Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (70822)	6/5/2008 8:05:48 AM
From: Ron	Respond to of 543063

Peak Oil, Peak Food and Peak Everything Else By Kevin Kerr • June 4th, 2008 • The world keeps turning and the resources get used up. It’s really quite simple. Despite that fact, the debates rage over Peak Oil, Peak Food and peak everything else. It’s about as sensible as rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. So the “experts” continue to debate whether or not resources are running low. But the evidence is pretty clear, at least to this trader. In the past year, we have seen the oil and agriculture markets explode. And this could be just the beginning of the rally, not the end, as some would have you believe. Personally, I think we are about halfway to the new top for many commodities. That means $200 oil (easily) and gold at $1,500-2,000. The agriculture markets have even further to go, in my opinion. Key commodities are becoming more and more scarce. So we can expect to see more suffering in the poorest countries first. Then the economic impact will work its way up the food chain (no pun intended). The facts are fairly grim if we look at them closely. There is going to be less of everything. Yet there will be more people who want those things. Let’s face it – wars have been fought over far less. In her famous book, On Death and Dying , Elisabeth Kubler-Ross describes the stages of grief: Denial: “It can’t be happening” Anger: “Why me? It’s not fair” Bargaining: “Just let me live to see my children graduate” Depression: “I’m so sad, why bother with anything?” Acceptance: “It’s going to be OK.” In my opinion, the American public is going through the stages of grief right now. Rising prices are just a market-based signal that we are losing our economic and resource abundance. As the American dream fades away, it’s like a death in the family. Right now, I think we are between the stages of denial and anger. Ask yourself these questions: What do you think when you pull up to the fuel pump and have to pay $4 for a gallon of regular gas, or nearly $5 for a gallon of diesel? Or how about when you go to the supermarket and have to pay $4 for a gallon of “store brand” milk, or the same price for a loaf of “store brand” bread? Are your emotions between disbelief and anger? Are you saying to yourself, “Hey, what the heck is going on?” (I’m cleaning it up a bit because this is a family-friendly publication.) I think folks mistakenly thought prosperity would go on forever. Dinner is always fun until the waiter brings the check. Or as my colleague Byron King once said, “It’s easy to look rich as long as you don’t ever pay the bills.” No sector has recently hit Americans in the wallet harder than energy. But even with those dramatic price increases, major changes are still not happening. We have seen a very small decrease in gasoline usage – only about 1% or so. But while some travel may be down as costs have gone up, the numbers are not really dramatic. No, I am not pointing fingers. I live here too. If I looked at my own lifestyle, I couldn’t say that I am making radical adjustments, either. We still like to drive our big SUVs. We still drive alone to work. Most people rarely take public transportation (if there is any). And we love to run our air conditioners full blast while watching the documentaries on global warming and dying polar bears on our 62-inch plasma TVs. Yes, we like to grumble when we fill up those big SUVs, mostly because it’s easier to complain than make the tough changes that are needed. We feel entitled to keep living as we do. Hey, after all, we’ve earned it. Right? Rather than make difficult choices, we are in that denial stage and buy the line from the government and media that all is well. The facts and the fiction often get mixed up when discussing the issue of “Peak Everything.” Take the surging price of crude oil. Some people (including a lot of politicians) want to blame the traders and speculators. Other people blame farmers and corn-based ethanol. A lot of people blame OPEC. The list of culprits goes on ad infinitum. The fact remains that it’s not just one reason or another that we are in this energy disaster; it’s actually all of these reasons and others. It’s a culmination of many years of poor energy policy, short-sighted planning (if you can even call it planning) and an overdose of arrogance that only superpowers can have. It’s like a football team saying, “We’re No. 1 and will always be that way.” So the team stops training hard. Players quit working out and coming to practice. The coaches just relax and forget about recruiting or developing new talent. Nobody designs new plays or bothers to scout the opponents to see what they are up to. And then the team expects to go out into the world and bring home the trophy every year. “Hey, we deserve it. Right?” Or go back to the analogy of the Titanic. The ship was state-of-the art. It was not “supposed” to be able to sink. But now as the water rushes in and the ship is dropping lower and lower into the sea, the cold water is hitting us all in the face. Now our lawmakers are scrambling to plug the holes, and it’s not working. The smart people (or maybe they were just lucky) are already in the lifeboats. Only time will tell if the United States can actually move into the acceptance stage. But in the meantime, commodities will continue to dwindle. Kevin Kerr for The Daily Reckoning Australia dailyreckoning.com.au

To: Lane3 who wrote (70822)	6/5/2008 8:39:01 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543063

Opening ANWR cuts gas prices TWO cents in 2025 In the climate and energy debate, conservatives continue to argue that the only solution to high gasoline prices is drill, drill, drill, especially in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (see Eco-Gingrich says, “Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay More”). This argument is false, false, false. The Administration’s own Energy Information Administration found differently in a 2004 Congressionally-requested “Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR” (see “Note to Bush, media: Opening ANWR cuts gas prices one penny in 2025“). I pointed out then that the 2004 analysis was based on low oil prices, and that higher oil prices would raise the savings. A May 2008 re-analysis by EIA, “Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,” in fact found In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027… The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of … $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, There are 42 gallons in a barrel, so that’ll be about two cents a gallon. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again — don’t spend it all in one place, America. Now, in “fairness” to the EIA, they have gone from a 2004 prediction that world oil price in 2025 of $27 per barrel (2002 dollars) to a May 2008 prediction that oil in 2030 will be a mere $70 a barrel (in 2006 dollars). [Note to self: Find out what EIA forecasters are smoking and stay far away from it.] This mainly proves the EIA is really lousy at energy forecasting (see “Peak Oil? Bring it on!“). Let me propose a rule of thumb based on the EIA analyses — ANWR will cut future gasoline prices about 1%. You can pick your own gasoline price in 2030 and do the math. If we want to avoid gasoline prices, $6 or $7 a gallon and then much more, we need to get off of oil as our primary transportation fuel ASAP. That, of course, is a primary goal of climate legislation. climateprogress.org

To: Lane3 who wrote (70822)	6/5/2008 8:41:11 AM
From: Sam	Respond to of 543063

Note to Bush, media: Opening ANWR cuts gas prices one penny in 2025 Bush blames Congress’s failure to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for high gasoline prices (here). The Administration’s own Energy Information Administration found otherwise in a 2004 Congressional-requested “Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR“: It is expected that the price impact of ANWR coastal plain production might reduce world oilprices by as much as 30 to 50 cents per barrel [in 2025]. Don’t spend it all in one place, American public! [Note to Bush: There are 42 gallons in a barrel.] EIA continues: Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries could countermand any potential price impact of ANWR coastal plain production by reducing its exports by an equal amount. Curses, foiled again! Then again, it’s laughable of the EIA to think OPEC (or anyone else) will have any spare capacity in 2025 (see “Peak Oil? Bring it on!“). But that’s the EIA for you. Now, in “fairness” to the EIA, they did report at the time that the 30 to 50 cent per barrel price is relative to a projected 2025 world oil price of $27 per barrel (2002 dollars) in the AEO2004 reference case. This mainly proves the EIA is really lousy at energy forecasting. But let’s just assume the rise is proportional — and say ANWR cuts gasoline prices one penny for every $27 per barrel in the price of oil. That would be 4 cents at current prices. You can do your own calculations if you think gasoline prices will be much higher in 2025 if we keep following Bush’s policies…. climateprogress.org

To: Lane3 who wrote (70822)	6/5/2008 9:55:38 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543063

<<< So Schumer, according to Schumer, is complicit in taking $10 away from every American who buys 20 gallons of gasoline. "Democracy," said H.L. Mencken, "is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." The common people of New York want Schumer to be their senator, so they should pipe down about gasoline prices,>>> I am not going to defend Schumer. He is a politician and he does what politicians do and that is to do whatever you have to do to get elected. But George Will pretends to be a journalist. He is a for profit right wing propagandist. He uses whatever means to deceive. In this case he is accusing Schumer and other politicians for supporting opposing positions wrt their impact on the cost of oil that consumers have to pay. In the one case, he accuses Schumer of trying to pander to consumers for advocating using pressure on Sauda Arab to increase oil supply but at the same time blocking access to oil in our Alaskan wilderness. The difference is that it cost us nothing to pressure Saudia Arabia to increase oil production but to increase oil production in Alaska will cause destruction of our environment. Big difference. George Will is nothing more than a for profit propagandist.

To: Lane3 who wrote (70822)	6/5/2008 5:46:26 PM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 543063

>>In September 2006, two U.S. companies announced that their Jack No. 2 well, in the Gulf 270 miles southwest of New Orleans, had tapped a field with perhaps 15 billion barrels of oil, which would increase America's proven reserves by 50 percent. Just probing four miles below the Gulf's floor costs $100 million. Congress's response to such expenditures is to propose increasing the oil companies' tax burdens.<< Karen - Will is right, of course, to say that begging the Saudis to pump more oil is ludicrous. Schumer is among the people who endorse that idea. I do note that our President is the one who actually got on a plane to go and do it, though. So the President gets a pass, and Schumer is the bad guy because he voted to stop drilling in ANWR? Just as 33 Republican Senators also did? ANWR's reserves are a drop in the bucket. If Will's figures about reserves in the Gulf are correct, and I have no reason to think they aren't, then that's where we should be looking to increase our production of oil and gas. Will also comments about the desire of some to increase taxes on the oil companies. He thinks we should instead, as the Bush Administration and a Republican Congress did, compensate them for the expense of drilling for new supplies by continuing to give them tax breaks. I'd say they don't need the breaks. They're doing fine even with the current situation, making record profits. And each barrel they can pull out of the ground here is worth more to them that the ones they buy from foreign suppliers. Maybe we could compromise by rescinding the tax cuts and not trying to tax "windfall profits." - Allen