Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 279

Thread: Oil is at a 12-year low

  1. #16
    Padishah Shahanshah Senior Contributor xerxes's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,568
    I hate to break it to u guys
    But oil is not really used that much (competitively) for heating ,,, that is natural gas

    And a country needs a diverse energy mix
    Nuclear cannot replace natural gas. The former with its large fixed cost is ideal to meet the base demand while the peaks can be managed by natural gas (which has higher variable cost) or something similar.

    It is inefficient to have only one single source of energy
    If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon

  2. #17
    Contributor DarthSiddius's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Nov 11
    Location
    Burlington, ON
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    People have been researching and talking about alternative energy since the 1970s. What have we achieved? How much money did we waste? I mean including government wastes on "green" bullshit plus the artificially high gas tax to steer us away from oil.

    It will happen when oil becomes scarce enough to make battery tech worthwhile. Until then, it's a half-assed effort to extract money from the public by the brute force of the government.
    This means we devise a solution after we have a problem. Shouldn't battery tech. and alternative sources research be done pre-emptively, in our current times of plenty? Isn't accounting for and being prepared for an eventuality beforehand better? Alternative sources can be worked on along with oil and coal for the time being (which is the case). They will ultimately replace oil as our main source of energy once they become more cost effective and consumer friendly.

  3. #18
    Contributor DarthSiddius's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Nov 11
    Location
    Burlington, ON
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by xerxes View Post
    I hate to break it to u guys
    But oil is not really used that much (competitively) for heating ,,, that is natural gas

    And a country needs a diverse energy mix
    Nuclear cannot replace natural gas. The former with its large fixed cost is ideal to meet the base demand while the peaks can be managed by natural gas (which has higher variable cost) or something similar.

    It is inefficient to have only one single source of energy
    Agreed.

  4. #19
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,782
    Quote Originally Posted by xerxes View Post
    I hate to break it to u guys
    But oil is not really used that much (competitively) for heating ,,, that is natural gas

    And a country needs a diverse energy mix
    Nuclear cannot replace natural gas. The former with its large fixed cost is ideal to meet the base demand while the peaks can be managed by natural gas (which has higher variable cost) or something similar.

    It is inefficient to have only one single source of energy
    I absolutely agree! It is short-sighted to discard oil and concentrate on "green" bullshit.

    Natural gas is great too, until you try to cram it into a car.

    All forms of fossil energy are more economical than all forms of "green" energy, with the exception of hydro. Unfortunately hydro is not a "green" energy as defined by the enviro-whackos. I think California is systematically destroying dams in the north to save some fish. Apparently a totally renewable energy source with ZERO carbon footprint is not good enough.

    Just to show I'm not lying about dams in CA:

    http://humanevents.com/2012/08/01/ra...wning-habitat/

    http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_235081...-begins-carmel

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...gton-dam_N.htm

    http://kron4.com/2015/05/22/vandals-...ater-into-bay/

    http://www.americanrivers.org/initia...ms/why-remove/

    The first one is a conservative site. It tells us that some of those dams are hydro-electric dams, generating power for a power hungry state.

    The next 4 are more left leaning, not mentioning that some of these dams actually generate power. They all store water, for a drought stricken state. But these libs don't care about water for a water starved state. They just want their pretty rivers. These are the same people who want solar and wind power to replace fossil fuel.
    Last edited by gunnut; 12 Jan 16, at 21:30.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  5. #20
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,282
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Use up oil, let the price go up naturally, and we switch to another form of energy which will be competitive because oil is so expensive.
    Sounds like we agree on this point. We'll switch away from oil in a big way when newer forms of energy become cost competitive.

    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    People have been researching and talking about alternative energy since the 1970s. What have we achieved? How much money did we waste? I mean including government wastes on "green" bullshit plus the artificially high gas tax to steer us away from oil.
    Since we are taking the long view here, let's see who the government has subsidised over the years.

    A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[29] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D).


    Name:  price-history-silicon1.png
Views: 726
Size:  82.7 KB

    Looks like steady progress that is approaching parity with traditional energy sources rather than a case of the government dumping money into a hole.

