Democrats have no clue about energy policy.

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
There is a massive new oil field in the Black Hills of Dakota.

As a matter of fact, TYT’s very own juebawl is working this field.

“America is sitting on top of a super massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America’s Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, giving western economies the trump card against OPEC’s short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant.

The US imported about 14 million barrels of Oil per day in 2007, which means US consumers sent about $340 Billion Dollars over seas building palaces in Dubai and propping up unfriendly regimes around the World, if 200 billion barrels of oil at $90 a barrel are recovered in the high plains the added wealth to the US economy would be $18 Trillion Dollars which would go a long way in stabilizing the US trade deficit and could cut the cost of oil in half in the long run.”

There is a massive new oil field in the Black Hills of Dakota.

This Time essay
explores the year 1848, and the coming of age of America. Take a look at this paragraph.

Back in the U.S., it took only a year after the discovery of gold to turn the sleepy little town of San Francisco into a boisterous city, the largest place west of Chicago. Modern California was born. More important, the Gold Rush was a ratification of the most fantastical version of the American Dream, the yearning for instant fortune and easy prosperity, for extreme liberty and land free for the taking from the natives. When they heard the news out of California, Marx and Engels understood that this bizarre phenomenon was another way in which the U.S. might not conform to their view of economic history inevitably unfolding. Engels wrote to Marx that the discovery of gold was a case "not provided for in the Manifesto: the creation of large new markets out of nothing."

Here is the Democrat Party path to $10 per gallon gas:
1. Withdraw American forces from the Middle East, and allow al Qaeda to overrun the oil producing states.

2. Initiate a huge carbon tax on gasoline consumption.

3. Block all domestic drilling in ANWR, continental shelf, Pacific offshore tracts, deep Gulf tracts.

4. Block expansion of gasoline refinery capacity.

Democrats have lost all right to discuss the price of gasoline for the rest of this century. In fact, if the McCain Campaign is smart, they will make this a priority issue. And don’t waste my time with bullshit discussion on alternative fuels, because I’m more of an expert on the subject than anyone in this forum, and I’ve been explaining the concept of “negative energy balance process” long before it finally became popular science and conventional wisdom.
< Charlton Heston Dies | Ravi Batra >
 Display:
1. Read this blog.
2. Let it sink in.
3. Learn something.
4. STFU for the rest of your life on all issues related to energy and the economy.

Thank You.

Your Friend,
KenTX

by KenTX on 04/06/2008 06:31:23 PM EST


Another KenTX post that doesn't make much sense. Only this time KenTX has decreed that nobody should bother commenting on it.

I for one, not being a politician, don't mind the high prices as long as we have a forward looking federal government that can help steer America into a smarter future with respect to energy consumption (right now we don't have that government).

There is a right wing talking point that Democrats on the one hand cheer for high gas prices because that will encourage development of alternatives and conservation measures, yet Democratic politicians are jumping all over Bush and the oil industry to make political hay over the high cost of gasoline.  There is a tiny, tiny bit of validity to this point, but it misses the important factor of the reason for the high oil prices.  If the price of oil rises because the true cost (environmental, social, etc) is reflected in the price, that's fine. If the extra money is just going into the profits of the corporations and nothing more, that is less desirable.  And anyway, the politicians of course are all going to be against high prices. That's is a politics thing, not a liberal thing.

The great thing about these boomtowns that KenTX and Republicans love so much is that all these towns experience a simultaneous explosion in all the things that offend the right wing family values people so much - drug abuse, crime, broken families, sex, prostitution etc.  It's happening in booms towns right now in the US, in places like Wyoming.  The social fabric that conservatives love so much is being destroyed by these booms.

David

by yturks on 04/06/2008 08:24:35 PM EST


Assuming that these reserves play out as advertised that is a welcome thing, but the question never gets asked, should we continue doing what we're doing?

Even Bush Jr. realized that our oil dependency is like an addiction.  Like all good addicts the Republicans talk about it at the AA meetings (State of the Union address) but then form all of their actions around acquiring the next fix.  - "Let's break into the reserve stash." or "Let's bash that guy on the head and steal his."  Never do they contemplate stemming the addiction.  These "patriots" never ask if what we're doing is going to eventually undo the country, or the environment, or the world at large.

by bfaul on 04/07/2008 01:20:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]

The Republican party is about one thing: profit taking.  Getting the money into their pockets now.  Whether it is about tax cuts or taking out massive loans in the people's name or invasions or using our diplomatic power or the trust the government has built up with the people or the impact on the environment its all about how can this benefit me RIGHT NOW!

This is the modern businessman's model.  Become CEO of a company, lie to get a massive IPO, gut the company of all assets, give yourself a massive bonus and retire "in disgrace" to your own tropical island.  This is the morality of the conservative mindset. 

Don't worry though because its all fair because everyone knows that anyonen, no matter how impverished their background or limited their opportunities, who works hard and has talent can be the CEO or the politician raping the country.  Like George Bush (CEO) and George Bush (politician). 

by ProfRich on 04/07/2008 01:39:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the info. great news.

Oil in the black hills wonderful

Al Qaeda taking over the middle east? You've been sniffin glue with george after class huh?

Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization, it is not a nation and is not even a real military force. Iraqi tribes have driven them out on their own for Christ sakes. They are only there to A) cause us problems and B) to recruit. period.
I thought they were destroyed and now they are the greatest military presence in the entire gulf?


Al Qaeda is a losing arguement my friend.


