Energy Policy per American Petroleum Institute
Posted by Gail the Actuary on August 7, 2007 - 12:30am
The American Petroleum Institute (API) held a conference call with bloggers on Tuesday, July 31, to answer questions about API's position on energy legislation.
A link to a recording of the conference call (or most of it--the recording was cut off due to technical difficulties) can be found here. A transcript can be found here.
The API is not at all happy with the House legislation. One of the bloggers asked if there was anything in the 800 pages of legislation the API could support.
Gerald Kerry (of Platts): It doesn't look like there is much of anything you could support.
Jim Ford: That's right. This is Jim Ford with Government Affairs at API. And basically, you look at the provisions that are in the House bill, and it has a negative impact on current and future domestic production. It has limitations on expanding refining capacity. . . . So it has an extremely negative impact. It just far outweighs anything else that you might consider positive.
In fact the Senate bill . . . does not have as many deep flaws as the House bill does, but it does have deep concerns still raised. The price gouging provisions that are in the Senate bill, . . . we believe will . . . amount to price controls. We know how bad price controls are from our experience in the 1970s and 80's.
And then, the increase in ethanol. The increase in standard from the current standard to 36 billion gallons a year was done without . . . looking to check and see whether the technology is well developed enough to actually be able to provide the ethanol, particularly cellulosic ethanol, that would be required to meet the mandate. There is no way for the government to just mandate it if it can't be met. And knowing the technological breakthroughs that have yet to be made before we have adequate amounts of cellulosic ethanol economically available, that's a real concern in terms of supplying future fuel needs.
API held a blogger conference phone call on Tuesday, July 31. The subject was energy policy in general, and in particular the proposed legislation being discussed in the House of Representatives. A somewhat different version of the House legislation was passed on Saturday, August 4. The Senate passed its version of energy legislation in June. Compromise legislation will now need to be developed, taking into account both the House and Senate versions. President Bush has indicated that he may veto the resulting legislation.
The purpose of this discussion is to better understand the position of the API. It is possible that this will also give us a better understanding of the position of George W. Bush, since he is from the oil and gas industry.
Participants on the call were
Host: Jane Van Ryan, Senior Manager, Communications API
Red Cavaney -- President and CEO API
Mark Kibbe -- Senior Policy Analyst API
Erik Milito -- Office of General Counsel API
Jim Ford -- VP, Federal Relations API
Sara Banaszak -- Senior Economist API
Doug Morris -- Group Director, Upstream API
Richard Ranger -- Manager, Upstream API
Bloggers:
Anne McGregor -- Smarter Missouri Energy Policy
Jeff McIntire-Strasburg -- Treehugger
Chris Miller -- Maine Commonwealth
Geoff Styles -- Energy Outlook
Gail Tverberg -- The Oil Drum
Nate Hagens -- The Oil Drum
Robert Rapier -- R-Squared, The Oil Drum
"McQ" -- The QandO Blog
Carter Wood -- ShopFloor.org
Gerald Karey -- Platts
Pejman Yousefzadeh -- Red State
Besides the points made above, a few other points made on the call:
According to Red Cavaney of API, one of the big concerns is that there are a number of provisions in the proposed legislation that amount to a complete turn around in energy policy from the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Energy companies require very long lead times because of the nature of their operations. Rapid changes in energy policy make it difficult for oil companies to plan.
Robert Rapier asked about the rollback of tax breaks for the petroleum industry. Mark Kibbe said that these were problematic. Some of the rollbacks make costs of production in the US higher, so oil companies have the incentive to more production to non-US locations --not the intended result. Others potentially expose US oil companies to double taxation on a portion of foreign income - making them less competitive with foreign oil companies.
Chris Miller asked about royalty payments in kind. With this type of royalties, instead of determining a price equivalent for every barrel of oil pumped, royalty payments are made in oil, as a percentage of oil produced. Erik Milito, office of the general council at API, indicated that the industry is very much in favor of these, because they are easy to audit.
There was also some discussion about re-writing leases that were erroneously written. According to Red Cavaney, API is very much opposed to this, because it involves changing a signed contract. API's position is that the contracts should remain in place as they are.
Red Cavaney also discussed price gouging legislation. API is very much opposed to this, because it is very difficult to tell which price increases are lawful and which are not. API feels that it will act much like a price cap. Previous experience in the 1970s and 80s shows that such caps work poorly. Such a cap will also tend to increase the chance of outages if it discourages oil companies from finding additional supply at higher prices in time of emergency.
Robert Rapier asked about API's position on CAFE standards. API would like to stay out of this discussion - they feel it is between the auto industry and regulators.
When asked about carbon caps, Red Cavaney indicated that API is concerned that the US will adopt carbon caps, while countries like China will have none. API is concerned that if this happens, the US will be at a competitive disadvantage. Mr. Cavaney does not believe that the American public really understands the costs associated with these proposals.
When asked to sum up the position of API on the current legislation, Mr. Cavaney said that their biggest concern is that the current legislation should "Do no harm".
At this point, it is not yet clear what provisions will end up in the compromise legislation. It seems to me that one combination that would be particularly harmful from the industry's point of view would be legislation which includes both a price gouging provision and a rollback of tax breaks. The rollback of tax breaks would raise taxes for the industry. If the price gouging provision were in effect as well, it seems like it would be very difficult for the industry to pass the higher taxes through to the customer.
We have talked on The Oil Drum about the possibility of using higher taxes on gasoline and other petroleum products so as to encourage conservation. If the higher taxes on the oil industry could be passed through to the customer, it seems like the impact would be somewhat similar to higher taxes on the end products, since the higher cost would act to encourage conservation. If the oil companies can really pass the cost on, this might be a more palatable way of discouraging consumption than a direct tax. If the higher taxes cannot be passed on, they become problematic -- the oil and gas industry has a huge need for investment in the future, and removing profit which could be used for this investment seems counterproductive.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
I guess the Dems took their marching orders from Archer Daniels on the Ethanol two-card Montey game.
Ethanol is horrifically destructive to the enviroment and isn't cost effective, thus the billions being snuckered out of the American taxpayer.
Just more evidence that the government is incapable of solving our energy problem. The free-market is the best solution for our energy crisis.
The ethanol provision (36 billion barrels by 2022) is only in the Senate version of the bill. We will have to wait and see how it comes out in the Conference Committee. I agree that ramping up ethanol to 36 billion barrels a day doesn't look like a good solution, based on what we know today.
The one thing that the Senate provision has going for it is a 2022 date - 15 years away. If cellulosic ethanol is still going nowhere in a few years, there would seem to be time to readjust the goal to a lower level. In an earlier conference call, API expressed concern about the disruption that would be caused by ramping up the oil industry's ability to use ethanol (additional truck and barge transportation and processing facilities), especially if additional production never materialized. With a 2022 target date, there would seem to be a long enough lead time that this disruption would be less of a problem.
Yup, that good ole "free market" is the solution. Now let me see, just how many solutions has the market thrown up as possible solutions? Hmmmm. Nuclear? Nope, too many subsidies. Solar? Nope, not economical yet. Wind? looks, good, but the market hasn't figured out how to power a car on it yet. Coal? Ah, yes, there we go. What? what's that you're saying about CO2?
To be fair, maybe the "free market" could solve our problems, but seeing has how we don't have one, it's hard to see what difference it makes.
The "free" market is a myth and always has been. It is a buzz phrase the right wingers use when they have nothing else to say. It simplifies everything and gets rid of all those details that you have to think about to actually make anything really work.
It simplifies everything and gets rid of all those details that you have to think about to actually make anything really work
Right. Like the corrput government we have, as exemplified by this failed de-energy bill, has a solution?
Just look at Los Angles and the rest of California. As far as their energy policy has gone, and it is as leftist as it gets, it's a failure.
They don't call it "metrofail" for nothing.
"corrput government" like a meeting of a VP guy in a undisclosed location with a bunch of undisclosed cronies?
hmmmmm..I live in Los Angeles and when Enron was busy turning off the grid in Santa Monica and Pasadena my good old Department of Water and Power kept chugging along.
"Department of Water and Power kept chugging along."
Yeah, like good old TVA keeps rolling along as well, despite being 'public power'. I believe that LADWP was run at that time by a former Chattanoogan and TVA board chairman, S David Freeman.
S David Freeman.
Yea- Freedman introduced several important fixes the LADWP, he laid off several employees and cut expenses, the unions whined but the mayor was Republican and the councilman felt that they had no choice because of the debt load the dept was running.
The best move he made was sticking the the general plan, thats estimated the amount of population the city proper would have then aquiring the power to match it before useage.
The plan went under fire in the early 90's when the population was declining (riots, earthquakes) but the dept stuck to it and acquired 50% ownership in two Utah coal power plants. Had a private firm been in change the plants would have never been bought and Enron would have the city shut down literally.
Freeman before he left had a solar program in place and wanted to create local gas power plants. I guess it would be powered with LNG. I don't think the plan went anywhere.
Just look at Los Angles and the rest of California. As far as their energy policy has gone, and it is as leftist as it gets, it's a failure.
They don't call it "metrofail" for nothing.
I have lived in Los Angeles for 28 years. Please help me understand exactly what I am supposed to be calling "metrofail". I have never heard the term before.
Also, please explain how CA's energy policy is "leftist". I too remember the tax payers of this state being ripped off royally by the free market forces of Enron.
Currently the rightist minority elements in Sacramento have an outrageous impact over the annual budget process, which requires a super majority, and appear to have successfully cut funding to much needed, energy efficient light rail, while continuing to fund freeway expansion. Not very leftist to me.
I have lived in Los Angeles for 28 years. Please help me understand exactly what I am supposed to be calling "metrofail". I have never heard the term before.
A. Do you remember Proposition AA on the November 1982 ballot and what they said the funds would do as far as metrofail?
B. Ridership is horrible. They promised us Metrofail would cure our traffic problems.
C. Unless you're a shut-in and don't get out, do you dare argue that the traffic has gotten horribly worse the last few years?
Also, please explain how CA's energy policy is "leftist". I too remember the tax payers of this state being ripped off royally by the free market forces of Enron.
Uhm...are you sure you lived in Cal as long as you said you did? I lived there 44 years and STILL work there 8 months out of the year.
Currently the rightist minority elements in Sacramento have an outrageous impact over the annual budget process, which requires a super majority, and appear to have successfully cut funding to much needed, energy efficient light rail, while continuing to fund freeway expansion. Not very leftist to me.
Actually it has been AG Brown who has stopped any new construction desigend to alleviate the traffic problems which wasted untold millions of gasonline and pollute the air.
Brown, who was also the former governor, is a hard-core leftist enviromentalist.
So all of Arnolds bonds which passed last November have been for naught as far as fixing the roads and building new ones.
Oh yeah, Arnold, the "green" governor, stopped a Ligth-rail project from getting on the ballot.
You gotta love that one.
You mean to say there are parts of L.A. that have not been paved over yet? If highways, byways, overpasses, and concrete were the answer to traffic problems, then L.A. would be heaven on earth. I drove in L.A. as far back as 1977; it was hell on earth then and it dominated by freeways even then. You say it's gotten horrible in the last few years? Try the last 40 years.
Maybe Brown is stopping new construction because he knows how futile that is. Denver, where I live, just spent billions on a new, improved interstate system through downtown. Yeh, things are just rosy there now and all problems are solved. To their credit, they have been doing a fairly good job expanding their light rail which does, in fact, make it easier to get to and from downtown and will be even better in the future.
If you want to build a transit system that is utilized it is counterproductive to make auto travel easier simultaneously. As far as burning fuel stuck in traffic goes, this can and will be solved by the widespread implemenation of hybrid vehicles with start/stop mode.
Taking the long view, at some point you just have to stop building more and "better" roads. All you do is create a hopeless treadmill. Besides, we're supposed to be running out of oil. And your solution is to create more demand for oil.
And why are you complaining about Arnold. So, he's not really all that green is he. You should be happy. Arnold's solution to global warming is to build the hydrogen highway. Please!! And he would be traveling that hydrogen highway with his Hummer yet. Yes, you should be happy. Arnold is not the hard core, left wing environmentalist you seem to detest so much.
Your solution to the hole L.A. and much of the rest of the country is in is to build a bigger hole. With taxpayer money, of course, even though you are mister conservative.
I think there is a basic conflict between having a great or even good mass transit system and a road system which has lots of excess capacity. As soon as the transit system starts to meaningfully take the load off the road system, then people tend to gravitate back to the road system. Let those who choose to do so, drive through hell every day, but provide them an alternative.
I nominally lived in the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia from about 1968 to 2002. To go any further left you would be talking Khmer Rouge or something like that.
Los Angeles isn't as "leftist" as it gets.
LA has cars cars cars and zillions of roads.
Europe has much more rail investment and it is actually quite successful. Are they full of super-humans? No, same sort of people.
Like the corrput government we have, as exemplified by this failed de-energy bill, has a solution?
This again is the right winger's non answer: "destroy and thwart everything the government does because it's intrinsically bad."
The alternative is to insist on less corrupt and effective programs with significant impact.
I'm for eliminating subsidies AND restrictions on all of them. If Solar is economically viable than I'm all for it. We know that it isnt' and won't be in our lifetime, but hey, let the cards fall where they may.
Anything the free-market offers is better than what these clowns in D.C. have suggested.
Good idea - last time I looked "anything" in my gas tank got me 0 mpg. When my local electric company put "anything" into their coal-fired plant we got "nothing."
