is relative. Relative to $145/barrel oil seen earlier this year, it has come down. Relative to the price of oil one year ago ($70/barrel), $109 seems quite expensive. Perhaps not to Goldilocks, but to me. It wasn't that long ago that $100/barrel oil was considered by many respected economists to be "economic doomsday" for the US. I think the jury is still out on that one....
The SPR will save us from any Gustav induced oil supply hiccups. What is the capacity of the SPR anyhow? 720 million barrels? Hmmm...let's see...that covers 48 days worth of US imports. I dunno about you...but that doesn't sound like very much at all. (That's probably how many days the FDIC's reserves can shore up our failing banks.) Well, I suppose it will get us through the short-term supply issues brought on by hurricane season, but does the SPR have the ability to weather a really serious supply interruption? Perhaps the shutting down of the Straits of Hormuz for example?
Meantime, oil production at Exxon Mobil (XOM), ConocoPhillips (COP), and Chevron (CVX) is down year-over-year. Mexican, Russian, Venezuelan, and Alaskan oil production is all down year over year. On the geo-political front Brazil might nationalize Petrobras (PBR) and Russia has shown it has the ability to take out the BTC pipelines any time it wants. The Iran problem hasn't gone away and Cheney is visiting Caucasia to show support for oil & gas pipelines which skirt Russia. This last issue is important for Europe's energy security. I only wish Cheney was as concerned about American energy security. Perhaps then we'd have a strategic, long-term, comprehensive energy policy like this.
But we don't have a US energy policy other than to drill, drill, drill. Don't get me wrong, we should drill. That said, anyone who thinks the US can produce the 15 million barrels of oil a day it current imports by drilling offshore in US waters is dreaming. We need a *comprehensive* energy plan. Its doubtful we'll ever get one. Why do I say that? Well, I can't get anything published along these lines at Barron's, the Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek, etc.
Also, did anyone notice NBC refused to run Boone Pickens's latest commercial about Iran switching its automobiles and trucks to natural gas? Actually, NBC finally reversed its decision, but only after Pickens sent out an email to his PickensPlan army detailing NBC's earlier refusal. Bottom line is this: the US mainstream business media is censoring logical energy proposals that would cut our dependency on foreign oil. Why? Like the old investigator said, it's not "what" or even "how" that's interesting, its the "why"? Why would mainstream US economic media (one would think they would actually care about the US economy...) not want to see the US strengthen its energy profile, cut down on US money going to unfriendly nations, and increase its national security? Strange. Very strange.
People say, but Fitzman, look at all the demand destruction in the US. Yes, it is true there is some decent demand destruction in the US. However, this is not a result of strategic policy iniatives, but more a testament to the lousy economy and the hard times the American middle class is having making ends meet. Besides, I am not convinced that US demand destruction is not being sucked up by increasing demand in China, Russia, India, and the Middle East - all of which are showing brisk sales of automobiles and light trucks.
All this said, of course gold and the energy related stocks all sold-off mightily yesterday as GM (GM) and the home building stocks rallied. In this Orwellian market, driven by the double-speak of talking heads (I suppose one could throw me into that category as well), nothing surprises me. However, one needs only to gaze a little bit into the future to understand that COP selling at $79, XOM at $77, CVX at $83, and Statoil (STO) at $27 and change are absolute steals. STO was down almost 10% yesterday(!).
Of course, one could also buy stock in the autos, finance, home building, and "early cycle consumer goods" sectors as the talking heads were advising this morning on CNBC. Either way you choose to go, think strategically...and good luck to you!
Disclosures: The author is long COP and STO.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
TraderMark
-
2
Don Dion
-
3
Cliff Wachtel
-
4
Mike Havrilla
-
5
James Quinn
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 66 comments:
Agree with you 100% about how undervalued the oil majors are. STO at $27 is indeed ludicrous. We are talking about one of the largest oil cos in the world backed by significant Govt of Norway holdings. When we see a company like DVN trading at a price/cash flow of 5 (The S&P avg is 12.3) growing their earnings at 30-40% annually you know that traders have lost their minds. I don't know what to think but the cynical side of me is starting to believe we are seeing manipulation ahead of the November elections. It was not too long ago (summer of 2006) where we saw oil prices taken down by some curious moves by investment banks (Goldman Sachs re-weighting of its commodity index). Why would they do that 3 months before a mjaor election? It was no accident. This time we are seeing a repeat performance with an orchestrated attack on oil prices so November voters see some relief at the pump before going to the polls. All of this must drive the oil cos crazy because it has nothing to do with fundamentals and makes their operational planning that much more difficult. Anyway you look at it, energy stocks are extremely cheap and undervalued right now.