As far as energy, the quit, so I can make as much money as I can, theory seems to be your point of view. I happen to believe that we can reduce our need for oil. (thru a combination of a whole host of alternate sources) while at the same time dedicating the money necessary to discover a new source of energy.

For the last 4 decades I have seen "experts" like you claim that certain fuel effeciency levels could not be achieved. The Goverment set the new limits and behold the same experts achieved even greater fuel effeciency levels than the goverment called upon in the first place.

Necessity is the mother of all invention. We have the ability, we just need the WILL to do it. Are we to wait until all the oil in the world is gone? or just long enough so that you won't have to sacrifice anything?

I wonder you are worried about Al Qaeda, how about China? or Russia? don't they need oil too? I mean since oil is the end all, be all (according to you) then won't they make their own move to ensure the supply of oil in thier own countries? I guess we should start a draft now to supply the proper amount of troops necessary to fight these future wars?

Or did the black hills solve this problem, at least until the next generation. Let them suffer and let them pay the taxes for our short sightedness.

by LORD FOUL on 04/06/2008 08:27:09 PM EST


Nice false binary, Ken.

Here is what I am interested in doing:

  1. Withdrawing American forces from the Middle East so we can stop spending trillions of dollars on manufacturing terrorists.
  2. We need a small, not a huge carbon tax, for step 6.
  3. Block drilling in ANWR because of the WR in it.
  4. We should absolutely expand refinery capacity, especially since we can now build much cleaner refineries than we could years ago.
  5. Sure, drill in the Black Hills.  Make sure the local economies and environment don't get killed in the process.  Note that this is easier than doing so in Alaska because it is simply not as harsh of an environment.
  6. Invest the money from 2 into alternative energy research.  This involves serious exploration of new photoelectric and solar thermal power engineering.

"Democrats have lost all right to discuss the price of gasoline for the rest of this century."

LOLWUT?

Which party was it that was totally all about destabilizing the economy of one of the most oil-rich nations in the world, again?  Not to mention the political and economic system of the entire Middle East?

Freedom is on the march, if by "freedom" you mean "the complete screwing of the world's energy economy."  Thanks, George!

As for alternative fuels, Ken, we both know that some proposals for such are entirely feasible provided you don't do it stupidly (algal-derived biodiesel, anyone?).

by jarett on 04/06/2008 08:33:51 PM EST


And don’t waste my time with bullshit discussion on alternative fuels

The third step toward making America less dependent on foreign oil is to develop newalternatives to gasoline and diesel. George W Bush

because I’m more of an expert on the subject than anyone in this forum 

 We've got to be aggressive about finding alternative sources of fuel. And one such source is ethanol. Ethanol comes from corn -- and we're pretty good about growing corn here in America, we've got a lot of good corn growers. Therefore, it makes sense to promoteethanol as an alternative to foreign sources of oil. George W Bush

I’ve been explaining the concept of “negative energy balance process” long before it finally became popular science and conventional wisdom.

By the way, we can get the same type of alternative fuel from soybeans. It's called
biodiesel. And that's a promising source of energy George W Bush

OH no!...there that damn economics again. 

It makes sense for the energy bill to encourage renewable sources of energy that are becoming much more practical and much more economic in today's world George W Bush

Dont look now...REGULATION! 

To encourage greater use of ethanol and biodiesel, my administration supports a flexible, cost-effectiverenewable fuel standard as a part of the energy bill. This proposal would require fuel producers to include a certain percentage of ethanol and biodiesel in their fuel. George W Bush

 

 

 Block expansion of gasoline refinery capacity.

Representative Sherwood Boehlert, a New York Republican who is chairman of the House Science Committee, announced his opposition to the Barton measure Thursday.

In a press release, Mr. Boehlert said, "The bill is based on false premises. The facts are that U.S. refining capacity has been increasing since 1994," despite the reduction in the total number of refineries.

He added, "Oil companies now have all the profits and incentives they need to build new refineries.

 

Block all domestic drilling in ANWR, continental shelf, Pacific offshore tracts, deep Gulf tracts.

 President Bush announced two major deals yesterday to protect Florida's natural treasures from oil and gas drilling, pledging $235 million to buy out mineral rights in the cypress swamps of the Everglades and off the white-sand beaches of the Gulf of Mexico.

Withdraw American forces from the Middle East, and allow al Qaeda to overrun the oil producing states.

 House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said, “A lot of the problems in Iraq are of our own making. In Afghanistan we still have the continued threat of al Qaeda having a base to operate. We have to continue to be there.”

“[The American people] are prepared to take losses, if they make sense. You don’t hear people saying, ‘We need to get out of Afghanistan.’ People know the difference,” said Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.).

Your Friend 

26.334663 N  79.94962W

by MRFred on 04/06/2008 08:55:17 PM EST


Is that boat of yours a blue-water vessel?

by jarett on 04/06/2008 11:28:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Why yes it is...its a shakedown trip....

by MRFred on 04/06/2008 11:58:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Are you going to start up a bitchin' photo blog?

I want to live vicariously through you.  Also, does she have a name yet?

by jarett on 04/07/2008 12:55:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Or is Ken a Democrat now?

This weekend alone he has, aside from what you showed above, endorsed increasing the inheritance tax, free college education, increasing taxes on the wealthy (presumably thorugh capital gains taxes) and slashing the  payroll tax because it is infair.

He is all the sudden the exact opposite of Bush and Reagan.

I used to think arguing with trolls was good practice but served no end (like shooting skeet) but evidently all our efforts have paid off with young Ken.

I am so proud.  Now if we can just teach acroso basic sentence structure. 

by ProfRich on 04/07/2008 12:11:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
If JFK were president today, he would be cutting taxes with reckless abandon and killing al Qaeda with extreme prejudice.

I have been in favor of heavy inheritance tax on millionaires for as long as I've participated in this forum, because I admire self-made men, but I despise trust fund babies.

Any financially disadvantaged child showing intellectual aptitude should be given free education for as far as his ability can take him.

by KenTX on 04/07/2008 05:28:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Leach State University

 

Any financially disadvantaged child showing intellectual aptitude should be given free education KenTX

At variuos times you have called these people, the families: 

Tens of thousands of non-productive bums and leeches...KenTX

derilicts bums and winos...KenTX

Too many others to post. Your flipping flopping more than speared flounder.... are you acroso's sock puppet with a spell check?

by MRFred on 04/07/2008 10:53:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Republicans through the mismanagement and abuse they have heaped upon American consumers via unnecessary war and sweetheart deals with profit-gouging oil comapanies have lost all right to discuss the price of gasoline for the rest of this century.

Why do Republicans hate America so much that they would rather see it bankrupt than contribute to it's success?

by MedfordTim on 04/06/2008 10:30:45 PM EST


First the Black Hills are in South Dakota not North Dakota. The Bakken Formation is in ND and has been known since 1999.

Second, the oil deposits in North Dakota are oil shale: http://www.bism arcktribune.com/articles/20 06/06/20/news/state/doc4497 e42f6e8e5430204114.txt

Oil shale is not crude oil, has limited uses and is more costly to extract: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Oil_shale. In addition, there's a lot more of it in the US than just in ND.

by toosinbeymen on 04/06/2008 10:43:36 PM EST


Actually they have been known since 1951, unfortunatly they have not been technically or economically feasible until now.  Even then, Ken touts this "massive NEW oil field" as the savior of our energy needs.  The sad thing is that Ken, as a lifetime oil man knows full well that production from this field will never supply any significant amount of our oil addiction, he's just hoping that most of you, as stupid liberals, won't be smart enough to figure it out.  In a perfect world production from this basin MAY achieve 1-2mbpd production rates in 10-20 years (about 5-10% of current US demand), but I doubt Ken is willing to bet any of his own hard earned cash on it.  Ken, how much of your 401k is invested in EOG?...be honest (for the rest of the liberals who might not have learned yet, the real way to find out the truth from a republican is to find out where his is putting his money). 
Here is a short DOE report on this basin:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ft proot/features/ngshock.pdf

by alphasigmookie on 04/07/2008 01:48:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Of course the Bakken Formation is in ND. “Black Hills of Dakota” just sounds cool, like Rocky Racoon.
bakken 
The Bakken Formation is producing barrels of oil, not railcars of shale.

When we start drilling 5 miles deep into the Gulf of Mexico, we’re going to start extracting even more oil.

We need liberals to kindly get out of the way, and allow oil producers to drill in the Gulf, the Continental Shelf, Western Wyoming, ANWR, California Coast.

by KenTX on 04/07/2008 06:20:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
1)Oil shale resources are huge
2)Democrats are stupid
3)Ethanol from corn is bad
4)I'm the smartest person on TYT forums! 

Wow ken, you really go us there!  I bow down to your superior intelect!  If you ever decide you want to have a real, honest debate about our energy future and options I'll welcome the oportunity.  Until then, have fun with your straw man.   

by alphasigmookie on 04/07/2008 02:00:17 AM EST


High oil prices immediately and simultaneously and promote these powerful, massive, global forces:

  1. Exploration
  2. Production
  3. Conservation
  4. Alternative sources
  5. Improved fuel efficiency vehicles
$100 per barrel oil eventually leads to $20 per barrel oil. That's why they call the oil patch "boom-bust".

by KenTX on 04/07/2008 05:45:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The words you left out....
  1. Exploration ( decreased domestic production despite billions in subsides and incentives from the government..)
  2. Production ( decreased domestic production despite billions in subsides and incentives from the government..)
  3. Output Manipulation (of crude and refined products by OPEC and Oil companies)
  4. Speculation ( Miracle of free market)
  5. Refinery "shortage"( Miracle of free market and good planning)
  6. China, India (100 per barrel oil eventually leads to $20 per barrel oil...hahahahahah)
  7. Price Increases, independant of demand. ( powerful, massive, global forces: greed!!!)
  8. Conservation ( ...conservation is ineffective KenTX)
  9. Alternative sources (And don’t waste my time with bullshit discussion on alternative fuels, KenTX)
  10. Improved fuel efficiency vehicles ( increased CAFE standards-bad! KenTX)

by MRFred on 04/07/2008 09:53:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
CANT. STOP. LAUGHING.

Find me an economist who says that is going to happen, before I die of laughter.  Other than Rupert Murdoch who said this, or anyone who works for him.

I am having a hard time finding one.  Probably due to the fact that any economist who said that right now, would never be taken seriously again.

Palin in 2012? Bitch, please! No, really, please run in 2012, bitch. ;)

by richardshort2001 on 04/07/2008 10:07:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Is because you don't know drill string from silly string. I saw oil prices and Texas real estate prices drop like a rock in 1984. I know what's coming next. It may take 5-6 years, but its gonna happen. Big time.

by KenTX on 04/07/2008 02:07:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]

is because the drill string has wrapped around your neck and cut off the circulation to your brain. You go ahead and keep waiting for 1984  to roll around again. Let us know how that works out for you.