    I'm not arguing that the government was wrong to subsidise the oil industry in the past, but now that the oil industry is well established it seems a bit silly to get so upset about shifting some of those resources towards developing the technology and infrastructure we will be relying upon in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    It will happen when oil becomes scarce enough to make battery tech worthwhile. Until then, it's a half-assed effort to extract money from the public by the brute force of the government.
    The government isn't the entity throwing huge chunks of money at battery development. Private industry is in something of a race to develop the next big breakthrough. It will have implications for cell phones, tablets, cars, laptops, etc. The market for improved batteries is HUGE.

  6. #21
    Padishah Shahanshah Senior Contributor xerxes's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,568
    Gunnut, Germany is going that way; they are building giant green installations in the North Sea meant to substitute nuclear power.
    Steady supply of energy being replaced by shaky immature power source. Doesn't make much sense.

    Back to crude,
    Don't worry folks, as we get closer to March, the refinery maintenance season will end and refiners start sucking cheap crude; that and the onset of US driving season should help crude to find its bid. That bid and a timely trigger will get the mother of all short squeezes going.

    Impressive, isn't. It was pure American free-marketing entrepreneurship that led to drilling & commercialization of the shale natural gas (followed by crude oil soon after). That turn the energy markets upside down and had more impact on oil markets than whatever impact Obama think he had, more impact than GWB let's-go-fight-the-indians cowboy wars in ME, more impact than the entire OPEC combined as well as Big Oil with their fortress-like balance sheets.
    If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon

  7. #22
    Regular
    Join Date
    25 May 09
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    Sounds like we agree on this point. We'll switch away from oil in a big way when newer forms of energy become cost competitive.



    Since we are taking the long view here, let's see who the government has subsidised over the years.



    Name:  price-history-silicon1.png
Views: 726
Size:  82.7 KB

    Looks like steady progress that is approaching parity with traditional energy sources rather than a case of the government dumping money into a hole.

    I'm not arguing that the government was wrong to subsidise the oil industry in the past, but now that the oil industry is well established it seems a bit silly to get so upset about shifting some of those resources towards developing the technology and infrastructure we will be relying upon in the future.



    The government isn't the entity throwing huge chunks of money at battery development. Private industry is in something of a race to develop the next big breakthrough. It will have implications for cell phones, tablets, cars, laptops, etc. The market for improved batteries is HUGE.
    In that time frame how much money did the central and state governments make in mineral royalties and severance taxes?

  8. #23
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,489
    Still these historically low prices for oil and natural gas will retard the development of new, large scale emission projects in the near to medium term. There won't be the economic incentive for power companies (or even private consumers) to switch over until prices stabilize at more more historically realistic levels. If China (and hence the rest of the world) avoids a major recession this will happen sooner rather than later but it looks like 2016 is shaping up to be an interesting time economics wise and I keep remembering that (apocryphal) Chinese curse.

  9. #24
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    In that time frame how much money did the central and state governments make in mineral royalties and severance taxes?
    Quite a bit I imagine.

    That said, once an industry is well established, it doesn't require continuing government subsidies to keep chugging along on its own because it is now profitable. The government would receive those royalties whether they continued subsidies for the O&G industry or not. Exxon isn't going to shut down their billion dollar facility because they no longer get a favorable tax break.

    The whole idea behind a government subsidy is that it provides financial aid to promote an economic or social policy. In some cases that might be trying to get an alternative energy industry off the ground, in others it might be to encourage new construction to meet earthquake safety standards. It is the carrot to go along with the regulatory stick.

    Once the alternative energy industry is competitive and profitable enough to keep going on it's own, we can listen to those companies whine when their subsidies get pulled to help finance the development of the next thing.
    Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 13 Jan 16, at 16:09.

  10. #25
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,782
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    The government isn't the entity throwing huge chunks of money at battery development. Private industry is in something of a race to develop the next big breakthrough. It will have implications for cell phones, tablets, cars, laptops, etc. The market for improved batteries is HUGE.
    The government has been throwing money at "green" bullshit since the 1970s when Peanut Carter was in charge. My friend's parents got government rebate to put solar water heater on their house in the late 1970s.

