The Energy Crysis

[PSL-Boxster]

- how do you all feel on the "inflate your tires to save gas" issue?
- for it?
- against it?


- in other words, do you favor mccain's policy on energy or obama's


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y171/sugababi1790/tirepressuregaugecopy.jpg

[Jeph]

Hmm. Your survey may be an oversimplification of situation at hand. That's why I have a hard time selecting one of your options.

I'm all for getting better gas mileage and proper inflation. However I don't think proper inflation is the solution to this "crisis."

I also believe that correct psi is better for the wear on your tires then it is your MPGs. On the plus side, it's something everyone that owns a car can do. (So do we really need a president to push this solution? Seems like a tire company could run that campaign.)

"For every 1-psi drop in pressure, you can expect your gas mileage to lower by 0.4 percent."

Lowering speed limits could be much more effective, but who's gonna vote for the man that suggests that? Changing one's driving style would yield far superior results than the air pressure thing I imagine. How about a mandate that requires all sports cars, including Boxsters, to use Carbon Fiber instead of metal/steel. Ha!

Thanks to Obama, China is really gonna have to crank up their production on Pressure Gauges.

[Brucelee]

Crisis? WW 2 was a crisis. The Great Depression was a crisis.

Gas has come down over a buck in some areas over the last 4 weeks.

This is not a crisis. This is simply life.

PS-inflate your tires to the right pressure. Your tires will last longer.

How hard was that:?

:)

[insite]

maybe we can fill our tires with anthropogenic CO2 and solve global warming at the same time! i keep waiting for the ADULT democrat candidate to show up.

BTW, somebody did the math on barack's plan. it would take about 11,500 years of us inflating our tires properly to equal 'all that oil they're talkin' bout drillin' for'.

[Quickurt]

The demonrats are crappin all over their nest with this one.
Averaging all the different polls still comes up with over 70% of the public screaming to drill our own oil and produce more energy of every kind.
Seems the dems and the Druids (redundant?) over-played their hand........
They want to claim producing more does not increase supply, yet just the American public screaming for more production has dropped prices. What would prices do with an announcement that the moratoriums are lifted and we're turning the energy of Americans loose to produce the energy we need? :dance:

[Jump]

- how do you all feel on the "inflate your tires to save gas" issue?
- for it?
- against it?


- in other words, do you favor mccain's policy on energy or obama's

An interesting take:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/608/

Their final conclusion:

"But it’s clearly within the realm of possibility that tire inflation and tune-ups could save more than offshore drilling could produce. So we find Obama’s claim to be True."

Personally, I'm all for increasing off-shore drilling (if for no other reason to get the "It is all about me" party to quit their whining). But, as Obama has been saying, there is much more that we could be doing individually to force down the price at the pump and decrease our dependence on foreign oil. I don't understand how anyone could really see a problem with that?

[Brucelee]

An interesting take:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/608/

Their final conclusion:

"But it’s clearly within the realm of possibility that tire inflation and tune-ups could save more than offshore drilling could produce. So we find Obama’s claim to be True."

Personally, I'm all for increasing off-shore drilling (if for no other reason to get the "It is all about me" party to quit their whining). But, as Obama has been saying, there is much more that we could be doing individually to force down the price at the pump and decrease our dependence on foreign oil. I don't understand how anyone could really see a problem with that?


I really want to like Obama (don't know why really) but his performance of late is really kind of sad. I can't for the life of me figure out WHAT he is saying on many matters, ie Iraq, energy, taxes etc. Seems he "nuances" his position every couple of days.

This may be a sign of inexperience but I think regardless, this is costing him.

Me, I do all this normal stuff anyway, so it is advice I don;t need.

I do need folks out there drilling, building, and searching for all kinds of energy.

:)

[Jeph]

But, as Obama has been saying, there is much more that we could be doing individually to force down the price at the pump and decrease our dependence on foreign oil. I don't understand how anyone could really see a problem with that?

I don't like to follow politics all that much. Is the McCain fellow saying we shouldn't do those things? Are they outlawed right now? Will the Obama one make proper tire pressure possible?

[Perfectlap]

How is this even an issue?

Poorly maintained cars squander efficiency. DUH....

Most motorist won't bend down to check their tire pressures. How often do you see someone doing this when you're filling up at the gas station. 99.9% of the times I've been to my local HESS I am the only one putting air in my tires. And its FREE!! People just look at me like "what's that guy doing to his car??".

Think about it for a minute. If everyone who got red in the face each time they they pulled in the gas station and griped about the day's gas price, instead drove over to the air pump....How much LESS gas would this country consume in a single hour of driving? It boggles the mind. I really don't think people have a serious understanding at the amount of oil we consume every day.
And of course this doesn't even address the speeds that people in these four thousand pound pick ups and SUV drive at, and the erratic manner they drive in.
Brake lights constantly going on and off on the highway WHEN THERE'S NO ONE IN FRONT OF THEM!!!



If we can't even agree on keeping your car properly maintained then it shows where we are...nowhere.


p.s.
Those most ridiculus thing I've heard so far is this "gas holiday" proposal.
Both of these guys have no idea how to alleviate the current situation.
The only somewhat relevant idea I've heard is raising margin requirements for 'oil day traders". Given the profits of Exxon and the others its pretty clear the oil market is one that doesn't need liquidity like soybeans and sugar.
The integrated oil companies will have NO PROBLEM selling crude for the next 30 years. They have so much cash they don't know what to do with it. They just give it back to the shareholders. And those who think they're eager go drilling up in ANWR are fooling themselves. Even if they lift the ban that's some of the most difficult oil in the world to get to. The costs are insane. It will be no where near the top of their to-do list. Drilling overall is great for shareholders(me) as those stocks will surely double once the ban is lifted (sooner than most realize). But you're seriously fooling yourself if you think that's going to amount to a hill of beans for reducing demmand which is what ultimately sets the price. Worldwide oil demmand is out of Pandora's box and there's no turning back. The institutional traders have bought into the idea of PEAK OIL and we've got no reliable data on actual supply to counter this perception that oil is running out. When is the last time an independent group verified OPEC's "proven" reserves? High oil prices isn't a supply issue. I've yet to hear single expert on oil or commodities say we can flood the market with enough oil to reduce demmand or lower prices. We have to reduce demmand by simply consuming less, that means lighter cars, less cars, quit making everything in the world out of plastic and put some dang air pressure in your tires!

[Brucelee]

If we can't even agree on keeping your car properly maintained then it shows where we are...nowhere



The market kind of takes care of this. Low efficiency costs money. Lazy folks pay more than smart and energetic folks who fill up their tires and tune up their cars.

:)

[mylamb]

For Car Guys (and Gals - I meant no offense!) this is nothing new. Then again, I doubt many Porsche owners are griping about fuel costs. I am far from wealthy, but I'm not going to gripe about the pennies I might save - I use good gas, drive enthusiastically without killing myself, and properly inflate my tires. Reliability is one thing, but griping about fuel costs on a sports car just means I probably bought the wrong car. Civics can be quite fun too...