Cheering the "free-market" as an ideology is all fine and good. But when it comes right down to it, the market we have now (and it ain't free by any stretch of the imagination) would offer us oil until its more expensive than coal and then it would switch to coal. That is the market's answer and I'm not sure that it is better than the 3-ringer in DC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
The problem with infrastructure is it cannot involve a totally absent of any regulation - in part because the cost of entry to add to the grid is way too high and the maintenance is “externalized” to government agencies.
I think that we need to remove all regulation regarding property owners with power generation – if someone wants to add a windmill then so be it, we need to encourage the property owners to view power as something they have to, in part, provide by themselves.
As I understand it, the grid has to be able to accept the fluctuating power of the various windmills that are added. I suppose there are also issues of needing to properly connect up with the grid. It seems like some regulations will be needed.
Yes, I meant having a windmill power the properties directly not feed into the grid. If everyplace has a standardized battery hookup then market activity can start taking place at some local level.
I guess I don't know all that, but hey, maybe that's just me.
In certain applications, solar is viable today-- Passive solar, solar lighting, thermal solar, remote off-grid PV systems, PV power in Hawaii, Italy. (ref)
According to the DOE solar timeline: "Within 10 years, photovoltaic power will be competitive in price with traditional sources of electricity." (ref)
The National Renewable Energy Lab has a 2015 target price of solar PV of 5-10 cents/kWh, which would be viable for net metered grid-tie systems. Increased production, as from tax incentives, would get us to "grid parity" sooner. (ref)
Germany, with its financial incentives (feed-in tariffs) is competitive with commercial electric rates today. (ref)
The world is full of conventional wisdoms, things that will never come to pass in our lifetime, that do indeed come to pass. I can remember people saying that LCD displays would never replace CRTs, yet they did. And isn't there currently a very similar CW running around about peak oil?
There is retail PV being sold now for $3.00/Watt and wholesale PV being sold for $1.29/Watt.
I would say that 7 cents/kWh is happening today so 4 cents/kWh by 2015 should not be a problem.
Chris
WaltC - You have a highly non-pedestrian and scientific approach - who here uses references - are you inside or outside the solar industry?
Thanks, I'll take that as a complement. I'm a retired telecom engineer, so I'm about as 'outside' as you can get.
BRNM,
There was a guy on CSPAN this morning talking about how our government-propped infrastructure is at every level aimed towards supporting the car-centric life style.
On the local level, police spend most of their energy enforcing traffic laws. There are traffic lights and highway signs everywhere; etc.
On the Federal level, our armies are out and about the world to secure the oil over "there" because we plum ran out of it over "here".
There is nothing "economical" or uneconomical about oil versus solar. Our government entirely props up (subsidizes) the petroleum way of life and then accounts for it in whatever funny way is necessary so as to make it sound "economical".
I really don't know what kind of "economical" thinking you are engaging in. We as a society are sinking all our resources, time and energy into an infrastructure that is destined for failure. Have you noticed a couple of little things "collapsing" as of late? Any bridges? Coal mines? Dried out forests? Bankrupt cities? Off-shored jobs? These might be clues.
On the Federal level, our armies are out and about the world to secure the oil over "there" because we plum ran out of it over "here".
Good. I know you're not sitting in some carbon-neutral home, nor are you driving some car that runs on solar or wind power. If we listened to luddites such as yourself the country would be in a deep-recession right now. And guys like you would be blaming Washington for not doing something about it.
There is nothing "economical" or uneconomical about oil versus solar. Our government entirely props up (subsidizes) the petroleum way of life and then accounts for it in whatever funny way is necessary so as to make it sound "economical".
I'm all for taking away said subsidies on both petroleum and solar. Solar would die on the vine while the oil industry could keep going on.
I really don't know what kind of "economical" thinking you are engaging in. We as a society are sinking all our resources, time and energy into an infrastructure that is destined for failure. Have you noticed a couple of little things "collapsing" as of late? Any bridges? Coal mines? Dried out forests? Bankrupt cities? Off-shored jobs? These might be clues.
Coal mines? Geez, digging for coal has always had the risk of "collapsing". Nice try to link what is happening in Utah to the energy crisis. No cigar though.
My goodness! You're just a font of conventional wisdoms! I'll have to start jotting some of these down just for future reference.
I can see why someone might be against subsidies, but based on the few posts of yours I've read you also seem to be against solar. Is there something that you are a fan of, or are you also against all other alternative energy sources as well? In which case, what are your plans in a post peak oil world?
What part of Selling-Congress-to-The-Highest-Bidders (SC2-THB) is there that you don't understand?
Of course we have a free market.
Just leave the cold cash in your representative's fridge.
You didn't see the memo? All bribes are now regulated by the ATF.
BrussellNM,
I'm afraid you haven't thought this through, but are making a statement without looking at the facts, which is also the flaw with the new Energy Bill.
87% of the world oil production, and all of the prospective areas in the world are controlled by national oil companies and national governments. The big oil companies don't set prices or make investment decisions except on their 1/8th of world production. They can't deal with national governments, it takes our own goverment. And that's the truth.
Even in the United States, the home of the free markets and many of the big oil companies, the only places to look for giant fields are owned by the Federal Government. They own all of the offshore waters more than 3 miles offshore except in Texas, where its 7 miles offshore. They own most of the state of Alaska, and they own the National Forests and Grazing Lands where exploration is restricted. The rest has been drilled up. And this isn't some new rule, all land title comes from the Sovereignty, and always has, its a principle of English Common Law and predates the Constitution.
Everbody needs a dose of reality here. Congress wants to blame somebody, so they blame big oil. Don't believe me, ask API. The fact is that big oil has done a magnificant job of bring cheap energy to the people of the world for the last 100 years. On this website I read constantly how energy is underpriced, and they are the guys who brought us all the cheap production. You can give all the credit you want to some mythical Free Market Fairy, but it was the sweat, knowledge and money of people in the oil and gas business that have formed the basis of our prosperity in the whole world.
The problem is that we were too damn good. We got the cheap to produce, easy to refine oil out of the ground and sold it cheap. Whats left now is stuff like the Alberta tar sands that costs $100,000 dollars per barrel per day of synthetic crude to get out of the ground, plus the transportation down to the US, the production costs and the refining costs, or the oil shale, which nobody has figured out how to make economic. The cheap oil that's left? The Mideast governments nationalised it 30 years ago. And very other exporter-the national governments control how its produced, the production rate and the taxes and royalties that they charge big oil. Look at Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelans are the third largest exporter to the US and they just changed the deal. The consumers of the world are paying that bill if they want Venezuelian oil.
And now Congress and the Consumers want to get all whiney and blame somebody, so they slap on punative taxation and blame everbody except the consumer. Its the consumers fault, because they don't restrain their useage. If everbody in the US would just moderate and use 10% less the price of oil would drop like a rock, just as it did in the 1980's when we conserved and cut oil prices from $32 a barrel down to $12 in 1988. And, if you want to stop global warming, conserve. Its not someone else's behaviour, its the consumer who leave the AC on and burns coal generated electricity. That's true conservatism, take responsibility for your own behaviour and conserve. Its everybody's fault, not the guys who bring you gasoline cheaper than a liter of water at the same convenience store.
Punative taxation, if it isn't unconstitutional it sure should be. Everbody owes society taxes. Its how we pay for our world, but its no more right to charge big oil comanies more than it is to charge a working guy higher taxes than his rich employer. Ask Warren Buffet about that.
And the API needs to get a dose of reality too. Its simple equity to pay royalties. The big oil companies want 25% for a lease on their minerals, the big oil companies should pay the people of the US the same for their minerals. And its a principle of law. Judges have always set aside totally inequitable contracts, and they'll do it here too. The big oil companies are going to owe penalties and interest and fantastic legal bills if they refuse to pay the people for their leases. And if it happens with the companies I own stock in, I'm going to sue their asses for irresponsibility, and that's a promise.
The big oil companies need to get real. If you distort the whole govermental process with campaign contributions and fake scientists on global warming, this is the result punative taxation. I'm from Houston. I know who gave George W. Bush the donations to get elected. it was the Alkecks, the Farish's the Fondrens, Ken Lay and just about everybody on Cheney's secret energy task force. If you support a toad don't get upset when he pisses on everybody. Why do you think the Democrats are so mad, you can't suppress a recount on an election flying everbody around in Ken Lay's airplane and not have it come back.
The fact is we are all just about screwed. We have lost in Iraq, we lost any hope of victory when the thugs started torturing people, but if we leave, America isn't getting back in the Persian Gulf. Unless we get through to the American people that they have to cut their consumption or we'll continue to be over a barrel with no KY. The big oil companies had better learn to leave our democracy alone, or there will be no more oil business-it'll be nationalised too. And API needs to learn how to talk to people, not justguys with huge stock options.
rant over. I feel better.
Bob Ebersole
Bob, this is one of the best posts I've ever read on TOD.
"America is not a young land: it is old and dirty and evil before the settlers, before the Indians. The evil is there waiting." William S. Burroughs
Bob, i'll second that. Good rant. clearly, you're mad as heck and not willing to take it anymore.
Bob,
Thanks for the post. I agree that the oil companies have done a good job of providing cheap energy, maybe too good a job.
About not dealing with the consumers, they are the ones that vote. Those soccer moms in the big SUVs vote right on time and every time. As soon as you take something away from them they are looking for the first politician that will give it back to replace you.
The term that was once used to describe the Republican Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who is now doing time for corruption and taking bribes is "out sized ego". That meant that he felt "entitled" to things, that he deserved better and he was going to get the those things. That might describe some of our American consumers with large SUVs and monster houses.
Thanks Bob.
Great Rant. You should do it more often. Exactly my point why ALL taxes and government overhead should be put on consumption. The more you buy, the more you pay. The more you earn, the more you keep. The more stuff we buy, the more we need police, fire, roads, military, etc. All of it should be correlated to how much we consume. If the rich guy wants to buy a yacht, he pays taxes when he buys it. If someone wants to start a small company, they just call some people and put them to work without hiring 40 tax specialists to figure out the best way to hide their income and inflate expenses, and maybe, just maybe, somebody technical will become a company president and decide that products aren't going to be shipped unless they actually WORK!
There is no more Left and Right, just the Corporatocracy and the scum who take their bribe money and tell us they are 'representing' people. Consumers have been kept childish by lack of responsible leaders.
We can dream that consumers need to change, but they won't without leadership. Individuals will, and do, but as a group, the majority of people do what they see others do either in herds or on TV. The only thing TV shows them is that they need a bigger TV to see all the flashy sports stats and disaster Spectacles as News.
We can either decide how to change, or Nature will make the change for us. Descent Plans need to be implemented NOW! Throw the usury-sucking economists into the river with the lobbyists.
"If you want Change, keep it in your pocket. You vote for a faux president every four years, but you vote for real corporations thousands of times each month. Your money is your only real vote."
Auntiegrav,
I agree that the best statement we can make is how we spend our money. And, I'm very serious that we all need to look at our own behaviour first, the most important change is the one I make. But, sorry about the consumption tax. It means that Warren Buffet would be taxed at the rate of about $0.05 per million dollars because he is a frugal, modest man. And that isn't right.
I don't think anyone needs to inherit more than a couple of million dollars. And I don't think anyone is worth a paycheck of more than a million dollars a year. Its a simple matter of equity in a world where a quarter of the people are starving and can't get a education. So I guess that makes me into some kind of socialist. I personally don't really care that much for possessions. I can only wear one pair of pants at once, and this time of year I just want them to go to the knee. I can only sleep in one bed, and I'm on a diet. But, I want to play with the big boys on some oil deals, and that takes a certain level of prosperity. But, to tell you the truth, I do what I do because its fun.
I've got a good friend named Cleveland Turner, he's a great folk artist, nationally recognised but he's poor. He was raised in Mississippi, never learned to read, and lives very modestly in the third ward.He has a very small social security check, doesn't drive, rides a bicycle and makes art. He told me once a few years ago that you can have too much money and your stuff owns you, or you can have too little and worry about that all the time, but god had blessed him because he has just enough. Google him, his art is pretty amazing found art stuff. I'll be happy to take anyone from the ASPO Convention to meet him-his house is an amazing piece of art, and its on the web under Flower man, Houston.
Bob Ebersole
Why don't you think that a man who lives frugally and puts little burden on the system or his neighbors should be taxed according to the burden he puts on the system?
Because he HAS money? I HAVE a very valuable farm. It doesn't make a profit (yet), but I have to pay huge property taxes on it, even though my children are homeschooled. No matter how small and frugal I would like to live, I have to produce enough to make those taxes and the cost of high priced health insurance.
A consumption tax would mean that the money Buffet has doesn't matter. He would pay taxes according to the burden which is caused by how much he spends. We need police because people steal each other's stuff and it needs to be protected. We need big, expensive fire trucks to protect big, expensive houses full of fire-prone electrical and gas appliances and gizmos. We need a big military to 'maintain the shipping lanes' for things like vanadium, tantalum, and boobaroo, not for any political reasons. Nobody is out there trying to 'wipe out freedom of choice'. Mostly, they are trying to protect themselves from profit-sanctioned destruction. Blind faith in representatives and their crooked system is as bad as blind faith in the FSM (flying spaghetti monster).
A million dollars a year. Yeah, right. That would be 'just enough' to pay our health insurance so those companies can build more skyscrapers and landscaped business parks to deduct as 'expenses' from their 'income' so they don't have to pay any taxes, let alone paying 25% on the paper they buy to print propaganda.