 

The current oil bull market is purely a function of increased demand coming principally from Asia at a time global oil production has practically no spare capacity. China's car population has more than doubled since 2002.

In fact, if we look at what happened to per capita oil consumption during phases of industrialization in the US between 1900 and 1970, we see that per capita consumption rose from one barrel per year to around 28 barrels. In the case of Japan's industrialization between 1950 and 1970 and South-Korea's between 1965 and 1990, per capita oil consumption rose from one barrel to 17 barrels.

In the case of China, oil demand per capita is still only 1.7 barrels per year, and for India it has only reached 0.7 barrels. By comparison Mexico consumes annually about 7 barrels of oil per capita and the entire Latin American continent around 4.5 barrels.

Therefore, starting from such a low base, oil consumption in Asia will, in my opinion, double in the next ten to 15 years from currently 20 million barrels per day to around 40 million barrels per day.

Remember also, that if China's per capita oil consumption went to the level of Mexico's per capita consumption China would consume 24 million barrels of oil daily, which would be close to 30% of global production. And since it is most unlikely that current total global oil production of 80 million barrels per day can be increased much - in fact, it may begin to decline because no major oil field has been discovered since 1965 - I expect that prices will increase further in future - possibly far more than anyone is now expecting.

Dr Marc Faber Monday, October 11 - 2004

The dramatic increase in global demand for oil, and the resulting price spiral in the last couple of months, may be early warnings of a fundamental change in the economies of industrialized nations.

John Funk 17 Mar 2005 by The Plain Dealer

by MRFred on 04/07/2008 07:38:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Conservatives don't believe in demand.

by ProfRich on 04/08/2008 12:30:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
you couldn't find a source.

Still laughing.

Palin in 2012? Bitch, please! No, really, please run in 2012, bitch. ;)

by richardshort2001 on 04/08/2008 02:09:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Ken gave a source.

It was himself.

To be fair at least this source didn't say the exact opposite of what Ken was trying to prove this time.  Gotta give him that. 

by ProfRich on 04/08/2008 02:27:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I know Ken it is hard to see this as anything but a repeat of past history in the oil industry.  You've been burnt too many times and every time people said..."this time is different" and it never was.  Honestly I hope you're right, but looking at the data I find it hard to believe. 

I won't re-hash my peak oil thread:

http://www.theyoungturks.co m/story/2008/3/29/45331/023 0/Diary/Peak-Oil-Revisited- Back-with-More-Graphs-

But i have one question:  Do you really think that global oil production will hit the EIA estimate of 120 mbpd by 2030?  That implies 34mbpd of additional capacity + offsetting all declines in existing oil fields (possibly another 20-30mbpd of new production). 

by alphasigmookie on 04/07/2008 02:23:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
If you're correct (and I have my doubts) then we can both make big bank. I can go into oil field service, and you can invest in oil futures. Uh. You first.

by KenTX on 04/07/2008 03:16:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I am already "making big bank" investing in mid teir exploration + production companies that can capitalize on the scraps that are still avaliable out there.  Also waiting for futures to drop back to ~$80-90/barrel in the short term for a buying op.

I'm also making "small bank" mooching off of the huge flow of research funding going into alternative fuels. 

http://www.biodesign.asu.ed u/news/asu-launches-renewab le-biofuel-research-initiat ive-with-bp-and-sfaz

by alphasigmookie on 04/07/2008 06:43:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Today investors are in no mood for refinery building even if funding were available," Arjun Murti, managing director of Goldman, Sachs Co., told a recent congressional hearing on the dearth of U.S. refining capacity. Any executive who might pursue a new $3 billion refinery risks his company's stocks taking a hit, said Murti.

"The 10-year average return on investment in the (refining) industry is about 5.5 percent, about what investors could receive by investing in government bonds with little or no risk," says Bob Slaughter president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.

by MRFred on 04/07/2008 09:38:26 AM EST


The real problem is that a refinery has an ~50 year life span and huge upfront capital investment.  No matter what they say to the public and how optimistic they are, all oil executives know that oil production won't contintue to increase for 50 years (they'll be lucky to get 10 years).  In order for the refinery to be profitable over its lifetime it must have a supply of crude.  Eventually oil production will peak and then decline, at which time there will be far more refining capacity than oil to feed the refineries so refining margins will drop to nothing.  No one seems to be willing to make a $3 Billion bet that i'm wrong. 

by alphasigmookie on 04/07/2008 02:05:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The real problem is that a refinery has an ~50 year life span and huge upfront capital investment.

 

Oil companies are choosing greater profits over reinvesting in their business. The claim it's the regulations or other hogwash is a smokescreen. The cheap bastards are restricting the supply of gasoline by not building refineries, making greater profits. They are not reinvesting in their core business, making greater profits. Win-win for them. We on the other hand just get screwed.

by MRFred on 04/07/2008 07:16:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Welcome to the real world...All rational decisions in a capitalistic economy are based upon greed in some way shape or form.  It is also the most efficient means of allocating capital and resources we know of. 

by alphasigmookie on 04/07/2008 07:36:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Its one thing to charge prices based on supply, demand and market forces. I have absolutely no problem with that. I charge(d) hourly rates for my consultants based on market rates and demand based on the skill set they can provide. Those prices are based on macro forces I cannot control. That's the real world I live in ,devoid of libertarian platitudes . The oil companies dont have that problem.

It quite another to manipulate supplies by creating shortages of products to achieve greater profits.

Oil companies has hidden behind a whinny defense of too many regulations. They are shocked that people living near their facilities want to be able to breath periodically with out choking on the byproducts of operations and, surprisingly, want some assurance that the facility won't explode. These aren't the only reasons they give, just the most common.


The reality is oil companies don't want to invest in refineries...because the return on the investment isn't immediate and high enough. Cheveron for example declared that there is no need to expand or build new facilities because the shortage generated by the lack of capacity will be "offset by ethanol. Yep, ethanol...so please explain this:

And don’t waste my time with bullshit discussion on alternative fuels, because I’m more of an expert on the subject than anyone in this forum, and I’ve been explaining the concept of “negative energy balance process” long before it finally became popular science and conventional wisdom.

  Alternative fuels are the most recent in a litany of reasons why the oil companies cant or wont expand or improve ( with some exceptions)  their facilities. But to conservatives alternative fuels "bullshit" So which is it?

I'm all for free enterprise...but there must be some understanding that, left to itself, the "market" may not always provide an outcome that is favorable to the U.S. particularly when a vital commodity is involved.

Now,we are increasingly importing gasoline and other distilate fuels from overseas. What a great idea!

Oil and fuels are a strategic industry critical to the  defense of the U.S. and our economic health. It's idiotic to allow this vital capability , in a time of war as conservatives are so keen to point out, to decline on so called "market" expectations of unreasonable profits.

by MRFred on 04/08/2008 10:26:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Oil companies has have hidden

conservatives call alternative fuels "bullshit"

Sorry, blogging from a moving platform is a new experience! 

by MRFred on 04/08/2008 11:06:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You should count my mistakes as I blog while driving.

by KenTX on 04/08/2008 11:12:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I guess being all thumbs comes in handy every now and then.

by MRFred on 04/08/2008 11:48:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"The reality is oil companies don't want to invest in refineries...because the return on the investment isn't immediate and high enough."

I just told you that the cracking spread is $25, and heading higher. That means that oil companies make a profit of $25 when they refine a barrel of oil into distillate components. That's huge.

If this trend continues, oil companies would be wise to build ten times the number of refineries and make trillions of dollars. But the problem is that oil companies know the trend will not continue. People will quit driving Lincoln Navigators when it costs them $200 everytime they fill up.

"the lack of capacity will be "offset by ethanol"

People are currently putting 10% ethanol in their tanks. Even Mookie will admit that it's the worst idea in history. Corn ethanol is a negative energy balance, BTU sink. It takes more energy to produce ethanol than you get out of the process. If it weren't for congressional mandates and subsidies, nobody would be using ethanol for fuel.

Ethanol is cheap and getting cheaper. If it were the solution, then engine manufacturers would start redesigning to accommodate richer blends of ethanol.

by KenTX on 04/08/2008 11:11:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Can someone explain why we need to give oil companies billions of dollars in tax breaks (that we borrow from China) when they are making the largest profits in the history of the world?

I really want to know. 

by ProfRich on 04/08/2008 11:35:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I would give oil companies tax breaks when they create American jobs. Otherwise, forget about it.

by KenTX on 04/08/2008 01:42:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]

and you cant have it both ways. Free market?

That means that oil companies make a profit of $25 when they refine a barrel of oil into distillate components. That's huge.

Thanks, you just said that oil companies would rather collect big profits by restricting supplies rather than expand capacity to meet demand.


 

by MRFred on 04/08/2008 11:54:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I said that oil companies are purchasing foreign refined gasoline, rather than investing in new refineries. When conversion profit is $25/bbl and climbing, this means they are betting on a decline in domestic demand. Why make meager profit on reselling foreign gas when you can make huge margins on gasoline that you distill in your own refineries. Think about it.

by KenTX on 04/08/2008 12:59:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I am thinking about it. I looked back through the thread and found no mention of forign refineries other than my comment on the idiocy of importing gasoline during a time of war. You said

 

    I just told you that the cracking spread is $25, and heading higher. That means that oil companies make a profit of $25 when they refine a barrel of oil into distillate components. That's huge.
 Not

    I said that oil companies are purchasing foreign refined gasoline, rather than investing in new refineries.  
One more vital commodity for us to grow dependant on foreign sources. In 1981 the country had 324 operating refineries; today there are 149.
They have been running at an average of 96 percent capacity but are unable to keep up with demand.Only gasoline imports have prevented shortages and gas lines.


By the way it will be one more source of energy more we will be compleled to defend. So as I said, oil companies would rather collect big profits by restricting supplies and raising prices rather than expanding capacity to meet demand.

This data is 3 years old....

 An early hint of the industry's healthy bottom line came last week from Sunoco Inc., which reported a $217 million profit from refining related business, quadruple the total from a year ago. It produced a record 43 million barrels of gasoline during the quarter. The refineries set production records during the first half of the year, including 8.6 million barrels of gasoline a day, but still couldn't keep up with demand, the American Petroleum Institute reported Tuesday
This is from last year
Profit margins at California's gasoline refineries are soaring. And they're taking pump prices along for the ride.Refinery profit margins have more than doubled since last fall, according to one rough measurement, and now stand at $39 per barrel on the West Coast. That's more than double their average of $17 for the last five years.Bulging refinery margins are one of the reasons Californians now pay $2.96 for a gallon of regular, up 44 cents since the start of February. And they play a part in record multibillion-dollar profits of major oil companies.

 

And

    U.S. refiners' glittering profits are expected to jump this year as robust demand growth from motorists and recurring snags at aging plants push fuel prices near record territory, analysts said Demand for refined products, especially gasoline, is expected to grow at an annual rate of 1.6 percent for the rest of this decade, requiring an additional 260,000 barrels a day of gasoline and other fuels each year
The profit outlook is incredible, the refinery margins are significantly higher than last year or the past three years," Fadel Gheit, an analyst with Oppenheimer& Co., told Reuters

So now that the economy is slowing you would expect prices to decline as demand drops as explained here. My previous experience would say that is a reasonable. From a 2004 article on refinery profits in the WAPO

    A wild card, however, is if the U.S. economy slows down. That's because demand for oil products will follow and the combination of lower demand and the return of refiners from outages, will cause supply to increase, cooling prices

Yep, thats what happened...from Reuters wire April 3 and Oil Voice Newsletter.

    “Refiners are reacting to the soft demand and therefore they are not processing as much crude, so it should not have been a surprise to see the crude inventory build and the gasoline draw because refiners were making less".
   

Demand so far this year for gasoline has been lower versus the same time period last year and that's a result of the U.S. economic downturn and possibly some demand destruction due to the high oil prices,"

BUT oil and gasoline prices surged Apr 3:

    Yesterday, oil prices were stable after skyrocketing by more than $3 per barrel, in Singapore. This occurred after the U.S government announced a large decline in US gasoline stockpiles.Traders disregarded the large increase in crude oil inventories, according to the U.S Energy Department this past Wednesday, and concentrating on the third straight week of buying gasoline supplies.

Why?

    "Even though demand in the U.S. has been softening, demand elsewhere is strong," He said, "China is increasing imports of gasoline,

So...the oil companies are using imported gasoline to augment supplies here in the US to prevent from investing in expansion or new refineries. As the economy slows

    ( refiners) are reacting to the soft (US) demand and therefore they are not processing as much crude,

 But

    Even though demand in the U.S. has been softening, demand elsewhere is strong," He said, "China is increasing imports of gasoline,

In a global market with high demand why are US oil companies cutting back on refinery output? Like I said, oil companies would rather collect big profits by restricting supplies and raising prices.

Your turn.

by MRFred on 04/08/2008 02:50:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It makes as much sense to import gasoline as it does to import crude.

In 2006, the United States imported gasoline from 44 nations, order ranked as follows: Canada, the Virgin Islands, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Venezuela, Russia, Italy.

"By the way it will be one more source of energy more we will be compelled to defend."
 
I want to sign up to defend the whorehouses of the Netherlands.

Rather than give us 10 more pages of cut and paste that nobody reads, can you try to summarize your position on why you think oil companies are not building refineries in America?

Why not crack crude and pocket $25+ per bbl?

by KenTX on 04/08/2008 03:19:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
We just need to nationalize this crooked ass industry.

by ProfRich on 04/08/2008 03:36:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I know you probably don't care, but you know what's coming next from Mr. Ken "BUSH IS TOO A COWBOY *runs screaming into his room and slams door*" Texas, right?

Super Mega Ultra Liberal Communist Death Attack!!!

Palin in 2012? Bitch, please! No, really, please run in 2012, bitch. ;)

by richardshort2001 on 04/08/2008 03:45:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]


As I suspected...you have no answer because to do so would be to admit that oil companies are restricting supllies to drive up prices.

The "rather than give us 10 more pages of cut and paste that nobody reads" dodge is getting old.

 

 

by MRFred on 04/08/2008 04:05:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I read it.

Ken Before debating MrFred

 

Ken After debating MrFred

 

by z1p101 on 04/08/2008 04:24:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Here are a few articles (left, more left, even father left) to help the forum come up to speed on refinery economics, from a leftist point of view.

by KenTX on 04/07/2008 08:10:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah, right...one would assume that a strategic industry such as refining would not be outsourced...

A surge in oil refinery investment is under way overseas, which could make the United States more reliant on imports of refined products like gasoline and heating oil in coming years, according to a published report.

The Wall Street Journal, citing a study by Wood Mackenzie, a consulting firm based in Edinburgh, Scotland, reported that 100 projects representing as much as 12 million barrels per day (bpd) of added refining capacity could be online by the end of the decade. But most of that capacity is outside the United States, according to the newspaper.

But regarless of your attemps to spin this into somthing its not... 

 

Meanwhile, U.S. oil companies continue to hold back on building refineries despite the increases seen in 2005 in prices for gasoline, heating oil and jet fuel. While regulatory issues are one barrier, oil companies generally see better returns on investment in oil exploration rather than refinery capacity.

 

by MRFred on 04/07/2008 08:50:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Ronnie Raygun was owned by the nuclear power industry. His veep Bush was/is owned by the petroleum industry and the Carlyle Group. His son is owned by the Saudis, al Qaeda, and petro/nukes/coal.

The future for the US is in renewables. The future already exists in Europe. Old Europe disappeared 50 years ago and they are reaping the profits of new energy--solar and wind and conservation. They can't afford to ignore it.