For a lot of people, though, this may indeed help, and they should see SOME savings even in as little as a month or 2. I can't tell you how many friends don't know jack about cars (I should probably hang out in better circles ;) ) If it helps them save - then good.

I doubt Obama was saying that's the ONLY solution to helping the fuel crisis, but people can definitely pitch in & do their part to help themselves. He's in that unenviable position where he's going to have to learn to swim quick, or he's going to drown. Only time will tell. Having said that, McCain's ridicule of the idea was hardly an appropriate response. For a lot of American's, who may not know better, it was a good immediate suggestion. I can't predict who's got the right idea yet on the fuel crisis, just have to stay up-to-date, and make a good decision - if I'm wrong, it can always be corrected in 2012... course that's what I thought in 2004! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Quickurt]

I'm sorry, but I see very few cars with tires that are under-inflated enough to make a hill of beans in their fuel consumption. Maybe it depends on where you live, just my observations in my area.
Tune ups? When was the last car that even got a tune up before 100k miles?
I'm not talking our performance cars, I'm talking about what Joe and Josie six-pack drive every day. Cars just don't need them anymore. Most gas now has some type of cleaner in it, so fuel injection systems remain clean and efficient.
I'm not an expert on ethanol, I think it's a farm-lobby scam, but I've also heard the catalyst that makes it possible to mix is a wonderful fuel system cleaner.
Don't get me wrong, all these things matter, we know that for sure, but the only one I hear mocking anyone is Obama trying to mock McCain and claim his cockamamie tire pressure program will do more for a short supply situation than INCREASING THE FRIGGING SUPPLY. It is also insane to think the general public is driving around with tires so dangerously flat and 30,000 dollar cars so dreadfully maintained that we can save 3 to 4 percent of our total fuel usage? Bullshit. My last four cars have had TPMS on them and I have NEVER had the light go on unless a tire has had a puncture, so how much pressure are the average tires losing? And guess what? I never check the tire pressures. 4 PSI and the light goes on, except, they NEVER go on. I'm sure they are checked (maybe?) when they are rotated during service, every 5000 miles, but then again, maybe not.
We could do more by taking corn out of our gas and putting it back into feedstocks, which would also give some relief at the grocery and probably save the average family more money than buying a tire guage and using it every time they fill up, just to find, 99% of the time, their tires are just fine.
For those who make the claim that increasing supply in a short supply/high demand commodity won't make a price difference, what part of supply and demand do you need a refresher course on?
As far as Obamarama/The Chosen One/The Messiah's energy plan goes, take one look past the tire pressure common sense, at the rest of his plan and tell me it's not a plan for economic doom.
I'll leave you with one final thought. The government has already stolen the citizens government forced retirement money (SS) and spent it, for the most part, on vote buying schemes. Now, take one look at who the ownership is of "big oil" and figure out their latest "windfall profits" scheme is nothing more than the government figuring how they can also steal the citizen's PRIVATE retirement funds and do what? You guessed it, more vote buying schemes.

[Brucelee]

Well one point that seems to elude the everyday voter specific to Obama's windfall profits tax. Just who exactly owns these US oil companies? Answer: you,, me and our pension/mutual funds.

So, an added tax on Exxon is paid for by ........well, you get the picture.

[IowaS]

Well one point that seems to elude the everyday voter specific to Obama's windfall profits tax. Just who exactly owns these US oil companies? Answer: you,, me and our pension/mutual funds.

So, an added tax on Exxon is paid for by ........well, you get the picture.


As a part of this forum for a couple of years I will have to say I agree with 98% of what Brucelee says as it relates to politics. And once again he is correct. To simplify this issue based on the view of the simple gas consumer is stupid....the bruceman speaks the truth on this issue....

[timothy]

What Obama should be telling people is to put down their double cheeseburger and fries. Seriously. I'm sure he could have a nice little statistic telling how much extra gas a car uses to haul the average overweight American compared to ... well ... him. Of course Obama will never say that. It's not PC. It's not cool. It's asking people to do more than a feel-good gesture.

[IowaS]

What Obama should be telling people is to put down their double cheeseburger and fries. Seriously. I'm sure he could have a nice little statistic telling how much extra gas a car uses to haul the average overweight American compared to ... well ... him. Of course Obama will never say that. It's not PC. It's not cool. It's asking people to do more than a feel-good gesture.


dude....huh? I love to hear good debate...just dont get you. No one could argue that extra weight adds to fuel consumption however, if you are of the "conserve" argument you must do better than this. Asking people to lose weight make way too much sense..consider all of the other things this would solve....health care? Asking Americans to consider BMI and MPH is WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY over the top, even if it is true......

[Brucelee]

As a part of this forum for a couple of years I will have to say I agree with 98% of what Brucelee says as it relates to politics. And once again he is correct. To simplify this issue based on the view of the simple gas consumer is stupid....the bruceman speaks the truth on this issue....


Thanks! :)

[Brucelee]

I do find it amusing that our elected officials wade into these issues with such a basic lack of understanding of Econ 101. Neither candidate seems to grasp elementary economics. Or, they do and they just think we are a nation of dolts.

Perhaps we are? :D

[Quickurt]

I do find it amusing that our elected officials wade into these issues with such a basic lack of understanding of Econ 101. Neither candidate seems to grasp elementary economics. Or, they do and they just think we are a nation of dolts.

Perhaps we are? :D
We keep electing them. :confused:

[timothy]

We keep electing them. :confused:

Blame an electorate easily swayed by empty promises

http://thebiggestsecret.online.fr/images/Herd_of_Sheep_311px.gif

[Perfectlap]

dude....huh? I love to hear good debate...just dont get you. No one could argue that extra weight adds to fuel consumption however, if you are of the "conserve" argument you must do better than this. Asking people to lose weight make way too much sense..consider all of the other things this would solve....health care? Asking Americans to consider BMI and MPH is WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY over the top, even if it is true......

there are many reason this country needs to lose weight. This sounds like one more for the list...
I visited Disney World for the first time in nearly 20 years recently. I wish you could compare photos of what the crowds looked like then and what they look like now. When people say most Americans are overweight...well I can definitely see it.
The really stunning part was the number of overweight children I noticed.

Fat Cars, Fat people, Fat food....what happened??

You figure the average overweight couple and overweight kids are carrying enough weight to account for an extra passenger in their car? Multiply that by the hundreds of millions of families in this country who drive EVERYWHERE.
Two blocks to school? Mom hurry up I'm going to be late! Nevermind this kid could WALK to school!! When I was a kid My folks used to walk everywhere. I remember thinking "man if I had a car I would drive! Man my folks are weird!!".

I don't know whats happened to this country. But its clear we are going on a very Un-American diet: Smaller houses, smaller meals, smaller AND FEWER cars, smaller plasma TVs, smaller holiday purchases....FAT AMERICA is done.

[IowaS]

I don't know whats happened to this country. But its clear we are going on a very Un-American diet: Smaller houses, smaller meals, smaller AND FEWER cars, smaller plasma TVs, smaller holiday purchases....FAT AMERICA is done.

This would be fine by me.

[PSL-Boxster]

fat america wasnt exactly a good thing.. but yea we are headed in the wrong direction....

- when u look at this, there isnt any existing alternate to oil that can completely replace it. Sure theres ethanol and sure there is electric but they all have the problem of when it comes to oil, nothing produces energy as cheaply (not of recent) and efficiently. However, when it comes to the energy problems of producing energy for homes, nuclear is the the only thing that I can see as lasting long term efficient.

[Brucelee]

I am now thinking that this latest bump up in oil prices is a very good thing for us in the LONG RUN. Ditto, the so called Housing and Credit crunches.

It seems to me that these events have the potential to wake people up from their dream like state. The pols would like us to believe that all will be well and no changes in behaviour need to be made.

This is how they act, but that is because the pols are spending other people's money.

I believe the technology changes in transportation alone over the next decade will boggle our minds. We need more oil for sure. However, the efficiency changes coming down the pike will make that oil go A LOT farther.

IMHO! :D

[Brucelee]

Just a quick point about the US News Media.

When oil prices are going up, it is front page news, all day, every day. How about when they go down?

Nothing. You CAN find the story in the financial pages but not in the general news.

Hmmm, what is THEIR agenda?

See below from the financial pages.

Yahoo! My Yahoo! Mail
Welcome, Guest
[Sign Out, My Account]
Finance Home - Help



Home InvestingMarket OverviewMarket StatsStocksMutual FundsETFsBondsOptionsIndustriesCurrencyEducationNews & OpinionMarketsInvesting IdeasExpert AdviceSpecial EditionsCompany FinancesProvidersPersonal FinanceBanking & BudgetingCareer & WorkCollege & EducationFamily & HomeInsuranceLoansReal EstateRetirementTaxesHow-to GuidesTech Ticker Get QuotesFinance Search 54387792



Reuters
Oil falls as dollar rises, ignores Georgia conflict
Friday August 8, 10:36 am ET
By Margaret Orgill


LONDON (Reuters) - Oil fell $4 to below $116 on Friday in line with declines across the commodities complex as weaker demand and a stronger U.S. dollar outweighed concern conflict in Georgia could disrupt Caspian energy supplies.
U.S. light crude was down $3.50 at $116.52 a barrel by 10:30 a.m. EDT, up from an intraday low of $115.75.

London Brent crude fell by $3.52 to $114.34.

Oil has lost over $30, or nearly 20 percent, since hitting a record high of $147.27 in mid-July.

"It seems that we've got a lot of selling based on the stronger dollar," said Peter Beutel, president of trading consultants Cameron Hanover.

"Energy demand destruction and the dollar return have formed a quiet alliance to bring the oil market down, and today the louder of the two is the dollar."

The dollar rose to a seven-month high against the yen on Friday, helped by the drop in oil prices which boosted U.S. stocks.

Oil had rallied slightly on Thursday, driven upwards by the disruption of supplies through the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline following a blast earlier this week in Turkey.

The pipeline was still burning, halting loadings of Azeri Light crude shipped to the Turkish port of Ceyhan, but the fire could be extinguished on Friday or Saturday, a senior source told Reuters.

Once the blaze is out, the pipeline could be reopened within 10 days, the source said, but meanwhile BP has cut output by at least 400,000 barrels a day at the Azeri-Chirag Gunashli oilfields, traders said.

Analysts are concerned fighting in Georgia's breakaway South Ossetia region could lead to much wider disruption of exports from the Caspian region as Georgia is a major energy transit route.

Georgian troops backed by warplanes pounded separatist forces on Friday and Russia sent forces to repel the assault.

"In other circumstances, you might have expected it to push oil up $5," said John Kemp, economist at RBS Sempra. "I think it's an indication of how bearish the underlying sentiment is right now (that it hasn't)."

Bearishness has grown after oil prices fell through key technical support around $120 and as stocks of refined products have swollen, dragging down heating oil and diesel markets in Europe and the United States.

[Brucelee]

BTW- I took the Amtrak this past weekend from New Haven to NYC The train was FULL to the brim, all 9 cars.

This was on Sunday night.

Hmm, does price change behaviour?

I think so.

:)

[Dr. Kill]

Have you taken this same train in the past though? Sunday night or not, the train the NE is usually pretty booked. They provide a great traveling experience for very little money.

Also, what are you doing out our way without letting us know?

[PSL-Boxster]

Brucelee- do you think that you never hear a repot of oil prices declining is because of the views of the mainstream meida? ... many of them have a democratic approach to viewing problems and stories and since the party wants to become more eco-friendly and more reliant on alternate sources of energy, reporting declining oil prices may hurt their efforts

[Brucelee]

Have you taken this same train in the past though? Sunday night or not, the train the NE is usually pretty booked. They provide a great traveling experience for very little money.

Also, what are you doing out our way without letting us know?


Well, you are right, I don't normally take that train. Interestingly, the story below was out of today's WSJ.

I was in NYC for almost a month finishing up my doctoral course work. I love NY for a brief period but I am REALLY happy to be home here in CA.

PS-Grew up in NJ and I sat next to a guy in class that it turns out, grew up two blocks from my house.

Small world.

See below:

All Aboard: Too Many for Amtrak
Surge in Ridership
Leads to Crowding
On Intercity Trains
By CHRISTOPHER CONKEY
August 8, 2008

WASHINGTON -- The number of people riding Amtrak surged 13.9% in July from a year earlier, as high gas prices caused more commuters to rely on intercity rail.

Despite record ridership, Amtrak's most popular trains suffer from delays and out of date equipment. WSJ's Matt Rivera reports. (Aug. 7)
But many Amtrak trains are getting overcrowded, and a backlog of infrastructure problems stands in the way of expanded service.

Since last fall, Americans have been driving less while Amtrak usage has steadily increased. The latest figures suggest that the migration from highways to rail is accelerating.

In July, Amtrak said, only one of its services saw fewer riders compared with the previous year. Elsewhere, there were major gains, such as a 33% jump on the Capitol Corridor between San Francisco and Sacramento, Calif.

Even on Amtrak's already heavily traveled Northeast Corridor line from Washington to Boston, passenger counts are up by nearly 8% over last year. Overall, Amtrak is on pace to serve a record 28 million passengers in its current fiscal year, up from the previous high of 25.8 million last year.
Amtrak's newfound popularity has made an impression in Congress, where lawmakers view the rail service as an environmentally friendly, energy-efficient approach to reducing gridlock and expanding transportation options.

The House and Senate have passed by veto-proof margins legislation that could increase Amtrak funding by 33% or more in the new fiscal year beginning October. The legislation would also establish a grant program to encourage states to expand rail offerings.

