Gas Price and oil Company profits

[jeninflorida]

Why are people in shock that oil companies are making a killer profit? If the profit margin stayed the same...and over the past few years price per gallon has jumped....please! its a win fall for oil companies!

gas tax holiday....what a freaking scam. Hillary and John want to have a holiday and or make the oil companies pay the tax. okay lets think about that....the oil companies will just jack up the price per gallon to cover that expense.....its a fantasy but a start.

Sorry I don't have a solution just yet...only dreaming of the day when solor power will cost the avg home owner $10,000...that will help reduce power needs as a lot of people can jump over to solor...

just a thought

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Park your car.

The oil companies and politicians know that most people are idiots and fools.

 

[trysail]

Now, of course, the only problem is where does the electricity come from? If you're in the U.S., 50% of your electricity comes from coal and 15% from nuclear generation.

Folk on this board know exactly why the price of wheat and corn has quadrupled: ethanol.

Where do people think energy and electricity comes from? Apparently, they believe this stuff appears magically. Nobody can build nuclear generators; nobody can get permits for LNG receiving terminals; nobody can get permits to construct coal-fired generating facilities; nobody can drill off the West Coast; nobody can drill off the East Coast; nobody can drill off Florida's west coast; nobody can drill ANWR; nobody can drill in the Chukchi.

Instead, each and every year the U.S. chooses to send billions and billions of dollars abroad into the hands of god-only knows who.
______________________________________
Spurred by the belief that the market for fuel-efficient vehicles is about to take off, a slew of tiny car companies is springing up in Europe and the U.S. They are racing to produce the next "green" car, betting that soaring demand will allow them to survive alongside the giants of Detroit, Stuttgart and Tokyo.

Most of the upstarts were founded in the last 12 months and have financial backing from venture-capital firms. They are headed by former top engineers and designers from the likes of Germany's Volkswagen AG and storied U.K. racecar builder McLaren. Responding to soaring gasoline prices and a tightening noose of emissions regulations in Europe and the U.S., the companies are working on a new generation of hybrid and electric vehicles.

Many of the green start-ups are hoping to ride the coattails of California-based Tesla Motors Inc. Founded in 2003, Tesla unveiled an electrically powered sports car in 2006. The Tesla roadster went into production last month and has presold the first year's output. [ A Tesla costs $100,000 ]

One problem: Competition from the industry giants is real. Daimler AG, Toyota Motor Corp., General Motors Corp., Renault SA and Mitsubishi Corp. are all developing new-generation electric vehicles.

Some of the start-ups plan to build and sell cars, going head-to-head with the likes of Toyota, maker of the successful Prius hybrid. Others hope to outsource manufacturing to bigger companies, or even to sell the technology altogether, taking advantage of a growing trend among large auto makers to buy key technologies from outside firms.

"In the past 20 years a lot of the car companies felt it was an advantage to develop and own things exclusively. That's changing,"says Henrik Fisker, a former design director at Ford Motor Co. and Aston Martin. Mr. Fisker now heads California-based Fisker Automotive Inc., which he started in 2007 to develop a plug-in hybrid sports car, the Karma. He hopes to put his 125-miles-per-hour car on the market for $80,000 to $100,000 late next year.

Gordon Murray, former technical director at McLaren, left with a team of senior McLaren engineers last year. The 61-year-old Briton, who was born in South Africa, formed Gordon Murray Design Ltd. and moved to a red-brick building on the outskirts of London. He plans to use his team's expertise in lightweight plastic composite materials, developed while building Formula One race cars and the Mercedes-Benz McLaren SLR sports car, to make a small city car. He has backing from Silicon Valley venture-capital firm MDV-Mohr Davidow Ventures.

The car will be lightweight and capable of incorporating a variety of power trains, Mr. Murray says, including hybrid, electric and gasoline. He is working on 14 variations of the vehicle, and his team is developing production-ready prototypes.

"Being independent gives the design team an opportunity to make a radical break with the past," he said.

Mr. Murray has no interest in assembling his car or building a dealership network to sell it. He hopes to sell the design to a big car company or other corporation -- "like Sony for example" -- that is eager to add a green vehicle to its portfolio.

Other small start-ups are joining the party. Last year Murat Guenak, a former head of design for the Volkswagen brand, joined Switzerland-based start-up firm Mindset AG. Mindset got financial backing from Swiss investment firm Spirt Avert AG to develop a new electric hybrid car. Last December, France's industrial-and-media conglomerate Bollor© Group teamed with Italian design house Pininfarina Group to start building an electric car with a new battery technology.

The upstarts are entering a notoriously tough market. But analysts say shrinking research-and-development budgets at the big auto makers -- and their interest in outside help to develop key technology --may have opened up the road for smaller players.

Large car companies now develop and make about only 20% of a new car in-house, according to Ferdinand Dudenhaffer, Professor of Automotive Research at Germany's Gelsenkirchen University of Applied Sciences. Last month, for example, Daimler unveiled battery technology for the Mercedes-Benz S-Class limousine that it developed jointly with tires-and-parts supplier Continental AG. Daimler cut its spending on research and development to 4.148 billion euros ($6.39 billion) last year from 7.241 billion euros in 2000.

Another bad omen is that previous efforts to launch green cars have been plagued by problems. Honda Motor Co.'s Insight car, launched in 1999, and VW's Golf Ecomatic, launched in the early 1990s, both fuel-efficient vehicles ahead of their time, didn't win mass-market acceptance. The smart car, launched by Daimler in the U.S. this year, took at least 16 years and billions of euros in losses to make it from the initial design to its most recent version.

Norwegian firm Think Global AS first developed an electric vehicle in 1994, but it hasn't been able to produce the cars in large numbers. Initially, that was due to a lack of demand from customers and more recently to problems developing sufficient production capacity and batteries for its most recent model, the TH!NK city. Think has also spent years wading through the process of getting the vehicle certified with national safety authorities.

 

[jeninflorida]

For most of S.W. Florida, our power comes from gas...I think its nuts that we send billions out of this country....can you imagine if we didn't need oil? that we had a new fuel source and what oil we did need, we were able to get out of CA and the other oil producing states...what would that do to the middle east?

Now, of course, the only problem is where does the electricity come from? If you're in the U.S., 50% of your electricity comes from coal and 15% from nuclear generation.

Folk on this board know exactly why the price of wheat and corn has quadrupled: ethanol.

Where do people think energy and electricity comes from? Apparently, they believe this stuff appears magically. Nobody can build nuclear generators; nobody can get permits for LNG receiving terminals; nobody can get permits to construct coal-fired generating facilities; nobody can drill off the West Coast; nobody can drill off the East Coast; nobody can drill off Florida's west coast; nobody can drill ANWR; nobody can drill in the Chukchi.

Instead, each and every year the U.S. chooses to send billions and billions of dollars abroad into the hands of god-only knows who.
______________________________________
Spurred by the belief that the market for fuel-efficient vehicles is about to take off, a slew of tiny car companies is springing up in Europe and the U.S. They are racing to produce the next "green" car, betting that soaring demand will allow them to survive alongside the giants of Detroit, Stuttgart and Tokyo.

Most of the upstarts were founded in the last 12 months and have financial backing from venture-capital firms. They are headed by former top engineers and designers from the likes of Germany's Volkswagen AG and storied U.K. racecar builder McLaren. Responding to soaring gasoline prices and a tightening noose of emissions regulations in Europe and the U.S., the companies are working on a new generation of hybrid and electric vehicles.

Many of the green start-ups are hoping to ride the coattails of California-based Tesla Motors Inc. Founded in 2003, Tesla unveiled an electrically powered sports car in 2006. The Tesla roadster went into production last month and has presold the first year's output. [ A Tesla costs $100,000 ]

One problem: Competition from the industry giants is real. Daimler AG, Toyota Motor Corp., General Motors Corp., Renault SA and Mitsubishi Corp. are all developing new-generation electric vehicles.

Some of the start-ups plan to build and sell cars, going head-to-head with the likes of Toyota, maker of the successful Prius hybrid. Others hope to outsource manufacturing to bigger companies, or even to sell the technology altogether, taking advantage of a growing trend among large auto makers to buy key technologies from outside firms.

"In the past 20 years a lot of the car companies felt it was an advantage to develop and own things exclusively. That's changing,"says Henrik Fisker, a former design director at Ford Motor Co. and Aston Martin. Mr. Fisker now heads California-based Fisker Automotive Inc., which he started in 2007 to develop a plug-in hybrid sports car, the Karma. He hopes to put his 125-miles-per-hour car on the market for $80,000 to $100,000 late next year.

Gordon Murray, former technical director at McLaren, left with a team of senior McLaren engineers last year. The 61-year-old Briton, who was born in South Africa, formed Gordon Murray Design Ltd. and moved to a red-brick building on the outskirts of London. He plans to use his team's expertise in lightweight plastic composite materials, developed while building Formula One race cars and the Mercedes-Benz McLaren SLR sports car, to make a small city car. He has backing from Silicon Valley venture-capital firm MDV-Mohr Davidow Ventures.

The car will be lightweight and capable of incorporating a variety of power trains, Mr. Murray says, including hybrid, electric and gasoline. He is working on 14 variations of the vehicle, and his team is developing production-ready prototypes.

"Being independent gives the design team an opportunity to make a radical break with the past," he said.

Mr. Murray has no interest in assembling his car or building a dealership network to sell it. He hopes to sell the design to a big car company or other corporation -- "like Sony for example" -- that is eager to add a green vehicle to its portfolio.

Other small start-ups are joining the party. Last year Murat Guenak, a former head of design for the Volkswagen brand, joined Switzerland-based start-up firm Mindset AG. Mindset got financial backing from Swiss investment firm Spirt Avert AG to develop a new electric hybrid car. Last December, France's industrial-and-media conglomerate Bollor© Group teamed with Italian design house Pininfarina Group to start building an electric car with a new battery technology.

The upstarts are entering a notoriously tough market. But analysts say shrinking research-and-development budgets at the big auto makers -- and their interest in outside help to develop key technology --may have opened up the road for smaller players.

Large car companies now develop and make about only 20% of a new car in-house, according to Ferdinand Dudenhaffer, Professor of Automotive Research at Germany's Gelsenkirchen University of Applied Sciences. Last month, for example, Daimler unveiled battery technology for the Mercedes-Benz S-Class limousine that it developed jointly with tires-and-parts supplier Continental AG. Daimler cut its spending on research and development to 4.148 billion euros ($6.39 billion) last year from 7.241 billion euros in 2000.

Another bad omen is that previous efforts to launch green cars have been plagued by problems. Honda Motor Co.'s Insight car, launched in 1999, and VW's Golf Ecomatic, launched in the early 1990s, both fuel-efficient vehicles ahead of their time, didn't win mass-market acceptance. The smart car, launched by Daimler in the U.S. this year, took at least 16 years and billions of euros in losses to make it from the initial design to its most recent version.

Norwegian firm Think Global AS first developed an electric vehicle in 1994, but it hasn't been able to produce the cars in large numbers. Initially, that was due to a lack of demand from customers and more recently to problems developing sufficient production capacity and batteries for its most recent model, the TH!NK city. Think has also spent years wading through the process of getting the vehicle certified with national safety authorities.

 

[trysail]

Do you know what it costs to find this stuff (petroleum)? Tupi/Carioca is going to cost something like $20-25,000,000,000 dollars (spread over 4-5 years and that's just one field). Exxon will spend $28,000,000,000 this year alone. Chevron will spend $20,000,000,000.

Don't forget that, in the U.S., a gallon of gasoline still costs less than a gallon of milk.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=a5d8FWu4LE5k&refer=latin_america
...The field isn't as difficult to tap as predicted, lying no more than 7.1 kilometers (4.4 miles) beneath the ocean's surface, Petrobras Chief Executive Officer Jose Sergio Gabrielli said. The company said in November that parts of the deposit were 10 kilometers below the surface.

Petrobras has the expertise to sink pipes and pump crude from Tupi, overcoming increasing heat and pressure at greater depths, Gabrielli said yesterday in an interview in Houston. The field is the most promising prospect to boost crude supplies in North and South America after prices yesterday surpassed $120 a barrel in New York...

...Gabrielli's schedule for tapping Tupi may be too ambitious because production technology tends to lag behind exploration technology by 5 to 10 years, said Shari Dunn-Norman, who teaches petroleum engineering at the Missouri University of Science and Technology in Rolla, Missouri.

``Production always lags behind our ability to find deposits in the deep water,'' said Dunn-Norman, a former Atlantic Richfield Co. engineer. ``They're being very aggressive.''

Petrobras already has drilled 16 wells in the geological formation where Tupi is located without any equipment failures, Gabrielli said.

Efforts by Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. to explore even deeper deposits in the Gulf of Mexico two years ago were hindered by searing subterranean heat and crushing pressure. Chevron destroyed as many as a dozen $50,000 drill bits on each of 14 wells at its project, called Tahiti.

``I don't know how they're going to produce at those depths,'' Dunn-Norman said. ``It sounds like they're really pushing the envelope on what's possible.''

Part of the reason Petrobras plans to run the test well at Tupi for a year or more before boosting output is to figure out whether the pipes, valves and other gear can survive, she said.

Wells drilled 7 kilometers beneath Louisiana into a formation known as the Tuscaloosa Trend encountered temperatures of 485 degrees Fahrenheit, said John Rogers Smith, a petroleum engineering professor at Louisiana State University...

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Jenn,
Truely, what I see is the Oil Companies testing what they have known for a long time - The Price of Oil Products is Fairly Inelastic. In other words, if the price of gas skyrockets, the demand stay relatively the same. However, there is a break point where the price becomes so high, demand drops percipitously. The Oil Companies are trying to find that point.

EXXON, Philips, Chevron and Atlantic Richfield know that demand is rising because there are more drivers every year, more houses are being built, more people are being born and more demand for their products all the time. From a moral standpoint what should they do? Raise production.

However, the oil companies have followed EXXON's lead in forecasting zero increase in exploration, drilling, pumping or refining for the next five years. That puts the chairmans of EXXON, Philip Patrolium and BP Oil in the position of talking out of both sides of their mouths when they told Congress the extra profits were needed for increased exploration and production. They knew at the time that was not in the plan.

The second time the Oil Company Big Wigs went in front of Congress, they claimed these excessive profits were making up for the "bad years when profits were either low or non-existant". What years where those? Going back to the 1950's there are few years when the Oil Companies actually lost money.

The whole thing is a boondoggle with the Oil Company Executives lying through their teeth aided by friends in the White House, Congress dragging their feet on alternate energy sources and you and I stuck in the middle.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JENNY JACKSON

There's a bigger problem that is ignored. EXXON and the others are ENERGY companies. They control most of the energy resources on the planet. We'll get alternative energy when their oil is depleted; not before.

The US Govt could create another MANHATTAN PROJECT, to develope cheap energy, but it isnt gonna happen because the energy companies control Congress.

 

[trysail]

Jenn,
Truely, what I see is the Oil Companies testing what they have known for a long time - The Price of Oil Products is Fairly Inelastic. In other words, if the price of gas skyrockets, the demand stay relatively the same. However, there is a break point where the price becomes so high, demand drops percipitously. The Oil Companies are trying to find that point.

Who do you think sets the price for petroleum? Are you aware that China now imports thirty-five times (35x) the amount of petroleum that it imported just eight years ago?

EXXON, Philips, Chevron and Atlantic Richfield know that demand is rising because there are more drivers every year, more houses are being built, more people are being born and more demand for their products all the time. From a moral standpoint what should they do? Raise production.

Just one question— how?

Homework assignment for JJ: What percentage of the world's hydrocarbons are owned by private energy companies?

However, the oil companies have followed EXXON's lead in forecasting zero increase in exploration, drilling, pumping or refining for the next five years. That puts the chairmans of EXXON, Philip Patrolium and BP Oil in the position of talking out of both sides of their mouths when they told Congress the extra profits were needed for increased exploration and production. They knew at the time that was not in the plan.

These guys are spending their brains out. The problem: they're not finding hydrocarbons. Ever heard of Hubbert's Curve? If not, you've got another homework assignment.

The second time the Oil Company Big Wigs went in front of Congress, they claimed these excessive profits were making up for the "bad years when profits were either low or non-existant". What years where those? Going back to the 1950's there are few years when the Oil Companies actually lost money.

From 1986 (when the price of petroleum cratered down to $9 a barrel from $36 a barrel in 1981) through 2000, the oil services industry went through a Depression (with a big "D") and was all but destroyed. Nearly every company in that field went bankrupt. The number of people employed in the business declined by almost 50%. To this day, when you examine the demographic cohort of petroleum professionals there is an entire generation missing because of that depression.

The whole thing is a boondoggle with the Oil Company Executives lying through their teeth aided by friends in the White House, Congress dragging their feet on alternate energy sources and you and I stuck in the middle.

JJ— why isn't there a wind farm in Nantucket Sound? Why isn't ANWR being drilled? Why isn't all the petroleum that's just sitting off the West Coast being produced?

 

[trysail]

For most of S.W. Florida, our power comes from gas...I think its nuts that we send billions out of this country....can you imagine if we didn't need oil? that we had a new fuel source and what oil we did need, we were able to get out of CA and the other oil producing states...what would that do to the middle east?

The bad news is that the U.S. now imports upwards of 20% of our natural gas (in the form of liquified natural gas [ "LNG" ] ). Importation of natural gas is likely to do nothing but grow over time. Guess who's got most of the world's supplies of natural gas?

(If you answered Russia, Qatar and Iran you got the "Big Three." Together, those countries have well over 50% of the world's natural gas reserves).

 

[S-Des]

There's a bigger problem that is ignored. EXXON and the others are ENERGY companies. They control most of the energy resources on the planet. We'll get alternative energy when their oil is depleted; not before.

The US Govt could create another MANHATTAN PROJECT, to develope cheap energy, but it isnt gonna happen because the energy companies control Congress.

I always scratch my head at these arguments. If Exxon really controls everything, why haven't we started drilling in Anwar, North Dakota, or other places it's been discovered in large quantities (plus shale oil found in several states)? Why hasn't a new refinery been built in such a long time? Can't Exxon invest in Nuclear technology as well (since at the moment we could use a ton of nuclear plants, which would be insanely profitable)? People always try to paint conspiracy theories using rich companies as the bad guy. I think the truth is anything but that.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The US Govt could create another MANHATTAN PROJECT, to develope cheap energy, but it isnt gonna happen because the energy companies control Congress.

Not.

Manhattan project was just overcoming a (big) engineering challenge, where the underlying science was already established. Throw money at something like that, and it can be done.

What is the established science that would create some magic bullet energy system? Answer: it does not exist. Fusion might be a candidate, but at this point no one understands how to make it happen in the way that Oppenheimer and the boys understood that, "If we can just squish enough uranium or plutonium together to create a critical mass, it will go BOOM!"

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Jenn,
Truely, what I see is the Oil Companies testing what they have known for a long time - The Price of Oil Products is Fairly Inelastic.

Fairly inelastic - not infinitely so.

Market trumps Congress when it comes to fuel economy
Daniel Howes
Detroit News, Monday, May 5, 2008

News flash: Skyrocketing gas prices are driving historic shifts in the habits of car buyers, pushing them away from thirsty pickups and full-size SUVs and into four-cylinder compacts.

What a surprise.

Might all the smart people behind tougher federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules be watching? If they are, do they understand what we are witnessing? Namely, this: It's not arbitrary mileage goals, mostly unhinged from engineering reality and focused on a handful of companies, that are dramatically changing the behavior of the driving public. It's the price of fuel, stupid.

Cars outsold trucks in April for the first time in a generation, according to industry figures compiled by Autodata Corp., and four-cylinder powered cars outsold those with six cylinders under the hood. The shift, clearly a blow to truck-dependent Detroit automakers scrambling to dig out of their deep hole, is confirmation that market forces are a swifter disciplinarian than the collective wisdom of Congress, career bureaucrats and the environmental lobby.

"It's easily the most dramatic segment shift I have witnessed in the market in my 31 years here," George Pipas, Ford Motor Co.'s chief sales analyst, told the New York Times.

Politics pursues easy path

Which ought to say something to the lemmings -- including presidential contenders John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton -- who think the answer to America's shifting fuel-economy goals is a complex web of national and state rules that tells automakers what to build, whatever the market dynamics now and in the future.

If the presumed national goal is to reduce consumption by getting more Americans behind the wheel of smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles, don't the past few months pretty much show that higher gas prices are the fastest way to get there? Um, yeah.

And couldn't higher gas prices be kept aloft by raising the 18.4-cents-per gallon federal tax on fuel so that gas regularly sold for $4 a gallon or more? Possibly. Instead, we've got presidential candidates pandering to voters with a call to suspend the tax for the summer driving months in a craven campaign ploy. Big deal.

Keeping prices high to reduce demand and steer folks into more fuel-efficient vehicles, as economically untenable as it may be, isn't the goal of federal fuel rules. Appearing to do something, getting credit for it and sticking someone else with the bill -- i.e., full-line automakers -- is the goal. It's safer politically, proving the adage that environmental policy is all about getting someone else to pay for your bad behavior.