Yank
If I subscribed to conspiracy theories, I would a draw a comparison of the current situation to the summer-fall 2004 (when Bush was up fro re-election) and oil dropped $10 a barrel. Wasn't the current US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson the CEO of Goldman Sachs ? LOL
One gets an uneasy feeling seeing a majority of our off-shore oil reserves smack in the middle of hurricane alley.
We are so vulnerable to a 100 year storm, CAT 5, taking out 1/2 of our oil/gas production, small as it is.
Anyone with any experience in risk management, would immediate decide that other off-shore areas should be incorporated into our production fields.
CA, Alaska and the east coast come immediately to mind.
The other point is that we dont drill in CA for fear of a leak, and we have not ever had a CAT ? storm. Given that the rigs in the gulf survive CAT 2 or 3 storms every year and leaking is hardly an issue, the hesteria in CA is much to do about nothing, given todays rig technology.
Finally, it turns that NOT drilling in the off-shore of Santa Barbara, CA, causes oil leakage from the oceans surface that would end if the reserves were taped and the pressure releaved. To the point where the locals, who are hardly "drill friendly" have actually voted to have production be turned back on and the pressure releaved to elimenate leaking from the ocean floor.
thanks for article.
Man made global warming is a hoax being thrust upon the American public so that AlBore can make extreme, excessive, windfall profits at our expense.
Brian, don't know if we'll ever agree on something again but thanks for the post!
Lawrence Sikarskie
swim: heh heh.
yank: i was going to mention the election manipulation issue, but i didn't feel like fighting all those folks who would have jumped on me!
that said, i tend to agree and certainly agree with you on current energy stock valuations.
longoil: exactly. however, as i opined in the article, i am not so sure the price drop can be blamed on slack US demand as rising consumption in china, russia, india, and the middle east is sucking it up. unfortunately, it takes some time to see those numbers. i tend to lean toward re-election posturing....
jack: yup, i am all for drilling as any production here keeps more US dollars in the US. that said, we can't get close to replacing the 15 million barrels we import every day. the only solution is an alternative to the gasoline powered internal combustion engine to cut consumption.
.*. thank you for the illuminating criticism. i suppose we agree that each other's words are useless. that said, at least i have an opinion. you say i am not logical, but point to no examples to debate. why even post your comment?
Mmarrkk: yeah, California sucks..its just home to some of the best technical colleges in the world as well as home to most of the most brilliant computer scientists. it's also one of the world's biggest economies. yup, terrible state.
sikarskie: i am doubtful of any "regulations" wrt wall street. the place is running open loop these days. i think the big investment banks are able to do just about anything they want to the price of gold and oil and currencies. its a rigged game and the rest of us just tag along hoping we're participating in "free markets". it's all double-speak and smoke and mirrors.
Thanks
Forgot to mention Berkley...never mind, I'd rather keep them forgotten for a long time. The grapes are good though and some of the wine is excellent! Don't get me wrong, I have family that live there and its a pretty state. But politically, the state as a majority is just totally screwed up. And they are exporting that via Pelosi, Boxer, Waxman, et al. Unfortunately, we have to live with those retards.
I am trying to convince my California brother that the election has been moved to December 1st due to problems with the voting machine software; too many people expected to vote so Democrats are being asked to vote in December to help ease the overflow. I told him its not fair as they will know how many votes they will need to win. It might just work :) Heck, if he's willing to vote D, he just might believe it! We can only HOPE and CHANGE!!
Did you see where the Mexican gov't announced that Canterrel production dropped more than even they were forecasting? Saw a columnist today who was "surprised". I'm not. I expect it to decline exponentially from here on out. What's going to replace it?? Hopefully Iraqi oil fields. Lots of oil waiting to be tapped there once we get the whacko's under control.
Now, all that said, yes lets do things cleaner. Lets use more clean burning nat gas, clean coal technology, nukes, etc. Wind too. Okay Teddy, can we please put a wind turbine up near your house?? Lets just not get frantic and collapse our economy over it. I'd rather they fix Social Security first, than deal with the climate change as an emergency. OF course, any mention of doing that is met with screaming and gnashing of teeth.
