Category Archives: industry apologists

The Topic Of The Week Is Silly Energy Uses – As typed in at Google

Posted on by
Reply

I was shocked when I type in Silly Energy Uses into Google and got back 8 out of 10 references to Sarah Palin. But then I thought about it and realised that the Drill Here, Drill Now crowd does look silly, with oil prices in the 50$$ per barrel range and maybe going to 40$$ a barrel. The Saudis, the Ruskies and the Venezualans (should we call them Vennies?) have got to be looking to kill a bunch of Hedge Fund Operators and other bizzilionaires. Though the Brazilians (Brazzies?)got pletty of crap all over their faces too. What in the world are they going to do with all those oil rigs?

I have not had so much laughter and fun since the gas lines in the 70’s and the recession that led up to globalization in the 80s.

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/10/29/sarah_palin_on_energy/

 htww.png

Wednesday, Oct. 29, 2008 09:39 PDT

Sarah Palin’s silly energy speech

When the announcement that John McCain had chosen Sarah Palin to be his running mate broke across the political landscape like an Alaskan mountain avalanche, many analysts, including yours truly, jumped to the conclusion that her background in energy issues made her a savvy choice in an era of record-breaking oil prices. McCain’s “drill here, drill now” mantra was taking a bite out of Obama’s poll numbers, and the immediate expectation was that Palin would be a potent vehicle for delivering energy-related soundbites.

But it didn’t turn out that way. On Wednesday morning, oil traded at $65 dollars a barrel, more than 50 percent off its July peak of $147. The financial crisis proved more riveting than gas prices, and Sarah Palin’s rocky performance as a debutante on the national political stage swiftly obliterated the conventional wisdom that she could be an asset to the McCain campaign.

 :}

But Palin’s speech is still worth some attention, because it clearly makes the case for why the McCain-Palin agenda is fundamentally wrong for the United States.

Palin started off by acknowledging that “the price of oil is declining largely because of the market’s expectation of a broad recession that would lower demand.” She was absolutely correct to note that “this is hardly a good sign of things to come,” and that “when our economy recovers, and growth once again creates new demand, we could run into the same brick wall of rising oil and gasoline prices.”

(:=} even the Saudis got to get into the act)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122523334615277739.html

By GUY CHAZAN

 LONDON — The slump in oil prices has spread relief among consumers and fuel-reliant industries, but also is squeezing the companies who could invest in new sources of oil — spurring concerns that prices will prompt them to shelve investments.

Industry executives warn that could mean the world will face a dramatic ramping up of prices as soon as the global economy, and demand, begins to rebound.

“Low oil prices are very dangerous for the world economy,” said Mohamed Bin Dhaen Al Hamli, the United Arab Emirates’ energy minister, speaking Tuesday at an oil-industry conference in London. 

(:=}

The piece drew many comments but the first is the most rational. Then they decay into the IT CAN’T BE DONE comments from the ignorant right. As usual.

 http://letters.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/10/29/sarah_palin_on_energy/view/index3.html?show=all

What we need is a commitment to relatively low-tech alternative energy

Solar satellites and fusion energy are pie-in-the-sky ideas that have been around forever and have yielded little practical promise. Existing earth-based solar collector and wind farm technology could provide a substantial percentage of our energy needs right now. Dedicating a few hundred square miles of CA/NV desert land to a massive solar collector that could provide 100% of U.S. electrical needs would be a worthy investment.

 http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/u-s-politics-issues/86951-sarah-palins-silly-energy-speech.html

Both the McCain/Palin campaign and the Obama/Biden campaign are making unrealistic promises about the prospect of reaching energy independence. As Obama himself notes, when you consume 25 percent of the world’s oil but own only 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, energy independence isn’t ever going to come from expanding domestic production.The difference between the two campaigns is that McCain/Palin is more unrealistic. Obama has made it clear that his energy independence plan will requires massive expansion of alternative and renewable energy resources and huge investments in conservation and energy efficiency, even as he acknowledges that more investment in offshore drilling, nuclear power, and clean coal will also most likely be necessary. (McCain and Palin routinely misrepresent Obama’s position on nuclear power and clean coal, and the vice presidential candidate did so again today.)Palin devoted one paragraph of her energy security policy speech to alternative energy solutions.

In our administration, that will mean harnessing alternative sources of energy, like wind and solar. We will end subsidies and tariffs that drive prices up, and provide tax credits indexed to low automobile carbon emissions. We will encourage Americans to be part of the solution by taking steps in their everyday lives that conserve more and use less. And we will control greenhouse gas emissions by giving American businesses new incentives and new rewards to seek, instead of just giving them new taxes to pay and new orders to follow.

That’s not enough. True leadership on energy requires devoting more than one paragraph to vague handwaving about wind and solar and greenhouse gas emissions. Economic turmoil and low oil prices may have shunted renewables and conservation off the main track for now, but to quote Palin, “this is hardly a sign of good things to come.”

 :}

But then the real waste of Energy was people trying to “figure out the real” John McCain. He was the guy who wanted to build 100 NUKES and was too old and out of touch to be President.

http://sillyhumans.blogspot.com/

 By TIM DICKINSON Posted Oct 16, 2008 7:00 PM

—
This is the story of the real John McCain, the one who has been hiding in plain sight. It is the story of a man who has consistently put his own advancement above all else, a man willing to say and do anything to achieve his ultimate ambition: to become commander in chief, ascending to the one position that would finally enable him to outrank his four-star father and grandfather.

In its broad strokes, McCain’s life story is oddly similar to that of the current occupant of the White House. John Sidney McCain III and George Walker Bush both represent the third generation of American dynasties. Both were born into positions of privilege against which they rebelled into mediocrity. Both developed an uncanny social intelligence that allowed them to skate by with a minimum of mental exertion. Both struggled with booze and loutish behavior. At each step, with the aid of their fathers’ powerful friends, both failed upward. And both shed their skins as Episcopalian members of the Washington elite to build political careers as self-styled, ranch-inhabiting Westerners who pray to Jesus in their wives’ evangelical churches.

 http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

On the grounds between the two brick colleges, the chitchat between the scion of four-star admirals and the son of a prizefighter turns to their academic travels; both colleges sponsor a trip abroad for young officers to network with military and political leaders in a distant corner of the globe.

“I’m going to the Middle East,” Dramesi says. “Turkey, Kuwait, Lebanon, Iran.”

“Why are you going to the Middle East?” McCain asks, dismissively.

“It’s a place we’re probably going to have some problems,” Dramesi says.

“Why? Where are you going to, John?”

“Oh, I’m going to Rio.”

“What the hell are you going to Rio for?”

McCain, a married father of three, shrugs.

“I got a better chance of getting laid.”
 :}

:}

The Report Says We Can Be Done With Fossil Fuels In 80 Years – My question is do we have that much time?

Posted on by
Reply

The answer is definitely NOT:

 http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn15043-2090-is-the-deadline-for-the-end-of-fossil-fuel-use.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

World can halt fossil fuel use by 2090

  • 12:13 27 October 2008
  • NewScientist.com news service
  • New Scientist staff and Reuters

The world could eliminate fossil fuel use by 2090, saving $18 trillion in future fuel costs and creating a $360 billion industry that provides half of the world’s electricity, the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) and environmental group Greenpeace said on Monday.

The 210-page study [pdf] is one of few reports – even by lobby groups – to look in detail at how energy use would have to be overhauled to meet the toughest scenarios for curbing greenhouse gases outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“Renewable energy could provide all global energy needs by 2090,” according to the study, entitled “Energy (R)evolution.” EREC represents renewable energy industries and trade and research associations in Europe.

A more radical scenario could eliminate coal use by 2050 if new power generation plants shifted quickly to renewables.

Solar power, biomass such as biofuels or wood, geothermal energy and wind could be the leading energies by 2090 in a shift from fossil fuels blamed by the IPCC for stoking global warming.

The total energy investments until 2030, the main period studied, would come to $14.7 trillion, according to the study. By contrast, the International Energy Agency (IEA), which advises rich nations, foresees energy investments of just $11.3 trillion to 2030, with a bigger stress on fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with ex-US Vice President Al Gore, called Monday’s study “comprehensive and rigorous.”

Dangerous change

“Even those who may not agree with the analysis presented would, perhaps, benefit from a deep study of the underlying assumptions,” Pachauri wrote in a foreword to the report.

EREC and Greenpeace said a big energy shift was needed to avoid “dangerous” climate change, defined by the European Union and many environmental groups as a temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius since before the Industrial Revolution.

The report urged measures such as a phase-out of subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear energy, “cap and trade” systems for greenhouse gas emissions, legally binging targets for renewable energies and tough efficiency standards for buildings and vehicles.

The report said renewable energy markets were booming with turnover almost doubling in 2007 from 2006 to more than $70 billion. It said renewables could more than double their share of world energy supplies to 30% by 2030 and reach 50% by 2050.

:}

But it will only cost 17 trillion dollars:

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/21375/1066/

 Sven Teske, with Greenpeace and co-author of the report, stated, “Unlike other energy scenarios that promote energy futures at the cost of the climate, our energy revolution scenario shows how to save money and maintain global economic development without fuelling catastrophic climate change.”Teske added, “All we need to kick start this plan is bold energy policy from world leaders.” [EREC]Teske concluded, “Strict efficiency standards make sound economic sense and dramatically slow down rising global energy demand. The energy saved in industrialised countries will make space for increased energy use in developing economies. With renewable energy growing four-fold not only in the electricity sector, but also in the heating and transport sectors, we can still cut the average carbon emissions per person from today?s four tonnes to around one tonne by 2050.” [EREC]

In the foreword to the report, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri wrote, “Even those who may not agree with the analysis presented would, perhaps, benefit from a deep study of the underlying assumptions,” [EREC]

Dr. Pachauri, who is the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former-U.S. Vice President Al Gore,

 :}

For more links:

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE49Q2I820081027

Oil Dives Below 63$$ A Barrel – We are all going to die!

Posted on by
5

Now we shall see how this game played by a few very wealthy Americans plays out. There was a reason Glass-Steagel was put in place in the 1930’s The belief was that some commodities were too important to ALL Americans.  Food, housing and fuel were deemed the “Basics of Life”.  So the market was regulated to make sure people could not gamble on those commodities futures. Well as we have seen with Housing. The genius of Wall Street came up with an unregulated way to get around the prohibitions in the housing market. When they got bored with that, and the US dollar plunged they decided to buy Long in the Futures Market (something prohibited until 1999) and prices skyrocketed. Well to every up THERE IS A DOWN. As the Saudi’s warned that DOWN could be way down. We could have oil fluctuating between 150$$ and 40$$ a barrel for the next few years. I think at some point in those wild swings Industry comes to a stop.

These people are just spoiled rotten filthy rich dummies. They all should be in jail.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081022/business/oil_prices 

Price of oil falls more than

$5 below US$67 on

US recession fears

Wed Oct 22, 3:26 PM

     

 

By Madlen Read, The Associated Press

NEW YORK – Oil prices tumbled below US$67 a barrel to 16-month lows Wednesday after the government reported big increases in U.S. fuel supplies – more evidence that the economic downturn is drying up energy demand.

The Energy Information Administration said crude inventories jumped by 3.2 million barrels last week, above the 2.9 million barrel increase expected by analysts surveyed by energy research firm Platts. Gasoline inventories rose by 2.7 million barrels last week, and inventories of distillates, which include heating oil and diesel, rose by 2.2 million barrels.

Over the last four weeks, the EIA said, motor gasoline demand was down 4.3 per cent from the same period last year. Distillate fuel demand was down 5.8 per cent, and jet fuel demand was down 9.2 per cent.

“The main theme here that’s driving this market into new low ground is demand deterioration,” said Jim Ritterbusch, president of energy consultancy Ritterbusch and Associates. “As we begin to see evidence that demand is levelling – it doesn’t have to increase, just level – then we can start discussing a possible price bottom. But it appears premature at this point.”

In mid-afternoon trading, light, sweet crude for December delivery fell $5.52 to $66.66 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The last time a front-month contract traded below $67 a barrel was June 2007.

The energy markets have also been weighed down by the weak stock market, as investors grow more pessimistic about how long it will take the economy to recover from the current global financial turmoil.

On Tuesday, DuPont, Sun Microsystems and Texas Instruments reported disappointing earnings and bleak forecasts, sending the Dow Jones industrials average down 2.5 per cent. The Dow was down another four per cent by Wednesday afternoon following more gloomy reports from the soon-to-be acquired bank Wachovia Corp., drugmaker Merck & Co., and insurer Travelers Cos.

“Oil is now highly correlated with the stock market,” said Clarence Chu, a trader with market maker Hudson Capital Energy in Singapore. 

:}

Americans are not the only one worried:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-10/17/content_10206571.htm 

Crude futures dip below $70 on demand concerns
www.chinaview.cn 2008-10-17 06:45:59   Print
    NEW YORK, Oct. 16 (Xinhua) — Crude futures dipped below 70 U.S. dollars a barrel on demand concerns Thursday after the U.S. government reported a unexpected rise in crude stockpile.    Light, sweet crude for November delivery plunged 4.69 dollars to settle at 69.85 dollars a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange after hitting 68.57 dollars, a level not seen since June 27, 2007.    Crude prices have declined more than half its July record high of 147.27 dollars a barrel due to investors’ increasing concerns that a global economic recession could curd energy consumption.

    Demand concerns

    “The price of a barrel of oil continued to decline today as fears of declining demand among market participants persist,” Wall Street Strategies’ senior research analyst Conley Turner told Xinhua.

    The weakening global economy and turmoil in the credit markets have clouded the outlook for world oil consumption.

    The Philadelphia Federal Reserve said regional manufacturing conditions weakened in October. The bank’s regional index came in at a negative 37.5 compared with a positive 3.8 for September.

    On Monday, Goldman Sachs cut its year-end forecast of oil to 70dollars a barrel from 115 dollars and lowered its price outlook for the end of 2009 to 107 dollars from 125 dollars per barrel amid global financial crisis.

    “The fact of the matter is that demand destruction is taking place in the United States as for the rest of the G7, for that matter as these economies teeter on the brink of recession,” said Turner.

    “While there may be some ebbing in the demand pressures out of India and China, it not going to be as much as what is occurring in the Unite States,” he added.

 :}

 Even the Saudis and the Russians are concerned:

:}

http://bh.heraldinteractive.com/business/general/view/2008_10_22_Oil_falls_below__70_on_US_recession_fears/

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which accounts for about 40 percent of global oil supply, has signaled it plans to announce an output quota reduction at an emergency meeting Friday in Vienna.

But investors are skeptical about how much of the cut will be implemented, given the history of OPEC members exceeding their production quotas.

“There should be a short-term boost to prices when they announce a cut on Friday,” Chu said. “But OPEC production has always been above their quotas, so there’s a credibility problem.”

Crude oil is down 53 percent from its peak of $147.27 reached in mid-July.

A stronger dollar this week has also pushed oil prices lower. Investors often buy commodities like crude oil as an inflation hedge when the dollar weakens and sell those investments when the dollar rises.

The euro fell below $1.28 for the first time in nearly two years on Wednesday. The 15-nation euro dipped as low as $1.2736 in morning trading before rising slightly to $1.2873, down from $1.3003 late Tuesday in New York.

Investors are also watching for signs of slowing U.S. demand in the weekly oil inventories report to be released Wednesday from the U.S. Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration. The petroleum supply report was expected to show that oil stocks rose 2.9 million barrels last week, according to the average of analysts’ estimates in a survey by energy information provider Platts.

The Platts survey also showed that analysts projected gasoline inventories rose 3.0 million barrels and distillates went up 600,000 barrels last week.

:}

The Russians are threatening to go along. What if they were actually to join OPEC! Way to go Wall Street geniuses. Bravo! 

 :}

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/oilprices/3252279/Opec-to-cut-oil-supply-by-1.5m-barrels-a-day.html

Members of the Opec oil producers’

cartel have decided to cut production

by 1.5m barrels a day from November

in a bid to stem a collapse in prices.

By Russell Hotten, Industry Editor
Last Updated: 4:14PM BST 24 Oct 2008

This latest Opec meeting, brought forward from next month because of the severity of the slide in prices, comes as Russia shows increasing interest in cooperating with the organisation.

Russia, the world’s second largest oil producer after Saudi, has traditionally had representatives at Opec meetings but has never publicly tracked the organisations cuts and increases in production quotas.

But on Wednesday Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin said his country may build a margin of spare oil production capacity as a means of influencing prices. However, he said Russia would not join Opec.

Nick Day, chief executive of the risk management consultancy Diligence, warns that any move by Russia to cooperate with Opec is fraught with political dangers. “One of Russia’s objectives might be to counter America’s influence on Saudi Arabia’s control of Opec. You could see Russia driving a wedge between Opec, with support from Iran and Venezuela.” He believes that if Russia’s oil revenues are reduced, Moscow might try to recoup money by raising the price of gas it exports to Europe.

Opec comprises 12 members: Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela. The thirteenth, Indonesia, is due to leave the organisation at the end of 2008.

People Just Don’t Get Why We Have To Stop Burning The World Up – Stop please stop

Posted on by
Reply

This is so sad it Makes The World Cry:

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14976-arctic-air-temperatures-hit-record-highs.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news6_head_dn14976

Arctic air temperatures

hit record highs

  • 13:11 17 October 2008
  • NewScientist.com news service
  • New Scientist staff and Reuters

Autumn air temperatures have climbed to record levels in the Arctic due to major losses of sea ice as the region suffers more effects from a warming trend dating back decades, according to a new report.

The annual report issued by researchers at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other experts is the latest to paint a dire picture of the impact of climate change in the Arctic.

It found that autumn air temperatures are at a record 5 °C above normal in the Arctic because of the major loss of sea ice in recent years, which allows more solar heating of the ocean.

That warming of the air and ocean impacts land and marine life and cuts the amount of winter sea ice that lasts into the following summer, says the report.

The report adds that surface ice is melting in Greenland and that wild reindeer, or caribou, herds appear to be declining in numbers.

Domino effect

“Changes in the Arctic show a domino effect from multiple causes more clearly than in other regions,” says James Overland, an oceanographer at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle and one of the authors of the report.

“It’s a sensitive system and often reflects changes in relatively fast and dramatic ways,” he says.

Researchers at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, part of the University of Colorado, recently reported that, this summer, Arctic sea ice melted to its second-lowest level ever.

The 2008 season, those researchers said, strongly reinforces a 30-year downward trend in Arctic ice extent – 34% below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000, but 9% above the record low set in 2007.

Last year was the warmest on record in the Arctic, continuing a region-wide warming trend dating to the mid-1960s. Most experts blame climate change on human activities spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

:}

Then there is this longer piece in The Independent;

:}

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/record-22c-temperatures-in-arctic-heatwave-394196.html 

Record 22C temperatures in Arctic heatwave

By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Wednesday, 3 October 2007

The high temperatures on the island caused catastrophic mudslides as the permafrost on hillsides melted, Professor Lamoureux said. “The landscape was being torn to pieces, literally before our eyes.”

Other parts of the Arctic also experienced higher-than-normal temperatures, which indicate that the wider polar region may have experienced its hottest summer on record, according to Walt Meir of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.

“It’s been warm, with temperatures about 3C or 4C above normal for June, July and August, particularly to the north of Siberia where the temperatures have reached between 4C and 5C above average,” Dr Meir said.

Unusually clear skies over the Arctic this summer have caused temperatures to rise. More sunlight has exacerbated the loss of sea ice, which fell to a record low of 4.28 million square kilometres (1.65 million square miles), some 39 per cent below the long-term average for the period 1979 to 2000. Dr Meir said: “While the decline of the ice started out fairly slowly in spring and early summer, it accelerated rapidly in July. By mid-August, we had already shattered all previous records for ice extent.”

An international team of scientists on board the Polar Stern, a research ship operated by the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany, also felt the effects of an exceptionally warm Arctic summer. The scientists had anticipated that large areas of the Arctic would be covered by ice with a thickness of about two metres, but found that it had thinned to just one metre.

Instead of breaking through thicker ice at an expected speed of between 1 and 2 knots, the Polar Stern managed to cruise at 6 knots through thin ice and sometimes open water.

“We are in the midst of a phase of dramatic change in the Arctic,” said Ursula Schauer, the chief scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute, who was on board the Polar Stern expedition. “The ice cover of the North Polar Sea is dwindling, the ocean and the atmosphere are becoming steadily warmer, the ocean currents are changing,” she said.

One scientist came back from the North Pole and reported that it was raining there, said David Carlson, the director of International Polar Year, the effort to highlight the climate issues of the Arctic and Antarctic. “It makes you wonder whether anyone has ever reported rain at the North Pole before.”

Another team of scientists monitoring the movements of Ayles Ice Island off northern Canada reported that it had broken in two far earlier than expected, a further indication of warmer temperatures. And this summer, for the first time, an American sailing boat managed to traverse the North-west Passage from Nova Scotia to Alaska, a voyage usually made by icebreakers. Never before has a sail-powered vessel managed to get straight through the usually ice-blocked sea passage.

Inhabitants of the region are also noticing a significant change as a result of warmer summers, according to Shari Gearheard, a research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre. “People who live in the region are noticing changes in sea ice. The earlier break-up and later freeze-up affect when and where people can go hunting, as well as safety for travel,” she said.

Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, said: “We may see an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer within our lifetimes. The implications… are disturbing.”

The North-west Passage: an ominous sign

The idea of a North-west Passage was born in 1493, when Pope Alexander VI divided the discovered world between Spain and Portugal, blocking England, France and Holland from a sea route to Asia. As it became clear a passage across Europe was impossible, the ambitious plan was hatched to seek out a route through north-western waters, and nations sent out explorers. When, in the 18th century, James Cook reported that Antarctic icebergs produced fresh water, the view that northern waters were not impossibly frozen was encouraged. In 1776 Cook himself was dispatched by the Admiralty with an Act promising a £20,000 prize, but he failed to push through a route north of Canada. His attempt preceded several British expeditions including a famous Victorian one by Sir John Franklin in 1845. Finally, in 1906 Roald Amundsen led the first trip across the passage to Alaska, and since then a number of fortified ships have followed. On 21 August this year, the North-west Passage was opened to ships not armed with icebreakers for the first time since records began.

John McCain’s Energy Policies – The “drill here, drill now” crowd looks pretty foolish right about now

Posted on by
Reply

Even Bill O’Reilly agrees with me:

www.billoreilly.com

The rapid rise in Oil Prices and the concurrent rise in gasoline prices was caused by speculators in the oil market, reductions in gas refinement, the drop in the dollar value because of speculators, and China stock piling diesel fuel for the Olympics. There is no way that it was remotely related to supply and demand. Demand fell as the price climbed. Even conservative estimates say that so far this year Americans have driven 50 billion miles fewer than just last year.

Even worse than that is the fact that the Congress conceded the point to an angry electorate and passed a bill expanding drilling. That inspite of the fact that there is no oil in ANWR or along most of the continental shelf, there will be no bids on the leases if they are ever put up for sale, and we don’t have any oil rigs to drill there anyway. Every last rigg in the WORLD is spoken for right now.

So given all of that why is John McCain still touting the policy below?:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm

John McCain Will Commit Our Country To Expanding Domestic Oil Exploration. The current federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf stands in the way of energy exploration and production. John McCain believes it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use. There is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities. We have trillions of dollars worth of oil and gas reserves in the U.S. at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy. This is the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. We should keep more of our dollars here in the U.S., lessen our foreign dependency, increase our domestic supplies, and reduce our trade deficit – 41% of which is due to oil imports. John McCain proposes to cooperate with the states and the Department of Defense in the decisions to develop these resources.

:}

Shouldn’t we be saying “anywhere but here, anytime but now”? Like New Orleanians say about hurricanes.
:}

John McCain Capriciousness Will Cost Him The Election – The myth of the multiple Nukes

Posted on by
Reply

McCain is a hot headed shoot from the hip cowboy Republican and his Nuclear Policy, such as it is, shows it. He is George Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove combined without the nasty little snicker. He could have stated a policy pro-nuclear. He could have stated a policy of 3 or 4 Nuclear Power Plants, with a “we’ll see how it goes” clause. He could have done something helpful as a Republican and said, “We will open the waste depository in Nevada within the first year of our presidency.” Something no Democrat could offer because of Harry Reid.

But instead he wants to try to build 45 Nuclear Power Plants. That is 1 for almost every state in the Nation! That with the credit markets paralyzed and a new generation of “light reactors” that have not been tested in the US. Then he goes on to say with “a goal of building 100”. This is so off the charts as to be dismissable. That is, it is impossible. So why so over the top? BECAUSE THAT IS what John wants to do. That’s it. So what else does John want that is inconceivable to most of us? But if he was President of the US he could get just because he wanted it? War with Iran? War with Russia? More to the point a Florida surrounded by oil wells? A move to cripple the solar and wind turbine markets? T. Boone Pickens Plan? What?

That is pretty scary….

John McCain And The Myth Of The Multiple Nukes – A goal is 100 Nukes or Double our current capacity

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote in the title of a previous post that John McCain just doesn’t get it about energy policy. A commenter took me to task for attacking McCain personally not his policies. Well lets see, he wants to build 45 Nukes to start. That would come with a price tag of 150 billion$$s and if you have looked at the credit markets lately, that just makes no sense. Georgia Power is about to try to “self-finance” 1 Nuke at a cost of 3 billion$$s. I have serious doubts about whether they shall succeed.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm

John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants. Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power produces 20% of our power, but the U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. China, India and Russia have goals of building a combined total of over 100 new plants and we should be able to do the same. It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans.

:}  So where to start?We do not have the skilled workers to build them.We don’t have the money to build them.

We don’t have safe sites to put them on.

We don’t have the fuel to put in them.

We couldn’t afford the electricity they would produce.

Not to mention all the energy that we would have to burn to build them and to fuel them.

But the worst mistake here is that we have NO PLACE TO put the waste.

All this to just boil water?

So we leave our great grandchildren with the legacy of radioactive waste, financial debt and expensive energy that they can’t use?!? Look if there was a metal or and an award for NOT GETTING it, John McCain should be awarded it immediately.

:}
 

Barack Obama’s Climate Change Policies – He makes no distinction between Climate and Energy use

Posted on by
Reply

But John McCain does make such a distinction so in fairness, I did too.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy

Reduce our Greenhouse Gas

Emissions 80 Percent by 2050

• Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.
• Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change.

Learn More…
 

GET THE DETAILS:

Read the full version of The Obama-Biden New Energy for America plan

The Obama-Biden environmental plan

The Obama-Biden plan to crack down on excessive energy speculation
 

The Peak Oil People Sometimes Scare Themselves – Especially when they get together for a little soire

Posted on by
Reply

I know this is dated but the conference was held at the middle of this speculative oil price spike that has gone on for at least 6 months. I wonder if the Peak Oil folks know how to tell a speculative spike, a real spike through scarcity of production facilities and true Peak Oil. All of them would shadow a simlar spike?

http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/news-42/1212300955258630.xml&coll=6

What happens when oil runs out?

 

Sunday, June 01, 2008By Garret M. Ellison

The Grand Rapids Press

GRAND RAPIDS — The collapse of cities, a return to rail transportation, famine and a worldwide depression are but a few outcomes predicted by energy industry insiders and believers in the peak oil theory who gathered this weekend at Calvin College.

“We will have a different civilization, to be sure,” said David Goodstein, a vice provost and professor of physics at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech).

Goldstein wrote the book, “Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil.” He joined dozens of speakers at the International Conference on Peak Oil and Climate Change.

He was the kickoff speaker at the three-day event, which explored the double-pronged crises of peak oil and climate change by examining their effects on society, and offering sustainable solutions.

Peak oil is the point at which half of the world’s supply has been extracted and production levels off. This is expected to cause massive societal upheaval because the worldwide demand for oil is increasing rapidly.

It’s a controversial subject, and not all are convinced. Skeptics and some oil producers say a peak is years away and that new technologies will allow our energy appetite to be satisfied by tar sands and oil shale while renewable sources come online.

But those who believe in the peak oil scenario say we have reached that point already or will in a few years. New oil discoveries are slim. The last major discovery was in the 1960s.

They say that alternative energies cannot match the capacity of fossil fuels, and nuclear fusion — the one known silver bullet — is perpetually 25 years in the future.

Supply will be further constrained by aging infrastructure, they say. These arguments are fueled by the rising cost of food and oil, which recently topped $130 a barrel.

One point that everyone agrees on is that oil is a finite resource, and that nobody quite knows for sure how much is left.

 “We will see the effects of the peak very soon. How soon — I don’t know,” Goldstein said.

“It’s possible that it’ll be off another five, 10, or even 20 years.

“But 20 years is nothing on the scale of human history,” he said. “Our children, or our grandchildren are in for some very difficult times.”

That could mean civil unrest and famine, as petrol-based fertilizers become prohibitively expensive, driving up the cost of food — and everything else.

“The haves and the have-nots are going to be fighting for diminishing reserves,” said Steven F. Crower, an energy investment banker based in Denver.

“I think the price of oil will cause the collapse of the dollar,” he said. “The new gold standard is going to be energy.”

That’s somewhat less dire than the reality painted by Richard Heinberg, an author of eight books on peaking resources and a senior fellow at the Post Carbon Institute.

All complex systems inevitably collapse, said Heinberg, and ours is no different. A local-based agrarian economy is his vision of the future. Rail will be the primary transportation mode.

For some conference attendees, the concept of peaking oil production seemed like a very stark reality.

“I think it was Hunter S. Thompson who said that sometimes the massive crime that takes place in front of everyone is the one that goes unnoticed,” said Jackson Carreras, 24, of Plymouth.

The conference was organized by Aaron Wissner, of Middleville, who heads-up the local nonprofit, Local Future. It runs through 5 p.m. today.

Send e-mail to the author: gellison@grpress.com

 :}

Here are the people that brought you the above conference. They seem like nice enough young people

:}

http://localfuture.org/

Local Future
Paths to Sustainability

Michigan Conference – Nov. 2008

NEW!!!  Announcing “The Conference of Michigan’s Future: Energy, Economy & Environment” for Friday, Nov. 14 through Sunday, Nov. 16 at Crystal Mountain Resort in Thompsonville, Michigan.  Click the link above for speakers, ticket, and other specifics.

International Conference – Online

Local Future hosts the International Conference on Peak Oil and Climate Change: Paths to Sustainability.  The inaugural conference features 50 presenters including Richard Heinberg, Julian Darley, Dr. David Goodstein, Megan Quinn Bachman, Stephanie Mills, and Pat Murphy.

NEW! – Watch conference presentations & download podcasts for free.

 

Introduction

Unemployment, inflation, war, peak oil, climate change, biodiversity loss, overpopulation — global problems that need local solutions.

Local Future helps communities develop compassionate, sustainable, local, systems to provide jobs, food, energy, transportation, and essential services.

Local Future Network members develop these systems by helping their community to transition from dependent units of the failed global economy; to independent cultures of compassionate, sustainable, local economy.

Global Problems

The global economic system creates problems which threaten humanity and the planet:

  • peak oil
  • climate change
  • over population
  • resource depletion
  • widespread pollution
  • misallocation of power
  • institutional cruelty
  • economic instability
  • environmental destruction
  • geopolitical conflict & war

This unsustainable global economic system fails to protect humans, the environment, and the natural systems on which all life depends.  It does not meet the long term goals of civilization. 

When a system fails to such a catastrophic degree, it is time for change.

Local Solutions

New local systems must be developed that are grounded in a value system of truth, compassion, understanding, sustainability, renewal and community.  Developing new systems takes dedicated individuals who share the common value system, walk a common path, and move towards a common vision of the future.  Local systems are needed to provide:

  • jobs – that are challenging, safe and community oriented
  • money – community currency that creates jobs, motivates progress and reinforces values
  • food – that is nutritious, compassionate, sustainable, organic and available year-round
  • energy – heat, electricity and fuels from renewable sun, wind, water and biomass sources
  • transportation – utilizing ride sharing, mass transit, community vehicles and human power
  • homes – safe, comfortable and welcoming, zero energy new homes and retrofits
  • water – fresh, clean, free water that is owned and managed locally
  • waste management  – emphasizing reduce, reuse and recycling
  • health care – high quality, low cost, community based services and prevention
  • education – local teachers dedicated to providing continuing service
  • security – utilizing open communication, problem solving, education and dialogue
  • entertainment – opportunities for all to participate and enjoy
  • culture – celebrating diversity and history
  • spirituality – inviting all people to explore the deeper questions of life

Members of Local Future Network communicate and meet to learn, support, plan, and act.  They take the initiative to increase independence for themselves and their communities.  Their shared value system of truth, compassion, understanding, sustainability, renewal and community guides their actions toward a vision of a prosperous local future.

:}

Oil Speculators Are the Modern Robber Barons – State Journal Register letter to the editor hits the tap on the barrel head

Posted on by
Reply

I swore on my mother’s grave (sorry mom) that I would not put up a post about oil prices until they fell below 100$$ per barrel because I was tired of people pointing fingers at each other because the whole system is rigged. The Chinese were hoarding diesel for the Olympics (now over), the speculator’s contracts were lapsing (August 31 and September 15), the Senate is going to have hearings in the middle of September (hint: it will all be back to normal by then), and when the oil prices fall the gasoline refiners will lose their cover and half to ramp up aritificially low production levels to drop the price of gasoline. BUT not before 300 billion $$$ are vacuumed out of poor people’s pockets. Boy that took a long time to say! Then I saw this letter and was re-energized to put the facts out there one more time, so maybe people would wake up and just stop using those nasty stinky oil products.

http://www.sj-r.com

Things could be done

to reduce price of gasoline

The recent letters regarding the why and wherefores of the price of oil and

 gasoline prompted me to join in the debate.

First, a few observations:

Since 2003, investments in commodity index funds have increased

 from $13 bil­lion to $$260 billion, a 20-fold increase.

The Commodity Exchange Commission has already set

limits on the holdings any one investor can have in a commodity

to prevent speculation. But the larger institu­tional investors

(known as “swap dealers”) such as Goldman Sachs have exploited an

exemption that allows them to bypass those limits if they make trades through

brokers or dealers.

The majority of these trades in the USA are made by a British company

 with head­quarters in Atlanta while all the trading takes place in

Chicago! They do have a rep in London, Robert Reid, who answers to Atlanta.

The intercontinental exchanges do not have to abide by the rules set up by

the New York Mercantile Exchange be­cause they are listed as a foreign company!

Last month Michael Masters, a portfolio manager, told Congress that index

speculators had bought the equivalent of 1.1 billion bar­rels of oil — eight times

 as much as the United States has added to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

over the last five years!

Because of all this speculation the price of oil has reached $140 a barrel.

The speculators in oil futures obviously say it is sup­ply and demand that

is causing the rise in prices. Granted, there is a certain amount of this i

nvolved, but not in the USA. The demand or use of oil in the U.S. has

been stead for at least a decade.

The ex-president of NYMEX, appearing before a congressional committee

a few weeks ago stated that if margins, which are now 50 percent, were

increased, the price of oil would drop to approximately the marginal cost

of oil, which is between $60 and $70 per barrel. It was also stated that

these margins could be increased, accord­ing to NYMEX rules, during an

 emergency. I think this is an emergency! By the way, it was stated that this

could be done within a 30-day period.

P.S. Just recently, a bill that would put new limits on speculative trading

 in ener­gy commodities failed to get the two-thirds majority required.

Most Republi­cans objected to the bill — the vote was 276 to 151.

Eric Gregg Springfield

:}

Think Eric is crazy? Want to hear more names of the AMERICANS picking your pocket? Well okie dokie then.

:}

http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/1276-Stop-the-Oil-Speculators.html

Tuesday, May 27. 2008

Posted by nimda in In the Public Interest

Stop the Oil Speculators

What factors are causing the zooming price of crude oil, gasoline and heating products? What is going to be done about it?

Don’t rely on the White House—with Bush and Cheney marinated in oil—or the Congress—which has hearings that grill oil executives who know that nothing is going to happen on Capitol Hill either.


Last week the price of crude oil reached about $130 a barrel after spiking to $140 briefly. The immediate cause? Guesses by oil man T. Boone Pickens and Goldman Sachs that the price could go to $150 and $200 a barrel respectivly in the near future. They were referring to what can be called the hoopla pricing party on the New York Mercantile Exchange. (NYMEX)

Meanwhile, consumers, workers and small businesses are suffering with the price of gasoline at $4 a gallon and diesel at $4.50 a gallon. Suffering but not protesting, except for a few demonstrations by independent truckers.

A consumer and small business revolt could be politically powerful. But what would they revolt to achieve? Their government is paralyzed and is unable to indicate any action if oil goes up to $200 or $400 a barrel. Washington, D.C. is leaving people defenseless and drawing no marker for when it will take action.

Oil was at $50 a barrel in January 2007, then $75 a barrel in August 2007. Now at $130 or so a barrel, it is clear that oil pricing is speculative activity, having very little to do with physical supply and demand. An essential product—petroleum—is set by speculators operating on rumor, greed, and fear of wild predictions.

Over the time since early 2007, U.S. demand for petroleum has fallen by 1 percent and world demand has risen by 1.3 percent. Supplies of crude are so plentiful, according to the Wall Street Journal, “traders of physical crude oil say their market is suffering from too much supply, not too little.”

Iran, for instance, is storing 25 million barrels of heavy, sour crude oil because, in the words of Hossein Kazempour Ardebili, Iran’s oil governor, “there are simply no buyers because the market has more than enough oil.”

Mike Wittner, head of oil research at Societe Generale in London agrees. “There’s various signals out there saying for right now, the markets are well supplied with crude.”

Historically, oil has been afflicted with the control of monopolists. From the late nineteenth century days of John D. Rockefeller, and his Standard Oil monopoly, to the emergence of the “Seven Sisters” oligopoly, made up of Standard Oil, Shell, BP, Texaco, Mobil, Gulf and Socal, to the rise of OPEC representing the major producing countries, the “free market” price of oil has been a mirage. Despite the breakup of the Standard Oil company by the government’s trustbusters about 100 years ago, selling cartels and buying oligopolies kept reasserting themselves.

In an ironic twist, the major price determinant has moved from OPEC (having only 40% of the world production) and the oil companies to the speculators in the commodities markets. What goes on in the essentially unregulated New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)—without Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) enforced margin requirements, and, unlike your personal purchases, untaxed—is now the place that leads to your skyrocketing gasoline bills. OPEC and the Big Oil companies reap the benefits and say that it’s not their doing, but that of the speculators. Gives new meaning to “passing the buck.”

Deborah Fineman, president of Mitchell Supreme Fuel Co. in Orange, New Jersey, summed up the scene: “Energy markets have been dictated for too long by hedge funds and speculators, who artificially manipulate the numbers for their own benefit. The current market isn’t based on the sound principles of supply and demand but it is being rigged by companies and speculators who are jacking up prices for their own greed.”

Harry C. Johnson, former banker who worked for many years inside Big Oil and ran his own small oil company in Oklahoma, blames the CFTC, the Department of Energy, the Administration, and Congress, as “asleep at the switch on an issue that is probably costing U.S. consumers $1 billion per day.”

He cites “some industry experts, who profit greatly from the high price of crude, and have stated openly that the worldwide economic price of crude, absent speculators, would be around $50 to $60 per barrel.

Imagine, our government is letting your price for gasoline and home heating oil be determined by a gambling casino on Wall Street called NYMEX. The people need regulatory protection from speculators and an excess profits tax on Big Oil.

In addition, a sane government would see the present price crises as an opportunity to expand our passenger and freight railroad capacity and technology.

A sane government would drop all subsidies and tax loopholes for Big Oil’s huge profits and other fossil fuels and promote a national mission to solarize our economy to achieve major savings from energy conservation technology, retrofitting buildings, and upgrading efficiency standards for motor vehicles, home appliances, industrial engines and electric generating plants.

Those are the permanent ways to achieve energy independence, reduce our trade deficit, create good jobs that can’t be exported and protect the environmental health of people and nature.

Those are the reforms and advances that a muscular consumer, worker and small business revolt can focus on in the coming weeks.

What say you, America?