Gas price trumps policy
\
Why would, say, the California congressional delegation back a new slug of draconian taxes that would hit their driving constituents equally when the path of lesser resistance runs over Detroit's automakers and chief rivals like Toyota? They wouldn't, which is why California led the push for tougher fuel economy rules and is leading the fight to allow states to separately regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

For decades, Detroit's automakers have waged an increasingly unsuccessful rear-guard action against advancing political sentiment that holds the best way to improve the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks sold in the United States is by mandating fuel-economy standards. Raise the standards, the theory holds, and more Americans would buy more fuel-efficient cars.

Except that they didn't feel compelled to obey when gas was cheap. It's not part of the American "bigger is better" psyche, no matter how much the Sierra Club thinks it ought to be. But as gas breaches $3.50 a gallon on its way to $4, the ostensible goals of stiffened fuel economy rules are, like magic, in closer reach without government meddling.

The market did it, and the market will keep working its rational magic. Ford Focuses, Honda Fits and Chevy Aveos will roll out of showrooms at record rates so long as gas prices hover at historic highs and achieve what years of posturing and bruising battles in Washington have mostly failed to deliver.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Addendum to the preceding - I can't resist :


Pure: "Of course RA has not the slightest evidence that the revenue neutral carbon tax is going to wean the US from gasoline; in fact, it's a *minor* step, a drop in the bucket [what she applies to others' plans] that could not possibly remedy the reliance on oil." (No. 154 in http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=500780)

To be fair, what the article I pasted describes is a long way from "weaning" from oil, but it does demonstrate the reality that gasoline demand is not infinitely price-inelastic.

(Pure was responding to a carbon tax proposal I described, here and here.)

 

[JagFarlane]

Not.

Manhattan project was just overcoming a (big) engineering challenge, where the underlying science was already established. Throw money at something like that, and it can be done.

What is the established science that would create some magic bullet energy system? Answer: it does not exist. Fusion might be a candidate, but at this point no one understands how to make it happen in the way that Oppenheimer and the boys understood that, "If we can just squish enough uranium or plutonium together to create a critical mass, it will go BOOM!"

Erm...I think you have things rather confused.

Fusion exists...we know how to do it...the problem really lies in containing it. Fusion itself, generates so much heat that it melts just about anything we try to place it in. [think the sun] Yes, fusion is much more powerful than fission, but we currently are able to use fission and control it to an extent. This is why the idea of cold fusion was such a massive following and much desired item, to the point it even made it into the movies [The Saint]. Fusion would be an answer yes, but for now its not feasible due to the heat created, and even once we figured out how to control that, then engineer the buildings and how to use it.

BTW...the "squishing" of uranium and plutonium is what we use to create a nuclear bomb. The first nuclear device we detonated used this concept by placing a core of uranium surrounded by high explosives set to detonate at the exact same time. This causes the core to essentially BOOM as you put it, causing, yes, fusion in the middle, fission outside of things, but more importantly for the weapon, a huge energy wave.

And for those of you that wish to discuss that yes, fission creates massive heat as well...erm...I'm not really at liberty myself to discuss this, however you can try googling it...I am sure there are many websites to explain how a modern reactor works

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ROXANNE

There are plenty of alternative energy sources already, and they have engineering hurdles atomic energy had in 1942. So the problem is fundamentally the same.

I disagree that the science was 'established' by 1942. About all they knew for certain was how unstable uranium atoms are. I mean, until the bomb was detonated in New Mexico there was no confidence about what could happen. Some smart people worried that the atmosphere would burn.

But I'm speaking of making solar power, fuel cells, and hydrogen practical alternatives.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Who do you think sets the price for petroleum? Are you aware that China now imports thirty-five times (35x) the amount of petroleum that it imported just eight years ago?


Just one question— how?

Homework assignment for JJ: What percentage of the world's hydrocarbons are owned by private energy companies?

These guys are spending their brains out. The problem: they're not finding hydrocarbons. Ever heard of Hubbert's Curve? If not, you've got another homework assignment.



From 1986 (when the price of petroleum cratered down to $9 a barrel from $36 a barrel in 1981) through 2000, the oil services industry went through a Depression (with a big "D") and was all but destroyed. Nearly every company in that field went bankrupt. The number of people employed in the business declined by almost 50%. To this day, when you examine the demographic cohort of petroleum professionals there is an entire generation missing because of that depression.



JJ— why isn't there a wind farm in Nantucket Sound? Why isn't ANWR being drilled? Why isn't all the petroleum that's just sitting off the West Coast being produced?

You need to go back to school, Trysail. The "barrel price" of oil is the "SPOT PRICE" not the price the Oil Companies pay for oil. Why is it so high? Because they are buying oil on the spot market to bid the price up to justify raising prices to create their embarrasingly large profits.

Spending their asses off? Not really. Who actually is doing the research to find oil on this planet? The USGS, not the oil companies - and YOU are paying for it.

Wind farms? You need to think again. There cannot be a wind farm built anywhere in the world for at least two years. Why? Because only one company builds the generators and they are that far backlogged.

The real answer is nuclear. But there's a problem with that. Who's going to operate them? Import "engineers" from India who purchased their degrees from the government rather than go to school? That was one of the problems at Three Mile Island. And who's going to build them? Bectal and the rest are out of business.

The alternative answer is threaten to nationalize the Oil Companies, then watch how fast the "barrel price" of oil plummets. Could congress do that? If it meant not being voted out of office.

 

[R. Richard]

The real answer is nuclear. But there's a problem with that. Who's going to operate them? Import "engineers" from India who purchased their degrees from the government rather than go to school? That was one of the problems at Three Mile Island. And who's going to build them? Bectal and the rest are out of business.

Jenny:
I don't know where you got your information about Indian engineers. I have worked with a number of them and they are very sharp. Their spoken words are a little difficult to understand, but their thinking is top notch.

 

[trysail]

You need to go back to school, Trysail. The "barrel price" of oil is the "SPOT PRICE" not the price the Oil Companies pay for oil. Why is it so high? Because they are buying oil on the spot market to bid the price up to justify raising prices to create their embarrasingly large profits.

C'mon, JJ, you're smarter than that. 80% of petroleum is consumed outside of the U.S. The Chinese, the Japanese and India— among many others— are consumers and are participants in the market. Do you think they're playing along in some kind of giant conspiracy?

Wind farms? You need to think again. There cannot be a wind farm built anywhere in the world for at least two years. Why? Because only one company builds the generators and they are that far backlogged.

Pfft. There are wind farms going up all over the place- just not in Nantucket Sound.

The real answer is nuclear. But there's a problem with that. Who's going to operate them? Import "engineers" from India who purchased their degrees from the government rather than go to school? That was one of the problems at Three Mile Island. And who's going to build them? Bectal and the rest are out of business.

I couldn't agree more with you. The trouble is that nobody can get permits. There are plenty of potential U.S. operators with long experience- Exelon, Constellation, and Middle South come to mind. There are plenty of potential builders- the first ones that come to mind are Areva (constructor of the fleet of reactors that provide 80% of France's electricity) and Toshiba.

The alternative answer is threaten to nationalize the Oil Companies, then watch how fast the "barrel price" of oil plummets. Could congress do that? If it meant not being voted out of office.

The thought of Congress or the U.S. government trying to deliver gasoline to the corner petrol station from petroleum that lies under 30,000' of rock beneath 10,000' of water is enough to make me shudder. Should I mention Medicare, the IRS or Social Security (with its IBM 360 mainframes)?

 

[trysail]

Spending their asses off? Not really. Who actually is doing the research to find oil on this planet? The USGS, not the oil companies - and YOU are paying for it.

JJ, I'm afraid this one is so far removed from reality that I can't even begin to form a response.

Where did we dig up that little (ahem) "fact?"

 

[R. Richard]

Let me try to explain a little of how 'Big Oil' works.

First, Big Oil companies are publically held. If Big Oil is ripping off the public, buy shares in Big Oil and profit.

Second, there have been at least a dozen investigations of Big Oil by the politicians. The investiagations have turned up no wrongdoing.

Third, Big Oil doesn't buy much oil at spot price. Big Oil buys oil under long term contracts. The long term contracts were written back when oil was maybe $50 a barrel, thus Big Oil is making out. In the future, Big Oil will buy oil under long term contracts written at $120 a barrel. If oil goes back to $60 a barrel, Big Oil will be hurting.

Fourth, Big Oil runs refineries. You can't just shut down a refinery for a few das without major damage. Thus, if it becomes necessary to get oil to keep a refinery going, Big Oil will buy at spot. They have no real choice.

Fifth, Big Oil does explore for oil. They find oil in places like Venezuela and gas in places like Bolivia. Then the Grand Poobah nationalizes their oil drilling facilities and pays them pennies on the dollar. In Nigeria, the don't even bother to nationalize the oil drilling facilities, they just attack the oil drilling facilities and kidnap the workers.

Sixth, Big Oil can't get permits to build new refineries. They go through 10 ears of permit gathering and then some environmental group manages to block the construction at the last minute.

Seventh, even when Big Oil does find oil, they are often not permitted to drill there, again because of 'environmental concerns.' Big Oil wanted to drill in ANWR. The Democrat politicians have managed to block that to allow the caribou, polar bears and penguins to frolic in an unspoiled arctic paradise. Unfortunately, the place where Big Oil wants to drill is a frozen mud flat where only bacteria and weeds grow. Also, Big Oil is not allowed to drill off he coast of Florida. Cuba is allowed to drill there, but not Big Oil.

 

[JagFarlane]

The real answer is nuclear. But there's a problem with that. Who's going to operate them? Import "engineers" from India who purchased their degrees from the government rather than go to school? That was one of the problems at Three Mile Island. And who's going to build them? Bectal and the rest are out of business.

.

Erm wtf sort of crack are you smoking? I have no idea where you got your information from but let me set you straight.

First off, you want American nuclear reactor operators...go look at a poster with an aircraft carrier or submarine, they're nuclear powered. As it turns out, a large chunk of Americas nuclear reactors are run by people whom were born in the US, educated in a school whose curriculum comes from MIT and spent 4+ years operating reactors in ways a civilian operator could only dream of. There is a reason why the US Navy has gone over 50 years without an incident, and that there are places where reactors are operated, that residents don't know about, not for lack of signs, but for lack of incidents occuring. They're the group of people we would turn to for personnel to operate our civilian plants.

Secondly, 3 mile Island was not the result of "India natives whom bought thier degree". I'd school you on this, however the incident itself it still classified, however being one whom has read the report I can tell you that you're dead wrong. Oh, and want to know the resolution for fixing the issue with 3 mile Island? They turned to Admiral Rickover, whom built the Navy's nuclear program and had him design the nuclear program for civilians.

 

[Carnevil9]

......First, Big Oil companies are publically held. If Big Oil is ripping off the public, buy shares in Big Oil and profit......

I figured somebody would beat me to making this comment, but it is worth repeating.

People like to vilify big companies, especially Democrat politicians. They make fine scapegoats, and help to spread the class warfare that liberals love so much.

All you have to do is go down to your friendly neighborhood stockbroker, and a piece of this amazing pie can be yours for the taking! But noooo; folks would rather whine and act like a victim and an outsider than go for the success story that awaits them. That would require actually doing something.

Regarding fuel cells, natural gas vehicles, and other alternatives: they've been developed FOR YEARS. Regular gas is just too cheap for people to hop on the alternative bandwagon. And by "people," I mean both consumers and infrastructure providers. It won't happen until gas is around eight bucks a gallon (wild guess on my part, but some high price or other will be necessary) and it becomes worth everyone's while.

Stop whining, people! The solutions are within our individual grasps........Carney

 

[trysail]

Spending their asses off? Not really.

(Fair use excerpt)

THURSDAY MAY 8, 2008 5:47 AM MDT
Casper (WY) Star-Tribune
Spending on gas, oil wells jumped 44 percent in 2007

By JOHN WILEN

NEW YORK - Spending by the oil and natural gas industry on drilling and equipping wells in the U.S. jumped by 44 percent in 2007 to an all-time high of $109.8 billion...

"This unprecedented level of spending clearly demonstrates the industry's
commitment to actively invest in exploring for and finding new sources of crude oil and natural gas," said Hazem Arafa, director of API's statistics department...

Expenditures on natural gas wells accounted for 54 percent of the spending, while oil wells accounted for 34 percent. Spending on dry holes accounted for the balance...

 

[Carnevil9]

Very interesting. I think I've finally figured out how the "Author's Hangout" forum works. If you post ACTUAL FACTS on a thread, here in the midst of a teeming klan of bleeding heart liberals who love to wring their hands and bitch about the powers that be, and ignore any actual facts or truths in favor of whining and kvetching and snarling about how morally superior they all are.... the thread dies!

As Mr. Spock would say.... Fascinating!........Carney

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

CARNEY

Yep! That's how it works around here. Facts spoil the fun.