As far as the ice caps are concerned I will refer you to Freeman Dyson, "Just because you see pictures of glaciers falling into the ocean doesn't mean anything bad is happening. This is something that happens all the time. It's part of the natural cycle of things. We know from measurements that glaciers have been melting for 200 years at least. So it's certainly long before human activities could have caused it.
What we also know, going back 4,000 years, is that the glaciers were actually a lot smaller. They actually grew in the meantime. So it seems to be some sort of cyclical process. They grow and shrink and there's no particular reason for being worried just because they're shrinking at the moment. I'm not saying there's no climate change. Of course there's climate change. Climate change is part of the normal order of things, and we know it was happening before humans came."
www.salon.com/books/fe...
I’m in Iraq now and the situation on the ground is going so well that we’ve handed Al Anbar Province back to the Iraqis, oil is being pumped out and with China investing 1.5 Billion this year alone plus all the major oil companies getting no bid contracts to redevelop the infrastructure here, it’s only a few years until Iraq is up to 4.5 mil barrels per day. Still the threat of Iran still looms on the horizon, it’s going to be a wait and see approach, only thing I know is that I’m buying more Iraqi Dinar asap. Once they readjust their currency it’s going to be a day in paradise.
Oh yeah, I have to agree with my mans opinion about Cali….bunch of weirdos…plus 38Billion in the tank when Arnold took over, not very effective management, don’t forget about that.
Eventually we'll come up with some process that uses plant matter and nanotech and electricity to generate liquid fuels. Or we'll have batteries that can go 400 miles on a charge and charge overnight. But we aren't there yet. And might not get there before oil is in very tight supply.
On another post to a similar question I saw a suggestion that the government add another $1/barrel tax every month to oil. This will gradually increase the economic incentive for alternatives while curtailing consumption now so it lasts longer. In 8 to 10 years when this brings oil into the $200/barrel range we will have viable alternatives.
As Miky observed we *depend* on cheap individual transportation for our civilization. We need to take care of this issue. Or change our lifestyle.
The trouble with investing in these essentials like oil and water that look like they are heading for critical shortages is that they *are* critical resources. So you are guaranteed government intervention, making your investment a crap shoot.
Great solution. Beach vacations closer to home=Less driving=Decreased oil consumption=less CO2 emissions.
All we have to do is melt the polar ice caps to get out of this mess, plus when the oceans retreat again, there will be a surplus of oil left over from the decomposition of the flooded civilizations. Everyone grab your household hairdryers and meet me in Alaska.
Which inconvenient truth are you addressing here?
That the world is inexorably exhausting it’s hydrocarbon reserves; or that energy investors are currently losing their shirts?
Oil prices are going to go right on collapsing because at these prices demand halves in one decade.
Oil is the basis of too much of modern society to be given up so easily and will not likely be replaced in one decade.
Mmarrkk: Agree with your assessment of la-la-land altho I'm surprised you didn;t mention that outstanding example of fine American cities: Oakland. Also maybe we could get those 1000 USC football players to replace the 535 idiots we now have in the Capital.
Mmarrkk: yeah, boy those californians are nuts. they just want fuel efficient vehicles, alternative energy solutions, and a real energy plan to get off foreign oil. meantime, oil has gone up what, 500% under bush? yeah, those californians are really off base. i just wish georgie boy could run for 8 more years so we could see oil top $500 with a bush in office. with respect to voting machines (courtesy of bush and diebold....), it was the attorney general of california that pointed out what a shame they were, and what a threat they were to REAL democracy and outlawed the bush supported version from californian elections. yeah, those damn californians..what do they want, REAL freedom? jeez, somebody should wake em up and remind they are in the bush defined "new world order".
Mr Rewrite: actually, i did mention mexico. the cantrell field is probably the best example of peak oil depletion. that said, mexico could produce more if they weren't so hobbled by the government control and corruption. bottom line is that the US's second largest source of imported oil will probably be a net importer themselves in the next few years. guess mccain will probably go after brazil at that point...
Mmarrkk: i believe the pre-election manipulation. big decline in oil right when the repub VP announcement came out. "it's all so exciting" hahaha wrt ice caps, of course the world always changes (i hate this argument by the non global warming believers...). everyone knows and agrees on that, it's elementary. the issue is the RATE of change and the CAUSE of the increase in the rate of change. i'll just check back with you and pursley after a few more years and see if your powers of observation have gotten any better.
pursley: but that was not my question. you said the world was over-supplied in oil, and i asked, if that is indeed the case, why is oil at $109/barrel? wrt glaciers and the ice caps, it's the rate of change. but you're convinced there's no problem, and nothing i can say will change your mind, so, enjoy your hummer and it's CO2 output.
Miky: yup, please read my entire energy policy and you will see it is heavy on wind and solar. interesting about the dinar play. can you pick some up for me? what a deal, they get a bankrupted country (the US) to pay for their schools, roads, sewage, electrical gneration etc. etc. while they meanwhile build up a 100 billion dollar bank account selling their oil. amazing. you gotta love bush.
mdmrjsds: exactly, that is the problem. we need to acknowledge the gasoline powered US economic security problem and begin designing alternative transportation solutions now. with respect to government taking over critical resources, i think that is where the gov of the US is heading. you can forget free markets (another republican hypocritical position that the limbaugh is paid to smooth over). the fed took over bear strearns, is in the process of taking over the national mortgage market as well as the banking and financial sectors. so, oil is just another logical step. that said, what else is there left to invest in in the USA market? autos? banks? home builders? consumer goods? i dunno...energy is all i can see to invest in when the country is bankrupt, the middle class has been pushed to lower class, and the game on wall street is rigged, and when those guys fail, the middle class tax-payers bail them out and bernanke just cranks up the printing press.
coffee/closer: was there just coffee involved in that response, or perhaps a nip of alcohol? heh heh
hillbilly: russia and OPEC will be glad to sell us oil. at their price and only if no one else is willing to pay more (or has a better currency).
bmaclaverty: although the US, Europe, and Japan are on hard economic times, i am not so sure the same is true of china, russia, and the middle east. they are having boomtimes. india has slowed. all the countries with great natural resources are still doing pretty good. and like i said, i think decreased oil demand in the US is being sucked up by the china, russia, india, and the middle east. ever check out the new car and truck sales in those countries? no recession over there...
LazyAl: what the article as supposed to insinuate is that despite the big oil and energy stock sell-off (although i would argue that oil at $109 is still up over $30/barrel from 1 year ago), the fundamentals of oil and energy stocks are still very very bullish. despite the talking heads on CNBC, oil is not going to sink to $60-70, as kudlow has suggested. i should remind everyone that kudlow also thought oil was "way over extended" when it crossed $50.
WEBISKING: exactly. but the powers that be can't have XOM stock priced where it should be at election time...too embarrasing for cheney and bush....
JasonC: demand halves in one decade? how?? the US uses 25% of worldwide oil supply and there is a media censorship on realistic energy policies. how do you stop new car and truck sales in china, russia, india, and the middle east? don't see it.
henarl: agree with your analysis of jason's response and added mine above. but why the dump on california? i just don't understand you guys. do you have any idea of the technical innovations coming out of that state in terms of electronics, computers, medicine, communications, bio-engineering, bio-medical engineering? are any of you familiar with patent applications and which states have the most patents issued? why dump on cali? it's one of the few innovative and progressive states left in the US!
freefall51: unfortunately the ice-core samples taken by many independent scientific organizations shoot a hole in your climatological theories. carbon dating and CO2 levels correlated to climate. its all there. to disbelieve in the acceleration of CO2 levels due to man's burning of fossil fuels, and to disbelieve that this indeed is causing the planet's temperature changes due this is to disbelieve in widely accepted scientific methods, analysis, and conclusions. ain't facts just a pain in the behind?
You really have no idea what you're talking about. I happen to have a degree in mathematics, and what you are saying is plain wrong.
You also have zero understanding of climatology. For instance, you're using daily METEOROLOGICAL DATA to try and prove a point about CLIMATE. You can't do that. Really, you can't. Climatology is measured on scales of decades and centuries, not the temperature in your backyard.
The mathematics and the physic being applied to climate research have been peer reviewed and vetted by scientists from around the world who have been working in the climate sciences for decades. They have falsifiable theories. They have models that match observation. And best of all, it's all available for free, online. You can download the data sets. You can download the code. You can examine it yourself.
However, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't even understand the most basic module on computational fluid dynamics, let alone all the logic needed to support maintaining precisional accuracy on massively parallel computing system.
Your challenge, freefall, shows your complete an utter lack of understanding about climate along with your knowledge of statistics.
It seems strange to me how people don't question cancer researchers when it comes to their theories, but everyone and their brother think they have the credentials and the knowledge to question climate researchers. Doesn't the cancer researcher also have a vested interest in coming up with reasons for additional funding? Couldn't they just be "claiming" to help people and hide all the cures to keep people paying them money? What's so special about climate science? Any researcher can be painted as someone out for the cash. It's a fallacious argument, not to mention idiotic.
So let me post a counter challenge to all of you. I want to see just one of you go and get a solid degree in a climate related field. I then want you to produce a peer-reviewed and accepted paper detailing how climate change isn't real, and that we are in no way attributing to it. Keep in mind that such a paper would have to be pretty impressive, as it would also need to explain all the current observations we are seeing as well as why the current climate models actually work.
Until then, you have no leg to stand on. You have your own opinions based on nothing, and supported by nothing except the inane ramblings of others in your special group.
"So the experts are taking refuge to complex models that sound important to impress the public."
Yes those silly experts, using things like computational fluid dynamics to simulate a....fluid...dynamic..... Using the obviously over-complicated physics of radiative transfer through a gaseous medium to simulate the...radiative...tran... solar energy...through...an.... And how dare they use albedo structuring to construct...the albedo...effects...of.... earth's...surface.
There are so many logical fallacies, so many debunked claims, and so much incorrect data in these posts that it's pretty clear the US education system is reaching an all time low.
So until I start seeing scientist coming out with verifiable explanations as to why we are seeing what we're seeing without AGCC, I think I'll side with the scientists. Because you're arguments seriously leave a WHOLE lot to be desired.
~X~
Shucks, the extremely publicly available numbers show that, percentage wise, U.S. demand is dropping slowly, while demand in the rest of the world is growing rapidly. However, in real, hard numbers--not percentages--our paltry drop this year WIPED OUT the demand increases from the rest of the world FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS.
I'd point you in the right direction, but heck, you're the one who should have done the homework before you wrote this column, not me.
"Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t."
Please pick up an introductory geology or meteorology textbook. Without that 380ppm trace CO2 the earth would be a big ball of ice. (C02 used to be 25% less before the industrial revolution, something the author conveniently ignores)
> jack
remember the 4 billion folks in this world who'd change places with most of us. and they're working their a--es off to do just that-- take what we have for their own!
if our electorate don't comprehend the stakes and our current circumstances, we'll get what's due us. isn't that history?
the past is prologue...etc etc?
happy investing! happy electing!
signed-- GERRY MANDER
regeya: please pubish the numbers that back up your position. the numbers i have looked at show that US demand is being sucked up by other countries. recent auto and trucks sales data for china, india, russia, and the middle east show this is not a short term trend.
MarkSF: the non-believers don't believe the ice core samples showing historical CO2 levels and the exponential growth of CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution. i think limbaugh must have had a show debunking carbon dating.
johngordon: yes, and there is a company in south africa that has pretty much perfected this process (Sasol, SSL). unfortunately, i believe the process takes alot of water and is very dirty.
CT: although you are tardy to the party, you haven't missed much. we're back to debating global warming again and whether or not would should push california into the ocean because it's a worthless state. interesting it's usually these same folks who think bush is the best thing since sliced bread. wrt the states driving energy and environmental policy - you are SPOT ON there and this in itself is a testament to how lousy the bush administration's policies are on these two issues. i mean, the supreme court has even gotten involved because the bush admin declared war on california's right to legislate CO2 emissions in its state arguing that the EPA (environmental destruction agency) had the sole right to do so (!??). wrt a comprehensive energy policy, you cannot even get one published in any leading business magazine...even as the stock market and US economy go right down the bush led black hole....
miles: thanks buddy! please read and comment on my articles more often - i need the support!
fran: yes, history is a great predictor of the future. right now, bush policy looks frighteningly similar to pre-WW2 germany: propaganda, industry led government (fascism), militantism, government control of the financial system, and ultimate control of the population by not allowing non-gasoline powered transportation solutions. that will be the ultimate control mechanism: control of the gasoline every must have in the US to survive. that's why i cannot understand why the editors won't print my strategic, long-term, comprehensive energy policy. i find myself asking: don't these idiots have family, children, and people they love? why are they assisting the government in the ultimate control of their lives? to save their jobs i suppose. but that's no excuse. it's like all the people in the bush administration who keep silent on all the idiotic policies until they leave their jobs...then they write a book saying what an idiot bush is. but, when they could have tried to have a positive impact, they didn't, wanted to keep that job. as you say, we will all get what we deserve, and without a sane energy policy, i don't have to tell you what the long term impact will be. look at the economy today with $100/barrel oil...just imagine what it will be like at $200/barrel and eventually what it will be like when we can't even get oil (gasoline) because our country will be bankrupt and russia, iraq, iran, and saudi have all the oil and pay us back for years of dissing them.
> jack
www.sciencedaily.com/r...
"Twice an Exxon Valdez spill worth of oil seeps into the Gulf of Mexico every year, according to a new study that will be presented January 27 at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Antonio, Texas.
But the oil isn't destroying habitats or wiping out ocean life. The ooze is a natural phenomena that's been going on for many thousands of years"
LIfe was born in crude oil, thus the depleted C13 isotope that some wishful thinkers erroneously interpret as so-called "biomarkers".
pursley: what, now i hate carbon??? what an absurd argument!!! that was hilarious...unfortunat... i think you were actually serious!
the global warming naysayers are alot like the bush economic team: they keep telling you how great their policies are and want you to believe in more of it. meanwhile, the market tanks and every economic indicator is lousy. sure, give me 4 more years of this - i just can't get enough. duh! limbaugh and kudlow are worth all the millions the republicans spinmeisters pay them. the truth in this statement is that this election is even close after their policies have enriched the uber-wealthy beyond their wildest dreams while the middle class (and thus the county) disintegrates before your eyes. out goes all logical observation, in comes rush and larry. what a country.
> jack
California has more cannibals as political constiuents than missionaries . As long as politicians promise cannibals missionaries for dinner we are stuck with the political lot we have had ,now have and will have in the future , even though the state is basically bankrupt.
- Oil was up 465% since 2001 up to its peak in July 2008 (about $25 was the high in 2001, though it was below $20 for quite sometime)
- Oil is now up 320% from 2001 and has corrected by 25% from its peak.
- If Oil had hovered around $100, and never touched $145, we would've still thought the current $107 is way too high... but not anymore... now we believe it is down by 25%... and that's a GREAT news...
- To conclude... the "operators" took Oil up to that level so fast just to drop it equally fast so that the consumers 'feel better' to pay $100 after it dropped from it's peak by about 30%.
- Never be surprised if next Oil moves equally fast to $200 soon and drop to $150... and all of us will still be HAPPY.
1) artificially keeping the price of gasoline down (bad)
2) dislocations in the food chain causing inflation and hardship on many producers of meat (bad)
johngordon: ok, thanks. i will follow up on this. my gut tells me, however, that the big problem with coal is its dirty - dirty to mine, dirty to burn, and dirty to process in CTL. i'll get back with you on this. the real dirty little secret about coal (besides the well publicized CO2 emissions) is the release of mercury into our water table. the problem is so bad, most municipal water districts dont even test for mercury in their feed water because they don't want to publish the results...
pursley: first i stated that CO2 in the atmosphere is bad, and you responded with "if you hate carbon you hate the environment" (!?). i responded with "i hate carbon?" and you come back with "since you have no problem with CO2.." Let me give you a basic chemistry lesson so we can at least debate with some level of intelligence here. carbon "C" and oxygen "O" are chemical elements in the periodic table. carbon dioxide (chemical formula "CO2") is what is emitted when gasoline is burned (about 19lbs CO2 per gallon of gas) and consists of two atoms of oxygen covalently bonded to one atom of carbon. just to be clear, it is the increasing CO2 levels and even more worrisome the exponentially increasting rate of "CO2"emissions that are the problem. saying i don't like carbon is as idiotic as saying i don't like oxygen. here is a website that may help you understand "carbon dioxide" a little better:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
and here is an EPA website that will explain how much is emitted by burning one gallon of gasoline:
www.epa.gov/OMS/climat...
in the future, let's try to debate the issue without the remedial lectures on "the earth's climate always changes" and "photosynthesis". ok? jeez.
fineye: bingo!!
I know coal-to-liquids technology works, but I always associated it as a last ditch desperate measure (i.e. Apartheid regime in South Africa and Nazi Germany), since it very energy intensive and polluting.
SASOL, South Africa, one of the leaders in coal-to-liquids (CTL) technology, is moving away from CTL to natural gas-to-liquids (GTL) technology for the following reasons. (I copied this from the oildrum.com site)
Sasol officials outlined the environmental benefits of switching from coal to natural gas at Sasolburg:
* Elimination of hydrogen sulfide emissions.
* Sulfur dioxide emissions lowered by 15,000 tons per year.
* Nitrogen oxide emissions lowered by 10,000 tons per year.
* Carbon dioxide emissions lowered by 47%, or five million tons per year.
* Particulates lowered by 25%.
* Fine ash reduced 73%.
* Solid waste reduction of 50%.
* Water consumption reduced 27% - 30%.
Also, the availability of high quality coal parallels that of high quality oil. The world is not only running out of high quality (light sweet) oil, it is also running out of high quality black coal (i.e. Anthracite) and low quality brown coal is being used more and more.
- $700 billion a year (and growing) leaving the country and going into the hands of russia, iran, iraq, venezuela and bush's buddies the saudis
- raging inflation
- a huge drop in the value of the US dollar
- an economy (and S&P500) that are dead in the water.
what more do you need to see before you suggest we get a president and congress that will pass legislation to protect us against the biggest national security threat facing our country: our dependence on foreign oil and a future in which worldwide oil supply will not keep up with worldwide oil demand. honestly, i find your position on this issue illogical and very dangerous. your position matches bush's, with the exception of bush likes to put our troops on top of oil reserves. for the money he has spent on iraq, we could have put 100,000,000 priuses on the road and reduced our imported oil bill by 3-4 million barrels a day. or, we could have funded nat gas re-fit kit for ALL us cars and trucks and built the nat gas distribution network to re-fuel them. these are just examples, but show how important gov policies are to address the issue (versus fascism based lobbyist driven policies and militantism).
Not being in Iraq would be good, but the Iraqi people would still live under a repressive dictator who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people. At least he's gone. And, he would still be trying to import what's needed for nuke's. Then we'd have the two "I" countries vying for nukes. Again, a less than perfect solution I agree. But taking that logic further, we would never have gone to war against Hitler either, but I guess that wasn't a good idea either. i don't know. At some point, Saddam needed to be taken out, just like his 'brother' in Persia. But we probably have bigger fish to fry, like our 'buddies' in Russia. Can't we just all get along!!
Its Friday, power is still out in over 50% of the folks homes in South Louisiana, and no one knows about it because it didn't happen in New Orleans! What a shame. Time to get on the road and go help clean up. Have a great weekend and we'll be back at it on Monday! Sorry about dissing Cali earlier, but I still don't like the mindset there and the majority of the politicians. Let me spud a well off the coast, and we can talk! Drill here, drill now!!!!
Either way, these firmly entrenched special interests and their lobbies will prevent any meaningful change in the status quo until we have a dire emergency. Too bad that Ron Paul is not really a viable alternative.
Mmarrkk: Why was Saddam, or any other ruthless dictator in some third world country, our problem. If we had just continued to buy Iraq's oil it certainly would have cost us much less than the cost of our current adventure there, both in dollars and lives. As to the two "Is" nuclear threat to the U.S., do you really believe that we were in serious danger of a nuclear attack from either of them ? Com'on, just more Bushie BS. And........ no, unfortunately we cant just all get along. Just look at human history.
On Sep 05 05:28 PM henarl wrote:
> Fitz: It appears that you are a Bush hater and an oBAMA fan. I agree
> on Bush and think he will probably go down in history as one of our
> very worst Presidents. The Iraq quagmire is inexcusable and jingoistic
> empire building is counter productive in the modern world. That said
> however, I doubt that oBAMA would be much better. Rather than wasting
> our wealth on a stupid fascist foreign policy to support the military-industrial
> complex he will waste it on equally stupid socialistic programs to
> support a bloated bureaucracy and a dependant under class.
> Either way, these firmly entrenched special interests and their lobbies
> will prevent any meaningful change in the status quo until we have
> a dire emergency. Too bad that Ron Paul is not really a viable alternative.
>
>
> Mmarrkk: Why was Saddam, or any other ruthless dictator in some third
> world country, our problem. If we had just continued to buy Iraq's
> oil it certainly would have cost us much less than the cost of our
> current adventure there, both in dollars and lives. As to the two
> "Is" nuclear threat to the U.S., do you really believe that we were
> in serious danger of a nuclear attack from either of them ? Com'on,
> just more Bushie BS. And........ no, unfortunately we cant just all
> get along. Just look at human history.
This is a lie. I've lived in Santa Barbara for 25 years, and no vote like this has ever happened. This lie is typical of the "drill drill drill" crowd, who never let any facts get in their way.
as far as being in iraq, we could have 100,000,000 prius in the US for what that war has cost us (not to mention the cost in human life). comparing sadaam hussein to hitler to rationalize bush's takeover of iraq must have been a joke. you were joking...right??
henarl: i agree both parties suck. mccain, before he morphed into mini-georgie, would have been someone i would have thought more seriously about. but now that he has joined the bandwagon on bush's tax and religious right outlook (mccain used to say the religious right was an "intolerable influence on government), i can tell he is just another tool of the radical right. ron paul has some great thoughts on currency and getting back to the constitution. that said, how can he be so steadfastly republican when he has seen how the bush administration has basically ripped up the constitution. i find that very hypocritical.
I was pretty neutral on McCain before, but I agree with you since he made Palin his running mate, I am very scared considering he is 72 yrs old and the possibility that he might not live to finish his term is a strong possibility.
Can you image if she became president, some world adversaries like Putin & Medvedev would have a field day. This novice Palin would start World War 3 in a heartbeat. Given that scenario, Rice (with her expertise on the USSR) or Powell (with his military background) would have been much better running mates. Both of these people are too smart to be involved in politics, unfortunately.
Look at her husband, he was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party from 1995 to 2002. Interestingly enough he quit (or was forced to quit by his wife) in 2002 when she ran for Lieutenant Governor. All of a sudden he is a Republican. I thought Arctic spotted leopards don't change their spots.
Just look at some of the the ramblings from the AIP FAQ website:
Q: Would I lose my U.S. citizenship (if Alaska separated from the US)?
"A: Depending on the form of independence, several forms of citizenship would be possible, including the retention of U.S. citizenship or dual citizenship. However, considering the moral, educational, and economic decay of the U.S., Alaskans' who hold themselves to a higher standard might very well decide to at least maintain an arm's length distance from a country in decline."
I am pretty both Palin and her husband hold the view that America is in a state terminal moral decline and this is the opportunity to "fix" the situation.
On Sep 09 11:00 PM aai_1999 wrote:
> These discussions are great but my oil, ng, gold and silver funds
> and stocks are taking a bath. Between the Fannie/Freddie bailout
> and your election manipulation theory, I really hope you are right.
> I keep telling myself, it is too late to sell and they go down another
> 10%. I hope my funds are in the right sectors when the sh## hits
> the fan. Help, I think the wheels are comong off the wagon....
aai & jamie: i feel your pain! as leeb wrote in his book, the financial analyst will ping pong back and forth between inflation worries and deflation worries. right now, the worries are deflation, and so commodities are being sold off indiscriminately (much to my personal pain). but what has really changed? has the US gotten off foreign oil? has oil really dropped that far? has the US developed a comprehensive energy policy? answers: no. hell, NBC initially refused to run boone pickens' commerical on the iranians converting their cars and trucks to natural gas(!). ever ask yourself why NBC (owned by GE) would do something like that?? answer: the same reason barron's, the wall street journal, and business week won't publish my articles on the need for and the specifics for a strategic, long-term, comprehensive energy policy....
In the meantime, we will still need boatloads of fossil fuels to keep our societies going - slowing the consumption of these fuels is important both for the sake of our environment, but more so for maintaining our standard of living --- the key is to generate more GDP per unit of fossil fuels year after year, decade after decade ... eventually it may be supplanted as the pre-imminent fuel for power and transportation but in the meantime we need to do all we can to make sure the supply of fossil fuel commodities is sufficient to prevent (or at least minimize) global economic dislocations or worse - that means finding and producing here.
F.Y.I. On average, each year an order of magnitude more oil is released into the environment via shipping (pipeline, barges, and tankers) each year than in the drilling and producing processes. It's a heck of allot cleaner to "grow" it local than to have it shipped from overseas – not to mention the regimes we payroll by importing their crude.