    Thousands of people put solar panels on their roofs over the last decade, all with government subsidies on the labor and the electricity they use. Did you know those with solar panels are charged a lower rate when they suck power from the grid? Guess who pays for the difference? Those of us without solar panels.

    How about the EV rebate? Up to $7500 per car. Electric cars are still the toys for the rich. Democrats constantly scream about the 1% yet they keep giving money to them. Who the hell can afford the Tesla Model S at $70k after rebate? Sure ain't the "average middle class working folks" the dems champion so much.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  11. #26
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,782
    Quote Originally Posted by xerxes View Post
    Gunnut, Germany is going that way; they are building giant green installations in the North Sea meant to substitute nuclear power.
    Steady supply of energy being replaced by shaky immature power source. Doesn't make much sense.
    Germans have that guilty conscience ever since the Hitler thing a while back...

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxes View Post
    Back to crude,
    Don't worry folks, as we get closer to March, the refinery maintenance season will end and refiners start sucking cheap crude; that and the onset of US driving season should help crude to find its bid. That bid and a timely trigger will get the mother of all short squeezes going.

    Impressive, isn't. It was pure American free-marketing entrepreneurship that led to drilling & commercialization of the shale natural gas (followed by crude oil soon after). That turn the energy markets upside down and had more impact on oil markets than whatever impact Obama think he had, more impact than GWB let's-go-fight-the-indians cowboy wars in ME, more impact than the entire OPEC combined as well as Big Oil with their fortress-like balance sheets.
    Free market works. And we aren't even drilling on new federal land. All this was done on existing federal land and maybe new private land.

    Looks like "Drill Here, Drill Now" worked. Unfortunately Palin will never get credit for that.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  12. #27
    Contributor DarthSiddius's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Nov 11
    Location
    Burlington, ON
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    How about the EV rebate? Up to $7500 per car. Electric cars are still the toys for the rich. Democrats constantly scream about the 1% yet they keep giving money to them. Who the hell can afford the Tesla Model S at $70k after rebate? Sure ain't the "average middle class working folks" the dems champion so much.
    NISSAN LEAF
    $29,010 Starting MSRP*

    There are other cars in the market.

  13. #28
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,782
    Quote Originally Posted by DarthSiddius View Post
    NISSAN LEAF
    $29,010 Starting MSRP*

    There are other cars in the market.
    Let's dig deeper.

    Range: 80 miles...

    This will not be the sole car for a family anywhere in the US. The range is simply too short. Can't even take a day trip out of the city without worrying about getting back. This might be the 2nd car, a commuter for the husband (or the wife) while the wife (or the husband) shuttles the kids around in a hatchback or SUV or truck. When the time comes to take the family on a trip, everyone piles into the SUV. That's a hell of a lot of money for a "middle class working family" to spend on a commuter when a 2nd hand 2 year old Honda Civic can be had for $12k, and has no range limitations.

    I looked into the Leaf. Guess what, the charger at home costs an additional $1000 if you do it yourself, $2000 if you have the vendor do it. $2000 is 700 to 1000 gallons of gasoline at today's prices. A compact car running at 32mpg will run up to 32000 miles with the price of that charger. And the owner needs to have a garage to have this setup. Would a renter do it? What if he moves within a few years? $2000 down the drain?

    Again, an electric car will always be the 2nd car, possibly the 3rd car, in the family due to range limitations. If a family needs and can afford 3 cars, does it really make sense to give them more money?

    I'm not against electric cars. I would buy one if it's the same price as a Honda Civic without government subsidies, even with a 100 mile range. I am just against shoveling more of my tax money into the pockets of those who can clearly afford this rich man's toy.
    Last edited by gunnut; 13 Jan 16, at 23:10.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  14. #29
    Contributor DarthSiddius's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Nov 11
    Location
    Burlington, ON
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Let's dig deeper.

    Range: 80 miles...

    This will not be the sole car for a family anywhere in the US. The range is simply too short. Can't even take a day trip out of the city without worrying about getting back. This might be the 2nd car, a commuter for the husband (or the wife) while the wife (or the husband) shuttles the kids around in a hatchback or SUV or truck. When the time comes to take the family on a trip, everyone piles into the SUV. That's a hell of a lot of money for a "middle class working family" to spend on a commuter when a 2nd hand 2 year old Honda Civic can be had for $12k, and has no range limitations.

    I looked into the Leaf. Guess what, the charger at home costs an additional $1000 if you do it yourself, $2000 if you have the vendor do it. $2000 is 700 to 1000 gallons of gasoline at today's prices. A compact car running at 32mpg will run up to 32000 miles with the price of that charger. And the owner needs to have a garage to have this setup. Would a renter do it? What if he moves within a few years? $2000 down the drain?
    So you are saying we need to improve on this technology until it reaches parity with and eventually exceeds conventional cars. How do we do this? Forget climate change/global warming, wouldn't you want to live in a relatively less polluted city/town? Guess what helps reduce air pollution in the vicinity of people's homes.

    Your point about Teslas being prohibitively expensive is moot, they have released a luxury car and it is priced competitively w.r.t. its intended market. Tesla is working on a cheaper version by the way.
    Again, an electric car will always be the 2nd car, possibly the 3rd car, in the family due to range limitations. If a family needs and can afford 3 cars, does it really make sense to give them more money?
    I'm not against electric cars. I would buy one if it's the same price as a Honda Civic without government subsidies, even with a 100 mile range. I am just against shoveling more of my tax money into the pockets of those who can clearly afford this rich man's toy.
    Don't you think electric cars being the second car of choice for most people will help reduce local emissions?
    Last edited by DarthSiddius; 14 Jan 16, at 01:44.

  15. #30
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,782
    Quote Originally Posted by DarthSiddius View Post
    So you are saying we need to improve on this technology until it reaches parity with and eventually exceeds conventional cars. How do we do this? Forget climate change/global warming, wouldn't you want to live in a relatively less polluted city/town? Guess what helps reduce air pollution in the vicinity of people's homes.
    How clean do you, or I, want our air? I remember we used to have "smog alerts" in LA. They were ranked from stage 1 to stage 3. I haven't seen one in more than 25 years. The air has not been cleaner since probably the early 20th century in LA.

    Quote Originally Posted by DarthSiddius View Post
    Your point about Teslas being prohibitively expensive is moot, they have released a luxury car and it is priced competitively w.r.t. its intended market. Tesla is working on a cheaper version by the way.
    I don't care how expensive electric cars are. I care that these luxury cars are subsidized directly with my tax dollars.

    I saw the Model X. It's a large car. It ain't gonna be cheap enough for the "middle class" family.

    Quote Originally Posted by DarthSiddius View Post
    Don't you think electric cars being the second car of choice for most people will help reduce local emissions?
    Yes. And we export that emissions elsewhere. Most of electricity in the US comes from fossil fuel plants, a large portion of them being coal. Can't build more dams, because the fish need water. Can't build more nuke plants because they are too dangerous. Can't build more fossil fuel plants because of air pollution. Let's build more wind farms and solar plants. Wind farms are sporatic and solar plants work about 4 hours per day. Both are environmental disasters. They take up huge chunks of land and kill animals like you wouldn't believe.

    Oil is still the most economical fuel source we have, bar none. It is easy to transport, easy to store, and easy to convert to another form of energy. We have a huge infrastructure built already. Replacing it will cost money. Money represents resources. Resources mean more materials and energy used for construction. Why construct something new when the old one works fine? It's as stupid as throwing away a perfectly good used car and replacing it with a new hybrid to save the planet. The net gain is negative with all the energy spent in the destruction of the old car and the construction of the new car.

    Just to add, I drive a 1.8L stick shift car as my daily driver. It gets 28mpg and is 15 years old. I don't even drive that much. My work is 10 miles away from me and I average about 11k miles per year.
    Last edited by gunnut; 14 Jan 16, at 02:29.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What year is it?
    By Ironduke in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01 Feb 08,, 22:53
  2. PW: 5-year-old boy shoots 6-year-old girl with pistol in Grozny
    By Lunatock in forum International Economy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 28 May 06,, 06:23
  3. PU will pay Rs 50,000 for 5-year PhD
    By Ray in forum International Politics
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 10 Apr 06,, 21:21
  4. Man of the Year?
    By Leader in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 04 Jan 04,, 06:03

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •