MORE OIL ! MORE MORE !

On 6/26/2011 3:14 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Peter considered Sun, 26 Jun 2011

High energy costs have a damping effect on the economy at large,
particularly in the short term. I don't see how anyone can be criticized
for trying to keep the economy from sliding further. In that light, it's
just another form of stimulus.

That depends if you think it is reasonable to stimulate behaviour that
is killing the planet.
We should be raising all fossil fuel prices to a level that
realistically accounts for the damage caused by their use.
Doing the reverse and forcing prices down is nothing but environmental
vandalism.

I think you need to discriminate between long and short term. Dumping a
3 day supply isn't going to change anything long term.

It is reasonable to be cynical about government political motives in
manipulating supply and demand. It is also reasonable to expect the
government to act in a way that reduces price volatility.

Yes, if the price was set to have a hard floor that gave vehicle fuel
prices of around $15/gall it could be stabilised, and the rot
arrested.

Predictable fuel price increases would help support an orderly
transition to a more efficient economy -- maybe. Capturing total
environmental costs seems ethical -- maybe. The rub is determining the
true environmental costs and long term vs. short term trade-offs.
Artificially raising (fossil) energy costs has consequences on quality
of life, especially among the poor. There is the argument that we a
digging a hole for the future by deferring the true costs of cheap
energy. There is a counter-argument that by lifting people out of
poverty we are accelerating the advancement of humanity, and with that
will come the technical and social progress to live more sustainably.

Of course all bets have to be balanced. Tight supplies increase
volatility, which also makes price more susceptible to speculation.
Speculation causes bubbles, which correct in the long run, but in the
long run we're all dead.

Certainly, if we keep burning it at the current rate.
Along with most other species on this planet.

Perhaps, but with rising affluence comes options. People can choose
smaller families, people can choose to recycle resources, efficiency in
agriculture, manufacturing and transportation can rise proportionally.
With better science, we can mitigate environmental impacts more
effectively. I think in any of these areas you can find examples of
progress being used for sustainability as well as examples where it is
applied in ways to reduce it, that is the real choice, but while
short-term policies may aggravate the problem, it's the long-term that's
important. When our technology is immature, it's frequently the case
that unintentional results are the consequence.


Sure, oil production will/has peak at some time, but that isn't really
the problem facing summer vacationers. Volatility is bad for the
economy.

So fix the price high, where it reflects the true cost.
Use the taxes raised to fund development of alternative, carbon
neutral (or even negative, until we've cleaned up the mess) power
sources.

The world is complicated enough, environmentally, socially and
economically, that it's very difficult to make accurate predictions
about the best course to sustainability. While I laud the goal, as an
engineer, I'm skeptical about pushing too far too fast in any of those
areas, we simply don't have the tools. It takes time to develop the
tools and the various infrastructures to deploy them. I'm wary of simple
solutions to complex problems.

Eventually, it seems likely that we'll develop an entirely new form of
energy, most likely fusion. It is also likely that the scientists that
figure that out will come from China or India. If it takes lifting the
whole populace of those countries out of poverty to produce those
scientists, it may well be worth it, even if they have to burn mountains
of coal to do so. We've seen what happens when our technology gets too
far ahead of our economic and social frameworks, so a breakthrough too
early might be a disaster.

On the other hand, we may continue on the path to a collapse, and
produce a dystopia like the ones predicted by Hollywood and various
documentarians. It may come to pass, but that hasn't been the overall
pattern of human development.

It makes it hard to set sensible long-term energy policy.
Reduction of consumption is a long-term problem,

Yes, it's been a problem over a very long term.

It hasn't really. That's why many people today still view resources,
energy included, as virtually infinite. In their defense, I'd say that
Malthus hasn't been right yet.


leaving it entirely to
market forces to regulate will work, but at great cost in misery. I
don't recommend it.

Niether do I.
Market forces couldn't give a **** about the damage.

Yes, but market forces have been the engine of human progress. That
doesn't mean they can't be highly destructive, the trick is finding the
right balance. Once again, the success in pulling off that trick has
everything to do with technology, broadly speaking. Economics is the
"dismal science" in more ways than one. The real question is whether the
magnitude of our aggregate problems is growing faster than the aggregate
solutions -- and how to improve the ratio. That's a very difficult
question. While it's nearly impossible to view the present objectively
just in the moment, without the perspective of history, looking back
over the last half-century, or even the last couple of decades, the
world's progress has been astonishing. I remain highly optimistic. I can
think of no time I would have rather lived in than the present, and I
expect the future -- to the extent I will experience it -- will be even
better.

On 6/27/2011 8:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
Yes, but market forces have been the engine of human progress. That
doesn't mean they can't be highly destructive, the trick is finding the
right balance. Once again, the success in pulling off that trick has
everything to do with technology, broadly speaking. Economics is the
"dismal science" in more ways than one.

Many current economists are no better that whores to their financial
sponsors.

The real question is whether the
magnitude of our aggregate problems is growing faster than the aggregate
solutions -- and how to improve the ratio. That's a very difficult
question. While it's nearly impossible to view the present objectively
just in the moment, without the perspective of history, looking back
over the last half-century, or even the last couple of decades, the
world's progress has been astonishing. I remain highly optimistic. I can
think of no time I would have rather lived in than the present, and I
expect the future -- to the extent I will experience it -- will be even
better.

I expect the equivalent of the Great Depression [1] and/or WW3 [2]
before another calender year is out. The only thing that could save us
would be to arrest all the psychopathic international bankers and other
assorted super-rich criminals [3] that are currently running the planet.

[1] When the current financial bubbles burst, there will *not* be the
funds to bail out the system, as the debt burden is too high to sell
more bonds.
[2] If Israel attacks Iran directly and/or through its client state (the
AIPAC controlled USA).
[3] Who are itching for an excuse to destroy the remaining freedoms and
democracy in the US, simply because they (and *not* the followers of
Islam) hate freedom for the lower and middle classes.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Jun 26, 1:14 pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
Peter Cole considered Sun, 26 Jun 2011
10:15:45 -0400 the perfect time to write:



On 6/25/2011 2:47 PM, wrote:
On Jun 23, 2:49 pm, Peter wrote:
On 6/23/2011 2:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:

kolldata wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...ama-idUSTRE75M...

The Obama administration was also concerned about how tight supplies
were ahead of peak demand in the summer, when many Americans drive for
vacations. Oil prices are a critical concern among voters and we
rising as the White House was gearing up for its reelection campaign.

Silly me, I thought a Strategic Oil Reserve was for battleships and
fighter planes in wartime. Turns out it's just another election tool.

No, it's not. It was create in the 70's to deal with supply
interruptions. It has been routinely used for that purpose. It's not a
specifically military reserve.

Hardly routine. It's been used two or three times previously.

According to Wikipedia, this was the 5th sale, but there have been
several "loans" (12 listed). At other times, purchases for the oil
reserve were halted -- essentially performing the same function as
selling from the reserve.

This was an act of desparation, either political or supply-related.
Probably the former. So President Bush II can say, look how
"aggressively" I am going after high gas prices for the election,
while prices continue to rise and the economy continues to tank, which
is likely to be somewhat of a political liability.. Every single move
this administration has made on energy has been fundamentally wrong,
and politically opportunist. But going to the SPR so early surprised
everyone.

High energy costs have a damping effect on the economy at large,
particularly in the short term. I don't see how anyone can be criticized
for trying to keep the economy from sliding further. In that light, it's
just another form of stimulus.

That depends if you think it is reasonable to stimulate behaviour that
is killing the planet.
We should be raising all fossil fuel prices to a level that
realistically accounts for the damage caused by their use.
Doing the reverse and forcing prices down is nothing but environmental
vandalism.



It is reasonable to be cynical about government political motives in
manipulating supply and demand. It is also reasonable to expect the
government to act in a way that reduces price volatility.

Yes, if the price was set to have a hard floor that gave vehicle fuel
prices of around $15/gall it could be stabilised, and the rot
arrested.

If the recent
price increases were driven by fundamentals, then dumping oil from the
reserve will prove to be a bad move for the taxpayer in simple terms,
but given the multiplier effect on the overall economy and the high rate
of unemployment, it seems worth the gamble -- politically or economically.

But hey we can always replace the cheap oil with new more expensive oil
later, right?

There has been increasing evidence that the big price run up before the
2008 crash was caused by speculation. The Arab Spring and normal summer
demand seemed like a ripe opportunity for speculators (and OPEC members)
to goose the market. The US apparently put up only half of the 60M
barrels (the rest was put up by other IEA members). We currently have
almost 600M in the reserve, so the actual amount was about 5%. Not much
of a dent in the reserve, but enough to scare the speculators, perhaps.

Scare the speculators? The "speculators" love this stuff. Did you
notice how the price fell prior to the announcement? Most traders
think it's obvious that the info was leaked, to "speculators." And now
there is a perfect buying opportunity created for "speculators" who
are long oil (and as always to the speculators taking the other side
of the trade who think the price is likely to fall). Speculation is a
two-way street by definition. Traders want to see the price of
everything swing high and low, not do anything steadily.

Of course all bets have to be balanced. Tight supplies increase
volatility, which also makes price more susceptible to speculation.
Speculation causes bubbles, which correct in the long run, but in the
long run we're all dead.

Certainly, if we keep burning it at the current rate.
Along with most other species on this planet.





The fact that the both the oil industry and Iran (not to mention the
Republicans) were upset about it kind of gave me the impression that it
was a smart move. We may or may not pay more to replenish the reserve,
but if the speculators and OPEC have their way, we'd definitely be
paying more this summer.

There is also the issue of depletion which everybody forgets.

I don't think anyone forgets that, but oil pricing is notoriously
opaque. Actual supply numbers in particular are very closely held secrets.

Most of
the world's oil comes from a few hundred very large oil fields, which
are collectively in a fairly precipitous decline. And new discoveries
struggle to replace this easy production (needed like 4-5 mbd added
new prod. each year just to stay even with ongoing depletion). Energy
return on energy invested (overall net energy) declines as these easy
fields drain. Oil exporting countries, at the same time, are using
more of their own production. And political situations point to
further disruptions. == Even if consumption falls we could have a
very tight market.

Sure, oil production will/has peak at some time, but that isn't really
the problem facing summer vacationers. Volatility is bad for the
economy.

So fix the price high, where it reflects the true cost.
Use the taxes raised to fund development of alternative, carbon
neutral (or even negative, until we've cleaned up the mess) power
sources.

It makes it hard to set sensible long-term energy policy.
Reduction of consumption is a long-term problem,

Yes, it's been a problem over a very long term.

leaving it entirely to
market forces to regulate will work, but at great cost in misery. I
don't recommend it.

Niether do I.
Market forces couldn't give a **** about the damage.


Agreed. Money spent _trying to _ prop up the old Chrysler/cheap gas
order in the US is money that could be spent on much less destructive
projects and goals.

On Jun 26, 8:15 am, Peter Cole wrote:

Sure, oil production will/has peak at some time, but that isn't really
the problem facing summer vacationers. Volatility is bad for the
economy. It makes it hard to set sensible long-term energy policy.
Reduction of consumption is a long-term problem, leaving it entirely to
market forces to regulate will work, but at great cost in misery. I
don't recommend it.

Yes it's going to hurt and will suck worst for the working poor, no
doubt.

But we had decades to get our **** together and we blew it. It's too
late now.

Releasing 30-60k bbl is such a flimsy move relative to the global oil
market. About fifteen hours of global consumption. The effect can only
be transitory. And remember the whole Boy who Cried Wolf thing. Maybe
even as soon as the next release, it won't work at all. Best to keep
the emergency fund for emergencies.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:26:37 -0700 (PDT), RobertH
wrote:

On Jun 26, 8:15 am, Peter Cole wrote:

Sure, oil production will/has peak at some time, but that isn't really
the problem facing summer vacationers. Volatility is bad for the
economy. It makes it hard to set sensible long-term energy policy.
Reduction of consumption is a long-term problem, leaving it entirely to
market forces to regulate will work, but at great cost in misery. I
don't recommend it.

Yes it's going to hurt and will suck worst for the working poor, no
doubt.

But we had decades to get our **** together and we blew it. It's too
late now.

Releasing 30-60k bbl is such a flimsy move relative to the global oil
market. About fifteen hours of global consumption. The effect can only
be transitory. And remember the whole Boy who Cried Wolf thing. Maybe
even as soon as the next release, it won't work at all. Best to keep
the emergency fund for emergencies.

Do you really believe that the release of oil was anything but a
political move so that The Leader can be seen in a good light? After
all re-election time is always there, around the bend, and no one
wants to be doing anything that will inconvenience the voters. After
all the first consideration must always be, To Get Re-Elected! Look at
Greece; stone broke and unable to borrow more and what happens, a riot
by the working folks to try and prevent the government from
instituting economies demanded by donors in order to loan the country
even more money.

On 6/29/2011 7:05 PM, john B. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:26:37 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jun 26, 8:15 am, Peter wrote:

Sure, oil production will/has peak at some time, but that isn't really
the problem facing summer vacationers. Volatility is bad for the
economy. It makes it hard to set sensible long-term energy policy.
Reduction of consumption is a long-term problem, leaving it entirely to
market forces to regulate will work, but at great cost in misery. I
don't recommend it.

Yes it's going to hurt and will suck worst for the working poor, no
doubt.

But we had decades to get our **** together and we blew it. It's too
late now.

Releasing 30-60k bbl is such a flimsy move relative to the global oil
market. About fifteen hours of global consumption. The effect can only
be transitory. And remember the whole Boy who Cried Wolf thing. Maybe
even as soon as the next release, it won't work at all. Best to keep
the emergency fund for emergencies.

Do you really believe that the release of oil was anything but a
political move so that The Leader can be seen in a good light? After
all re-election time is always there, around the bend, and no one
wants to be doing anything that will inconvenience the voters. After
all the first consideration must always be, To Get Re-Elected! Look at
Greece; stone broke and unable to borrow more and what happens, a riot
by the working folks to try and prevent the government from
instituting economies demanded by donors in order to loan the country
even more money.

What the Greeks are angry about is that the government is asking the
bottom 95% to pay for debt that was run up to benefit the richest 1% of
the population. All IMF and similar "austerity" programs are designed
to transfer wealth from lower and middle class wage earners and family
farmers to a few wealthy international bankers and predatory "investors".

What would be ridiculous would be for the Greeks to scapegoat poor
people and/or racial minorities for the problems, as many propaganda
victims in the US do.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Jun 27, 7:44 am, Peter Cole wrote:

I think you need to discriminate between long and short term. Dumping a
3 day supply isn't going to change anything long term.

It was about a 15-hour supply in the global market. And the price is
already back where it was before the announcement. But now Obama has
another line for his speech, about how 'aggressively' he attacked high
gas prices. This is what passes for leadership on this issue, and that
is why we are screwed. "Make no mistake."

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:52:49 -0500, Tºm Shermªn °_°
" wrote:

On 6/29/2011 7:05 PM, john B. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:26:37 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jun 26, 8:15 am, Peter wrote:

Sure, oil production will/has peak at some time, but that isn't really
the problem facing summer vacationers. Volatility is bad for the
economy. It makes it hard to set sensible long-term energy policy.
Reduction of consumption is a long-term problem, leaving it entirely to
market forces to regulate will work, but at great cost in misery. I
don't recommend it.

Yes it's going to hurt and will suck worst for the working poor, no
doubt.

But we had decades to get our **** together and we blew it. It's too
late now.

