Chicken sh*t Nancy Pelosi!!!!!

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Really?? I would like to read or find a commodities broker who is buying futures for oil that hasn't even been discovered yet. Your fealty to this point is only proving YOU have no understanding of how the commodities work.

Be reasonable. I think everybody here knows and understands the concept of supply and demand.

However, supply and demand has value only when the supply component is readily available or imminently available. The price of gas doesn't come down today because fuel cell technology may be here in another decade. The price of electricity isn't moderated because Moore's Law dictates that solar panels will be cheap, many times more efficient and readily available for all homeowners by 2020. In order for supply to drive down price, there first needs to be supply. In the context of the OCS, it was specifically argued that the discussion of opening the OCS was responsible for the reduction in global oil prices.

This isn't a difficult concept: The prospect of a potential supply of oil which wouldn't be on the market for 10-20 years will not drive down the current price of oil. That price is driven instead by the availability of oil today--will war in Angola interrupt production, will a hurricane shut down rigs in the Gulf, will Israel bomb Iran and cause the latter to go offline?--and not by what could happen two decades from now. Even if those leases were signed this morning, the oil market wouldn't see that oil for many years, and until it contributes to the global supply, it doesn't exist.

Are you still confused on this subject? I surely hope not.

I am not confused at all. First off, here are facts.

Pres. Bush announced the lifting of the ban on offshore drilling on July 14, 2008. Oil was just over $136. The next day it dropped below $135. By July
19, it was below $130. And the spiral continues to this day.

Futures trading is basically speculation. It is heavily influenced by supply and demand-moreso than any other factor. But these traders do not simply speculate on what is going on 30 days from now, they are looking at trends long term.

One of those trends is the fact that the US is overly dependent on foreign oil. Right now, the US is kind of at the mercy of the world oil market because there is little that we can do to influence the price. There is also the fact that the US is basically one of only a handful of consistent economies that can support these high prices (at least short term) and not collapse. So that leaves traders believing that there is little long term probability that prices will come down.

The lifting of the ban on drilling was the first salvo fired demoinstrating that the US is about to wake up get serious about their energy policy. By drilling, we are showing a long term commitment to two things; increasing the world oil supply dramatically, and not being held hostage by foreign oil. While the lifting of the ban does not effect the September futures directly, it is showing a long term trend that is doing nothing but driving the price of oil down-right now.

A major pipeline disruption, an escalation of the war in the Middle East, or something similar could certainly send the price right back up. But for roght now, the long term trend of the US drilling off the OCS, drilling in ANWR and recovering shale oil in the West is the infulencing factor in the market. This is proven by the numbers.

We would probably agree that it is a complete waste of time to commit to drlling without commiting to alternative energy sources. But all the talk about wind, solar, and bio fuels is bunk. They cannot possibly produce enough energy to have much effect in our petroleum consumption. There are two major places we have to develop.

First, we need to dramatically increase our construction of nuclear power plants. This technology has become extremely safe since the days of TMI and the China Syndrome. The technology has proven to be very succesful in Eurpoe and should be embraced here.

Second, is finding an alternative means to fuel vehicles. Electric powered cars are never going to be the answer. The technology limits the size of the car (due to battery size), limits the speed you can drive and limits the distance you can drive.

We have alot of oil in the ground. But what we have even more of is natural gas. By converting cars and trucks to natural gas and building the infrastructure to supply them, we save a ton of oil.

Secondly, hydrogen powered vehicle research has been very promising. Whether it is cars converted to burn hydrogen in an IC engine or run on fuel cells, the fuel is incredibly inexpensive and plentiful. It is also extremely environmentally friendly.

I am confused that one of the big three automakers who are in financial ruin doesn't make a major commitment to this technology. An increase in supply of these cars will drive the accelerated construction of the infrastructure.

So, you see, I'm not confused at all.

[scfire86]

Futures trading is basically speculation. It is heavily influenced by supply and demand-moreso than any other factor. But these traders do not simply speculate on what is going on 30 days from now, they are looking at trends long term.

You're absolutely correct. These traders look to what's going on possibly 18-24 months in advance. Not ten years. Idle chatter about the possibility of drilling in the OCS had zero effect upon current oil prices. What did have an effect was dropping demand in once white-hot economies, such as China. When the forecasted demand isn't met for consecutive periods, a surplus develops and prices drop. It is supply and demand.

So, you see, I'm not confused at all.

Sadly you are if you believe any commodities broker is recommending buy or sell positions on an event that may or may not happen in the next decade.

[voyager9]

I am not confused at all.
I am confused
So, you see, I'm not confused at all.

At least you cleared that up. Good post.

We've got to differentiate between energy for infrastructure (electricity) and energy for transportation (petroleum). I don't think petroleum is used to generate electricity, is it? I thought that was primarily coal, with some nuclear/hydro..etc. Either way I think research into alternative energy sources like wind..etc could be a benefit here as would building more modern nuclear facilities. It would make electricity cheaper and reduce coal (and petro if it's used) consumption.

For automobiles I think we're stuck with petroleum for a while. Sure research is going on with fuel cells, and other things but there is such an entrenched infrastructure that it will take a lot to switch everything over. I agree that electric/hybrids are a stop-gap.. at least out of urban areas though may be viable in urban settings where range/speed/longevity aren't as high.

[scfire86]

First, we need to dramatically increase our construction of nuclear power plants. This technology has become extremely safe since the days of TMI and the China Syndrome. The technology has proven to be very succesful in Eurpoe and should be embraced here.

I think a little more than 80% of France’s energy is derived via nukes.

A couple of points you might not find so rosy:

100% of those plants are owned and run by the state; there is no private enterprise involved.

The French are more efficent in reusing the waste than we are, but they have just as many problems finding a place to bury the waste as we do. The “solution” was to effectively bribe the province receiving the waste with a government-funded and -run lab to “study” the waste, since the French have been unable to force any province to simply receive the waste and have it buried deep underground.

The cost of the nuke power is acceptable to the French because they lack options–the country has no coal or natural gas and few hydro plants. That contrasts with the US, which has a sizeable supply of coal, lots of hydro and natural gas to power plants, which makes nuke plants less cost-effective than they are in France.

The cost of construction, combined with the cost of operation, has meant that no utility has finished a new plant in the US in 17 years. As far as existing plants are concerned, the failure of the Yankee plants in New England (plant in CT closed 10 years early, plant in ME which wasn’t cost-effective to run and closed early, and plant in MA–the first in the US–which was closed early because of structural issue), along with the WPPSS (largest utility bond default in US history, two plants abandoned about 60% completed 25 years ago) shows enormous financial risks for utilities.

If you’re comfortable with the Feds running a network (whom you constantly like to remind us can screw up a free picnic) of nukes in this country as the French do, then the idea might work. They’ll supervise the construction and operation of the plants with the high-efficiency and superb oversight than only the Federal government can do. Otherwise, the private sector isn’t going to spend its money on nukes for the time being.

The most important factor to remember is that just as alternative sources of fuel don’t become financially viable until the price of a barrel of oil goes through the roof, the viability of nuclear power in the US depends upon more conventional methods of generation becoming much more expensive than currently available.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

You're absolutely correct. These traders look to what's going on possibly 18-24 months in advance. Not ten years. Idle chatter about the possibility of drilling in the OCS had zero effect upon current oil prices. What did have an effect was dropping demand in once white-hot economies, such as China. When the forecasted demand isn't met for consecutive periods, a surplus develops and prices drop. It is supply and demand.


Sadly you are if you believe any commodities broker is recommending buy or sell positions on an event that may or may not happen in the next decade.

So the fact that the price of oil began a $35 or so nosedive the day after the Pres. announced this lifting of the ban (hardly idle chatter) is a complete conincidence? That is what you want the confused masses to believe? Priceless.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

I think a little more than 80% of France’s energy is derived via nukes.

A couple of points you might not find so rosy:

100% of those plants are owned and run by the state; there is no private enterprise involved.

The French are more efficent in reusing the waste than we are, but they have just as many problems finding a place to bury the waste as we do. The “solution” was to effectively bribe the province receiving the waste with a government-funded and -run lab to “study” the waste, since the French have been unable to force any province to simply receive the waste and have it buried deep underground.

The cost of the nuke power is acceptable to the French because they lack options–the country has no coal or natural gas and few hydro plants. That contrasts with the US, which has a sizeable supply of coal, lots of hydro and natural gas to power plants, which makes nuke plants less cost-effective than they are in France.

The cost of construction, combined with the cost of operation, has meant that no utility has finished a new plant in the US in 17 years. As far as existing plants are concerned, the failure of the Yankee plants in New England (plant in CT closed 10 years early, plant in ME which wasn’t cost-effective to run and closed early, and plant in MA–the first in the US–which was closed early because of structural issue), along with the WPPSS (largest utility bond default in US history, two plants abandoned about 60% completed 25 years ago) shows enormous financial risks for utilities.

If you’re comfortable with the Feds running a network (whom you constantly like to remind us can screw up a free picnic) of nukes in this country as the French do, then the idea might work. They’ll supervise the construction and operation of the plants with the high-efficiency and superb oversight than only the Federal government can do. Otherwise, the private sector isn’t going to spend its money on nukes for the time being.

The most important factor to remember is that just as alternative sources of fuel don’t become financially viable until the price of a barrel of oil goes through the roof, the viability of nuclear power in the US depends upon more conventional methods of generation becoming much more expensive than currently available.

The reason that nuclear power is needed is the sheer number of power plants that use oil or natural gas to generate power. They are already much more expensive than they were last year.

The problem with every project like this IS the government. They need to be out of it. Whenever the government is involved the bureacracy and red tape slows projects down and drives costs up. There most certainly must be oversight and regulation. But reasonable levels of oversight and regulation, along with encouragment to use the latest technolofgy and financial incentives for finishing these plants will make this work.

[scfire86]

So the fact that the price of oil began a $35 or so nosedive the day after the Pres. announced this lifting of the ban (hardly idle chatter) is a complete conincidence? That is what you want the confused masses to believe? Priceless.

I gave my reasons. The reason for the price slide in oil is diminshed demand from those countries with expanding economies. Hence the increased inventories. Which cost money to store by the way in case you didn't know.

Your claim is similar to the one I stated earlier that I've never been rained on since I started carrying an umbrella in my car.

Priceless indeed.

[scfire86]

The reason that nuclear power is needed is the sheer number of power plants that use oil or natural gas to generate power. They are already much more expensive than they were last year.

I doubt the private sector (if you consider utility companies to be private companies) will be beating down the doors to build nukes without some type of subsidy.

The problem with every project like this IS the government. They need to be out of it. Whenever the government is involved the bureacracy and red tape slows projects down and drives costs up. There most certainly must be oversight and regulation. But reasonable levels of oversight and regulation, along with encouragment to use the latest technolofgy and financial incentives for finishing these plants will make this work.

That is a relative term. Reasonable according to whom?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

I doubt the private sector (if you consider utility companies to be private companies to be private) will be beating down the doors to build nukes without some type of subsidy.

And to encourage significant investment such as this, there should be incentives and/or subsidies.

That is a relative term. Reasonable according to whom?

Somewhere in the middle of hopeless bureacratic quagmire and none.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

The reason for the price slide in oil is diminshed demand from those countries with expanding economies.

Which began the day after the Pres. amde the announcement. That would make it, accorsing to your explanation, a coincidence.

[txgp17]

100% of those plants are owned and run by the state; there is no private enterprise involved.

If you’re comfortable with the Feds running a network (whom you constantly like to remind us can screw up a free picnic) of nukes in this country as the French do, then the idea might work. They’ll supervise the construction and operation of the plants with the high-efficiency and superb oversight than only the Federal government can do. Otherwise, the private sector isn’t going to spend its money on nukes for the time being.

scfire86,
Your faith in the Federal Government is sorely misplaced. With the exception of taking military action against out enemies, there is little that ANY government can do better than the private sector.

Having the Feds setup minimum standards for construction and operation, or final approval for any design is fine, but the government needs to stay out of the way.

[doughesson]

[QUOTE=scfire86;979447]

A couple of points you might not find so rosy:

100% of those plants are owned and run by the state; there is no private enterprise involved.

If you’re comfortable with the Feds running a network (whom you constantly like to remind us can screw up a free picnic) of nukes in this country as the French do, then the idea might work. QUOTE]

The Tennessee Valley Authority isn't a government agency created by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal?My great Uncle worked for them for years.His checks were cut by the US government,not a private company and not on the State of Alabama.

[txgp17]

The Tennessee Valley Authority isn't a government agency created by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal?My great Uncle worked for them for years.His checks were cut by the US government,not a private company and not on the State of Alabama.

I think scfire86 was referring to French Nuclear Power Plants.

[doughesson]

I think scfire86 was referring to French Nuclear Power Plants.

I pointed that out in my post.Check it again.

[scfire86]

scfire86,
Your faith in the Federal Government is sorely misplaced. With the exception of taking military action against out enemies, there is little that ANY government can do better than the private sector.

Yeah okay. The next laff riot you're going to claim is there are no inefficiencies in the DoD. The redundancy of tasks is but one area I can think of off the top of my head.

Why does each branch require its own air wing? Couldn't one group do that? Or why are multiple infantry units required in different branches? Those are but two of many.

I would argue there are numerous things the Feds do better than the private sector other than military action. But it is strictly a matter of perspective.

[scfire86]

And to encourage significant investment such as this, there should be incentives and/or subsidies.

Why should this group be given tax breaks not available to the rest of us? When a group is given a tax break or subsidy it means someone else is picking up the cost. Who do you think that group might be? Do they not utilize the same services offered by our society that provides for them? This is an interesting POV for someone who embraces the conservative ideal. It's in direct conflict with that ideology.

I know it's a stretch for you since you probably still believe the GOP is the party of smaller government and lower taxes.

Somewhere in the middle of hopeless bureacratic quagmire and none.

And who will be the arbiter of that?

Which began the day after the Pres. amde the announcement. That would make it, accorsing to your explanation, a coincidence.

So you're saying the President's decision to lift offshore drilling ban is responsible for the decreased demand for petroleum in China and India? And what do you base this upon other than your own conjecture? That's a lot of water to carry and you aren't Gunga Din. A decrease in demand occurs because the price is too high. Pretty simple stuff really.

I'll ask you again. Point me to one oil commodities broker who is recommending buy or sell positions based upon what the supply of oil might be in 10 years and I'll agree with you. Especially given the amount of that supply is less than 10% of the total projected demand by the time it comes online.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Why should this group be given tax breaks not available to the rest of us? When a group is given a tax break or subsidy it means someone else is picking up the cost. Who do you think that group might be? Do they not utilize the same services offered by our society that provides for them? This is an interesting POV for someone who embraces the conservative ideal. It's in direct conflict with that ideology.

I know it's a stretch for you since you probably still believe the GOP is the party of smaller government and lower taxes.

Because we are in a crisis situation and a temporary financial incentive to jump start this development is, IMO, completely appropriate.

BTW, you haven't seen me write the smaller government/lower taxes comment in at least a couple of years. The GOP has lost their way in many areas, that being one of them.

And who will be the arbiter of that?

I have no idea. I have alot of answers, but not all of the answers.

So you're saying the President's decision to lift offshore drilling ban is responsible for the decreased demand for petroleum in China and India? And what do you base this upon other than your own conjecture? That's a lot of water to carry and you aren't Gunga Din. A decrease in demand occurs because the price is too high. Pretty simple stuff really.

I'll ask you again. Point me to one oil commodities broker who is recommending buy or sell positions based upon what the supply of oil might be in 10 years and I'll agree with you. Especially given the amount of that supply is less than 10% of the total projected demand by the time it comes online.

I never ever drew a correlation between the Pres. announcement and anything other than lower prices. The facts do not lie. It is a fact that the nose dive began the day after he made the announcement. Oil fell about $30-35 bbl. immediately following his announcement. To suggest that there were other factors influencing the price drop means that the timing was a mere coincidence.

You have pretty much lost this point already.

[txgp17]

Yeah okay. The next laff riot you're going to claim is there are no inefficiencies in the DoD.

First, I don't know what a laff riot is. Is that some kind of cartoon? Second, you're trying to put words in my mouth again. I never said the DoD was efficient. And doing something efficiently is NOT the same as doing something better. Your attempt to steer the argument into a different zip code has failed. If we critique the DoD's efficiency, then they would pale in comparison to successful private military companies like Executive Outcomes or Blackwater. Exec Outcomes was keeping the peace quite well in Angola, but when Bill Clinton led the effort to oust them, the UN came in behind them with almost 10 times as many troops, and couldn't keep the peace.

The redundancy of tasks is but one area I can think of off the top of my head. Why does each branch require its own air wing?

Do you think you're the first person to ask that? Robert McNamara already pushed for this almost 40 years ago, and failed. The Navy's needs vary greatly from those of the Air Force. And when you design a plane that can do everything, it ends up being too heavy to do anything well. Same thing applies to the differences found in Rural Pumper/Tankers versus a short wheel base Custom Chassis Municipal Pumpers.

Couldn't one group do that? Or why are multiple infantry units required in different branches? Those are but two of many.

Once again, no one said they were efficient, only that they were good at it.

The rest of America's Government programs usually provide both inefficiency and lackluster performance.

[neiowa]

And to encourage significant investment such as this, there should be incentives and/or subsidies.


Somewhere in the middle of hopeless bureacratic quagmire and none.

SC and the rest of his ilk in the socialist world would define a subsidy as getting the fed gov't and the envirowacko shakedown artists out of the way. As this would eiminate 5yr and 50% of the expense of constucting a new major energy project (nuc, refinery, pipeline etc). So a CORPORTATION (evil) saves $ = subsidy. The huge cost of a nuc plant isn't due to the cost of concrete.

A primitive example would be the NorthSlope/Alaska pipeline. The wackos (who were just getting started) delay the project 5 years. Actual construction only took about 2yr. Ran the project costs up exponentially. Today would never get down. If the eviromental wackos had not interfered the pipeline would have been completed before the 1973 oil crisis (wouldn't have been one). Hummm rather similar to today.

[ThNozzleman]

If we critique the DoD's efficiency, then they would pale in comparison to successful private military companies like Executive Outcomes or Blackwater.

You mean the same Blackwater who is quitting the "security" business as a result of the murderous rampages and underhanded activities (along with other "contractors" who bilked the taxpayers out of billions) in which its personnel took part while in Iraq?