Bob,
Removing a tax break is not punative. That's why it was called a tax "break". A break from a certain tax.
If it was called a tax retirement, tax cancellation, etc., you're rant might have value.
As for your fellow noblemen in the oil industry who think the oil on federal land is theirs, well, gee whiz, I guess you won't mind me coming over and digging up your yard in search of gold. And if I find it, I'll give you a dollar. After all, I did all the digging, paid for the shovel, hauled the gold away. And by the way, clean up your damn lawn! All those holes are a blight on the neighborhood.
Please note that some have voluntarily agreed to renegotiate these leases.
House Farm Bill Includes Production Fee For '98-99 Oil Leases
While I do note that my own company has agreed to pay royalties, I can't get past the irony that a farm bill would attempt to rectify the situation. Perhaps in the next energy bill, we can get rid of those darn sugar subsidies. I mean, come on. I can argue a case for corn subsidies. I don't want our corn farmers to be put out of business by cheap imports (even though we get subsidized high-fructose corn syrup as part of the deal). But sugar? Give me a break. Aren't we fat enough already without subsidizing the problem?
Robert;
That's correct, several of the officers have agreed to renegotiate the leases. That's good business policy and a recognition of the situation. I guess I should have made my self a little more clear, what I was addressing is a couple of statements of API in the transcript linked at the top of this thread/ Specificially, API stated about the back royalties that "a signed deal was a deal" and that the leases should at the most be renegotiated for 1/6th, or 0.1666667% or 1/8th, or 0.125% royalty, which is ludicrously low.
Lemme tell you how the cow ate the cabbage.
First, as you and I know, and most of the regulars on this site, API or the American Petroleum Institute, is the lobbying and public education arm of the big oil companies. There's nothing wrong with that, its legal, moral and constituional that there views should be represented.But the fact is that the vast majority of their support comes from companies like Exxon and Chevron.
Secondly, all oil and gas leases have royalties, or a percentage of the production paid to the mineral owners. In the United States these royalties or percentages were given by the Soveriegnty to the people when the land was first patented,or bought from the sovereignty. In every other country in the world all minerals from under the surface were retained by the sovereignty, or government. I could elaborate, but this is a basic, worldwide principle of law from Roman times at least. In the US, Texas was a republic for 10 years before it was annexed, and all unpatented land were retained by the State, along with responsibility for the Mexican war debt, and the Supreme Court decided in the 1950's that our minerals went out to the 7 league limit claimed under Spanish law. In all other states, by statute, the Congress have given the states the land out to three miles from the shore. In Texas these tidelands are managed by the General Land Office, and by state constitution, and leases are sold by auction a couple of times a year and the price and the royalties are negotiable, beyond a certain basic, but tough lease. The same in Louisiana, except its a 3 mile limit. The waters further offshore are managed by the U.S. Minerals Management Service in New Orlean, and have certain minimum terms, which are that 1/6th percentage I mentioned above, but are also sold by competitive bid.
That's the basic info everbody needs to consider the claims.
In about 1988 or 1989, I forget which year,but under King George the Elder, the Minerals Management lowered the royalties to 0 on the deepwater offshore tracts, which are now the subsalt trend and the Eocene trend where Jack 2 and some other fields have been discovered. I thought it was preposterous at the time, but, some things just aren't worth protesting. The leases contained no royalty escalation clause, and thats the money that everybody is argueing about-at least 1/6th of billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of gas. Sometime during the early years of the Clinton administration the regular bidding situation was restored, and the barn door shut after the pigs were already in the corn and the cows in the cabbage. These are the sacred signed contracts that the API is defending.
Now if you buy a lease or farm-in minerals from a big oil company in the US, they will charge you at a minimum 1/4th of the oil as a royalty. Ask their land departments. This fair, its an open transaction between a buyer and a seller. That's where I get the 25% that they should pay the people for their royalty for. Its not a tax, its a royalty, and this is an important distinction. Royalties of at least 1/8th have been paid by the industry as a standard since at least 1910 to the mineral owners.
Its also a principle of law that a totally unfair contract can be voided by a judge in a law suit, and I think everyone in the country believes in that. Its why they call it law and equity.
So its my contention that if this goes to a court, Exxon and Chevron et al are going to loose, and I believe that the companies who have decided to negotiate's legal departments have advised them of the same, even though I haven't read their opinions and memorandums.
So if the companies that I own stock in, Chevron and Exxon, go to court and lose, they at a minimum will have to pay the back royalties, pay fantastic legal bills and likely will get punative damages. And I just threatened to join in a stockholders class action suit against the board and management for stupidity and arrogance if they want to try, also my right under securities law.
API has taken the most extreme position of their donors and adopted it as their own, which is one of the main reasons I don't agree with the API. This kind of a position, extreme and stupid, alienates anyone who knows the facts in the situation. By taking the major's donations and spreading their propoganda, they make every other position they support suspect. If their mission is in fact to educate the public so that they don't go for punative taxation, they have thrown out years of good work by people who should be their natural allies.
One thing about representing people, and I represent oil companies in their negotiations, is sometimes you have to tell a client they are wrong and need to settle. If the client is worth a shit, it won't get you fired, because you have truly represented their interests. And, the API needs to truly represent their clients.
I know that's long and boring, but I hope that everybody now understands my position. Bob Ebersole
And, if you want to stop global warming, conserve. Its not someone else's behaviour, its the consumer who leave the AC on and burns coal generated electricity. That's true conservatism, take responsibility for your own behaviour and conserve. Its everybody's fault, not the guys who bring you gasoline cheaper than a liter of water at the same convenience store.
I'll start "conserving" when all those proponents of GW lead a carbon-neutral lifestyle.
When all those people walk away from the combustion engine, I'll know the problem is serious.
Until then I will consider their hysteria to be shilling for the political power of the enviromentalist.
When they walk away from the 28,000 foot masnion while running for President, I'll start conserving.
Until then, enough of the GW hysteria already.
BRussellNM,
Truly, follow what your Fearless Leader Geoge W Bush is saying. He has admitted to Global Warminng! Even the Dinosaurs running Exxon Mobil have stopped funding the Global Warming deniers.
But my point is valid still. The root of conservative is conserve, in other word save. Being frugal was a root value of my Puritan ancestors who moved to this country so they could be just as small-minded and intollerant as they wanted. Saving money and making things go as far as possible was a value of the Founding Fathers. To quote Benjamine Franklin,"A penny saved is a penny earned" and it used to be a value of the Republican Party pre-Reagan. The whole Conservation movement was started by Teddy Rooseveldt, a Republican who started the National Park System.
If you want to send a donation to your utility company, go right ahead, send them a check. But please, for the rest of our sakes, turn off the AC and heat when you aren't using it. Stop sending your oil money overseas to Hugo Chavez and the Saudi's by slowing down on the highway. Do it for your Conservative principles!
And don't worry, 99% of the people on this site accept global warming. The rest of your message gets lost in arguing it, so stick to the thing that you can change you'll have better digestion.
By the way, how's the antelope hunting on your ranch?
I love to hunt and fish.
Bob Ebersole
The Dems are permanently stuck in cornucopian mode, both as a matter of philosophy and source of cash. They will get it wrong endlessly. The race is between hierarchy and resources, but for them to accept that would require accepting limits on scale and policies on redistribution. [Though to be honest, they have a policy on redistribution: the rich get richer - that's their class.]
cfm in Gray, ME
"The Dems are permanently stuck in cornucopian mode."
This is crazy. Do you really accuse Al Gore of being a cornucopian? Or is he not really a Dem? But rather, in your mind, just a mad commie? And are the great bulk of main stream oil executives really clear headed realists? What nonsense! There is plenty of blame to go around, except perhaps for those under 13 (the traditional age of reason in some religions).
I think the recent post of an interview with Hubbert had him expressing a very deep reality: There is something fundementally wrong and unworkable in our financial system. We have good physical science based technology, but woefully inadequate financial system.
Yes, Gore is a cornucopian. Where is it that Truth talks about limits? Where is that Truth discusses distribution? All we need is Will and Will is a renewable resource (paraphrased). Of course he is a Democrat; that "rising tide lifts all boats" is a matter of fundamental belief in the liberal mind (liberals of all colors, not just Democrats). Tell me where Truth challenges growth and technology.
"Inadequate" isn't the right word for our financial system. "Rigged" or "gamed" might be. Freeing capital from national boundaries via "free trade" deals is a big chunk of that, a chunk that Adam Smith did not envision. [Greider, Sirota]
I'd also suggest that technology is not independent of finance, but that the two are wedded - technology is terms of trade, finance and empire. What better examples of American technology than hedge funds, ENRON, Blackwater or food aid (heavily subsidized)? [Hornborg, Daley]
Gore and most Democrats says we need only apply sufficient will and we can do anything - fix global warming, peak oil, end hunger, provide health care for all. That's a cornucopian message designed to appeal to our fat-craving genes. They believe it, but it is still a lie.
cfm in Gray, ME
I'm a loser, baby, so why don' ya kill me...
I hear your message and agree.
Others, I suspect, hear the anger, nothing but the anger. The message gets drowned in all that anger. Try toning it down once in a while.
While watching CSPAN, I hear one politician after another mouthing off sounds like "ingenuity" and "the power of the market".
A big smile creeps out across the entirety of their countenance and a wink in the eye flashes out like a blinding search light into the applauding crowd.
With these bites of sound logic they have moved the universe: "Will, ... Ingenuity, ... Technology, ... Channeling the Power of the Free Market and Technology to Solve all our problems. God Bless only our Country. Sound ideas and Sound Logic.
Now if only Mother Nature weren't deaf and indifferent to the noises the apes make in their respective wood and concrete jungles.
The free-market is the best solution for our energy crisis.
If by "free market" you mean competitive markets, then you can't just say it. There are a wide variety of conditions under which competitive markets fail, and serious economists, including conservative ones, all admit it. So you need to describe a competitive energy market in which (simply to name some of the obvious problems): barriers to entry, asymmetrical information, and externalities. Seriously, as a homework assignment, post a description of an end-to-end competitive market for delivering electricity that addresses those issues and requires no government intervention (beyond, say, enforcement of contract agreements) to function.
We are at peak oil or beyond. The incentives need to be to replace oil through conservation and other alternatives, not just speed up the inevitable decline. If the purpose of the bill is to increase fossil fuel, including oil production, then, yeh, maybe it is a failure. But what you do depends upon where you want to go. The oil companies, obviously, want to continue every subsidy possible. In a world without peak oil and global warming, or a world where we thought those two things didn't exist, then we could say how stupid the legislation was.
The legislation may be stupid, but not on the level the oil companies would like us to believe. If it encourages coal, but discourages oil, then it may be counterproductive from a climate change standpoint. But discouraging oil production, if that is even true, which I doubt given high oil prices, is not a bad thing in itself since the time when we needed to be pursuing alternatives to oil was decades ago.
The oil will peak regardless of investment; that is part of the essence of peak oil. If more and more investment would solve the problem, then, almost by definition, peak oil is a myth, which can just be solved by more investment. There is also the assumption that these tax increases will really affect investment all that much. Well, one might be somewhat cynical given increasing dividends, profits, and buybacks.
Cutting back on investment is not counterproductive if congress used the proceeds of increased taxes to increase alternatives. It is only counterproductive if your paycheck is from the oil companies.
As far as their complaints about ethanol goes, though, that is another story. Congress is placing far too much faith in the ability of biofuels to make up petroleum shortfalls. If we are simply plowing money from the oil industry into the biofuel industry, I think that is very short sighted and destructive.
Hypethically, if the rollbacks on tax breaks cause the oil companies to drill outside the U.S., so what.
I think one of the concerns of the oil companies is that they do not want to be caught in a squeeze between price gouging provisions (which they view as being akin to price controls) and higher taxes.
Oil companies are going to be hit very hard by peak oil. Their most productive wells are declining rapidly. If they continue to drill, it is likely to be in sites that are very expensive to produce. There is also a huge amount of existing infrastructure that needs to be maintained (particularly pipelines). While I agree that there has been a lot of less-than-productive use of the profits in the past (stock buybacks, purchases of other companies), the fact remains that we will need these oil companies in the years ahead, as imports become more and more of a problem.
The oil "majors" are subject to increased competition both from the National Oil Companies (overseas) and the small independent companies in the US. We don't need to make it harder than necessary for them.
The legislation may be stupid, but not on the level the oil companies would like us to believe. If it encourages coal, but discourages oil, then it may be counterproductive from a climate change standpoint. But discouraging oil production, if that is even true, which I doubt given high oil prices, is not a bad thing in itself since the time when we needed to be pursuing alternatives to oil was decades ago.
Climate change, which has been with us since the dawn of mankind, is inevitable with or without man's input.
Thus Coal-to-gas liquification should not be taken off the table. It should be promoted.
If you're one of the ones who believe man is responsible for GW then you should be 150% against this bill since the combustion of ethanol produces CO2.
Even creating ethanol releases CO2. Its a lose-lose proposition.
Ethanol, with its enomous release of CO2, and this bill, only demonstrate the intellectual dishonesty of the liberals running congress. They'll bloviate all day about GW then throw billions at an industry that promises to make GW worse via increased CO2 emissions.
You make it sound like the belief in man caused global warming is some kind of fringe group. Yes, I am one of the many who believe that it has been conclusively demonstrated that man caused co2 emissions are the biggest driver in the current temperature rises that we have seen over the last 100 years.
There are many things in this bill that are positive. Yes, I think it is a mistake to promote biofuels, but that doesn't mean that the bill as a whole is a disaster.
The kind of climate change we are experiencing is only inevitable if we continue to spew the current level or increased amounts of carbon. Coal to liquids is a total disaster.
I believe that virtually every politician is congress is intellectually dishonest. Having said that, all we can do is work for meaningful change and try to convince our congress people the folly of promoting things like biofuels as a solution to both our energy shortfalls and environmental crises.
The Repubicans have been solely devoted to propping up the fossil fuels industries, especially oil. There are problems with this bill, but at least it emphasizes something besides fossil fuels.
You make it sound like the belief in man caused global warming is some kind of fringe group. Yes, I am one of the many who believe that it has been conclusively demonstrated that man caused co2 emissions are the biggest driver in the current temperature rises that we have seen over the last 100 years.
I don't want to drag the discussion about oil into the GW discussion. If you wish to discuss it off-line that is fine by me.
The problem is that Ethanol is a massive contributor to CO2 emmissions, so if you believe that man-made CO2 is causing GW you must be against this de-energy bill.
The Dems are in the hip-pocket of big agriculture my friend, much to the detriment of our energy situation.
Fine. We agree that the promotion of ethanol is a major defect of the bill regardless of our differing views of GW. Just about everyone is in the hip pocket of agriculture. What else is new? These subsidies reigned under the republicans and they will rule under the dems.
BRussellNM -
Please do us all a massive favour and read the posting guidelines. Specifically the first three
1. When citing facts, provide references or links.
2. Make it clear when you are expressing an opinion. Do not assert opinions as facts.
3. When presenting an argument, cite supporting evidence and use logical reasoning.
Where is the reasoning, citations or logic behind any of the things you've said in your posts in this thread relating to ethanol being "horrific for the environment", "not being cost effective" and all the ravings on global warming you've treated us to?
Either put up or shut up.
Cuchulainn
Hey!!!
Nobody,,NOBODY here on TOD is following these rules.
Not even the Drumbeat editor. She continues to make flat statements that are neither labeled as opinion nor represented as facts.
She like the rest just make them up and post them as they see fit and do NOT abide by the rules you stated.
Should they? Of course for a hellva lot of disinformation is being shoveled out(Drumbeats only I refer to) here as fact and proven when in reality it is nothing but opinion and conjecture and not even labeled as that...In other words count
how many IMO or IMHO you see these days.
Everyone wishes to be a pundit and a big source of information.In reality they are mostly GoogleMiesters and not that good even at that.
Observe the post up above by Oilmanbob taking everyone to task about the OIL COMPANIES.
That is totally rift with errors. For instance that someone else owns the land. Of course. They just buy up a mineral rights or make leases with the owners.
BUT who owns the refineries? Who owns the shipping? Who owns the pipelines? Who barters and contracts with the real owners? Who owns the gas stations?
Gimme a break. The breath and depth of disinformation that is starting to infect this site is astounding.
I suppose thats one reason the above rules might have been created. Yet NOT A ONE..that I can see is following them...
so why should the one your attacking do otherwise?
Do you really think now that this site can rise to the level of a well managed and refeered(sp)..debate? Nope.
Yet I think some rules are in order however since they are not being enforced??? And as I have read here they DO NOT read the DBs,,,funny for I see them posting on the DBs..so thats another piece of disinformation by the DB editor.
No Airdale is not back his postings on TOD but I do browse and I just couldn't let this glaring error sit up here and just let it fly.
Not that I am picking Cuchulainn(where do you folks get these weird hard to remember,difficult to prononce IDS??) ,,you were the one that called him on it and surely you must realize that no one else is doing what you take him to task for.
Comepeach?
Airdale
Airedale,
Beyond a couple of spelling mistakes, I'd like you to point out my factual errors. You are obviously in denial of the truth. Are you asserting that Aramco is owned by somebody other than the Saudi Government? What about their refining ? What about the 50% interest that they own with Chevron in all the Texaco refineries?
What about Global Santa Fe, who is owned by the Kuwaiti Royal family?
How about Royal Dutch Shell, owned 50% by the British Royal Family and the Dutch Royal family?
How about the Russians, who own 80% of any venture in the former Soviet Union, and all the fuel stations and refining?
How about countries like Somalia, Kenya and Viet nam, where all the refining and distribution is owned by the public?
How about PDVSA, who owns Citgo in the US and all the refining and distribution in Venezuela?
How about Pemex, who owns all the production, refining and distribution in Mexico?
How about Cuba? Libiya, Egypt? China?
I could go on and cover all the countries of the world, but it just gets long and boring. I'm quoting API on the 82% figure, but I know of my own seperate knowledge that it is accurate. Only in Western Europe, Canada, the US and Australia are private companies allowed to refine and distribute. Leases are only made on unchanging, free market terms by a very few countries. Everywhere else, the big oil companies get kicked out and their assets nationalised if they make good production, just as been done in Bolivia,Venezuela and in Russia in the last 5 years. And only in the United States do private citizens own their minerals, or companies who have purchased their minerals.
I've watched you attack oil companies before. You are a perfect example of someone who wants to scapegoat them in a situation they do not control. I've got my own problems with the behaviour of the majors, and one of the big ones is that their arrogant behaviour and refusal to acknowlege that times have changed. But, I am a truthful person and a realist. Their success is one of the main reasons that Americaa, Canada and Europe is very prosperous.
I am a petroleum landman. I buy oil leases, mostly in Texas, but I have studied land law and oil leases and agreements from 1975. You sir, are a hick. You've studied the ass of a mule or the windsheild of a tractor for about 70 years. You were happy to sell your farm for an appreciated value after owning it 40 or 50 years, and call it a capital gain. But when someone found an oilfield when oil was $10 a barrel, and now sells their oil for $70 a barrel, you call it a windfall profit and a rip-off after years of exponential inflation. I call that hypocricy and selfish stupidity.
The big oil companies don't set the prices. The national companies who own the production and most of the refining and distribution set the prices. The bankers who speculate in oil futures set the prices, and the consumers who think everybody has to have a car, a jet ski and a 5,000 sq. ft McMansion that sucks up heating set the prices . Those are my opinions, I'll plainly label them since you are too ignorant to figure them out easily, and did I mention, you piss me off?
Bob Ebersole
Lets see here:
A reasonable request by cuchulainn
1. When citing facts, provide references or links.
The response?
Nobody,,NOBODY here on TOD is following these rules.Once again, airdale is wrong. Wrong 2x over.
Because when I would post links to back up my statements about how Airdale was wrong, Airdale would dismiss as 'anyone can google'
And lookie here. Airdale does it again:
GoogleMiesters and not that good even at that.
Reality: Airdale just doesn't like 'When citing facts, provide references or links.' Airdale tries (and fails) to be insulting with GoogleMiesters and not that good even at that. In the world of Airdale, if one is 'reality based' with facts and citations to the facts, such posts are worthy of his scorn.
I know I post links quite often, and I also know that I am not a nobody, ergo Airdale is wrong once again.
Comepeach?
TOD is so much nicer without your strange sexual fruit fettishes.
cuchulainn,
He does need to learn some manners.
But, the best sumnation of the arguements against ethanol are by Robert Rapier in his Debate with Vinod Khosla here about 8 or 9 months ago. The corn farming is abusive of our topsoil, requires energy imputs from diesel and nitrate fertiliser that gives it best a 1.3 to 1 return.
Gail the Actuary has links to these posts in the primmer she's writing on peak oil linked in the oil drum heading above.
Guy, I don't quite know what to say about a guy like BMRussel, so I'll tell you a little parable. Lyndon Johnson was the patron saint of the oil business, and everybody who ever loved the depletion allowance or intangible drilling cost deductions. one of his aides was complaining about some butt-ignorant Dixiecrat Congressman and his vituperative attacks. St Lyndon looked at the aide and said "would you rather have him inside the tent pissing out, or outside the tent pissing in?".
And, I'll ask you the same. Conservation is in the interest of every human on this planet, because we'll all suffer if energy costs shoot to the moon and global warming sets in. Our task is great, we have to convince every person to cut down on fossil fuel useage and to spend money on alternatives. Its not going to work well if just some of us conserve so that energy hogs get a cheap price. BMRussell cares very passionately about his country, and is clear headed enough to see the faults with ethanol. He's probably a fun guy when he stays off politics. We need his help, even if his main concern is cattle feed prices. So, would you rather have him inside or outside the tent. Hell, maybe he can even be housebroken!
Are you a Yeats fan? I'm wondering about your handle. I was a poetry major in college.
Hi Bob,
Thanks for your contribution to the thread.
Firstly - on ethanol - I'm not arguing about the EROEI. I know that the studies show (at best) 30% net energy return and (at worst) energy breakeven. I've even read up on how the wide spread in those two numbers comes about (mostly to do with where you draw the 'system boundary' and how much energy credit you're prepared to give for by-products such as DDGS). So I'm very plugged into that debate. However BRussellNM asserted that ethanol 'made no commercial sense'. This is a different assertion - commerical return is not the same as energy return. I bet you see the distinction I'm making. I bet BRussellNM does not. His assertion requires evidence. He doesn't give any. Likewise his assertion about ethanol being "destructive of the environment". I accept there may be a problem with topsoil loss, but again, different studies show different things and in any case, this is a problem with intensive, monoculture, fertilizer-based farming of CORN, rather than a problem relating to the production of ethanol from said corn. Ditto all BRNM's comments about global warming - completely unsubstantiated politically-driven dogma that he has no evidence for.
On the broader point you make about educating people and changing their habits - I agree. However, I think we're entitled to require that when people post on TOD they play by the rules, so that TOD can be a resource where people have reasoned fact-based debates, rather than politics-driven shout-fests. I strongly believe that TOD will be better off if it excludes those who don't accept this very basic premise.
On your point about my handle - and to help Airdale pronounce it! - the name Cuchulainn ("Coo-KULLEN") was the name of the greatest hero of Irish mythology and predates our dear friend WB Yeats by about 2000 years. There is a very comprehensive Wikipedia article on Cuchulainn here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuchulainn
I don't claim to have his skill with a spear, though!
Cuchulainn
"Oh my, that was easy," says Man, and for his next trick, goes on to prove that black is white and gets killed at the next zebra crossing."
Repeat after me, releasing CO2 captured from the atmosphere last year is NOT the same as releasing CO2 captured a few hundred million years ago.
This is no doubt true, but has anyone actually done any studies demonstrating the burning ethanol does not gradually move CO2 from sequestered sources (soil, trees etc.) into the atmosphere? There's a limit to how rapidly the biosphere can reabsorb CO2, and I wouldn't be surprised that if we produced ethanol in sufficient quantities, we'd be effectively mining the carbon in topsoil and forests, which is no better than mining the carbon in FF. That's without even considering how much FF is used for ethanol production.
Is ethanol part of any currently operating carbon trading scheme? How do they work out how much GHG saving there is from using a gallon of ethanol vs a gallon of FF-derived fuel?
>This is no doubt true, but has anyone actually done any studies demonstrating the burning ethanol does not gradually move CO2 from sequestered sources (soil, trees etc.) into the atmosphere? There's a limit to how rapidly the biosphere can reabsorb CO2, and I wouldn't be surprised that if we produced ethanol in sufficient quantities, we'd be effectively mining the carbon in topsoil and forests, which is no better than mining the carbon in FF. That's without even considering how much FF is used for ethanol production.
Especially when rainforests and regular forests are slash and burned (or even just harvested for wood) to replace with corn or sugur fields. Trees for instance take years to grow and can process far more CO2 than a plant that tops out at eight to ten feet and can take 6 months or more to grow to that height.
But how often are forests chopped down to produce ethanol?
I understand palm oil for biodiesel is often grown on cleared rainforest land, but even sugarcane is supposedly not grown in rainforest areas, as the climate is unsuitable. I certainly can't imagine much forest is cleared for corn, though arguably it might preferable to re-forest existing cleared areas than grow corn on it.
Maybe saying "Releasing CO2 captured from the atmosphere just last year is NOT the same as releasing all the accumulated CO2 captured over hundreds of millions of years, virtually at once." might start ringing the bell even in the thickest of skulls.
I know it did in mine :)
Take away subsidies for the oil companies, take away subsides for ethanol, take away all subsidies. Technologies that work will make for nice profits, the ones angling for subsidies and can not raise private money IMO are BS artists.
Of course this would drastically reduce the lifetime income of politicians, so it isn't likely to happen.
But this anti gouging pipe dream is ridiculous, all it guarantees are shortages and outages which are much more inconvenient for everyone, except of course the above named politicians living in well supplied green zones.
This seems like the 3rd or 4th Energy Policy in as many years. I can not keep track of all the different ones. As I recall, Bush had one that came not too long after Cheney met with the energy people around April 2001. Apparently that one was such an obvious give away to the energy industry, even a Congress of his own party could not vote for it.
Therefore the reason that government should stay out of the energy business all together.
Cater made the situation worse back in the 1970s as did Nixon. The Dem's bill has done nothing-not suprising from a do-nothing congress-and the Republicans are incapable of saying no to their special interests.
Let the free-market fix the problem, the government has had it's chance, numerous time, and each time they've only made the problem worse.
I don't think we have a "free market" - all of the problems regarding infrastructure are government influenced and all of the means to address the problem have to involve the government, local or fed at most levels.
Any cooperation that depends upon government for a majority of profit and does not have significant competition ( ie business that will introduce different pricing structures) is not a free market institution, it’s a state dependent operation with a veneer of “free market” PR. True of the defense contractors and increasingly true of commodity businesses.
The cold war was not won by just the defense industry - someone had to sell the tax hikes to the general public
Let the free-market fix the problem, the government has had it's chance, numerous time, and each time they've only made the problem worse.
When you find this free market, let us all know.
One that has no distortions like armed ships on the shipping lanes. Or tax laws. Or....
Because I'm interested in seeing the Markettron particle act in its natural state.
As I commented to someone on my blog, we are likely to see a repeat of this every two years as legislators try to pass laws to immediately impact an industry in which policy changes can take years to be observable. It’s like a control loop with a slow response, but they keep changing the parameters to force it to do what they want, but they fail to note that the slow response is eventually going to be felt.
One thing about any energy source (oil, natural gas, nuclear, wind, geothermal, solar, etc) is that there are very long lead times. Changing energy policy makes it very difficult to start long-term projects, train people, and build necessary infrastructure.
We would be much better off if we had a real energy policy, rather than a different knee-jerk reaction every year or two. It is hard to see how this will happen with our political system, however.
Gail,
One thing I haven't understood about these API calls is what API gets out of them. It has to be more than just PR or trying to put a spin on things. My gut feeling is that they are trying to get a feel for what questions might be asked by others and, thereby, take anticipatory action. Any thoughts?
Todd
I think that API is
• Partly trying to get their message out.
• Partly trying to dispel wrong beliefs that people may have.
• Partly trying to find out what people are thinking.
• Partly trying to open an avenue of communication. Jane Van Ryan, who is in charge of these calls, sends personal e-mails after each of the calls, asking if there are any additional questions API can answer. Questions I have asked have gotten very prompt responses. Jane has volunteered interesting information - for example, in a prior job, she interviewed M. King Hubbert.
The bloggers represent a wide variety of viewpoints:
• Conservative - biggest group
• Environmental - Treehugger
• General interest
• Specialized - National Association of Manufacturers is Shopfloor.org
• Resource investment
• Peak oil
The list of those who participate seems to vary a lot from call to call. We are the most consistent of the bloggers.
Thank you Gail. Todd
Robert,
It's a PSY-OP.
You know, "winning hearts and minds" in the information war.
What it does is relegate the potential opposition press (TOD) to just "mild disagreement." LMAO.
My guess is most folks here are too busy wetting their pants that they're getting a bit of attention from the industry "playas" that they don't get this. Whatever.
50 years ago, the API's psy-op was to distribute cartoons like these cartoons to school children:
http://www.archive.org/details/Destinat1956
Today they have conference calls with TOD and Treehugger.com, imho, a much more sophisticated and effective way to win the hearts and minds.
There is no doubt some truth in what you are saying, but I think that in the absence of any kind of public relations campaign, the oil industry is likely to be a major scapegoat for our problems. I think Don Sailorman's analysis (further down the page) is "right on" about the importance of scapegoats to politics. Part of what API is trying to do is keep the oil industry from being a scapegoat, and I don't blame them for that.
I agree. And I think scapegoating is ridiculous. But this goes beyond that.
If the oil industry had not spent 30 years propagandizing people, governments, etc. to believe in artificial abundance, we would not be so seriously effed right now.
These people have been telling people and governments "no problemo" for 30 years.
Now there is obviously a problem to anybody with 3 functiona brain cells. So they cozy up to some of the people saying "hey we have major problems." That way your message will get diluted.
Gail, it's inevitable. You, PG, other TODers are human beings wired for reciprocal altruism like all humans. So the industry "playas" give you a bit of a rub and it's human nature you're going to do likewise back at them. The rub you guys give back may not be an actual rub so much as it will be a "pulling your punches" type thing. But that's still basically a rub.
As an example: there could be a video "82 year old Republican Congressmen gone wild" featuring Roscoe Bartlett at spring break posted to You Tube. I'm not going to mention it on LATOC cause he's said so many nice things about me.
This is similar except the API's goal is to continue decieving people, Congressmen Bartlett's goal honestly seemed to be to alert people.
It's also human nature to decieved yourself that this is not what is going on.
I wouldn't single out the oil industry for propagandizing artificial abundance. It is just one industry of many in a system governed by consumerist ideology. The people are not innocent of their consumerism, either.
"America is not a young land: it is old and dirty and evil before the settlers, before the Indians. The evil is there waiting." William S. Burroughs
I'm not singling them out.
Look, the API was at Cheney's Energy Task Force meetings along with the likes of Ken Lay. See:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/19/MNGAGR302S1.DTL
You're judged by the company you keep. In the case of the API they keep company with men like Dick Cheney.
Does it get any darker or more sinister than that?
Remember, these are the meetings where the only things that got released were the maps of Iraq's oil fields divied up like cuts of meat about to be devoured.
My point is this: now that TOD is getting the rub from the API, I seriously doubt anybody here is going to have the testicular or ovarologocial fortitude to ask the hard questions such as "What was going on at the task force meetings?"
There might be a few pulled ableit stiff punches thrown but that will be about it.
Matt,
Presumed protestations to the contrary, you are still arguing with the system and want to believe the future can escape what is coming down or you would have stopped posting. You have not reached the point of an "Ah, ha" moment whereby you know with a certainty that society is lost. This isn't some doomerish declaration. To me, it's just reality.
It is neither good or bad, it simply is or will be. I don't know if you remember the "Giant" files I sent you at your request but, to me, they represented how things will play out.
Neither TOD or LATOC will make any difference.
Todd
Todd,
Who says I think LATOC will make a difference? It won't. Not one bit. I've explained this numerous times before: PO blogs, mine included, aren't going to make any difference. I know people like Bart have said he thinks PO bloggers will "become more influential" over time but that's just silly imho. We're at our peak of influence right now, which is the period where the energy/economic/environmental dams are holding but have begun showing enough cracks that people will listen to those of saying "hey there are some big cracks in these here dams". Once the dams actually burst, LATOC, TOD and other PO blog(ers) will fade back into anonymity or disappear all together. "The party will be over" at that point. This is true even in the more optimistic power down type scenarios we'll all be too busy surviving day to day life to be blogging about PO. That's assumming there is even a reliable electrical grid 5 or 10 years in the future.
At this point, I run LATOC as a (free) news service with a (for-profit) book store and (free) social/prep forum attached to it. It's a full time job and my dispoable income from it is invested in supplies and savings which I intend to use to move and set myself up. In other words I'm actually trying to leverage it into building a better lifeboat for myself.
As far as how things are going to play out, the film "Threads" or the BBC documentary "The War Game" are pretty much how I see things playing out.
I think we've gotten off-topic which is why is API doing giving TOD and other blogs the rub? IMO, it's basically to make sure the folks saying "hey there are some cracks in these dams" don't get too far out of line with what they say or the questions they raise.
Matt,
You are absolutely wrong that LATOC makes no difference. For thousands of people like me, LATOC was THE "red pill" that made us face ugly reality.
Yeah, in terms of national punditry, LATOC and TOD will never amount to anything, because they don't make people feel warm about the future. Did you ever really expect otherwise?
I, and thousands like me, may not be able to go caveman just yet, but every decision we make in life is now colored subtly by your message on LATOC. If I were you, I'd be proud of that.
"America is not a young land: it is old and dirty and evil before the settlers, before the Indians. The evil is there waiting." William S. Burroughs
I defer again to Chomsky:
Kennan was the head of the State Department policy planning staff in the late 1940s. In the following document, PPS23, February 1948, he outlined the basic thinking:
We have about 50 percent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population.... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.... We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.... We should cease to talk about vague and..., unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.
So OK, you're right that Cheney's not Mr. Nice Guy. But it's nothing personal. Cheney's just the latest guy to play a role that's been around for a very, very long time.
"America is not a young land: it is old and dirty and evil before the settlers, before the Indians. The evil is there waiting." William S. Burroughs
If the API doesn't like the bill, the has to be something good in it. If eighty bucks a barrel doesn't give you enough incentive to get the black crud out of the ground, find another line of work.
They should rename it the green pork and spam bill. I don't see anything in it that does anything. There's plenty of venture capital with incentive to make batteries that actually work.
If the API doesn't like the bill, the has to be something good in it.
Good for whom? Good for people who like the idea of "sticking it to Big Oil", but who don't really understand that in an era of diminishing reserves, oil companies are going to have a tough enough time as it is producing new oil. Receding horizons and all that comes into play. But the geniuses in Congress think that Big Oil will bear the brunt, and it will all be good for consumers because biofuels are going to save them from the wrath of those greedy oil bastards. In reality, some provisions in this bill may exacerbate the speed at which oil production goes downhill, which is a problem for all of us.
I see a couple of possibilities. The bill passes, and the tax works its way down to the consumers. In 2 or 3 years, when gas is $2 or $3 higher, Big Oil is once again blamed for the results of this bill, and we rush out and try a different knee-jerk approach.
Or, Big Oil slows down their capital spending, meaning in 2 or 3 years when gas is $2 or $3 higher, Big Oil is once again blamed for the results of this bill. So we rush out and try a different knee-jerk approach. Wash, rinse, and repeat until congress figures out that what we have here is a problem that they in fact either can't, or won't come to grips with.
After a few years of crushing price increases, perhaps our government will decided that the American way of life is negotiable after all.
If we implement large (at least $3.00) tax increases on gasoline, that would be intended to cut demand, which would impact production. Both consumption and production goes down,which should be our goal. This legislation is only counterproductive if you think that we should be encouraging production and consumption. We shouldn't be; therefore, I don't think it is counterproductive.
The only thing that will really get people's attention is a rapid decrease in production and, therefore, a rapid increase in prices. Warning them over and over and over again through sites like the oil drum has accomplished virtually nothing. We clearly are not going to raise taxes on consumers. Therefore, the only solution is to help peak oil along.
Yes, the oil companies will be blamed. But they are being blamed now and will be blamed regardless.
The main people who will have a problem with all this is those who are not prepared. Those of us who have taken steps to deal with much higher prices will have less of a problem.
The biggest flaw in the energy bill has nothing to do with the oil companies. The biggest flaw is that the overwhelming priority is to maximize conservation at every turn through investments, incentives, and disincentives to consumption. It is a hit or miss effort with very few short term results.
Part of the solution is focus. About a month ago, I decided to put in a PV system. I wanted to bring my consumption down to my planned system not bring the system up to my demand. In less than a month, I have found a way to cut my consumption by more than 25%, with more cuts to go. It was all about having a goal and concentrating the mind.
If peak oil is a valid concept, we can't invest our way out of the problem. All further investment can do is just speed up the pace at which we deplete what is remaining.
If we implement large (at least $3.00) tax increases on gasoline, that would be intended to cut demand, which would impact production.
Of course. But then everyone would understand what was going to happen. What we have are policies being passed that assure consumers that all is going to be OK, while making it more difficult to increase production.
I want us to decrease production, but I want it managed via direct tax increases on fossil fuels. I don't want to decrease production when the entire world is being told that everything is going to work out just fine, and the industry is being expected to increase production.
I agree with you, Robert, that the cost to the end user/consumer, should be clear. On the other hand, there is not a snowball's chance in hell or in a globally warmed earth that any tax increase of even one cent is going to happen in this congress or any other congress. Balless and/or corrupt wonders,all.
So, the brain dead, upside down world we live in, the best that we can hope for is a policy that will result in the wrong people being blamed. The enemy is us, as Pogo would say, and we don't have the sense or honesty to realize it.
In tourist land, where I live, I still see the overwhelming dominance of monster, including new, Expeditions, Hummers, giant RVs, and the like. They dominate my world and I assume most of the rest of the world outside my world. People come here to see our beautiful environment, while simultaneously ruining it. So, really, I can't just blame congress. They clearly represent the consumer crazed, brain dead mentality of their constituents. Representative government in action.
All is madness.
When gasoline prices go up to five and six dollars a gallon, there is one and only one thing of which I am certain: The Big Greedy Oil Companies (BGOCs) will be blamed. Politics is to a large extent about allocating blame when things go wrong, and politicians are not going to blame themselves for the bad policies that made an extremely difficult situation (Peak Oil) even worse than it would be in the absence of government intervention. Republicans may fight a rear-guard action of trying to provide more incentives to increase investment in the oil industry, but they probably will be overwhelmed by practitioners of the blame game.
BTW, the economic and social disruptions that are likely to be caused by Peak Oil will not be blamed on geological realities and unbridled consumption and bad government policies. Oh my goodness no: Those troubles will be blamed on foreigners and also on certain ethnic groups in the U.S., notably illegal immigrants.
What I see in the future is a bull market in scapegoats. I do not think our political institutions are adequate to deal with crises that will emerge from Peak Oil and abrupt climate change. I do think that crises will lead to big changes in our political, social, and economic institutions, but my crystal ball gets foggy when it comes to details. I think the political and governmental changes will make the New Deal look like very small potatoes in comparison.
Good one, Don. I nominate this as the understatement of the century.
I know they can not - I hope modernity survives.
Don,
Good analysis!
Gail
The trick is where along the well to wheels line to put the bottleneck. Clamping down on production (at least in certain blanket ways) is bad, because we're going to need oil to get any kind of transition period to avoid a hard collapse. But we also need to discourage the consumption of oil. More production, discouraged consumption...so the most logical place to put the discouragement is right before the gas tank as a gasoline tax.
It seems to me that if taxes are raised enough to reduce demand, the politicians doing this will have their heads on the chopping block. The cornucopian, anti-climate change talk show hosts and politicians will make it very clear to the public that the increased taxes were unnecessary, harmful to the economy and to the people, and peak-oil aware politicians who supported the taxes will be swept out of office with everything getting worse.
People need to learn that the problem is GEOLOGY and the impossibility of continuing with plentiful, low-cost oil for reasons that cannot be wished away. Going the taxes route will simply distract the debate from the realization of this reality and turn it into a political free-for-all.
I agree it makes no sense to punish oil cos, but it also doesn't make any sense to subsidize them or give them extra breaks. The real cost has to be felt.
I pinched my nose and voted for the CA energy proposition that failed, because it did some right things although for completely wrong reasons.
Of course. But then everyone would understand what was going to happen. What we have are policies being passed that assure consumers that all is going to be OK, while making it more difficult to increase production.
I want us to decrease production, but I want it managed via direct tax increases on fossil fuels. I don't want to decrease production when the entire world is being told that everything is going to work out just fine, and the industry is being expected to increase production.
Great, lets say we put a $5 a gallon tax on gasoline. Now that will reduce driving in the US by 10%-as posted here on the OD. Does that solve the problem.
Not a bit. China and India are going to increase their use come hell or high water and short of war there isn't a thing you can do about it.
So your 300 million Americans reduce driving by 10%. Your 2.5 BILLION Asians will continue to increase their gasoline consumption by 8-9%.
You still arrive at the point where demand outstrips supply, $5 tax or no $5 tax.
You need to come up with a solution that isn't designed to regressively punish the poor and working stiff because that is the only guy who'll get the shaft in your tax.
So your 300 million Americans reduce driving by 10%. Your 2.5 BILLION Asians will continue to increase their gasoline consumption by 8-9%.
You still arrive at the point where demand outstrips supply, $5 tax or no $5 tax.
This line of argumentation misses the point that it is not only about making oil supplies last longer, but it is also about powering down so that when they do run low, you are better prepared for that. If we power down while the Chinese and Indians are powering up, we will be better off for having reduced our dependence.
Further, I suspect if the U.S. really did lock in a plan to steadily raise gasoline taxes, China and India would follow suit. Their governments are just as (if not more) aware of the dangers of developing a consumer base dependent on cheap oil. In fact, it seems far more likely that they would increase taxes before the U.S. ever does, given what I read here.
If we implement large (at least $3.00) tax increases on gasoline, that would be intended to cut demand, which would impact production. Both consumption and production goes down,which should be our goal. This legislation is only counterproductive if you think that we should be encouraging production and consumption. We shouldn't be; therefore, I don't think it is counterproductive.
At a time when we need more drilling and more exploration you want to discourage it????
This is the thinking of a ludidte.
Why not plunge the economy into a 1930's depression so that we can really stymie consumption?
Yeah, that's the ticket!
Scarry that this guy's folks are running congress.
Burn, baby burn! The consequence of which will be our gift to the next generation. Are you paying attention, kids ?
The question you have to ask yourself: Do you want to have some control over the future, or no control?
To take action now, such as a gasoline tax, and place upon yourself a burden will help to ensure that in the future the burden is not forced upon you and more than you can handle. Take a small controllable hit now, or wait and get pounded mercilessly.
It's luddite, not ludidte. If our economy continues its dependence on oil and we do not take action to have alternatives in place when TSHTF, we are going to be plunged into a depression.
You seem to think we are going to solve this problem of peak oil by more and more drilling. You may not be a luddite, but you are an ostrich.
If oil is the ticket, we are going to have a depression. Just pick which year you would like to have it.
Further, I wish my folks were running congress. They are not. The Democrats will fail just like the Republicans, only in a different way.
Refute peak oil theory first; then proceed to tell us we are all luddites. You are a cornucopian, one who believes that the center of the earth is full of creamy nougat.
You would rather delay the price signal right as we are going over the cliff. You want a depression? Your approach will guarantee one like we have never seen. Once the problem becomes obvious, even to you, it will be too late. If it is not already.
It's luddite, not ludidte. If our economy continues its dependence on oil and we do not take action to have alternatives in place when TSHTF, we are going to be plunged into a depression.
yes, I caught that mistake and corrected it in later posts. I haven't used that word in a long time as I rarely meet people who deserve said lable.
Slow day when you're correcting people spelling on the internet. Job search not going so well? ;->
You seem to think we are going to solve this problem of peak oil by more and more drilling. You may not be a luddite, but you are an ostrich.
And you seem to put words in my mouth. I believe more drilling, not less, along with nuclear, Coal-to-Gas, wind, etc. all combined will see us through.
Each by themselves will not solve our problem, but those who think we can escape peak-oil without new wells are polly-anna.
If oil is the ticket, we are going to have a depression. Just pick which year you would like to have it.
See above. A combined, rational approach is the ticket.
Further, I wish my folks were running congress. They are not. The Democrats will fail just like the Republicans, only in a different way.
Well given that we live in a two-party nation, you can wish all you want to have some third-party in power but hey, if wishes were horses then beggers would ride. Let's stick with the real-world.
Refute peak oil theory first; then proceed to tell us we are all luddites. You are a cornucopian, one who believes that the center of the earth is full of creamy nougat.
I don't refute Peak Oil, I just take umbrage with the luddites who refuse to embrace nuclear power and Coal-to-Gas for some small flaw.
You would rather delay the price signal right as we are going over the cliff. You want a depression? Your approach will guarantee one like we have never seen. Once the problem becomes obvious, even to you, it will be too late. If it is not already.
No, my approach, the COMBINDED, approach, will save us. Solar is a, pardon the pun, dry-well when it comes to energy efficiancy, ethanol is a disaster on many levels and Sen. Ted Kennedy killed a wind project by his summer home because it was an eye-sore.
I put the dots on the paper, I'll let you connect them.
Good luck with the job search!
I guess I haven't read your earlier posts; therefore I did not know what your overall approach was.
For the record, Kennedy opposed the project but it is alive and well. Don't assume that Kennedy is somehow emblematic of environmentalists in general. My environmentalist friends are very much in favor of that wind project. I am an environmentalist, live in a pristine area, but would welcome wind generators on my ridge line. Quit assuming you know what all or even most environmentalists think and quit assuming that to be an environmentalist is to be a luddite.
And, if you are going to continue to engage in name calling, at least get the spelling right.
I don't need a lecture in how the country is run; I am just pointing out the fact that you are assuming that "my folks" are running congress. You don't know who my folks are, so quit assuming as such.
Yes, we have to face the fact that this is a system dominated by two parties but that does not mean that we have to engage in knee jerk support of either party.
People don't like coal to liquid because it will help to seriously f**k up the planet. Are you familiar with the Stern report? We don't have to cause a massive recession or become luddites to take serious action with respect to global warming. Dangerously heating up the planet is not a "minor flaw".
Oh, I almost forgot. I also support nuclear power, primarily because I consider it an alternative to coal.
Your solutions are not my solutions simply because you are only concerned about supply, not the impacts of that supply.
When I am ready to go out and destroy some machines, I will give you fair warning so that you can confirm your apparent belief that I am a luddite.
"If we implement large (at least $3.00) tax increases on gasoline,..."
This will result in US Treasury receiving $ about equivalent to total receipts of oil industry from gasoline sales, a very large in-flow of money. What will the government do with this 'windfall'? I'm a progressive and believe that a well run government is at least a theoretical possibility. Without a plan for spending this money, collecting it will have a very depressive effect on the economy. We should think about how this money will be spent before we glibly suggest such a tax. Of course, payments to poor people to help them pay for gasoline purchases will be goofy, but a predictable populist suggestion.
You can always give it back in income tax cuts, even at a flat rate. Yes, that means everyone now has more money to buy gas with, but the difference is that those who conserve the most gas get the most out of the system.
Further, those who are already highly frugal with their gas usage, especially those who use none at all, get very nicely rewarded for their existing behaviour.
That's actually an excellent idea!
Much as I'd like to claim credit for it, it (and similar ideas) have been discussed plenty of times before.
The "extreme" solution is to get rid of income taxes altogether, and have only consumption/sales taxes. Items like gasoline/alcohol/etc. would obviously need to be taxed at higher rates than, e.g., food, but in principle I don't see anything wrong it. A lot of people see consumption-based taxing as regressive, but this makes to sense to me, because earning a 7 figure salary means nothing unless you actually spend most of it.
No, the super-rich have the alternatives of consuming in Mexico, Monaco, Mallorca and all sorts of places with great tax advantages to ultra-wealthy foreigners.
Sure, but they most likely already declare their incomes to be coming from those places anyway. Doubt there's anything you can do to ensure the "ultra-rich" pay the expected amounts of tax. And being that rich, they only half to spend half of their time on home soil to still spend far far more on consumer goods and services within America than any average earner.
I understand that in a time of deminishing reserves, Big Oil is going to have a tough time producing new oil. That's why I want to leave our oil in the ground. Or at least not give it away. When gas is $2-$3 dollars higher, we still won't be paying what the Europeans pay. I'm in it for the long haul and we can't drill our way out of this. What good does producing our last ten billion barrels of oil do? In 2 or 3 years, we'll be in the same mess minus our last reserves.
LOL! I see that Dave Mathews is still infatuated with TOD, and still has his man crush on me. He apparently forgot to take his meds today, because he has just about busted a fuse over at Kunstler's blog. This is a very sick man. Doesn't think man deserves to live, then weeps for the "bombing of the Iraqi children courtesy of the oil industry." Hates technology, and screams this while watching his 200 channel satellite TV. A real loon.
I just wish the hypocrite would cease all usage of oil products. Poor thing says he can't. He is instead forced to suffer while living in his home filled with oil products, eating food that was grown and brought to him by oil products, wearing clothes that were made from oil products, and we haven't even gotten to his car yet. I think it's one of those guilt issues, sort of like the gay-basher who is secretly gay.
Psycho Rant 1
Psycho Rant 2
Psycho Rant 3
Psycho Rant 4
And one of my blog, where he is always too gutless to sign his rants, but it's not too hard to figure out who he is.
Psycho Rant 5
ha ha ha!
LOL!
I see David Matthews is spreading lots of TOD links. Maybe he is trying to increase our readership!
I would guess this bill will be vetoed, and congress will not be able to override the veto. I don't think we will see another major energy bill go into effect until after the next Presidential elections. If the energy crisis hits real hard between now and then, this might change.
I agree with you on the veto of this year's bill. It is hard to see the Conference Committee coming up with legislation weak enough for Bush to be willing to sign.
I am guessing that a fair amount will change in the next year. People will be much more peak-oil aware. I don't know whether this will result in different legislation actually being enacted, though.
Judge them by their actions, not their words.
As you can see from this aricle, enviromentalists, modern-day luddites in reality, are not for alternate energy sources. This from the Santa Fe Free New Mexican....
Commentary, 08/04/2007 - Decision to deny power plant permit must stand
print | email this story
By Steven Michel
August 3, 2007
The following organizations — Western Resource Advocates, Community Action New Mexico, New Mexico Conference of Churches, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Forest Guardians, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Environment New Mexico — support the decision by New Mexico Environment Department Secretary Ron Curry to deny an air quality permit to Western Water and Power for a 35 megawatt biomass power plant near Estancia.
The secretary denied the permit because the record lacked support for finding that natural gas used at the plant would not trigger greater regulatory scrutiny under an air quality provision called Prevention of Significant Deterioration or PSD.
Regardless of natural gas use, however, the plant is predicted to emit hundreds of tons of pollution into the air, including particulates and 230 tons per year of nitrogen oxides, a major contributor to ground-level ozone, which causes and exacerbates childhood asthma.
Moreover, the plant is designed to use fresh-cut wood from forests and rangelands as a fuel source to generate electricity.
This is not waste-wood that has to be removed anyway; much of it is from forests that would be cleared and used for rangeland if the power plant is built.
In a dry and arid climate like New Mexico’s, we must preserve our forests for their important services, such as carbon sequestration and water filtration — not burn them for electricity.
Biomass is a useful technology for electricity production when it is properly designed, uses true waste-fuel sources, controls emissions, and is sensitive to proper forest management practices.
The power plant that was denied a permit by Secretary Curry is none of these things. It is not a “clean” energy resource.
Secretary Curry’s decision has been appealed to the Environmental Improvement Board. We urge the Board to uphold the Secretary’s decision
The same cast of characters killed the LNG off-loading site in Malibu, Ca.
No solution in our energy crisis is without some flaw. And the ludites will use any all of these flaws to kill our attempts at technological advancements to solve this crisis.
Instead of supporting the least bad solution, the environazis will wait for the electricity brown-outs to come and then demand we do anything and everything.
Welcome to the hotel California. You can check out any time you want, but you can never leave.
Instead of supporting the least bad solution, the environazis will wait for the electricity brown-outs to come and then demand we do anything and everything.
Welcome to the hotel California. You can check out any time you want, but you can never leave.
Amen to that brother. I remember back in 2001 in California when San Onofre was supposed to shut-down permanently as it had already exceeded its life-span. Then Gov. Davis insisted that the plant stay open to prevent further rolling blackouts during that summer.
Typical enviromental hypocracy. They hate nuclear energy, until they need it.
They hypocracy of the enviromental movement piles up so fast you needs wings to stay above it.
Can you read? The power plant was going to use freshly harvested wood in an arid environment. That's not a solution, it's suicide.
Uh, yes I can read, the wood was to be shipped in from Colorado.
Ever been there? Its hardly what I would call "arid".
Still, the enviromentalist found a small excuse to shut down ANOTHER project that would help aleviate the Peak Oil problem.
Yes, I lived in Colorado for several years. I consider it arid, though if I recall correctly the technical term is semi-arid. I'm wondering why you think otherwise.
Can you read? The power plant was going to use freshly harvested wood in an arid environment. That's not a solution, it's suicide
Did you read what you wrote? "Suicide", I mean come on with the hysterics.
I live in Santa Fe and have a ranch in Magdalena. 20,000 acres to fuel a 35 MW power-plant is cheap. The amount of ununsed farm and ranch land is galling. The land throughout New Mexico is well underutilized.
And get this, after you cut down a tree, you can plant another one. Its called "renewable."
If you harvest wood from an environment like that it's going to take LONG time for it to regrow. Anyway, the article says that they wouldn't even replant the trees, just leave it as "rangeland."
Biofuels and biomass on a grand scale is just downright a bad idea. This kind of thing has been discussed here quite a bit lately. The plants just won't grow back fast enough, the soil will become depleted and barren, and you've got to know that they aren't going to "do it right" when it comes to remediation of the harvesting areas, and on top of it the habitat destruction that would ensue even from best practices of wood harvesting.
Again, 20,000 acres is cheap for 35 MW.
Sorry, let's get this straight. To you:
All with a heavily layer of what sounds like libertarian politics. Now I tend to believe in technological as well as sociological solutions, but that's sounding more and more like a troll to me.
Ah yea, the old "I can't refure what he says, so I'll call him a troll" argument.
Sorry I don't subscribe to your echo-chamber you have hear. I thought I would bring a different voice to the "big-government will save the day" discussion.
I can see how you would imply I'm a troll given that what you advocate as the solution to our problem is in actuality the cause of the problem.
The point I made is that you are taking blatantly contradictory positions in the same discussion - it seems purely so you can rail against some strawman targets.
I ignored the silly GW statements.
If you have something real to say then please construct a logical position and annunciate it clearly. Otherwise the disjoint statements you seem to throw out are just the background noise of a troll.
Why ignore the GW argument against Ethanol. I'm not a supporter of the man-made GW, but it appears that 90% of those on this board are avid supporters of the hypothesis.
So, I use their own logic to get them to admit Ethanol is a bust.
Frankly I don't like it because it doesn't solve the problem, but will dramtaically raise food prices for little or no return.
Ethanol is CO2 neutral for the most part. Sure you use some fossil fuel to harvest and process, but sugarcane has more than a 4 to 1 energy balance. You put 1 unit of fossil fuel energy in and you get 4 units of energy out. Not a bad gain.
Corn is only 1.3 but cellulose can be more than 8. Ethanol will probably be just an additive, we may never get to E85 nationwide, even with cellulose ethanol. But it does help reduce oil consumption and if it is cellulose ethanol, it does not have to raise food prices.
Both the combustion and creation of ethanol result in the production of CO2.
How you can say that ethanol is CO2 neutral while you wrote those words is beyond beleif.
Either you're ignroant of the chemistry or deliberately obtuse in your statements.
As what pointed out earlier in the thread, the CO2 produced is mostly from carbon already in the atmospheric carbon cycle, not carbon dug up from deep underground, put there hundreds of millions of years ago.
Ethanol is definitely not CO2 neutral. One estimate is that ethanol provides about a 13% savings in CO2 relative to burning gasoline.
Ethanol is definitely not CO2 neutral. One estimate is that ethanol provides about a 13% savings in CO2 relative to burning gasoline.
A 13% savings is nice, but given that one has to 33% more Ethanol to go the same distance one gallon of gasoline can move a vehicle the savings are illusionary.
The article you reference was talking about corn ethanol at a 13% reduction, but went on to say that the reduction was much greater for cellulosic ethanol. The article around this point was very interesting.
As far as I am concerned, if we cannot make cellulosic ethanol economically, talking about a huge percentage savings on zero production is silliness.
The studies are at this time based on assumptions, since we can't really do the process. I will believe the high returns when I see them. The devil is in the details - how the biomass gets transported, dried for storage, etc.
I don't believe we've had a "big-government will save the day" discussion. I'm basically neutral on the size/extent of government involvement on an economy, given the fact that over the large range of successful liberal democracies (from Hong Kong to Norway), there's no obvious correlation between government size and effectiveness/efficiency that I can see. And democracy is the best (if imperfect) tool for letting the people decide how much government they want.
I do suspect however that certain Northern European countries with relatively "big" governments are among the best poised to handle peak oil, especially Sweden, with its "oil independence by 2020" plan. I'll get back to you in 13 years.
Without harvesting timber the risk of wildfire in the SW is high. The forest fires were said to clear out the brush to lower the risk of future fires, and loggers were described as evil.
Perhaps it is no better in Mexico. Was at an internet cafe in Mexico and saw someone was using Google Earth to look for good crossing points near Tijuana. There was a young lady probably younger than 20 pregnant with an infant in the stroller.
Perhaps it is no better in Mexico. Was at an internet cafe in Mexico and saw someone was using Google Earth to look for good crossing points near Tijuana. There was a young lady probably younger than 20 pregnant with an infant in the stroller.
And I'm sure her carbon footprint will be neutral once she gets to the States! That 1982 F150 her husband will be driving won't pollute the the least.
Well there you have it, in bold, the plant was killed because for less than 8 hours once a year, the plant would use Natural Gas.
They killed it for the weakest of lamest reasons.
This, my friends, is the modern face of the enviromental Nazi.
To hell with logic, we need more ETHANOL.
Wood-burning plant hits snag
(8 comments; last comment posted Today 11:47 am) print | email this story
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
August 5, 2007
Permit denied as residents, environmental groups voice concerns
ALBUQUERQUE — New Mexico’s first major biomass electric plant, touted as an integral part of the state’s push for renewable energy, was on track until it hit a potential dead end with state Environment Secretary Ron Curry.
Primary opposition came from some residents and two environmental groups, the New Mexico Coalition for Clean and Affordable Energy and the Forest Guardians, who said the project hurt air quality and lacked an adequate plan to protect forests.
Curry abruptly cut short the hearing process May 22 and announced he was denying the air-quality permit that developer Western Water and Power needed to begin construction. Curry has declined to explain his decision and refused requests for interviews.
According to an Environment Department hearing officer’s report, Curry ordered the hearing officer to suspend proceedings and forward the case records to him without a recommended decision.
Shortly afterward, Curry issued a final order denying the permit, citing the plant’s use of natural gas to start its boiler, which might subject it to a state regulation that seeks to protect air quality.
Western Power had made economic, political and regulatory headway after unveiling the project planned south of Estancia in October 2003.
Gov. Bill Richardson’s administration included the plant on a list of projects showing progress in developing alternative energy projects, and Public Service Company of New Mexico signed a 20-year contract to buy power from the 35-megawatt plant.
Western Water and Power had a contract with the State Land Office to use wood from 43,000 acres of state land for fuel the plant would burn to generate electricity.
The plant would use wood to fuel a high-efficiency boiler, which would generate steam to turn a turbine. That, in turn, would generate electricity.
Western Power officials said the plant would use natural gas only to start its boiler, once a year, for eight hours or less. A natural gas-fired trigger is used at other biomass plants, according to Andy Aden of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Western Power owners David Cohen and Jack Maddox filed an appeal of Curry’s action with the Environmental Improvement Board. A hearing is scheduled Aug. 20.
As long as people keep voting in these luddites we won't be able to solve our energy problem.
BMRusselNM,
you need to calm down. If you'll read back you will find a large majority of the people here, including me, agree with you about ethanol.
This is not a left wing-right wing issue. Its about the safety and security of the whole world. And its about the truth that we are running out of cheap energy very quickly. I answered your first post in detail, did you read it? Bob Ebersole
oilmanbob, my comment obviously wasn't directed at you--your comment beat me to the punch.
Please put random crap (and bickering debates) in the newest DrumBeat thread where it belongs, and stop cluttering up everything in non-DrumBeat threads.
Thanks.
If you want to stop hyperventilating, I'll be happy to get you a paper bag. However, I suspect that you enjoy your state of outraged indignation. If so, don't expect your presence on TOD to last very long.
Having followed the Peak oil data for 2 years now and heard all doomsday scenarios and the terrible impact on the oil industry from legislating higher prices or lower consumption, some thoughts.
We, the U.S., would not have an energy problem today (price) and looming (scarcity) if we just reduced consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel. A massive effort to reduce consumption, specifically the consumption of gasoline would benefit our economy more than anything else. There is plenty of oil for industry and essential transportation of goods out for 30+ years if we weren't wasting it daily. We don't value oil enough to not waste it today.
The reason we don't value it is that the oil companies, including CERA and API type mouthpieces, keep assuring us there is no need to conserve. As stated in the posts above they keep trying to increase consumption so that they make more money. There is no concerted message from these businesses that we must use less now so that we will have it for the future. So I fail to see how a looming energy scarcity is not mostly the oil companies fault.
Before I am attacked on this point I see little difference between the oil companies and my electric provider with respect to delivering energy to me in a usable form. And yet my electric provider sends me a notice monthly with my rates along with ways to reduce consumption. Why in the world would they do that?
It must hurt their business having me try to use less each month. They clearly state, consuming less energy benefits everyone by lowering my bill and allowing them to delay expansion of capacity. Why can't oil companies follow this business model? Electric companies don't make air conditioners, refrigerators, lights, etc, yet they push for buying and installing the most energy efficient unit and retiring inefficient ones. Ditto for high efficient gas furnaces
But when "Robert Rapier asked about API's position on CAFE standards. API would like to stay out of this discussion - they feel it is between the auto industry and regulators." After making statements like this they still can not admit there might be a problem if we don't get a handle on consumption. Are these people so stupid they can't imagine any business model where they can benefit from reduced consumption? Or do they truly believe that there is an unlimited amount of oil in the world even if they don't control it all now?
Which scenario is it: There is no scarcity we just want prices higher so we can be stinking rich OR Prices are high because there is a scarcity and we must do something about it?
Obviously they didn't pick the second one, so by default it must be that oil companies just want to gouge us. This is why the overwhelming majority of the American public blames the oil companies, including the gas station owners. I'm sorry Robert but as long as this message is unchanged the oil companies deserve to be blamed for any energy price spike or shortfall.
Repeat after me - We don't have an energy shortage, we have too much consumption - of fossil fuels.
I agree with you that the oil industry has told us that the supply was close to unlimited in the past. I think there is now finally slow movement toward changing this position, starting with the National Petroleum Council (NPC) report.
According to the API call about the NPC report, and the report itself, the NPC is in favor of energy efficiency (doing the same amount with less). Based on the NPC report, I would expect the API start moving in the direction of increased milage standards for cars (CAFE standards). The NPC report was only issued a couple of weeks ago, so maybe it is too soon to see a change in the API position. We should probably have asked about this on the call.
The problem is that NPC, API, CERA, XOM, CFR, AEI, CEI, CIA, DNC, RNC, and what the hell, TIAA-CREF, plus all their glorious acronym cousins, or brands, that rule the world and the investors backing them, and the ideological zealots that feed off of "the all-incorporating treadmill of consumption and disposal", have a vested interest in something that one of the denizens at TOD likes to call something like projected infinite growth into a finite resource base.
Things are getting better all the time! Sing with me now!
Sit back, the free-market, dominated by OPEC and the military industrial complex, flanked by hedge funds and managed by an elite financial community has got it under control. These oil wars are a passing fad. They've got everything running "smoothly" to the extent that one can describe the present situation in the US and the world as smooth. I guess, smooth as it'll ever be.
Clearly, whatever position any acronym takes on anything, any issue, studies show that rocks are harder to talk to than Jesus or the invisible hand (or for that matter bloggers! Heh.) Leading figureheads for acronyms are either very cynical, or very zealous. I'm not sure which is worse. On second thought, obviously the combination of the two is probably the most effective--it's a hard balancing act though, that's why it really does take some finesse. You can't have too many dopamine receptors in one's brain producing anxiety. Cool, confident and utterly faithful. The hallmarks of a conservative. Nervous, unsure and wary of a future but hopelessly--verging on delusionally, optimistic. Mainstream, dirty word, "liberalism" (or small p "progressive", if you wish.) Both are in for a wicked shredding. People love seeing a car accident, they slow down to watch it. It's bipartisan.
Eventually the talking points will give way to reality, which is that PO is going to significantly alter how this economy fundamentally operates, or it will simply cease to operate as we want it to. If the cynics and mindless ideologues are able to continue down their path, then Red and his buddies will be needing to hire the services of Blackwater and head to the Walton's reinforced nuclear-attack-resistant mountain while the rest of us try, as the story goes, to defend our turnip patches from the raving biker gangs armed to the teeth. (Okay, so I made that up--isn't that what they pay us for?) Or, in the power vacuum left by the unwavering incompetents, blackshirts will step out of their closets. It's a crap shoot.
The Founder's wanted a strong central government (with states' rights, of course) which would be able to quell rebellion and prevent dissolution of the central state (or in this case that old familiar PO standby, collapse.) They certainly didn't anticipate the developments of the industrial revolution, a "global economy", let alone PO. How desperate will politicians get when it becomes clear that no talking points will assuage rocks?? Even today, as we all (and our descendant generations unknowingly) sit on the brink--it is difficult to get anyone to pay attention to a "debate" let alone get anyone to admit to a problem in whatever debate occurs. The reason this is so, is because problems always end up on someone's lap, and most people have their own problems. It seems, only liberals have the time to worry about the world's problems! It doesn't help that a lot of them are whiny and inept in their own way... (And I consider myself part of the dreaded "liberals".) And in the case of big problems, societal ones, they usually land on institutional laps. In this case, we have the oil industry, the automobile industry, the aviation industry all trying to figure out how to spin a VERY bad situation. What you get, is a lot of entertaining nonsense like the conference call transcript I just read. Or, the prospectus of Boeing et al.
NC, the oil corporations are like book publishers. In this analogy, they go collect the resource, organize it, distribute it and charge accordingly. When it comes to responsibility, I think this is how "they" see it. There is no responsibility, except to the ether-like identity of the "consumer". As the transcript made clear Red et al at API and their masters deem it inappropriate to comment on another industry. Of course, those industries are in the business of procuring their product (hydrocarbon energy). Demand destruction will happen naturally, by market forces, seems to be their line of thinking. This occludes the point made by many that if market forces alone are to mitigate PO then judging from the Hirsch report (commissioned by the DOE) these people are either
A) Major cynics trying to bide a rising tide while wishfully crossing their fingers, commuting to the office, collecting their paychecks, walking the dog, making sweet love to the wife and paying their kids' college tuition.
or
B) Die hard ideologues as faithful in human progress and the capital markets as the most extreme fundamentalist is faithful that God loves him (and of course, hates his enemy--God always hates the enemy.)
Because the social sciences are notoriously unreliable I'm sure no one really knows the ratio (although lots of conspiracy theorists will try to convince you.) Really, the situation is so complex, that trying to reduce it to binary components is fruitless. Either way they are in essence paving the way for a turbulent approach to PO, that is a fact since they have no sense of urgency--and obviously the oil industry's PR has understandably been to down play this "Peak Oil" thing... It's gonna become a lot more difficult to do that when we reach sustained adjusted-for-inflation record breaking high prices, and start feeling the often predicted but yet to materialize inevitable import declines which will only stoke the fire.
I think the "psychology" at work here must be that, "hey the market is demanding it, we're supplying it... Period. Once that oil is out of our hands, we're out of the picture--it's your problem, we're not responsible."
After that, they are just speaking on behalf of the moneyed interests (be they private, or institutional) that hold large investments in the whole pantheon of modern American Fortune 500 companies, which of course all depend on the energy industry and energy infrastructure to turn quarterly profits. Those interests of course want a soft-pedaled message of PO--and that is assuming many even know about PO, or consider it a big deal. Many, I guarantee you, still do not, amazingly. Even if one denies Global Warming, that still leaves one exposed to PO. To deny PO takes extra gall, because not only do you have to be scientifically illiterate, but one must also embrace a fantastical methodology of magical thinking (a religion of economics). It's a necessity to be an apologist for the Church of Avarice which so much defines American finance and business that it seems to have eclipsed any consideration for where we are heading. Who is at the helm of the ship? The pollyannas will just gleet "Ah, hell, by gosh if we could just get some drilling going, and start growing some more corn, and windmill and just you wait this hydrogen cars on the way ASAP... Oil never peaked in the US it was just the enviroNazis stopping us from drillin! It's always morning in America!"
Little do they know we may well be mourning America soon.
There are already billions living in poverty, without clean water or basic infrastructure. Just take the comfortable way out and rationalize that even if PO is true, then what the hell, it's all just fluctuating numbers (just like we're collections of self-altering neural networks) and in the end the trolley cart only goes around once, so enjoy it while it lasts and fight for the home team! Hooyah! This is my postulate for the perspective some cynics may take on these earthly matters...
NC,
read the API transcript. They did urge conservation. And so does Chevron on their website, Shell, BP and the NPC report, chaired by Rex Tillotson. Even the Saudi's are saying we need to conserve.
The folks at API just had their butts handed to them by the new energy bill, its a disaster. And even if Bush vetos, they've got a lot of talking to do to avoid "punishment" taxes like the price controls and windfall profits tax in a year and a half.
Bob Ebersole
Semantics. Chevron's ad campaign is certainly more admirable than XOM's, but still--the mouth says one thing, the hands are off doing something else.
As for the Saudi's... Surely when they're telling us to conserve that must be the best indicator that things are getting extremely hairy.
As for Tillerson, I think you mean Lee 400-million-dollar Raymond headed up the NPC study.
I endorse everything Bob Ebersole said in this thread.
Furthermore, the Democrats are a complete embarrassment. They talk about price gouging and do not understand the economics of the oil markets. They talk about rolling back tax breaks, and I guess that's fine, if you think expensive deepwater oil will just produce itself. They talk about 30-some billions of barrels of corn-ethanol, but they don't know "Jack" about biofuels, energy returns, food requirements, and prices. In fact, I've been waiting since the year 2001 for the return of the morons — as opposed to the thieves.
So, that's your choice, Ladies & Gentlemen, idiots or miscreants. Oh beautiful, for spacious skies, for amber waves of corn; For purple mountain majesties, above the wilting plain... America! America! God shed his grace on thee... and crown thy crap with sub-prime mortgages, from Sea to Shining Sea...
Maybe they'll take you up on that, and in the spirit of honesty redub their parties The Thieving National Committee and The Moronic National Committee. TNC and MNC, respectively. It might be just the thing to reinvigorate politics, changing names... Ah, I forgot, that's what we do every four years (although, sometimes eight when one of the thieves or morons does an exceptionally good job.)
You got to admit that it is much easier to shield yourself from the thieves then from the morons.
And since I am in rant mode, I might add the following:
Peak oil is a bi-partisan issue — no, that's wrong. Peak oil is a scientific & economic issue — partisanship doesn't enter into it.
These are the Facts of Life, and Congress is like High School! When, you might ask, are these people (outside the Peak Oil Caucus) going to grow up? Never, say I! Well, not "never". They will grow up when the Shit has hit the Fan. There are two human attitudes, Schlesinger said: Complacency or Panic. The Politicians will not grow up, and God Knows the people they represent will not, so when Panic strikes, it will be too damn late to anything about it.
'nuff said.
This one's for you, Kurt Vonnegut, who was fond of quoting: Mistakes Were Made. So what? Who cares? Life (in some form) goes on! Kurt would say Give them a break, they only just got here (on Earth)...
Yes, Kurt Vonnegut, who lived thru the fire bombing of Dresden during WW II and then had to help clean to the mess -- as a prisoner of war. And, afterwards, he had to keep his experience a secret for years, as I recall.
The problem that I see with the two main political parties in the U.S. is that they agree on the basic assumption that economic growth is good. The only real difference between them is how to distribute the resulting wealth. When election time rolls around, they co-opt whichever issues they think they can sell against the other party, which allows the candidates to pontificate at every photo-opt before the ravenous frenzy of MSM talking heads, as if the individuals running actually believe it when they say that something must be done. When the election is near, the commercials are thrown up on the Idiot Box, since that's where most people spend their evenings recovering from the day's toil and troubles.
NO politician with more than half a brain is going to do ANYTHING that will alienate his fraction of the electorate. These guys spend lots of time and money to poll the people (I've actually spent some time randomly calling people to gather their "opinion"), looking for the right combination of issues to gather votes, honing the message in the Basic Stump Speech to attract just enough votes to win. So, blame the oil companies, the Saudis, The Russians, anybody but their backers or themselves. Just don't dare tell Joe Sixpack he can't have gasoline for his cherished 1970's Belch Fire or his roll over anything monster truck. And, don't suggest that Ms. Soccer Mom can't take the kiddies to dance class in that Isolation Mobile SUV, but must actually use PUBLIC transport!
Until The S@#t Hits The Fan, that is. It can't happen soon enough for me, even though I'll probably end up as a casualty in the process.
E. Swanson
The problem that I see with the two main political parties in the U.S. is that they agree on the basic assumption that economic growth is good. The only real difference between them is how to distribute the resulting wealth. When election time rolls around, they co-opt whichever issues they think they can sell against the other party, which allows the candidates to pontificate at every photo-opt before the ravenous frenzy of MSM talking heads, as if the individuals running actually believe it when they say that something must be done. When the election is near, the commercials are thrown up on the Idiot Box, since that's where most people spend their evenings recovering from the day's toil and troubles.
Now you see why the Athenians lost the Peloponnesian war. Democracies are very, very flawed.
NO politician with more than half a brain is going to do ANYTHING that will alienate his fraction of the electorate. These guys spend lots of time and money to poll the people (I've actually spent some time randomly calling people to gather their "opinion"), looking for the right combination of issues to gather votes, honing the message in the Basic Stump Speech to attract just enough votes to win. So, blame the oil companies, the Saudis, The Russians, anybody but their backers or themselves. Just don't dare tell Joe Sixpack he can't have gasoline for his cherished 1970's Belch Fire or his roll over anything monster truck. And, don't suggest that Ms. Soccer Mom can't take the kiddies to dance class in that Isolation Mobile SUV, but must actually use PUBLIC transport!
Wow, that is some rant. I take it your a city dweller who doesn't have a family, i.e. kids.
Until The S@#t Hits The Fan, that is. It can't happen soon enough for me, even though I'll probably end up as a casualty in the process.
E. Swanson
So you want economic collapse?
The Oil Drum sure has some "salt of the earth" posters I'm finding out.
I think it is possible to reduce polution from the to be upgraded BP Whiting, Indiana refinery.
could I get some coment no this ?
At low operating pressure and/or if the concentration of feed nitrogen is high it is not possible to convert the inhibiting nitrogen compounds to ammonia, and then it only possible to make ULSD using the direct route.
I think there should be several ways to seperate the mercury.
BP plans to invest more than $3 billion to modernize its Whiting, Indiana refinery so it can process additional heavy crude oil from a secure and reliable source, Canada.
This project will provide the Midwest with a supply of crude oil for the long term and will result in an estimated 15 percent increase in output of gasoline and diesel fuel. It also helps ensures the future viability of the Whiting refinery and the continuing supply of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel for Midwest residents.
Here are some facts:
The BP Whiting Refinery does not and will not dump sludge or toxic waste into Lake Michigan.
As part of this modernization and upgrading program we will invest $150 million in upgrades to our existing waste water treatment facilities.
We will be using best available technology in our facility. The discharge into Lake Michigan will meet and in most cases exceed all federal and state standards. It is protective of human health, the environment and Lake Michigan.
The water that BP returns to the lake is just that - water. It has been treated at BP's lakefront facility and is more than 99.9 percent pure.
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management granted the permit after a careful, thorough, open and transparent review of our application. We requested increases in two parameters - both of these increases are within guidelines set by the EPA. These are Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and ammonia.
These new limit levels of ammonia and TSS are needed because of the major changes at the refinery including the use of a totally different crude oil. The change in crude oil is being brought about by the decline in US produced crude oil from the Mid-Continent and Texas.
Canadian Crude is heavier and harder to process. Unfortunately the supply of the type of crude oil from North America is declining and will continue to decline over the next decade. BP's is likely the first of several US refineries who will need to adjust their processing capability as we move to heavier crude oils available here in North America.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) are not sludge. The amount from this facility is comparable to that released by a small-sized city - as every waste water treatment plant has some emission of TSS. They can not be totally avoided. They are micron in size and no technology exists to totally remove them from treated waste water. We are using best available technology to remove TSS.
The ammonia limits are one-half of the federal standards - designed to protect the nation's water - and have been reduced as far as possible using Best Available Technology.
BP received no exceptions to state or federal water quality regulations when receiving this permit.
BP followed the existing regulatory process established to pursue environmental permits.
BP has already begun another sweep to determine if further measures can be taken.
As a company with thousands of employees who live and work in and around Lake Michigan, we care about the Lake and about protecting aquatic and human life. As we have demonstrated in the past and will continue to do so, BP is committed to ongoing environmental stewardship.
BP is fully compliant not only with the law but its efforts to protect Lake Michigan go beyond what is required.
For more facts on BP and our U.S. activities, visit us at bp.com/us .
How will you protect the Lake?
We are investing about $150 million in a state of the art upgrade to further enhance our water treatment capability at Whiting.
What about mercury?
About 90 percent of the mercury found in the Great Lakes comes from the burning of coal, which is washed into the lakes by rain. Our project should not increase the level of mercury in the water we discharge.
What is your plan for reducing mercury?
Existing technology doesn't remove mercury to the current standard of 1.3 parts per trillion. We will continue to evaluate emerging technology and, like other industries and municipalities that discharge water into the lake and its tributaries, we will work with regulators to reduce the mercury level. Recognizing that some companies and municipalities may not be able to meet the current standard, regulators allow those who discharge to the lake to apply for a variance subject to public notice and comment.
When will this project be completed?
We are in the design phase and expect to complete the project by 2011 at a cost of more than $3 billion. The upgrade will increase the refinery's capability to supply gasoline and diesel fuel by about 1.7 million gallons a day for Midwest consumers.
Protecting the integrity of the Lake is important to us. A secure energy supply is also important for all of us in the Midwest. We believe it's possible to successfully achieve both.