Releasing 30-60k bbl is such a flimsy move relative to the global oil
market. About fifteen hours of global consumption. The effect can only
be transitory. And remember the whole Boy who Cried Wolf thing. Maybe
even as soon as the next release, it won't work at all. Best to keep
the emergency fund for emergencies.

Do you really believe that the release of oil was anything but a
political move so that The Leader can be seen in a good light? After
all re-election time is always there, around the bend, and no one
wants to be doing anything that will inconvenience the voters. After
all the first consideration must always be, To Get Re-Elected! Look at
Greece; stone broke and unable to borrow more and what happens, a riot
by the working folks to try and prevent the government from
instituting economies demanded by donors in order to loan the country
even more money.

What the Greeks are angry about is that the government is asking the
bottom 95% to pay for debt that was run up to benefit the richest 1% of
the population. All IMF and similar "austerity" programs are designed
to transfer wealth from lower and middle class wage earners and family
farmers to a few wealthy international bankers and predatory "investors".

What would be ridiculous would be for the Greeks to scapegoat poor
people and/or racial minorities for the problems, as many propaganda
victims in the US do.


Sherm you certainly seem an innocent. Who in the world is going to
vote to beggar his neighbors and friends; far better the unwashed
masses. After all the Christians don't let the heathens into heaven do
they? why should he rich be different?

Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 22:05:37 -0700 (PDT), RobertH
wrote:

On Jun 27, 7:44 am, Peter Cole wrote:

I think you need to discriminate between long and short term. Dumping a
3 day supply isn't going to change anything long term.

It was about a 15-hour supply in the global market. And the price is
already back where it was before the announcement. But now Obama has
another line for his speech, about how 'aggressively' he attacked high
gas prices. This is what passes for leadership on this issue, and that
is why we are screwed. "Make no mistake."

I thought it was the U.S. strategic reserve; which stood at some 726.5
million barrels as of 31 May. US consumption of crude is usually
stated to be around 18 - 20 million bbl/day.

Cheers,

John B.

On 6/30/2011 7:20 AM, john B. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:52:49 -0500, Tºm Shermªn °_°
" wrote:

On 6/29/2011 7:05 PM, john B. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:26:37 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jun 26, 8:15 am, Peter wrote:

Sure, oil production will/has peak at some time, but that isn't really
the problem facing summer vacationers. Volatility is bad for the
economy. It makes it hard to set sensible long-term energy policy.
Reduction of consumption is a long-term problem, leaving it entirely to
market forces to regulate will work, but at great cost in misery. I
don't recommend it.

Yes it's going to hurt and will suck worst for the working poor, no
doubt.

But we had decades to get our **** together and we blew it. It's too
late now.

Releasing 30-60k bbl is such a flimsy move relative to the global oil
market. About fifteen hours of global consumption. The effect can only
be transitory. And remember the whole Boy who Cried Wolf thing. Maybe
even as soon as the next release, it won't work at all. Best to keep
the emergency fund for emergencies.

Do you really believe that the release of oil was anything but a
political move so that The Leader can be seen in a good light? After
all re-election time is always there, around the bend, and no one
wants to be doing anything that will inconvenience the voters. After
all the first consideration must always be, To Get Re-Elected! Look at
Greece; stone broke and unable to borrow more and what happens, a riot
by the working folks to try and prevent the government from
instituting economies demanded by donors in order to loan the country
even more money.

What the Greeks are angry about is that the government is asking the
bottom 95% to pay for debt that was run up to benefit the richest 1% of
the population. All IMF and similar "austerity" programs are designed
to transfer wealth from lower and middle class wage earners and family
farmers to a few wealthy international bankers and predatory "investors".

What would be ridiculous would be for the Greeks to scapegoat poor
people and/or racial minorities for the problems, as many propaganda
victims in the US do.


Sherm you certainly seem an innocent. Who in the world is going to
vote to beggar his neighbors and friends; far better the unwashed
masses. After all the Christians don't let the heathens into heaven do
they? why should he rich be different?

Mr. Slocomb appears to be responding to something other than what I
wrote, as his reply does not make sense as a response to my post.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.