Green Energy
- Thread starter RightField
- Start date
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Releasing strategic reserve oil, especially when done across multiple nations at the same time, provides a huge glut of short-term supply. If extra drilling in the US is a slow dripping stream into the bucket, releasing reserves is the whole bucket itself. You might have noticed as well (and are conveniently ignoring now) that the reduce in price last time we released reserves was short-lived.
Price changes when the Saudis say they're increasing production because they can increase it quite a lot. But it still isn't very much, is it?
Also you were going to prove to us that the US is sitting on oil reserves that dwarf those of Saudi Arabia. Let's see your proof.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Well, no that's not what I said. You just love assigning me position, don't ya?
I said that America increasing production would not change prices because our production capacity is too small of a slice of the global drilling pie. Even if we somehow increased our production by 25%, that's still just around a 1% increase in global production.
And any small price drop from a 1% increase in production is quickly washed away factors stemming from things like a global increase in demand and the behavior of commodity gamers.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=us&v=88
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
The US produces a little more than half it's own needs.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=0&v=88&l=en
sigh
chant mistress
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Posts
- 10,248
So then the good results are actually bad.
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
That is a very good point, a smart comment and one worth thinking about.
If rapidly rising prices weren't such a big problem for the vulnerable amongst us, I'd be more inclined to agree with this philosophy. I think we ought to tap into places where we can get to oil and natural gas fairly easily and just use enough to keep prices stable, but have a ready "tap" if situations destabilize.
Last edited:
RightField
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
- Posts
- 9,364
President Obama's Clueless, Contemptuous Energy Speech
By Louis Woodhill
Forbes 3/21/12
President Obama’s energy speech last week was a breathtaking blend of cluelessness and contemptuousness. A man who spoke gleefully during his campaign of bankrupting electric companies that invested in coal-fired power plants, now claims to be in favor an “all of the above” energy strategy.
A president who appointed an Energy Secretary that sang the praises of $8.00/gallon gasoline, now claims to be sympathetic to people forced to pay $4.00/gallon. A man that rode to the event in an 8-MPG armored vehicle nicknamed “The Beast”, accompanied by a flotilla of 14-MPG Chevy Suburbans, bragged about how he was going to force the rest of us to drive cars averaging 55 MPG.
It is possible to list dozens, if not hundreds, of energy production options, but there are really only two basic types: there are projects that produce energy that is worth more than it costs, and there are ventures that produce energy that costs more than it’s worth. Obama’s energy strategy, which he seemed so proud of in his speech, is to tax the former in order to subsidize the latter.
During his speech, Obama asked (rhetorically), “…whether or not we should keep giving $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies to the oil industry.” These so-called “subsidies” consist of allowing oil companies to use the same tax depreciation rules as other companies. Being a Progressive, Obama sees no difference between allowing a profitable company to keep some of its own money and giving taxpayer money to unprofitable ventures.
Obama’s FY2013 budget proposes tax hikes on oil and gas companies to pay for subsidies for solar cells, wind power, and electric cars. Obama said in his speech, “…we can take that $4 billion (from the oil companies)—we could be investing it in clean energy in a good energy future, in fuel efficiency”. Of course, the “we” that he was referring to are the bureaucrats at the Department of Energy that thought that Solyndra was a good idea. Progressivism may talk the talk of the national interest, but it walks the walk of corrupt crony capitalism.
One issue before Congress right now is the extension of the $0.022/kilowatt-hour subsidy for wind power, which costs taxpayers about $3.5 billion/year. With natural gas selling at the equivalent of oil at $14/bbl, here’s how we deliver the same results as wind power, but at half the cost to taxpayers.
First, we end the subsidies. This will stop new wind turbines from being built, and, over time, cause all of the existing ones to shut down. Second, we allow the free market to replace the electricity obtained from wind energy with power produced by burning cheap natural gas. Third, we hire 17,500 unemployed veterans at $100,000/year each, and put them to work as snipers to kill the 400,000 birds (including 70 golden eagles) that are now hacked to death each year by wind turbines. Voila, the same results as wind power, and a savings of $1.75 billion/year for the taxpayers.
While bragging about how he is going to force automobile companies to produce vehicles averaging 55 MPG, Obama neglected to mention how this would be accomplished. To see what is likely to happen, let’s look at an example from the rice industry.
In the 1990s, the World Trade Organization ordered Japan to import rice equal to 8% of its domestic consumption. Unfortunately, Japanese consumers did not like the taste of imported rice, and they refused to buy it. The solution was to put the imported rice in little bags, and then put these little bags inside big bags of Japanese rice. Japanese consumers would open the big bags, take out the little bags, and throw them away.
Get ready for a Chevy Suburban that comes with a tiny, cheaply made, 200-MPGe, electric car stuffed inside, like the prize in a Crackerjack box. While this may sound absurd, what amounts to the same thing has been going on for years.
From its inception in 1975, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) law has forced American auto companies to build small, fuel-efficient cars and sell them at a loss so that they could continue to sell profitable pickup trucks and SUVs. Their cumulative losses on small cars over decades contributed to the bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler.
By Louis Woodhill
Forbes 3/21/12
President Obama’s energy speech last week was a breathtaking blend of cluelessness and contemptuousness. A man who spoke gleefully during his campaign of bankrupting electric companies that invested in coal-fired power plants, now claims to be in favor an “all of the above” energy strategy.
A president who appointed an Energy Secretary that sang the praises of $8.00/gallon gasoline, now claims to be sympathetic to people forced to pay $4.00/gallon. A man that rode to the event in an 8-MPG armored vehicle nicknamed “The Beast”, accompanied by a flotilla of 14-MPG Chevy Suburbans, bragged about how he was going to force the rest of us to drive cars averaging 55 MPG.
It is possible to list dozens, if not hundreds, of energy production options, but there are really only two basic types: there are projects that produce energy that is worth more than it costs, and there are ventures that produce energy that costs more than it’s worth. Obama’s energy strategy, which he seemed so proud of in his speech, is to tax the former in order to subsidize the latter.
During his speech, Obama asked (rhetorically), “…whether or not we should keep giving $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies to the oil industry.” These so-called “subsidies” consist of allowing oil companies to use the same tax depreciation rules as other companies. Being a Progressive, Obama sees no difference between allowing a profitable company to keep some of its own money and giving taxpayer money to unprofitable ventures.
Obama’s FY2013 budget proposes tax hikes on oil and gas companies to pay for subsidies for solar cells, wind power, and electric cars. Obama said in his speech, “…we can take that $4 billion (from the oil companies)—we could be investing it in clean energy in a good energy future, in fuel efficiency”. Of course, the “we” that he was referring to are the bureaucrats at the Department of Energy that thought that Solyndra was a good idea. Progressivism may talk the talk of the national interest, but it walks the walk of corrupt crony capitalism.
One issue before Congress right now is the extension of the $0.022/kilowatt-hour subsidy for wind power, which costs taxpayers about $3.5 billion/year. With natural gas selling at the equivalent of oil at $14/bbl, here’s how we deliver the same results as wind power, but at half the cost to taxpayers.
First, we end the subsidies. This will stop new wind turbines from being built, and, over time, cause all of the existing ones to shut down. Second, we allow the free market to replace the electricity obtained from wind energy with power produced by burning cheap natural gas. Third, we hire 17,500 unemployed veterans at $100,000/year each, and put them to work as snipers to kill the 400,000 birds (including 70 golden eagles) that are now hacked to death each year by wind turbines. Voila, the same results as wind power, and a savings of $1.75 billion/year for the taxpayers.
While bragging about how he is going to force automobile companies to produce vehicles averaging 55 MPG, Obama neglected to mention how this would be accomplished. To see what is likely to happen, let’s look at an example from the rice industry.
In the 1990s, the World Trade Organization ordered Japan to import rice equal to 8% of its domestic consumption. Unfortunately, Japanese consumers did not like the taste of imported rice, and they refused to buy it. The solution was to put the imported rice in little bags, and then put these little bags inside big bags of Japanese rice. Japanese consumers would open the big bags, take out the little bags, and throw them away.
Get ready for a Chevy Suburban that comes with a tiny, cheaply made, 200-MPGe, electric car stuffed inside, like the prize in a Crackerjack box. While this may sound absurd, what amounts to the same thing has been going on for years.
From its inception in 1975, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) law has forced American auto companies to build small, fuel-efficient cars and sell them at a loss so that they could continue to sell profitable pickup trucks and SUVs. Their cumulative losses on small cars over decades contributed to the bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
No, your premise is horribly flawed.
The government will never be drilling anything on "government" land.
It will be the private sector. You are conflating location with regulation, taxation and polity.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
He's moving to the right faster than Romney...
That's some funny shit.
Etcha-sketch™...
“There are a number of things [Barack Obama said] he was for on the campaign trail.”
Nancy Pelosi (on why no transparency or time to read the bill)
"My experience is when you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he's going to say all the right things to me."
Barack Obama
That's some funny shit.
Etcha-sketch™...
“There are a number of things [Barack Obama said] he was for on the campaign trail.”
Nancy Pelosi (on why no transparency or time to read the bill)
"My experience is when you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he's going to say all the right things to me."
Barack Obama
JohnnySavage
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Posts
- 44,472
It's funny because it was a gross oversight to forget that Americans prefer a thinly veiled lie. Of course politicians change the script, depending on circumstances. No one who told the truth was ever elected to anything. They know it and we know it. At least have the common courtesy to maintain the illusion.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
... struts and frets his hour upon the stage. And then is heard no more: it is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
sigh
chant mistress
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Posts
- 10,248
Premise? What premise? I made two observations:
RF, I thought this was what conservatives preferred. More private, less federal.
So then the good results are actually bad.
I never said the government would be drilling on "government" land. In fact, except for the two statements above, I've said nothing. Everything else you say I've said, I haven't. Any conflating you said I did, I didn't. And I extended no premise at all.
You do this all the time, AJ. You make shit up about what other people are thinking.
Peregrinator
Hooded On A Hill
- Joined
- May 27, 2004
- Posts
- 89,482
You noticed that as well? Interesting, isn't it?
Unrelated:
Could any of you very smart people comment on the role of speculators in all this, please? I'm the first to admit that my knowledge of economics is rudimentary, but everywhere else I see people talking about speculators and their effect on the market, specifically oil prices, but it doesn't seem to have come up in this thread yet.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
AJ and RF make a living off telling others what they believe. Debating on what they actually do believe is a bit too challenging for them.
bra_man69
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Posts
- 7,410
I try to explain it as easy as I can.
You use other people's money to buy in the commodities market drive the price up pull the money out take the profit repeat over and over hope like hell your not holding when the bubble bust.
Google what happened with the tulips back in the 1930's
Are dot com are housing market are the sliver market.
What goes up must come down.
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
The Dutch tulip market collapse was in the 1630's, not 1930's.
bra_man69
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Posts
- 7,410
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Just off few years
How is the market this year? It's almost the season and I wish to purchase one.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
That part in italics is exactly what I was referring to.
There is not more "private" in drilling on "private" lands. I am not making anything up. When it gets done on "public" land it will still be by "private" companies being micromanaged by a government that thinks it can do ANYTHING, except lower the price of energy, by its own admission...
Therefore, this is nothing like what "conservatives would prefer;" it is just two words..
In this context, they have nothing to do with the private or public debate when it comes to economics.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
JohnnySavage
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Posts
- 44,472
You want to purchase one tulip? You big spender, you!
M
miles
Guest
Originally Posted by mercury14 View Post
AJ and RF make a living off telling others what they believe..
And you on the other hand tell people things about yourself that nobody believes, Dr. Stock Trader-Psychiatrist-Airman-Human Resources Exec.
AJ and RF make a living off telling others what they believe..
And you on the other hand tell people things about yourself that nobody believes, Dr. Stock Trader-Psychiatrist-Airman-Human Resources Exec.
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
The common name for this process is rabble rousing.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Similar threads
