I watched this debate with interest.
Nothing we have not heard before... but skip to about 45.33 minutes into the video, and listen to Hofmeister's Federal power grab necessary to "solve" the problem.
I am just sick listening to that.
Thanks John, we don't have enough trouble with our Federal Government as it is... we need to give them ANOTHER agency and more authority so that they can "help" us not inconvenience The Powers That Be.
Now Drop f%$^^ing dead.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
The Soviet Union used the central planning approach to energy production and environmental control. According to our journalists, it worked perfectly!
Wow...
Yes, regarding his *love* of the Federal Reserve and its historical record... create a federal bank that can inflate the currency at will for the benefit of the government, with the government able to spend the newly created/inflated $$ first....of course we haven't had a bankrupted government since....just stick the hidden tax to everybody else.
This guy is a M O R O N.
Stephen B.
He is not a moron, he is a liberal. He and his 8 buddies KNOW that which 300,000,000 market participants simply cannot know. Socialism draws megalomaniacs like moths to the flame.
Regards,
Coal Guy
By the way, to the market's credit, crude production is up about 1MM bbl/day, ethanol production is up to about 1MM bbl per day, consumption is down about 2MM bbl/day, and imports are down about 4MMbbl/day in the last 5 years or so. Pretty damn good adjustment to $3.50/gal oil if you ask me.
If left to modify their lives in their own best interest, people will buy smaller cars, move closer to work, move closer to shopping, live in smaller dwellings and turn the heat down. Industry will try to replace the dwindling supply of petroleum with economically viable alternatives. And it will. The market will weed out the losers.
Why do we need a panel of eight insider weenies? So that they can do TPTB's bidding and get big fat jobs that they don't have to show up for when their terms end.
Regards,
Coal Guy.
The United States was the largest contributor to global energy supply during 2011 and is currently producing as much oil as OPEC member Ecuador. There may be an energy crisis in some countries, but not in America. We are now a net energy exporter. So all the gurus predicting armagedon from peak oil might want to visit North Dakota and see for themselves what is going on.
Notice that consumption is definitely going in a downward direction. This just supports Greg's long slow grind theory. The longer it stretches out the better it will be for all of us. We are not in the clear, by any measure.
Regards,
Coal Guy
Anon,
I keep reading people saying that the US is an oil exporter and I think that this is rather wrong.
Of course there are oil products that get exported, mainly refined ones, but by no means is the US a net exporter of oil.
I notice you say that the US is a net exporter of energy. Would you care to clarify? Are you including coal in that figure?
Frankly, I tend to doubt we are a net exporter of even energy in general, but on oil, I'm pretty sure we are not.
We've all seen the stories on the boom times in North Dakota, but one state does not make a union.
We've seen of late that, even as US oil consumption is down and production up (somewhat), we are still suffering under higher prices and will continue to do so as the developing world continues to use more oil, all while, in general, world oil production flattens to eventually dropping.
I've never predicted "Armageddon" from Peak Oil, but that doesn't mean there won't be problems.
You write like Daniel Yergin, by the way, meaning that your writing is almost dangerous in its false, almost misleading, optimism, even if the few, cherry-picked facts, are not wrong.
Stephen B.
The following chart shows the ratio of US consumption to production for oil, natural gas and coal, from 1998 to 2010 (BP). 1.0 marks the dividing line between net importer status (above 1.0) and net exporter status (below 1.0). Note that the US was actually a net coal importer in 2003:
http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/Slide1-20.jpg
The primary contribution to the post-2005 decline in US net oil imports is the decline in US demand, as we were outbid by developing countries, especially the Chindia region, for access to a declining supply of Global Net Exports of oil (GNE).
Regarding Hofmeister, whatever his failings, he has had made some interesting comments recently:
CNBC video link (2/10/12):
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000072422
Hofmeister:
"What's really unprecedented, Carl, is the fact that developing countries, especially China and India, have this insatiable need for more oil, and that has not been taken into account as we've thought about public policy in this country. So while we may be producing a bit more oil in this country, and while demand is down a bit, on a global basis I'm afraid we face a continuing onslaught of prices creeping ever higher. I hope I'm wrong in this. I'd love to be wrong, but we saw last year's record gasoline prices through the course of the year, and we're seeing the same phenomenon starting out this year, and I'm afraid it's just creeping up and creeping up, and in the meantime you have refineries closing on the east coast because they can't get the margin they need to stay open."
CNBC Video link (2/21/12):
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000073805
Hofmeister:
"(Oil) Demand globally is not down. That's the issue. Demand continues to rise in Asia and whether we (the US) use less or not, doesn't matter. Price is going up because supply can't keep up with the demand . . .
I think OPEC is about maxed out. When people talk about spare capacity in OPEC, I don't see it. I just don't see it coming through and I'm not sure it's there. And it's not just that they're greedy, but they're really producing what they can produce."
Incidentally, the only reason that the US is able to (net) export some refined products is because we are importing about 60% of the crude oil used in US refineries.
Post a Comment