People leaving in the country side and small cities need a car, it is mandatory.

__________________

Actually I think it has more to do with all the utility companies that went bankrupt because of nuclear plant cost overruns.

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

Mm. Maybe. Most of the cities that I have been to in Europe have had sufficient public transit.

__________________
So many cowards.

You know who you are.

No, it's not enough, if you don't have a car, you can't do anything. And if there is public transport, it will multiply the time by 2 or 3 or even 4, where there is bus every hour between villages, instead of every 5 or 10 minutes in cities...

__________________

The global economy continues to grow, but global production of oil has remained flat since 2005. On top of that, supply and demand have been about equal for a number of years. This means that we need more oil, but we are not producing enough to meet present and future demand. New sources of oil only realize production after years of development, meanwhile the existing sources have mostly peaked and are declining in production every year. Other sources, especially sources like the tar-sands, are incredibly destructive and unsustainable in terms of energy input per barrel.

This is very much a supply and demand issue, in almost every respect.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

As usual, Americans have to be pushed to the point of economic collapse in order to listen to what people on the left have been saying about oil supply and oil prices since the early 1990s. Oil is finite and however much oil we may have in Alaska, there's no way we can effect the global price of oil. How are we going to finance oil escavation in Alaska without foreign investment, will they accept price controls on the oil they pay to develop? I doubt it. There just isn't a future in powering cars on fossil fuel oil in this next century.

I also crack up when I see people with SUVs filling up their tanks. No one made you buy that gas guzzler moron. Ha!

__________________
If you stop trying to bring the Bible into the classroom, I'll stop secretly sneaking biology textbooks into the pews on Saturday nights. Deal?

If the flag is precious to YOU, then don't burn YOURS.

I disagree. While supply and demand are certainly a pricing factor with any commodity, oil futures are short-term contracts for near-term consumption and those futures set crude oil pricing. There has not been any demand for oil not supplied by current stocks. Producers do keep supply as close to demand as possible, a normal business procedure for any product.

When oil demand actually does exceed supply we'll see some real take-your-breath-away prices.

The Associated Press: Oil spikes to record above $117 a barrel after tanker attack

"There's clearly some geopolitical tension in the market," said Mark Pervan, senior commodity strategist at the ANZ Bank in Melbourne, Australia. "This will die down, but the market is pretty jittery at the moment," he said.

"Comments over the weekend by an OPEC official that the group isn't likely to increase production also supported prices on Monday.

Abdullah el al-Badri, secretary-general of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, said Sunday that oil prices would likely go higher and that the group was ready to raise production if the price pressure was due to a shortage of supply — something he doubted.

"Oil prices, there is a common understanding that has nothing to do with supply and demand," al-Badri said on the sidelines of an energy conference in Rome."

"Also over the weekend, Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted Saturday as saying crude oil prices at $115 a barrel are too low, and that oil must "discover its real value."

A hint of things to come.

What has the left been saying about oil supply and oil prices since the 1990s? Exploit more domestic resources? Build more refineries? Reduce govt regulation? Lower energy taxes? The answer to all of those is of course no. The left have not been saying any of this.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

No, the left have been saying "dependence on oil is dangerous - let's find other sources of energy." A far better long-term solution.

__________________
So many cowards.

You know who you are.

Except in he past when prices got too high/demand became too close to supply for too long, it was far easier to ramp of production. Today that is not just not the case. Yes, producers intentionally keep supply and demand as close as possible, but presently we are in a situation where it is extremely hard to produce much more than the ~85 million barrels per day that has remained flat for the last few years. Many analysts and most geologists doubt that we will ever be able to produce much more than that. Meanwhile world demand based on predicted/desired growth is going to be @ 120 million barrels per day by 2030... nobody knows where that oil is going to come from... and that is the fundamental factor effecting pricing.

Agreed. We will also have lots and lots of war to determine who gets whatever supply is available.

Its hard to trust pronouncements about the oil market from members of OPEC. They have far too many stakes in the game.

IMO, what we are seeing in terms of geopolitical tension, speculation, futures market, etc.. is a reflection of an underlying tension that has everything to do with supply and demand.

But i do agree with Iran's president. $115.00 does not reflect the true cost/value of oil. Its nowhere close to its real value in terms of its value to the economy and growth, as well as the environmental costs. $115.00 still reflect mainly a heavily subsidized commodity.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

They may have been saying it.

But when the Democratic Party enjoyed majority control of both the House and Senate during the mid 90s under a Democratic president they didn't do anything about it.

This has only become a serious issue, for either party, over the last few years. And for neither party does it really have as much to do with sustainability as it does with current gas pricing.

If gas prices were still artificially low the Democrats wouldn't have made this an issue, future be damned.

But now that the price Americans pay for gas is reaching the level that other nations have been paying for gas all along the Democrats have turned this into one more platform by which they can attempt to benefit the lower class by increasing taxes, quotas, regulations, and fines on the upper class and/or business and industry.

Classic rob-from-the-rich-give-to-the-poor liberal politics.

The fact that Al Gore and the eco-lunatic fringe are crusading for green/renewable/alternate energy sources is a different argument entirely.

__________________
...Old Europe, a once-dominant region now reduced to sucking at the geopolitical teat of America... they spent the better part of the last millennium conquering the world and taking the good stuff home with them... And what do they get for their troubles? Ungrateful colonies demanding their independence. And after you taught them how to play cricket!...

-Jon Stewart

Heh. Can't argue with any of that. I lost my conviction that the Democrats were the good guys a long time ago.

It is a different argument entirely, but I'm not sure why you're calling them "eco-lunatic fringe," when what they're talking is plain common sense.

OPEC strategy has been highly dependent on increasing high cost production such as Canadian tar sands oil by keeping overall production as close to demand as possible while factoring in USD devaluation to drive pricing. The last numbers I read put Candian tar sand exploration/production costs at close to $30/barrel, unthinkable even a decade ago. Those costs will actually be reduced as production increases, but new exploration/production costs will offset any savings. The market entry of tar sand oil from Canada, coming in Venezuela and other reportedly vast fields in other countries actually played the major role in helping the Sauds reduce their production, saving for a rainy day as they term it.

Australia's largest trading partner is China and China has supported Australia's Nigerian efforts (of which Canada is involved as rig drillers and operators) and their efforts to become a major player in refining lower grade crude from Venezuela and other producers. China has the capital and they aren't afraid to spend it on commodity exploration/production, and not just oil.


I think economics will eventually play the larger role in commodity acquistion. The US is the primary world aggressor and as we decline to a full service economy it'll become far less expensive to pay the price than attempting to field the hideously expensive and mostly useless military levels we currently entertain.

See my OPEC comments above.

Eventually, yes. At this point in time supply is adequate but that won't last for much longer. The current question is how long the declining US economy and high-cost exploration/production will offset increasing demand from China, India and other developing countries.

That's a foregone and reasonable conclusion. All that's holding it back now is US fiscal desperation with military threats and the ongoing calculations of what will replace oil for food production and transportation requirements. Once that product(s) is identified, oil will immediately shoot up to that price and then far beyond. I'd like to see crude at $250/barrel immediately with a portion dedicated to capitalize emergency alternative energy research and development programs. I'd actually be surprised if some OPEC producers haven't already suggested same, what an investment opportunity, but US politicians aren't going to willingly allow that to happen. If future markets do it, they can rationalize why soccer moms have to park their SUVs by blaming someone else. Since many oil producers are currently facing a US gun barrel with regard to production they must tread lightly. 2008 is going to be an interesting year.

The oil sands produce barely 1 million barrels a day, and it will be years before it produces anywhere close to 2-3 million bpd that they are aiming for. Also, the oil sands uses unbelievable amounts of water and natural gas to produce just one barrel of oil. It is not sustainable by any stretch of the imagination. And even if it were, it would never produce any significant amount of oil to offset the declines in existing fields, especially the declines of huge fields in Russia and Saudi Arabia.

And they have the benefit of not being america as well.


The only realistic replacement to oil is hydrogen. (and its not even that realistic as far as replacements to oil go). It would take decades to convert this oil economy into a hydrogen economy, and in those decades oil will continue to decline, leaving more chaos and less capital with which to convert the economy in the first place. We are far more likely to go back to coal as a replacement, and that is extremely unlikely given the state of the climate.

In other words, the good times that started rolling for the west in the 50s after the war have pretty much come to an end over the last few years and people are just waking up to it.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Exactly.

I'm a leftie, but I'm no Democrat.

__________________
So many cowards.

You know who you are.