INTERVIEW



Amtrak's president and CEO Alex Kummant cautions that much work needs to be done just to bring the nation's intercity passenger rail system up to speed.In recent decades, much of the federal support has gone to highway construction and, to a lesser extent, mass-transit systems.

"We are certainly optimistic," Amtrak President Alex Kummant said in an interview.

Mr. Kummant, a former executive at Union Pacific Corp., welcomed the prospect of increased funding but says policy makers and consumers should understand that Amtrak faces many challenges just to maintain current service levels.

Besides higher commodity prices and rising personnel costs following a recent set of labor agreements, Amtrak is grappling with aging, overcrowded trains. The railway often doesn't have enough cars in stock to expand train capacity or increase service frequencies.

On a recent Wednesday afternoon train, travelers boarding at Philadelphia's 30th Street Station toward Washington discovered passengers were already crammed together between cars. Crowding is also a problem on the higher-priced Acela E
xpress service in the Northeast Corridor, which Amtrak launched in 2000.
"We're literally beginning to bump up against some of the capacity limits on Acela," Mr. Kummant said. "We have basically no equipment left to start new services."

In the Northeast Corridor alone, he said, it will take upwards of a decade and $3 billion to replace Amtrak's rolling stock, including its 20 Acela train sets.


"Amtrak doesn't have enough trains to meet this growing demand," said Sen. Tom Carper (D., Del.) last week. He introduced a bill that would authorize nearly $3 billion in borrowing by Amtrak to replace out-of-date rail cars and would channel $400 million in gas taxes each year to set up a new fund for it to buy engines and railcars.

Senate Democrats may also seek to include money for Amtrak to replace rail cars, if a second economic stimulus bill is introduced.

Amtrak faces an enormous infrastructure challenge with its aging network of bridges, tracks and tunnels. In late June, it suspended service between Boston and New York to replace part of a bridge spanning the Thames River in Connecticut.

Amtrak estimates it needs to do nearly $5 billion of work along the Northeast Corridor to bring things to a state of good repair.

One measure of progress will be how long it takes to get from Wall Street to the nation's capital, a trip which currently takes two hours and 45 minutes on the Acela. (More people take the train than fly between New York and Washington, Amtrak says).

Mr. Kummant told Congress last year that with $625 million in additional investment, the trip could be shaved to 2½ hours. But he said the 227-mile route needs billions of dollars more to replace aging critical components such as bridges and tunnels.

Among other needs, the 75-year-old system of overhead wiring that provides electric power to the trains requires upgrading. Currently, trains can go only 30 miles an hour through the Baltimore & Potomac tunnel in West Baltimore, and streams of water streak under its dilapidated 19th-century archways.

A provision in the House's Amtrak bill would have the Transportation Department study the possibility of high-speed service between Washington and New York, with trains running as fast as 200 miles an hour and a trip time of two hours or less.

Mr. Kummant scoffs at the idea of European-style high-speed service in the congested Northeast, which could require a dedicated corridor established through years of eminent-domain proceedings.

"There's two railroads out there," Mr. Kummant said. "There's the one we run every day, and there's the one everybody imagines is out there."

He said it would be better to focus on improving the connectivity and performance of the current system, and establish 100-miles-per-hour regional corridors. In some corridors, like Chicago to St. Louis, the task is more complicated because freight railroads own the tracks.

[Perfectlap]

Oil is merely taking a break. The traders are taking profits off the table...as they usually do in late summer. They're also backing off their bullish behavior under the threat of changes in the laws on margins and capital gains by Congress. Smart money knows when to back off... before the villagers are running around looking to put Mr. Oil traders head on a stick. Not to mention we are once again approaching an election season where not-oil friendly politicians are likely to sweep many elections...

Once the election is over and temps start to cool, people start driving because its too cold to walk and firing up those home furnaces the institutional buyers (mutual funds, pension funds) will come back into oil and oil related equities. Gold will bounce back and the traders will follow to fan the flames of world wide oil demmand. If we have a particularly cold winter this year....look out. Even if its just a mildly cold winter at $100 oil it will be the most expensive winter on record. That's about the last thing in the world Americans need right about now. And of course there's China and India who may not be growing at 600% but only 450% (figuratively speaking). Either way there will be no shortage of record levels of oil demmand. That's a cha ching for Exxon and the other integrated oil companies.

Worldwide oil prices are going to march along with or without us. We need to go full bore into alternative industries regardless of where oil is. See the funny thing is that when so many sectors are doing poorly banking, autos, retail, transports, etc. the Wall St. guys have little to chase but the few players who are doing well: OIL. They're the low hanging fruit at a time when most people's 401k's are going to be 0 to negative for the year. Oil goes back up and the rest of the economy goes down, down, down.

[Brucelee]

I exprect oil prices to fluctuate as all S and D issues manifest. The key is to exploit and develop many forms of energy, not just the polictially correct ones.

Congress clearly does not accept nor understand that.

That answer is not oil, but it is certainly PART of the answer.

[Perfectlap]

A BIG ole chunk of this nation could be completely of oil sooner than we realize. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. Most people commute an hour or less of driving a day. And much of that spent sitting in below 40mph traffic. We already have the car technology to shift nearly that entire hour commute to electric or hydrogen and start taking advantage of the limitless coal used by the electric company. Dont worry about the tree huggers, eco issues go right out the window when we are staring down the barrel of $200 oil and $9 gas. And for some odd reason people seem to forget about coal pollution and that there is no such thing as 'clean coal' its industry bs propaganda...well they''ll forget about the coal pollution if its being used to power electric/hybrid cars. But it may all be moot because we may not have a "alternative" as rejecting oil might become mandatory: it will simply be too expensive for an anemic economy that is jus a shadow of its former manufacturing self. Like the current predicament with Wheat our our home grown commodities may be too valuable for American consumption. Like wheat more money can be made shipping off overseas. (noticed how expensive a loaf of bread has become at the supermarket?). Same thing will happen with oil drilled on U.S. soil. Big Oil's under ZERO obligation to sell that newly drilled oil to America. And When gas gets expensive Americans stay home, when gas gets expensive in China and the rest of Asia, they buy more. We have to use our comparative advantage in technology on a red alert basis. We have to become leaders in solar, wind and hybrid/electric car technology so that we can export these technologies to the rest of the world who at the momment won't spare funds from their economies to develop alternaive energy. Its the single biggest economic oppourtunity for America since WWII. In order for us to pull out of an economic downturn we need something big. in the 90's we had the internet, in the new milenium we had a housing boom and now the only thing I see is developing new school energy. Oil is expensive and purely short term...like using your cell phone with dura cells instead of a rechargeable battery...waste of money that only benefits the battery makers.

[Brucelee]

A BIG ole chunk of this nation could be completely of oil sooner than we realize. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. Most people commute an hour or less of driving a day. And much of that spent sitting in below 40mph traffic. We already have the car technology to shift nearly that entire hour commute to electric or hydrogen and start taking advantage of the limitless coal used by the electric company. Dont worry about the tree huggers, eco issues go right out the window when we are staring down the barrel of $200 oil and $9 gas. And for some odd reason people seem to forget about coal pollution and that there is no such thing as 'clean coal' its industry bs propaganda...well they''ll forget about the coal pollution if its being used to power electric/hybrid cars. But it may all be moot because we may not have a "alternative" as rejecting oil might become mandatory: it will simply be too expensive for an anemic economy that is jus a shadow of its former manufacturing self. Like the current predicament with Wheat our our home grown commodities may be too valuable for American consumption. Like wheat more money can be made shipping off overseas. (noticed how expensive a loaf of bread has become at the supermarket?). Same thing will happen with oil drilled on U.S. soil. Big Oil's under ZERO obligation to sell that newly drilled oil to America. And When gas gets expensive Americans stay home, when gas gets expensive in China and the rest of Asia, they buy more. We have to use our comparative advantage in technology on a red alert basis. We have to become leaders in solar, wind and hybrid/electric car technology so that we can export these technologies to the rest of the world who at the momment won't spare funds from their economies to develop alternaive energy. Its the single biggest economic oppourtunity for America since WWII. In order for us to pull out of an economic downturn we need something big. in the 90's we had the internet, in the new milenium we had a housing boom and now the only thing I see is developing new school energy. Oil is expensive and purely short term...like using your cell phone with dura cells instead of a rechargeable battery...waste of money that only benefits the battery makers.
.



I agree with much of what you have said. However, I would add that we also will need to exploit our own oil resources for any number of reasons. Additionally, nuclear energy is very viable and needs to be exploited also.

No nation can prosper without sources of energy. I think that is pretty obvious by the pace of China's energy development.

[PSL-Boxster]

the question I ask is Are we exporting our own coal to other countries such as china that are building 2 new coal plants every week?

[986chris]

At what point in our economic system dosen't the consumer pay for our leaders policies.

[Brucelee]

At what point in our economic system dosen't the consumer pay for our leaders policies.


Irrespective of the economic system, consumers and/or taxpayers ALWAYS pay for the polocies of those who have political power.

It would be nice if some of those powerful people would remember that they are playing with OPM (other people's money).

:D

[Perfectlap]

the funny thing about all this and the energy debate in general is that we are the ones making this political. The politicians are merely stepping into the empty shoes of oppourtunity. Every energy and commodities expert in the world will tell you that we can not flood the market with enough new oil to reduce demmand or lower price. I heard a Barron's economist say that even if you were 100% successful in Alaksa it might only reduce the price of oil ONE DOLLAR. CBS Sunday morning ran a piece that said all the offshore oil we are NOT currenlty drilling would amount to LESS than what we waste between driving 5mph too fast and throwing away 3% on under inflated tires. Gives you a perspective of how much oil we consume vs how much we can QUICKLY/Cheaply get at. The even more frightening thing is that our mind boggling consumption/demmand is going to look like a pittance compared to where consumption will be amongst the emerging nations. You could set up rigs all along the U.S. shores, Alaska, the plains and still it will not be enough to prevent high prices ten years from now. That tends to happen when you rely heavily on a dwindling resource.
The kick in the pants is that US oil consumption is DOWN 2% since last year yet where are prices vs last year? CERTAINLY NOT DOWN 2% since it was $3.

[Brucelee]

the funny thing about all this and the energy debate in general is that we are the ones making this political. The politicians are merely stepping into the empty shoes of oppourtunity. Every energy and commodities expert in the world will tell you that we can not flood the market with enough new oil to reduce demmand or lower price. I heard a Barron's economist say that even if you were 100% successful in Alaksa it might only reduce the price of oil ONE DOLLAR. CBS Sunday morning ran a piece that said all the offshore oil we are NOT currenlty drilling would amount to LESS than what we waste between driving 5mph too fast and throwing away 3% on under inflated tires. Gives you a perspective of how much oil we consume vs how much we can QUICKLY/Cheaply get at. The even more frightening thing is that our mind boggling consumption/demmand is going to look like a pittance compared to where consumption will be amongst the emerging nations. You could set up rigs all along the U.S. shores, Alaska, the plains and still it will not be enough to prevent high prices ten years from now. That tends to happen when you rely heavily on a dwindling resource.
The kick in the pants is that US oil consumption is DOWN 2% since last year yet where are prices vs last year? CERTAINLY NOT DOWN 2% since it was $3.

All true but let me offer a different perspective:

1-Most economists use a straight line method of projecting the future. They interestingly, seem to ignore discontinuities and reactions to thing like price etc.

A couple of examples:

1-There is no doubt an increase in demand from developing countries. Having said that, these counties are not price insensative. That is, they cannot simply buy oil at any price. Neither the governments nor consumers are able to simply wish money to appear to buy energy. China, India, just like the US, must pony up the dough.

Realistically, a jump in energy prices changes behaviour everywhere, and much is going on all at the same time. So, straighlining forecasts actually means very little.

to wit: Cars are in development that will sharply alter consumption. This only is happening due to price increases. Many more to follow.

To me, this is exciting stuff.

And, IMHO, we need to drill, dig, build Nuclear PP, develop all forms of energy.

I don't see any other rational answer.

Re: conservation--Price drives EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

[Dr. Kill]

And, IMHO, we need to drill, dig, build Nuclear PP, develop all forms of energy.


Yep. This is true regardless of other factors.

[Perfectlap]

demmand destruction is indeed very real if the prices go up too sharply.

But you forget you are dealing with foreign economies where the central govt and their banks play a VERY ACTIVE role in steering their economic growth. If it means tapping into that $2 Trillion in cash reserves China has, they're prepared to do it if push comes to shove and supply plumetts. They're not about to allow shipping trucks or diesel-powered Caterpillars sit around because diesel's at $5. The traders know this ultimate end game and push prices higher.
The traders know they are dealing with VERY DEEP POCKETS over there in Asia.
Those emerging markets are fighting a likely global economic slow down where they have to continue showing return on foreign investment in order to attract more investment.
Crude is the life blood of this expansion, without it everything grinds to a halt quickly. When it comes to demmand for foreign oil its a matter of degree of demmand. No matter where you price it, IT WILL SELL. I'm not sure you'll ever see that happen with any other commodity in your life because there are alternatives to nearly all. Sugar to expensive? use corn syrup. Rice too expensive? Eat tofu. Oil too expensive? hmmm....can't put twinkies in your gas tank can you. As an oil trader that's mana from heaven.

p.s.
as far as nuclear. Everyone's for it until they start building one in your backyard.
Not to mention the wait for the domes from Japan is nearly 12 years. And the financial risks are huge. One miscalculation could be a loser for all its investors.
That's why they only work in socialist countries like France.

[Brucelee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country

Interesting stats on nuclear energy

US lead the WORLD in number of reactors and energy output from nuclear.

Who knew?

[insite]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country

Interesting stats on nuclear energy

US lead the WORLD in number of reactors and energy output from nuclear.

Who knew?

didn't read the wiki yet, but i think even though we may lead the world in total output (KWh), we are way behind other countries in terms of percentage output (percentage of total power generated from nuke). i think france is in the 70% range.

[Brucelee]

didn't read the wiki yet, but i think even though we may lead the world in total output (KWh), we are way behind other countries in terms of percentage output (percentage of total power generated from nuke). i think france is in the 70% range.

You are correct. I was simply surprised we had as many reactors as we have. You never hear about them, which I guess is a good thing.

:dance:

[Brucelee]

U.S. Retools Economy,
Curbing Thirst for Oil
By JUSTIN LAHART and CONOR DOUGHERTY
August 12, 2008;

The U.S. economy is starting to figure out how to curb its legendary appetite for energy.

Consumers are buying fewer sport-utility vehicles and more energy-saving washing machines. Some trucking companies have rejiggered their engines to max out at lower speeds. Gridlock is easing in California. Americans drove 966 million fewer miles in May than they did a year earlier, a 3.7% decline, according to the Transportation Department.


With shipping costs surging, companies are rethinking overseas production, slimming down packaging and retooling distribution networks. Yogurt maker Stonyfield Farm is only sending out fully loaded delivery trucks. Procter & Gamble Co. is filling smaller bottles with more-powerful laundry detergent. Locally made products, from beets to beer, are becoming a more attractive choice.

"Four-dollar gas is the best marketing tool I have," says Betsy Kachmar, assistant general manager of Fort Wayne Public Transportation Corp. in Indiana. Bus ridership in that city was up 16% in the first half of this year, compared with the year-ago period. Mass-transit ridership nationwide rose 3.4% in the first quarter, according to the American Public Transportation Association.

Hard evidence is emerging that the changing behavior of consumers and businesses may be making a dent in the oil market. The Energy Department reported last week that demand for gasoline for the four weeks ended Aug. 1 was 2.3% lower than in the same period last year. Declining demand is the prime force behind the oil market's recent slide. Crude oil closed Monday at $114.45 a barrel in New York trading, the lowest since May 1. Crude oil has fallen 21% from its July peak of $145.29.


Whether this newfound energy austerity alters the fabric of American life in a lasting way will depend partly on what happens to oil prices over the long term. An earlier price spike, which began in 1979, also led to a big energy-efficiency push. But by 1993, inflation-adjusted oil prices had fallen more than 75%, and the U.S. was consuming as much gasoline as before. By last year, with gas guzzlers once again ruling the highways, America was using 24% more than that.



Demand from rapidly growing economies of China and India make lasting oil-price declines less likely these days. Despite the market's recent fall, prices remain above the prior inflation-adjusted peak of $106.15, set in April 1980.

The high prices have been a drag on an economy already sagging due to the housing downturn and shaky credit markets. Auto sales have fallen, airlines are cutting back on flights, small trucking firms are going out of business, and transportation costs are eating into corporate profits.

Much of the way America has come to live and do business is predicated on low energy prices. After the last price spike eased in the mid-1980s, many consumers, once again, appeared to give little thought to how much energy they used. They traded in their sedans for SUVs and their ranch houses for McMansions.

U.S. companies moved manufacturing overseas where labor was cheap, unconcerned with the resulting need to move products thousands of miles back to their customers. Low fuel costs facilitated "just-in-time" delivery systems -- supplies were delivered as needed, frequently by air rather than truck. The additional fuel costs were seen as a small price to pay to keep inventories low and customers supplied with the latest goods.

The era of cheap fuel began drawing to a close three years ago, and many businesses now are taking a hard look at their energy costs.


Johnson Controls, a Milwaukee company that works with building owners and managers to reduce energy costs, did a survey earlier this year of 1,150 executives who manage energy costs and investments. Forty-one percent said that in the past year they had replaced inefficient heating and ventilation equipment with more efficient models before the equipment needed to be replaced, compared with 28% a year earlier. In the same survey, 78% said they had upgraded their lighting systems before they needed replacement, compared with 67% a year ago.


State University of New York's Ulster County Community College is planning to spend $150,000 for solar panels on a two-story, flat-roofed building that houses classrooms, the financial-aid office and a 408-seat theater. The panels will power most of the building's heating and air-conditioning units. The school says the new system will save about $20,000 a year, and will pay for itself in seven years.

Bryan Sievers, a farmer in New Liberty, Iowa, is trying to reduce energy costs on his farm. He is considering air-drying more of his corn instead of using propane heaters. He has outfitted his tractors with global-positioning systems, which he hopes will enable him to work his fields more efficiently.

Home Adjustments

U.S. households are making adjustments, too. David Pastor, who owns Fletcher's Appliance in Nashua, N.H., says three out of four washing machines he sells these day are energy-saving front loaders, up from one in four two years ago. "It's really gaining momentum," he says. During the first six months of this year, 55% of the washing machines, dishwashers and refrigerators shipped by appliance makers bore the government's Energy Star rating for high energy efficiency, up from 50% a year earlier, according to the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.

Two years ago, Southern California Edison, which powers much of Central and Southern California, started offering partial rebates on air-conditioner tuneups. This year, through July, 37,000 customers signed up, compared with 6,000 all of last year.

Price Shock of the '70s

Other industrialized nations have learned to live with even higher fuel prices. Historically, Japan and Europe, unlike the U.S., have produced little gas and oil. That made them much more nervous than the U.S. about their dependence on foreign supplies. Their governments tax fuel heavily, and have championed the development of mass transportation.

The oil-price shocks of 1973 and 1979 motivated Japan, in particular, to become more energy-efficient. In 1980, when U.S. consumers were griping about $1.25-a-gallon gas -- $3.30 in today's prices -- their counterparts in Japan were paying roughly twice as much. They started using a lot less. In 1983, Japan consumed about 25% less oil per person than it had in 1973. Last year, Japan used 14 barrels per person, and the countries in the euro zone consumed 17. The U.S. used 25 barrels per person.

There is some evidence that Americans are looking anew at public transportation and thinking more about settling closer to their jobs. In the Milwaukee market, home values in the downtown area were 1.4% higher in the first quarter than in the year-earlier period, estimates real-estate price tracker Zillow.com. But between 10 and 20 miles out, prices were down 1.6%; 20 to 30 miles out, they were off 3.3%; and 30 to 40 miles out, they were down 5.8%, Zillow.com estimates.


Newscom/Philadelphia Inquirer



Columbia Business School economist Christopher Mayer says the pattern is showing up all over the country. "That's a combination of where all the subprime took place and this problem of gas prices," he says. "Clearly, the exurbs are hurting."

California has long talked about a high-speed rail line to connect the San Francisco Bay Area to Southern California. After years of chatter about the project, a $10 billion bond measure to start construction will be put to a vote this year. Last month, 62% of voters polled by JMM Research said they would support the bond measure, up from 52% in November. Voters cited having an "affordable" transportation alternative, "reducing dependence of foreign oil" and "reducing traffic congestion" as reasons for supporting measure. "You could start seeing [voter opinion] turn in May, when gas was $4.50 to $5 a gallon here," says JMM Research President Jim Moore.

Harvard University urban economist Edward Glaeser says there are limits to how much the U.S. can be expected to follow Europe and Japan. The U.S. population grew nearly fourfold in the 20th century, an increase that coincided with the rise of the automobile. Motor travel reshaped the country, allowing people to move away from the old coastal cities and transport hubs. In Europe and Japan, much of the population growth occurred before car travel took hold, so people are still clustered around old transport hubs. That makes it easier to forgo car travel.

When gasoline prices spike, Americans tend to change vehicles. After the 1979 oil shock, they bought more fuel-efficient cars. Even though they drove more miles in 1982 than in 1979, they consumed 12% less gasoline. The fuel savings continued through the 1980s, even as gas prices fell. Fuel-efficiency standards mandated by Congress were part of the reason. But the main one was that so many gas guzzlers were no longer on the road.

Vehicle Shift

Now, the country is in the midst of a similar shift. Last month, light trucks, which include sport-utility vehicles, accounted for 45% of light-vehicle sales in the U.S., down from 52% a year earlier and 60% in July 2005 -- even though dealers offered discounts to clear them off their lots. With demand for hybrids and other fuel-efficient vehicles surging, car companies are retooling truck and SUV plants to build smaller cars and plowing money into developing more efficient cars. Such shifts could lower Americans' gasoline bill, which last year amounted to 30% of the energy spending of U.S. households, for years to come.


Fuel prices are causing many companies to change what they ship and how they ship it. "You want to reduce the amount of distance, you want to reduce the amount of transportation in the network," says Tom Jones, a supply-chain manager at Ryder System Inc., a Miami-based truck-leasing and logistics company. "That really leads to people doing things differently."

Ryder has adjusted engines in its truck fleet to go no faster than 63 miles per hour, down from an earlier 65 mph limit, and to shut off after they've been idling for five minutes rather than 10. Londonderry, N.H.-based Stonyfield Farm, which leases trucks from Ryder, is using onboard computers to keep tabs on whether drivers are wasting fuel with bad habits like accelerating too quickly, says Ryan Boccelli, the company's director of logistics.


Another way companies are trying to cut fuel costs is by changing their packaging. Procter & Gamble, which makes Tide detergent, shifted to more concentrated detergent last year to reduce transportation costs and to enable retailers to fit more on their shelves.

Companies that ship cheap but bulky goods are adapting the quickest. Three years ago, Kimberly-Clark Corp., maker of Kleenex tissues and Huggies diapers, started revamping its distribution network. Its distribution centers were located next to its production plants. Now the company has eight giant distribution facilities spread around the country. The new setup, which allows the company to rely more on rail, helped it save 470,000 gallons of fuel last year.


Railroad transport, however, can slow the flow of merchandise from warehouses to store shelves. That forces retailers and manufacturers to carry more inventory or risk not having enough to meet customer demand.

Some companies are reluctant to make moves similar to Kimberly-Clark's, says Yossi Sheffi, an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who advises firms on supply-chain management. "What happens if oil goes back to $70 and I've got myself into a position where I'm less competitive?" he asks. The longer energy prices stay high, he says, the more companies will make the shift.

Competitive Boost

High gas prices could provide a competitive boost to small farmers who market their food as locally grown. Westtown, N.Y., vegetable farmer Keith Stewart doesn't use any pesticides or herbicides -- most of which are petroleum-based -- and he fertilizes his fields with manure from local farms. He sells his produce at the Union Square farmers market in New York City, a 65-mile drive.

Mr. Stewart charges more than supermarkets do for their nonorganic fare, but the gap is narrowing. His prices, he figures, have risen 2% to 3% over the past year. That's less than the 8.4% the Labor Department says U.S. vegetable prices have risen over the past year. "I don't want to give the impression that I enjoy these high [energy] prices," he says. "But it's not something that is going to put me out of business."

"The environmentalists have always asked you to eat locally," says Matthew Kahn, an economist at the University of California, Los Angeles. "But now the businessmen will agree."

[Quickurt]

I am already looking to a branch-out into local farming as a retirement business.
I think the steady rise of energy costs in the near to mid future will make local business and food far more cost effective than mass farm and ship of recent years. I think the general public will get a taste for more vine/tree/plant ripened food and reject long term shipping/storing/treating for good.
I am also looking at all the ways to build a near energy-free home on the property wifey already owns to farm.
Save that gas for my PORSCHE!!! :dance:

[Dr. Kill]

I am already looking to a branch-out into local farming as a retirement business.


I would love to hear what you come up with on this. Are you just wanting to keep busy, or do you think you can turn a reasonable profit? I have looked at some numbers on this and never came up with anything even close to optimistic. I think one website I was looking at summed it up nicely. It said something like “what other industry do you purchase your raw materials retail and then sell your finished goods wholesale?”

[Quickurt]

Check out Global Aquatics S-2005 system.
http://www.growfish.com/iso.htm

I have a really good friend/business associate who has spent the majority of his career in fish/shrimp farming industry and he says this is the real deal and can be nicely profitable.
It is a symbiotic farm with the fish feeding the vegies and the vegies cleaning the water for the fish. He says a little ingenuity with the system and you can produce most of your fish food, as well.

[FTD]

Check out Global Aquatics S-2005 system.
http://www.growfish.com/iso.htm
It is a symbiotic farm with the fish feeding the vegies and the vegies cleaning the water for the fish. He says a little ingenuity with the system and you can produce most of your fish food, as well.
VERY kewl.

[Dr. Kill]

Check out Global Aquatics S-2005 system.
http://www.growfish.com/iso.htm

I have a really good friend/business associate who has spent the majority of his career in fish/shrimp farming industry and he says this is the real deal and can be nicely profitable.
It is a symbiotic farm with the fish feeding the vegies and the vegies cleaning the water for the fish. He says a little ingenuity with the system and you can produce most of your fish food, as well.

This is very interesting. Thanks for the link.

[Quickurt]

I am trying to find as much info as I can without giving them any money, yet........it looks like their system uses a filtering system and then bacterial breakdown of the waste through several steps into a very high quality fertilizer for the veggies.
In their photos, tomatoes look to be the main vegetable (fruit?) product, but I am also checking to see about other veggies. In our area, I believe more salad oriented products, along with maybe califlower and broccoli, would have a better market. Although not a tomato fan, I understand good ones are very hard to come by.

[Dr. Kill]

I sent the link over to my Dad - he is a retired environmental engineer. I am curious to see his take on it. I will let you know if Grandpa Kill comes up with anything useful here.

[Quickurt]

I sent the link over to my Dad - he is a retired environmental engineer. I am curious to see his take on it. I will let you know if Grandpa Kill comes up with anything useful here.
Cool, Tim, any input will be appreciated. Speaking of appreciation, I do believe that is an Airborne tag on your box.
Snapping to, with a sharp salute, sir! :cheers:
Your service is more appreciated than I can tell you, and a nation is in your debt.
Which Airborne outfit?
Miles Kittleson served at Bragg and is now at Bragg in a much more advanced position. We visited when he gradded from Green Beret school, but he's been to many more since. I rocked him to sleep as a baby (neighbor), and he's grown to a fine man. My hat's off to you all. :dance:

[Dr. Kill]

Which Airborne outfit?


Thank you for your kind words.

I served as an enlisted man in Delta Company, 3/504 Parachute Infantry Regiment (82nd Airborne) back in the early 90s before I went to college, and then in the Florida National Guard through school (Alpha Company 2/124IN).

Even considering how many people who serve in our military, it can still be a rather small community sometimes. That being said, I don’t know Miles Kittleson, but it sounds like he is enjoying a distinguished career. I knew several men who went on to become Green Berets and I have the deepest respect for them.

[Quickurt]

From TIA - Robert Tracinski:

3. "Geopolitical Peak Oil"

For some time, TIA's resident energy expert, Jack Wakeland, has been sending me notes about the real causes of the high price of oil. Unfortunately, Jack has been too busy designing nuclear power plants to turn these notes into something usable for TIA Daily. I threatened to present his arguments in my own words—which would force him to write an article to correct my errors—but I decided not to inflict this on TIA Daily's readers.

So until I can get something from Jack, below is a link to an excellent article providing some of the key facts.

I will add one observation I got from Jack, which provides indispensable context. In order to sustain a growing global economy, we do not just need to sustain existing reserves and existing production of oil. We need geometrically increasing production of oil to fuel geometrically increasing economic activity. That is the unforgiving mathematics of oil.

As the article below reports, experts are predicting that we will instead reach an oil production plateau around 2020—and a halt in the growth of oil production implies a halt in global economic growth.

This peak in oil production is not dictated by geology, but by politics. It is caused by the takeover of global oil production by state-owned companies whose main priority is not to maximize oil production and profits, but to keep oil under political control so that it can be used to prop up dictatorships.

The result, as an oil industry analyst quoted below puts it, is not "geological peak oil" but "geopolitical peak oil"—an artificially induced global energy crisis.



"As Oil Giants Lose Influence, Supply Drops," Jad Mouawad, New York Times, August 19

Oil production has begun falling at all of the major Western oil companies, and they are finding it harder than ever to find new prospects even though they are awash in profits and eager to expand.
Part of the reason is political. From the Caspian Sea to South America, Western oil companies are being squeezed out of resource-rich provinces. They are being forced to renegotiate contracts on less-favorable terms and are fighting losing battles with assertive state-owned oil companies.

And much of their production is in mature regions that are declining, like the North Sea.

The reality, experts say, is that the oil giants that once dominated the global market have lost much of their influence—and with it, their ability to increase supplies.

"This is an industry in crisis," said Amy Myers Jaffe, the associate director of Rice University's energy program in Houston….

As late as the 1970s, Western corporations controlled well over half of the world's oil production. These companies—Exxon Mobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Total of France and Eni of Italy—now produce just 13 percent.

Today's 10 largest holders of petroleum reserves are state-owned companies, like Russia's Gazprom and Iran's national oil company.

Sluggish supplies have prompted a cottage industry of doomsday predictions that the world's oil production has reached a peak. But many energy experts say these "peak oil" theories are misplaced. They say the world is not running out of oil—rather, the companies that know the most about how to produce oil are running out of places to drill.

"There is still a lot of oil to develop out there, which is why we don't call this geological peak oil, especially in places like Venezuela, Russia, Iran and Iraq," said Arjun Murti, an energy analyst at Goldman Sachs. "What we have now is geopolitical peak oil."

Western companies are far better than most national oil companies at finding and extracting petroleum, experts say. They have developed advanced exploration technologies and can muster significant financing to develop new fields. Many of the world's exporting states, however, have spurned their expertise….

This sense of being hemmed in helps explain why the Western oil companies want more offshore drilling in the United States. They see it as one of their few options.

[Quickurt]

I sent the link over to my Dad - he is a retired environmental engineer. I am curious to see his take on it. I will let you know if Grandpa Kill comes up with anything useful here.
I have finished my research and hate to say it's a "no-go." All financial, it's a poor income return for the investment needed.
As a hobby deal in a small green-house in the back yard, I think it's cool. Wifey has been wanting a sun-room on the back of the house, so I'm looking at small, nice green-houses, and there are alot of them (http://www.texasgreenhouse.com/images/1740cre1-lg.jpg), to put on a deck off the back of the house and put a very small aquaponics unit in it. For about 3 grand (aquatic eco systems), it will produce about 120 lbs. of tilapia, per year, and all the veggies the two of us can eat - in a 12' x 24' footprint. I'd like to have more than two pounds, before cleaning, of fish per week, I'll be doing some more research on if the fish yield can be increased. Maybe I can supply veggie nutrients, from the added fish, to a neighbor for his veggies.

[Dr. Kill]

Maybe I can supply veggie nutrients, from the added fish, to a neighbor for his veggies.

Ahh yes, when all else fails, barter!

If my dad ever does respond regarding this, I will still post his thoughts - it might be an interesting exercise anyway.

[Quickurt]

Ahh yes, when all else fails, barter!

If my dad ever does respond regarding this, I will still post his thoughts - it might be an interesting exercise anyway.
Not to barter, but to have something to do with the added nutrients that will have to be taken out of the water to support the fish. These systems, the sustainable ones.....,filter the waste from the fish's water and return it to the fish tank. They then process the waste into very good natural fertilizer for the hydroponic, or modified hydroponic (best) veggie garden. To have a natural balance, they end up with lots of veggies compared to the amount of fish that can be harvested. I think the best way to get a better fish harvest is to supply the additional un-needed nutrients to someone for their veggies, flowers, or whatever. There are alot of small private greenhouses around who would be more than happy to have the great natural fertilizer.
There are systems out there that simply pump the water into gravel beds containing the plants and allow the gravel and plant roots to "process" the water for the fish. The problems with these systems are when something gets out of balance - BAMM - say goodbye to your fish.

[Dr. Kill]

Not to barter, but to have something to do with the added nutrients that will have to be taken out of the water to support the fish. These systems, the sustainable ones.....,filter the waste from the fish's water and return it to the fish tank. They then process the waste into very good natural fertilizer for the hydroponic, or modified hydroponic (best) veggie garden. To have a natural balance, they end up with lots of veggies compared to the amount of fish that can be harvested. I think the best way to get a better fish harvest is to supply the additional un-needed nutrients to someone for their veggies, flowers, or whatever. There are alot of small private greenhouses around who would be more than happy to have the great natural fertilizer.
There are systems out there that simply pump the water into gravel beds containing the plants and allow the gravel and plant roots to "process" the water for the fish. The problems with these systems are when something gets out of balance - BAMM - say goodbye to your fish.

Ahh, I misunderstood your post.

If you do go with this smaller implementation, please let us know how it works out.