 |
|
|
|||||
| « Previous thread | Next thread » |
http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content
&task=view&id=405&Itemid=91
As Good As It Gets
Written by Dave Cohen
Wednesday, 02 July 2008
A lie may take care of the present, but it has no future
--anonymous
Deceptive statements now dominate the political discourse on America's
oil crisis in the 2008 presidential campaign. The confused debate
about Republican supply-side measures versus Democratic demand-side
measures entirely misses the central point: domestic oil production is
about to experience a mini-peak in the years 2010-11 and then resume
its inevitable decline.
Today I review the increasingly alarming domestic oil supply situation
and the recent talk about drilling on America's outer continental
shelves (the OCS). McCain now advocates this "solution" to the oil
crisis. Previously I examined the inadequacy of Obama's energy policy
in The Sierra Club Solution (ASPO-USA, January 30, 2008). This
"solution" requires that Americans wait for cellulosic ethanol and
plug-in hybrids, neither of which are ready for prime time, and
neither of which will make a significant impact on our oil demand
before 2020. Another column discussed why ANWR Is Not the Answer (ASPO-
USA, June 4, 2008).
As Good As It Gets
Figure 1 shows the most likely outcome for American oil production out
to 2025.
Figure 1 -- US Domestic Oil Production (crude oil +
condensate) from 1990-2025
Calculated with a 2% increase in 2009-2011 and a 1% yearly
decrease thereafter
Outside the Bakken play in Montana and North Dakota, almost all new
domestic oil comes from the Gulf of Mexico deepwater. (This is called
ultra-deepwater in water depths >= 3000 feet.) In the last 6 months,
the two biggest deepwater projects scheduled in the Gulf after 2007
and for the next 5 to 7 years have already come on-stream--Atlantis
(200,000 b/d maximum capacity) and Thunder Horse (250,000 b/d).
Both projects are operated by British Petroleum, and both projects
were delayed approximately 3 years from their first announced start-up
dates. These developments give Americans the slight "deepwater bump"
shown in Figure 1. After 2011, the most likely outcome is that
scheduled new deepwater projects do not add enough oil to offset
Lower-48 declines. (Oil & Gas Journal, June 9, 2008).
The next few years are as good as it gets for American domestic oil
production.
We have thus run out of time to debate implementation of proposed
supply measures that won't take effect until after 2020 (Figure 1,
link to Christian Science Monitor, June 30, 2008). As I argued in The
Prognosis for the United States, Americans must start reducing their
oil demand by about 300,000 barrels per day each year for the next 7
years (ASPO-USA, June 25, 2008). Even this cut may not be adequate to
prevent economic chaos because the oil price is over $140/barrel now
and rising fast.
An Offshore Drilling Guide for the Perplexed
How bad is the political discourse on boosting America's domestic oil
production by drilling in the OCS? Let's try to answer this question.
President George W. Bush weighed in on offshore drilling June 18,
2008.
First, we should expand American oil production by increasing
access to the Outer Continental Shelf, or OCS. Experts believe that
the OCS could produce about 18 billion barrels of oil. That would be
enough to match America's current oil production for almost ten years.
The problem is that Congress has restricted access to key parts of the
OCS since the early 1980s...
What does "increasing access" mean? And who are the "experts" who
believe that we can produce 18 billion barrels of oil? This sounds
like a lot of untapped oil to voters who are uninformed about energy
issues.
Mms_ocs_restricted_estimate The "experts" in question dwell within the
Mineral Management Service (MMS) of the U.S. Department of the
Interior. Bush is referring to page 72 of the MMS report Comprehensive
Inventory of US OCS Oil and Gas Resources, which formed part of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005. The table taken from the MMS report (left)
gives a "mean estimate" for "undiscovered technically recoverable
resources" of 18.92 billion barrels of oil in the restricted offshore
areas. Bush rounded down, not up.
Mms_ocs_resource_estimate What Bush does not say is that the total
"endowment" of undiscovered resources in the OCS is 85.88 billion
barrels of oil (2nd table left) according to the MMS. Bear in mind
that these resources are undiscovered, meaning that this oil does not
effectively exist until some oil company operator actually finds
enough oil to make commercial development feasible--you don't lose
money pumping the oil. Once the offshore leases are obtained, an
operator must carry out actual exploration (using 3-D seismic surveys)
and then drill some test wells to measure oil flows in areas that look
promising, or prospective in industry parlance.
If we do the arithmetic using the imaginary numbers provided by the
MMS, 85.88 - 18.92 = 66.96 billion barrels of hypothetical oil outside
the environmentally restricted areas.
The Democrats seized on the opportunity presented by the imaginary
66.96 billion unexploited barrels in the unrestricted acreage. Jason
Altmire (D, PA) carried some water for his party.
Let me be clear: I support domestic drilling and believe that the
oil companies should immediately start developing the 68 million acres
of federal land currently leased to them," Altmire said. "It is
estimated that this land could yield an additional 4.8 million barrels
of oil each day, which would nearly double the U.S.'s oil production.
Additional confusion arises in Altmire's remarks. Where did these 4.8
million barrels "each day" come from? The number is not cited in the
MMS report, which only estimates undiscovered resources in the
offshore areas. Nancy Pelosi repeated the talking point the day Bush
made his remarks (Environmental News Service, June 18, 2008).
If oil companies tapped the 68 million federal acres of leased
land it would generate an estimated 4.8 million barrels of oil a day -
six times what the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR] would
produce at its peak, Pelosi said.
"The fact is 80 percent of the oil available on the Outer
Continental Shelf is in regions that are already open to leasing, but
the oil companies haven't decided it's worth their time to drill
there," the speaker said.
If we extrapolate from today's production rates on federal land
and waters, we can estimate that the 68 million acres of leased but
currently inactive federal land and waters could produce an additional
4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas
each day. [this last paragraph is from Pelosi's website]
Six times what ANWR would produce at its peak. We are now comparing
one imaginary oil flow to another, a breathtaking maneuver! Only
extraordinarily skilled politicians can pull off this kind of
deception. Don't try this at home.
Pelosi, McCain and others seem blissfully unaware that there is an
Earth Sciences discipline called geology, and that within this field
of study there is a specialty called petroleum geology. On what basis
could you extrapolate future production from today's production rates?
You can't, there is no basis. Some areas are geologically prospective,
others are not. It is a matter of exploration & production. No doubt
the most promising or most easily-accessed areas have been developed
first. MMS estimates are statistical geological guesswork based on
incomplete knowledge or no actual knowledge at all.
The oil companies "haven't decided it's worth their time to drill [in
lots of offshore acreage]" because geology tells them that no
commercial oil exists there, or they haven't yet gotten around to
exploring some of the prospective acreage. In the latter case, it is a
matter of leasing scarce drilling rigs that have been designed to
operate in the ultra-deepwater. Multi-year delays are common. Chevron
must wait to obtain a drilling rig which allows them to drill another
test well in the Jack/St.Malo Walker Ridge in the Gulf (Bloomberg,
June 13, 2007). The new appraisal well must be drilled before a
development decision can be made.
These constraints on drilling in "untapped" OCS exploration parcels
(blocks) apply equally to the protected and the unrestricted areas.
Eia_offshore_accessIt is part of the mission of the Energy Information
Administration (EIA) section of the Department of Energy to estimate
oil flows i.e. actual domestic oil production going forward. Their
estimate of the Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas
Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf (excluding
Alaska) is shown in the graph (left).
Three data points stand out: 1) OCS production never reaches 2.5
million barrels per day; 2) including restricted areas on the downside
of the curve does not alter the offshore production peak and 3) no
production in restricted areas occurs until 2018, a decade from now.
Keep in mind that EIA forecasts are usually too optimistic. So much
for Nancy Pelosi's extrapolation, or Bush's call to open up the
restricted areas.
So, how bad is the political discourse? Opening up the protected areas
is a red herring (the Republicans). Talk of boosting production in the
unrestricted areas is a red herring (the Democrats). Politicians are
talking about producing hypothetical oil in a hypothetical future
which everyone, including the EIA, agrees is at least 10 years down
the road. This is as bad as it gets.
What About Conservation?
The 19th century German politician Otto Von Bismarck said "Politics is
the art of the possible." In 21st century America, politics has become
the art of impossible dreams. National Public Radio ran a very
interesting segment the other day which asked the question Why Aren't
Candidates Talking Conservation? (June 30, 2008). Day to Day reporter
Madeleine Brand asked Jodi Powell, Jimmy Carter's press secretary, why
the presidential contenders are not willing to stand up, as Carter
did, and tell Americans the straight story on why they must cut their
oil consumption.
Brand pressed the point that such a stand would be politically
unpopular, but Powell argued against this interpretation, saying that
Carter's speech in 1979 was well received among voters. In any case,
don't expect either Obama or McCain to take such a stand while they
are running for president. Telling people to use less is perceived,
rightly or wrongly, as an unpopular message which will prevent
election.
Powell did make an important point, however. He said that "we've
fallen into a pattern of treating the American people ... almost with
contempt." Transparent deceptions about hypothetical futures don't cut
the mustard, they are insulting. As a friend of mine said, addressing
what Americans must do now is the "price of admission to this [energy]
debate."
It's time to call out McCain and Obama, demanding that they tell us
what Federal policies they would enact to help us in the next few
years, not in a far-off imaginary future. If the answers are
unsatisfactory, as they no doubt would be, at least we can face the
future honestly with our eyes wide open. Jodi Powell called America's
lack of preparedness a "huge tragedy." He is certainly right.
Just post the link, dink.
The 'reserves' they are showing for shale formations is grossly mis-
stated. It is very inefficient in recovery with only 1% of gr
reserves
being recoverable. Ditto gas.
The stocks run up on shale reserves are very good short prospects.
While this may be as good as it gets for US oil production, global oil /
energy production will be somewhat better. Plus high prices will kick
alt. energy development in the butt. Maybe not ready for prime time yet
but will help get to prime time sooner. Energy companies know that they
have a dwindling resource and will have plenty of dough to invest in
alternatives that will keep them growing beyond oil, etc.
Fred
The path to truth is thinner than a razor's edge.
"Don Tiberone" <s...@m...com> wrote in message
news:7df04f88-7720-45e6-b643-b2d7e586fe50@p25g2000hs
f.googlegroups.com...
http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content
&task=view&id=405&Itemid=91
As Good As It Gets
Written by Dave Cohen
Wednesday, 02 July 2008
A lie may take care of the present, but it has no future
--anonymous
Deceptive statements now dominate the political discourse on America's
oil crisis in the 2008 presidential campaign. The confused debate
about Republican supply-side measures versus Democratic demand-side
measures entirely misses the central point: domestic oil production is
about to experience a mini-peak in the years 2010-11 and then resume
its inevitable decline.
Today I review the increasingly alarming domestic oil supply situation
and the recent talk about drilling on America's outer continental
shelves (the OCS). McCain now advocates this "solution" to the oil
crisis. Previously I examined the inadequacy of Obama's energy policy
in The Sierra Club Solution (ASPO-USA, January 30, 2008). This
"solution" requires that Americans wait for cellulosic ethanol and
plug-in hybrids, neither of which are ready for prime time, and
neither of which will make a significant impact on our oil demand
before 2020. Another column discussed why ANWR Is Not the Answer (ASPO-
USA, June 4, 2008).
As Good As It Gets
Figure 1 shows the most likely outcome for American oil production out
to 2025.
Figure 1 -- US Domestic Oil Production (crude oil +
condensate) from 1990-2025
Calculated with a 2% increase in 2009-2011 and a 1% yearly
decrease thereafter
Outside the Bakken play in Montana and North Dakota, almost all new
domestic oil comes from the Gulf of Mexico deepwater. (This is called
ultra-deepwater in water depths >= 3000 feet.) In the last 6 months,
the two biggest deepwater projects scheduled in the Gulf after 2007
and for the next 5 to 7 years have already come on-stream--Atlantis
(200,000 b/d maximum capacity) and Thunder Horse (250,000 b/d).
Both projects are operated by British Petroleum, and both projects
were delayed approximately 3 years from their first announced start-up
dates. These developments give Americans the slight "deepwater bump"
shown in Figure 1. After 2011, the most likely outcome is that
scheduled new deepwater projects do not add enough oil to offset
Lower-48 declines. (Oil & Gas Journal, June 9, 2008).
The next few years are as good as it gets for American domestic oil
production.
We have thus run out of time to debate implementation of proposed
supply measures that won't take effect until after 2020 (Figure 1,
link to Christian Science Monitor, June 30, 2008). As I argued in The
Prognosis for the United States, Americans must start reducing their
oil demand by about 300,000 barrels per day each year for the next 7
years (ASPO-USA, June 25, 2008). Even this cut may not be adequate to
prevent economic chaos because the oil price is over $140/barrel now
and rising fast.
An Offshore Drilling Guide for the Perplexed
How bad is the political discourse on boosting America's domestic oil
production by drilling in the OCS? Let's try to answer this question.
President George W. Bush weighed in on offshore drilling June 18,
2008.
First, we should expand American oil production by increasing
access to the Outer Continental Shelf, or OCS. Experts believe that
the OCS could produce about 18 billion barrels of oil. That would be
enough to match America's current oil production for almost ten years.
The problem is that Congress has restricted access to key parts of the
OCS since the early 1980s...
What does "increasing access" mean? And who are the "experts" who
believe that we can produce 18 billion barrels of oil? This sounds
like a lot of untapped oil to voters who are uninformed about energy
issues.
Mms_ocs_restricted_estimate The "experts" in question dwell within the
Mineral Management Service (MMS) of the U.S. Department of the
Interior. Bush is referring to page 72 of the MMS report Comprehensive
Inventory of US OCS Oil and Gas Resources, which formed part of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005. The table taken from the MMS report (left)
gives a "mean estimate" for "undiscovered technically recoverable
resources" of 18.92 billion barrels of oil in the restricted offshore
areas. Bush rounded down, not up.
Mms_ocs_resource_estimate What Bush does not say is that the total
"endowment" of undiscovered resources in the OCS is 85.88 billion
barrels of oil (2nd table left) according to the MMS. Bear in mind
that these resources are undiscovered, meaning that this oil does not
effectively exist until some oil company operator actually finds
enough oil to make commercial development feasible--you don't lose
money pumping the oil. Once the offshore leases are obtained, an
operator must carry out actual exploration (using 3-D seismic surveys)
and then drill some test wells to measure oil flows in areas that look
promising, or prospective in industry parlance.
If we do the arithmetic using the imaginary numbers provided by the
MMS, 85.88 - 18.92 = 66.96 billion barrels of hypothetical oil outside
the environmentally restricted areas.
The Democrats seized on the opportunity presented by the imaginary
66.96 billion unexploited barrels in the unrestricted acreage. Jason
Altmire (D, PA) carried some water for his party.
Let me be clear: I support domestic drilling and believe that the
oil companies should immediately start developing the 68 million acres
of federal land currently leased to them," Altmire said. "It is
estimated that this land could yield an additional 4.8 million barrels
of oil each day, which would nearly double the U.S.'s oil production.
Additional confusion arises in Altmire's remarks. Where did these 4.8
million barrels "each day" come from? The number is not cited in the
MMS report, which only estimates undiscovered resources in the
offshore areas. Nancy Pelosi repeated the talking point the day Bush
made his remarks (Environmental News Service, June 18, 2008).
If oil companies tapped the 68 million federal acres of leased
land it would generate an estimated 4.8 million barrels of oil a day -
six times what the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR] would
produce at its peak, Pelosi said.
"The fact is 80 percent of the oil available on the Outer
Continental Shelf is in regions that are already open to leasing, but
the oil companies haven't decided it's worth their time to drill
there," the speaker said.
If we extrapolate from today's production rates on federal land
and waters, we can estimate that the 68 million acres of leased but
currently inactive federal land and waters could produce an additional
4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas
each day. [this last paragraph is from Pelosi's website]
Six times what ANWR would produce at its peak. We are now comparing
one imaginary oil flow to another, a breathtaking maneuver! Only
extraordinarily skilled politicians can pull off this kind of
deception. Don't try this at home.
Pelosi, McCain and others seem blissfully unaware that there is an
Earth Sciences discipline called geology, and that within this field
of study there is a specialty called petroleum geology. On what basis
could you extrapolate future production from today's production rates?
You can't, there is no basis. Some areas are geologically prospective,
others are not. It is a matter of exploration & production. No doubt
the most promising or most easily-accessed areas have been developed
first. MMS estimates are statistical geological guesswork based on
incomplete knowledge or no actual knowledge at all.
The oil companies "haven't decided it's worth their time to drill [in
lots of offshore acreage]" because geology tells them that no
commercial oil exists there, or they haven't yet gotten around to
exploring some of the prospective acreage. In the latter case, it is a
matter of leasing scarce drilling rigs that have been designed to
operate in the ultra-deepwater. Multi-year delays are common. Chevron
must wait to obtain a drilling rig which allows them to drill another
test well in the Jack/St.Malo Walker Ridge in the Gulf (Bloomberg,
June 13, 2007). The new appraisal well must be drilled before a
development decision can be made.
These constraints on drilling in "untapped" OCS exploration parcels
(blocks) apply equally to the protected and the unrestricted areas.
Eia_offshore_accessIt is part of the mission of the Energy Information
Administration (EIA) section of the Department of Energy to estimate
oil flows i.e. actual domestic oil production going forward. Their
estimate of the Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas
Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf (excluding
Alaska) is shown in the graph (left).
Three data points stand out: 1) OCS production never reaches 2.5
million barrels per day; 2) including restricted areas on the downside
of the curve does not alter the offshore production peak and 3) no
production in restricted areas occurs until 2018, a decade from now.
Keep in mind that EIA forecasts are usually too optimistic. So much
for Nancy Pelosi's extrapolation, or Bush's call to open up the
restricted areas.
So, how bad is the political discourse? Opening up the protected areas
is a red herring (the Republicans). Talk of boosting production in the
unrestricted areas is a red herring (the Democrats). Politicians are
talking about producing hypothetical oil in a hypothetical future
which everyone, including the EIA, agrees is at least 10 years down
the road. This is as bad as it gets.
What About Conservation?
The 19th century German politician Otto Von Bismarck said "Politics is
the art of the possible." In 21st century America, politics has become
the art of impossible dreams. National Public Radio ran a very
interesting segment the other day which asked the question Why Aren't
Candidates Talking Conservation? (June 30, 2008). Day to Day reporter
Madeleine Brand asked Jodi Powell, Jimmy Carter's press secretary, why
the presidential contenders are not willing to stand up, as Carter
did, and tell Americans the straight story on why they must cut their
oil consumption.
Brand pressed the point that such a stand would be politically
unpopular, but Powell argued against this interpretation, saying that
Carter's speech in 1979 was well received among voters. In any case,
don't expect either Obama or McCain to take such a stand while they
are running for president. Telling people to use less is perceived,
rightly or wrongly, as an unpopular message which will prevent
election.
Powell did make an important point, however. He said that "we've
fallen into a pattern of treating the American people ... almost with
contempt." Transparent deceptions about hypothetical futures don't cut
the mustard, they are insulting. As a friend of mine said, addressing
what Americans must do now is the "price of admission to this [energy]
debate."
It's time to call out McCain and Obama, demanding that they tell us
what Federal policies they would enact to help us in the next few
years, not in a far-off imaginary future. If the answers are
unsatisfactory, as they no doubt would be, at least we can face the
future honestly with our eyes wide open. Jodi Powell called America's
lack of preparedness a "huge tragedy." He is certainly right.
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:48:42 -0700, FrediFizzx wrote:
> While this may be as good as it gets for US oil production, global oil /
> energy production will be somewhat better. Plus high prices will kick
> alt. energy development in the butt. Maybe not ready for prime time yet
> but will help get to prime time sooner. Energy companies know that they
> have a dwindling resource and will have plenty of dough to invest in
> alternatives that will keep them growing beyond oil, etc.
>
> Fred
>
> The path to truth is thinner than a razor's edge.
<<<<<<<<<< big daddy delete of preparatory crapola >>>>>>>
> It's time to call out McCain and Obama, demanding that they tell us
> what Federal policies they would enact to help us in the next few
> years, not in a far-off imaginary future. If the answers are
> unsatisfactory, as they no doubt would be, at least we can face the
> future honestly with our eyes wide open. Jodi Powell called America's
> lack of preparedness a "huge tragedy." He is certainly right.
Obama has laid it out pretty well with his oil tax to help the less
fortunate through the next year or so while doing all he can to bring
alternatives into play. McCain wants to _give_ more of _OUR_ oil
to the oil companies and continue to help the oil companies in the
theft of oil from the middle east. What part of this are you people
having a problem understanding.
Why hasn't the Consumer Protection Agency tested two or more of the
currently available "Hydrogen Boosters" that are being sold to an
unsuspecting public for $1000 a pop? They have tested these sorts of
things in the past and it is most certainly their job to do so. That is
why the agency exists. When is my "unitary executive" going to kick some
butts up there?
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
"The Trucker" <m...@v...net> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.07.05.01.05.48.610830@verizon.net...
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:48:42 -0700, FrediFizzx wrote:
>
>> While this may be as good as it gets for US oil production, global
>> oil /
>> energy production will be somewhat better. Plus high prices will
>> kick
>> alt. energy development in the butt. Maybe not ready for prime
>> time yet
>> but will help get to prime time sooner. Energy companies know that
>> they
>> have a dwindling resource and will have plenty of dough to invest
>> in
>> alternatives that will keep them growing beyond oil, etc.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> The path to truth is thinner than a razor's edge.
>
> <<<<<<<<<< big daddy delete of preparatory crapola >>>>>>>
Well, you should have left some proper attribution as I didn't write
the following paragraph.
>> It's time to call out McCain and Obama, demanding that they tell us
>> what Federal policies they would enact to help us in the next few
>> years, not in a far-off imaginary future. If the answers are
>> unsatisfactory, as they no doubt would be, at least we can face the
>> future honestly with our eyes wide open. Jodi Powell called
>> America's
>> lack of preparedness a "huge tragedy." He is certainly right.
>
> Obama has laid it out pretty well with his oil tax to help the less
> fortunate through the next year or so while doing all he can to
> bring
> alternatives into play. McCain wants to _give_ more of _OUR_ oil
> to the oil companies and continue to help the oil companies in the
> theft of oil from the middle east. What part of this are you people
> having a problem understanding.
The part that you don't understand is that it is OUR oil companies
that OUR oil would be going to. I'm a shareholder. You can share in
the profits also if you wise up. Don't be layin' no freakin' extra
tax on MY oil companies. Anyone with a 401K plan probably owns shares
in OUR oil companies. There are millions of us. That extra tax crap
ain't going to float our boat. Obama will lose if he stays on that
crap.
Fred
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 22:50:14 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
<f...@h...com> wrote:
>
>The part that you don't understand is that it is OUR oil companies
>that OUR oil would be going to. I'm a shareholder. You can share in
>the profits also if you wise up. Don't be layin' no freakin' extra
>tax on MY oil companies. Anyone with a 401K plan probably owns shares
>in OUR oil companies. There are millions of us. That extra tax crap
>ain't going to float our boat. Obama will lose if he stays on that
>crap.
Nah, that talk costs him votes from people like you who wouldn't vote
for him anyway. No loss.
And your oil companies, aye? Some of us put the country and its people
first. Clearly not you. Your rap above is quite insightful.
> The part that you don't understand is that it is OUR oil companies
> that OUR oil would be going to. I'm a shareholder. You can share in
> the profits also if you wise up. Don't be layin' no freakin' extra
> tax on MY oil companies. Anyone with a 401K plan probably owns shares
> in OUR oil companies. There are millions of us. That extra tax crap
> ain't going to float our boat. Obama will lose if he stays on that
> crap.
>
> Fred
Excuse me, but could you gather up you and your few millions of owners of
OUR oil company and tell OUR CEO that we wont be paying him his 500
Million$ bonus this year... mainly because you see it doesn't seem to show
up in OUR bank account but in His alone.
japanese began mass producing battery operated cars next summer,so,oil
demand is at it's "peak" also...
"Arrest the oil commodity speculators for conspiracy to commit "price
fixing" !
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:50:14 -0700, FrediFizzx wrote:
> "The Trucker" <m...@v...net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.07.05.01.05.48.610830@verizon.net...
>
>> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:48:42 -0700, FrediFizzx wrote:
>>
>>> While this may be as good as it gets for US oil production, global
>>> oil /
>>> energy production will be somewhat better. Plus high prices will
>>> kick
>>> alt. energy development in the butt. Maybe not ready for prime
>>> time yet
>>> but will help get to prime time sooner. Energy companies know that
>>> they
>>> have a dwindling resource and will have plenty of dough to invest
>>> in
>>> alternatives that will keep them growing beyond oil, etc.
>>>
>>> Fred
>>>
>>> The path to truth is thinner than a razor's edge.
>>
>> <<<<<<<<<< big daddy delete of preparatory crapola >>>>>>>
>
> Well, you should have left some proper attribution as I didn't write
> the following paragraph.
>
>>> It's time to call out McCain and Obama, demanding that they tell us
>>> what Federal policies they would enact to help us in the next few
>>> years, not in a far-off imaginary future. If the answers are
>>> unsatisfactory, as they no doubt would be, at least we can face the
>>> future honestly with our eyes wide open. Jodi Powell called
>>> America's
>>> lack of preparedness a "huge tragedy." He is certainly right.
>>
>> Obama has laid it out pretty well with his oil tax to help the less
>> fortunate through the next year or so while doing all he can to
>> bring
>> alternatives into play. McCain wants to _give_ more of _OUR_ oil
>> to the oil companies and continue to help the oil companies in the
>> theft of oil from the middle east. What part of this are you people
>> having a problem understanding.
>
> The part that you don't understand is that it is OUR oil companies
> that OUR oil would be going to. I'm a shareholder. You can share in
> the profits also if you wise up. Don't be layin' no freakin' extra
> tax on MY oil companies. Anyone with a 401K plan probably owns shares
> in OUR oil companies. There are millions of us. That extra tax crap
> ain't going to float our boat. Obama will lose if he stays on that
> crap.
If Obama loses it will be due to American stupidity. While stockholders
have choices and options and can move the liquid shares to something much
more progressive, most people are not in that boat. Until there is
something new then we must suck on that gasoline hose. A tax and
redistribution scheme merely rescues American workers from the penury they
would otherwise endure due to the soaring costs of gasoline. These people
are not out there joy riding in their Hummers. They are driving old
pickups to the job sites they work.
The economy will adjust to the higher fuel prices but it cannot adjust as
fast as the prices have risen. The tax scheme will not last forever. It
is a near term adjustment that should be done now. If we had a competent
government it would already be in place.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
<r...@c...net> wrote in message
news:js6u641hm9bj280irojmipl4thqe3g0qvj@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 22:50:14 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
> <f...@h...com> wrote:
>
>>
>>The part that you don't understand is that it is OUR oil companies
>>that OUR oil would be going to. I'm a shareholder. You can share
>>in
>>the profits also if you wise up. Don't be layin' no freakin' extra
>>tax on MY oil companies. Anyone with a 401K plan probably owns
>>shares
>>in OUR oil companies. There are millions of us. That extra tax
>>crap
>>ain't going to float our boat. Obama will lose if he stays on that
>>crap.
>
>
> Nah, that talk costs him votes from people like you who wouldn't
> vote
> for him anyway. No loss.
I'm a registered Democrat and would be voting for Obama but not if he
is going to do the wrong thing. A tax is a tax and the people always
pay for it one way or another. Do you really think the rich people
will pay the tax? Dream on. They always figure out how to get around
it and stick it to us.
> And your oil companies, aye? Some of us put the country and its
> people
> first. Clearly not you. Your rap above is quite insightful.
You clearly have no idea of what is really going on either. Ya rarely
help people by taxing them more. I'm sure there are plenty of
Democrats just like me that have investments in OUR oil companies. We
are not going to vote for someone that is going to reduce our
profits. That would be just plain bad business and in the long run
hurts everyone.
Fred
| « Previous thread | Next thread » |
Larry Flint looks for bail out
Let Me Show You How Easy To Build Your AVON, SeaAloe, Or ANY Online Business
BITI -- Might do better under the Dems
Things just don't feel right...
Up