It's stupid to drill for more oil when the technology already exists to more than double fuel efficiency--even triple it. Knuckle-draggers who live in the past and don't know anything about renewables don't even have the imagination to look to a clean future, much less to see the huge advances in our economy, jobs, security that will be the result of using renewable technology instead of imported old technology. 

Our extra $50,000 from using renewables is proof that it's not only a good thing, it's also very profitable. 

by zenie on 04/07/2008 02:41:25 PM EST


You sell solar units and wind turbines.

I will continue selling oil.

Let's see who gets richer.

by KenTX on 04/07/2008 08:17:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
http://seekingalpha.com/art icle/67250-outlook-for-oil- 2008-thus-far-and-a-preview -of-coming-attractions?sour ce=yahoo

Here is a greedy capitalists case for $300-$500/barrel oil by 2015.  Will he be right?  I'd say he makes a strong case. 

by alphasigmookie on 04/08/2008 03:07:18 AM EST


Liberals have no concept of free market forces. That’s why I don’t waste a lot of time trying to explain it to you, and poor old Twba has all but given up on the subject. If you guys understood free market economics, you wouldn’t be liberals in the first place.

The cracking spread is currently hovering at an astronomical $25 per barrel, and it’s heading higher. We could be looking at $200 per barrel oil, and a conversion profit of $50 per barrel. A U.S. refinery in America can now print money faster that a U.S. mint!

And yet nobody wants to build a new refinery? Hmmmm? I wonder why that is?

Mookie says that the oil industry won’t build refineries because they know the world is running out of oil. They’re taking the trillions of dollars in profits and secretly buying up switch grass production acreage. (Shhh! That’s the next big play!) Mr. Fred says that it’s all a Big Oil industry conspiracy to outsource all refinery jobs to Mexico! That giant sucking sound is Old Fred talking out his ass again.

But maybe Big Oil is making important trillion dollar decisions based on sound economics, and knowledge of the petroleum market that exceeds even Mookie, Mr Fred, Rich, and Dick Short.

The most knowledgeable people in the industry, people who analyze the oil market for a living, will tell you that oil can, and probably will return to the $20 per barrel level in 4-8 years.

The problem with making these predictions is that it could be eight years before I am proven correct. But the bust always happens in the oil patch.

I’ve seen all of this before. Exploration companies find big tracts. Production companies drop drill sting into every reservoir. Refineries continue to expand capacity. Consumers start driving two door specs and wrapping insulation around every square inch of their houses.

And then it happens. We really do have “Peak Oil”. And then it starts dropping like a rock. And then we have “Rock Bottom Oil”.

I think we’re going to see $200 per barrel oil. Then shortly thereafter, we’re going to see $20 per barrel oil.

In the meantime, I am studying mechanisms of playing put options on oil futures. This will be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make big money.

by KenTX on 04/08/2008 08:40:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You found someone, I had to stop laughing for a second.

Then I made the mistake of doing 5 minutes research.

This is the same guy that said "I believe we are done with the energy bull market" 2 1/2 years ago!  Now my sides are in danger of splitting again.

Palin in 2012? Bitch, please! No, really, please run in 2012, bitch. ;)

by richardshort2001 on 04/08/2008 09:28:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I don't believe I have ever pretended to know shit about this energy stuff.  I suspect you are wrong about this because you are generally wrong about the stuff I do know about.

But I haven't pretended to know anything substantial about this.  I will admit to weighing in with a cheap shot here and there and probably making some general economic comments but leave me out of this.

by ProfRich on 04/08/2008 10:02:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Liberals have no concept of free market forces.

Neither do you.

 I’ve seen all of this before.

No, you havent.  One word sums it up: China. ( followed by India and the rest of the far east...)

Regardless, we've seen it all before as well. Particularly the fantasy about oil shale.

 Since the early 1980s, oil shale has not been on the U.S. energy policy agenda, and very little attention has been directed at technology or energy market developments that might change the commercial prospects for oil shale. RAND Corporation Study 2005 for DOE

 Lets see 8 years of Reagan, 4 Bush I 8 BushII 8 Clinton that would be 80% of the time since the 1978-1980 Oil Crisis we have had Republicans in charge....

As of 2008, oil shale is used industrially in Brazil, China, Estonia and to some extent in Germany, Israel, and Russia

 These guy get it, we dont. Ive been hearing and reading about oil shale for 30 years now. Every time there is a price run up the "oily" crowd starts crowing about our vast reserves of oil shale, the Bakken reserve and all such other nonsense.

 

Oil shale has not been exploited in the United States because the energy industry, after some halting efforts, decided that developing oil shale was economically unviable. Over the past two decades, very little research and development effort has been directed at reducing the costs of surface retorting. For thermally conductive in-situ retorting, costs might be competitive with crude oil priced at less than $30 per barrel, but the technical viability of in-situ retorting will not be fully established for at least six years.

 Production costs at the surface retorting complex (comprising a mine, retorting plant, upgrading plant, supporting utilities, and spent shale reclamation), depending deposits and extraction technology, will be in the United States US$70-US$95 per barrel (in 2005 dollars).

To make shale oil production profitable, the crude oil price would stay over over this price level.

The estimated unit's cost reduction after production of the first 500 million barrels is expected to be 35-70 %, and by production capacity increase of 25,000 barrels per day during each year after the start of initial commercial production, the costs are expected to decline in 12 years to US$35–US$48 per barrel. After production of 1 billion barrels (160,000 t), costs are estimated to decline further to US$30 – US$40 per barrel.

RAND Corporation Study 2005 for DOE

Yet according to the oil industry the " economical " recovery cost magically keeps rising...first is was 40-50 dollars barrel in 1980 in the late 90s a maintained price of  70 dollars a barrel. Now they  are say 70-90. Always just out of reach while domestic production keeps declining....and oil companies keep colleting tax credits and subsidies.

 Oil shale should be part of the Department of Energy’s research and development
portfolio. Significant long-term research opportunities are associated with both surface retorting and in-situ retorting. A benefit of even a small federal program (i.e., a few million dollars annually) would be the continued availability of a small cadre of scientific and engineering professionals who would be deeply knowledgeable of oil shale development issues.


 A comparison of the proposed US industry to the Alberta tar sands industry has been drawn the latter enterprise generated over one million barrels of oil per day in late 2007 stating that the first-generation facility is the hardest, both technically and economically."\

RAND Corporation Study 2005 for DOE

Seems to me that the 35 Billion or so we give away to the oil companies could go a long way to the recomendations of RAND and overcoming the problems with first-generation facilities being the hardest, both technically and economically

It's time for these guys to stop the PR push and the faux environmental concern and start producing and put there money were their mouth is.

Reagan is dead and 1984 will never come again...deal with it. Then again, that's why your a conservative.

Fire up your flux capacitor....


by MRFred on 04/08/2008 11:47:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I would recommend options contracts only Ken, shorting futures could be an expensive proposition

As for your sources...way to leave out the IF

"The time that we'll know is May. In 21 out of the last 22 years gasoline prices have moved higher for March through May. So this year if we don't make new highs, I think that the big bull market is over and that over the next four to eight years we'll see oil prices move lower, perhaps dramatically lower"

Did we make new highs last May?  YEP

http://money.cnn.com/2007/0 5/06/news/economy/gasoline/ index.htm

How about this spring?  YEP

http://money.cnn.com/2008/0 4/06/news/economy/_prices/i ndex.htm

Seems like the bull market is still intact 2+ years later. 

As for the second column I'd have to say it makes a better argument, but without truely adressing the scale of the problem.  We are already 4-5 mbpd behind inharent demand so we have to make up that gap, plus keep up with continued increases in demand from Chindia. 

When I start to see the exploration companies finding "the big tracts" then I'll start worry that prices might start to decline within 5-10 years.  Until then I'll keep making money and working on trying to put the oil men out of business for good. 

by alphasigmookie on 04/08/2008 04:54:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I will be richer than Ken, since he doesn't understand the market. Once the price of a commodity gets too high, people don't want it any more. Once a commodity is so odious and expensive in comparison to its alternatives, it is unwanted. Oil is moving toward that point. It will be a while. Alternatives are getting more affordable, and once oil goes up to the point that's above the alternative energy source, Ken will be out of business, because he's not looking toward the future.

The Brits are paying $10/gallon, but the Brits are sheeple; they also have good public transportation. On continental Europe, people pay around $6/gallon for petrol, but more than half of that is taxes. The actual cost of gasoline is around $2/gallon, because their governments aren't so indebted to the Saudis. The taxes are used for infrastructure, to remediate pollution, on incentives for renewables, and research for non-petroleum reliant transport.

Are you a conservative, libertarian or Luddite?

by zenie on 04/08/2008 08:20:31 PM EST


If the time between the excessive price gouging by oil companies and implementing clean renewable alternatives to too long, and prices are too high, oil may be reconsidered, not as a commodity, but as a utility that must be regulated in order to prevent inflation and recession. Ken will lose there too, because market forces are not as important as keeping the energy source affordable for the general public.

Oil will be irrelevant because it's not a good sources of clean, cheap energy. It will be replaced, just as hay is no longer an important fuel for horses to pull buggies.

by zenie on 04/08/2008 08:31:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I think you are right, that in the long term, alternatives will trounce traditional energy sources, however, scale up will take quite a bit of time.  Current production rates of solar cells are ~1 GW per year and growing exponentially.  Installed capacity was ~5.4 GW in 2004.  If you assume a constant growth rate in solar production, and also assume 16% effectivness (fraction of rated capacity achieved over 24 hours due to clouds and night) you can estimate the amount of time it will take for solar to become a significant fraction of energy production.  Current energy demand is ~15 TW and I assumed a 2% growth rate in global demand for my analysis:

At a 40% growth rate solar acheives:

1% global energy in 19 years
10% global energy in 26 years
100% global energy in 33 years

at 30% growth rate:

1% global energy in 23 years
10% global energy in 33 years
100% global energy in 42 years

at 20% growth rate:

1% global energy in 33 years
10% global energy in 46 years
100% global energy in 60 years

The real question is what happens in the mean time.  If as Ken predicts, oil drops back to $20 a barrel, investment in solar may drop and the growth rate  may drop below 20% delaying the date at which it takes over as a dominant technology.  On the other hand, if peak oil occurs and we are not addiquately prepared, causing huge spikes in energy prices, investment will likely increase significantly.  However there are other issues that might derail growth such as global supply chains that are dependent upon oil that are necessary for manufacturing and delivering solar cells.  Mining silicon and fabricating wafers are energy intensive processes which could increase costs if solar energy can't be fully tapped for production (can solar production become a self catalizing reaction?). 

(Note- I used solar energy as a proxy for pretty much any alternative technology since it is the one with the largest resource base and is least likely to run into any physical limits)

by alphasigmookie on 04/08/2008 11:37:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: