• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Blame the Senators, not the Oil Execs..........

Mike

Well-known member
Blame senators, not oil execs
Denver Post ^ | 5/22/2008 | David Harsanyi


Have you seen the television spots produced by oil companies? If so, you might be under the impression they were in the business of selling sunflowers and good vibes rather than energy.

In general, oil executives have done a horrid job of defending their industry, opening themselves up to fact-deprived populist attacks that ignore the complexities of the energy mess.

This week's sham of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing saw Big Oil executives from ExxonMobil, Chevron and three other companies take the stand. With quivering voices, they explained basic economic principles to Senate demagogues who, incidentally, bear far more responsibility for high prices than the execs themselves.

The lead demagogue, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, leveled numerous preposterous charges. He claimed that there was a "disconnect" between supply and demand and the gasoline prices that consumers are wrestling with at the pump.

Leahy, one hopes, knows that oil companies have little to do with the price of oil per barrel. He knows full well that they can't control OPEC production or Hugo Chavez or the dramatic increase in oil demand by China, India and other developing nations. So in this case, the only "disconnect" is between facts and Sen. Leahy.

Most of the senators moaned about "profits" — a topic that has nothing to do with the fundamental problems we face. And though $40 billion in profit sounds massive to us, in the context of the entire fossil fuel industry, it's far less magnificent.

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter asked "why profits have gone up so high when the consumer is suffering so much." Good question. Perhaps Specter can also ask why government seizes more in profit per gallon of gas than the wicked oil companies. Then, he might want to discuss why Congress continues to obstruct the search for more energy and the import of smart energy.

Start with ethanol (the good kind): The massive farm bill — supported by every senator on the Judiciary Committee — continues the policy of applying high tariffs on Brazilian sugar-based ethanol to protect American companies. Instead of opening this market, Congress is continuing mandates and subsidies for corn-based ethanol (the bad kind). That's a price consumers pay whether they want to or not.

Talk about nuclear energy: The cleanest viable large-scale energy source available to us already provides around 20 percent of our electricity. Congress has done little to promote more use. Leahy's state of Vermont enjoys this clean and relatively cheap energy. Why not the rest of us?

Talk about exploration: Any mention of drilling in the tundra of Alaska incites apoplectic reactions. Yet a sliver of land in Alaska's 19.6 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could yield 10 billion barrels of oil. It wouldn't dramatically affect prices in the short term, but the long-term benefits are clear and numerous.

Talk about refineries: Can we get a new one? Please? It's been 35 years.

So what has Congress come up with instead? It creates unrealistic expectations about renewable energies (and some have great futures) and advocates for punitive "windfall profit" taxes to diverge more money from private industry to centralized government.

How any of this helps consumers or alleviates foreign energy reliance is a mystery.

"Stop ripping off the American people. Ride your bike to work, everybody," yelled a protester from the far-left group Code Pink at oil executives. (She, undoubtedly, had just pedaled her 10-speed to Washington from Fantasia.)

Riding bikes out of necessity — as folks in Third World countries do — is exactly what we can look forward to if energy policy continues to appease the Code Pink crowd rather than help the American people.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
I think they all are to blame.

And this " oh..it's China and India and THEIR demand for more oil"

Well, they all just didn't throw out their bikes and rickshaws all of a sudden 8 months ago and start buying gas guzzlers and begin driving, as that is when the prices really started their creep upward.


There is something much bigger and grander behind all the increase in fuel prices, not sure what it is......but it came on WAY too fast to be just the market, the demand, the Congress, etc etc etc
 

jigs

Well-known member
the world may come to a screaching halt, but...I agree with Kola....there is something a lot bigger that we are being kept in the blind about. and when Uncle Sam keeps a secret, it ain't going to be pretty when he spills the beans.
 

Chuck

Active member
Mike said:
The lead demagogue, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, leveled numerous preposterous charges.
There was plenty of shameful behavior to go around. I sent an e-mail to Dick Durbin, our other useless fool here, as soon as I heard about this. He was about as bad as Leahy. I asked him the same questions that the article asks, plus several more. Dick's website says that if you are a resident of Illinois, you will receive a reply right away. I'm still waiting. He proudly advertises that his site was a recipient of the Silver Mouse Award. Maybe he and his staff are busy polishing it. Or something.
 

fff

Well-known member
Mike said:
Blame senators, not oil execs
Denver Post ^ | 5/22/2008 | David Harsanyi


Have you seen the television spots produced by oil companies? If so, you might be under the impression they were in the business of selling sunflowers and good vibes rather than energy.

In general, oil executives have done a horrid job of defending their industry, opening themselves up to fact-deprived populist attacks that ignore the complexities of the energy mess.

This week's sham of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing saw Big Oil executives from ExxonMobil, Chevron and three other companies take the stand. With quivering voices, they explained basic economic principles to Senate demagogues who, incidentally, bear far more responsibility for high prices than the execs themselves.

The lead demagogue, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, leveled numerous preposterous charges. He claimed that there was a "disconnect" between supply and demand and the gasoline prices that consumers are wrestling with at the pump.

Leahy, one hopes, knows that oil companies have little to do with the price of oil per barrel. He knows full well that they can't control OPEC production or Hugo Chavez or the dramatic increase in oil demand by China, India and other developing nations. So in this case, the only "disconnect" is between facts and Sen. Leahy.

Most of the senators moaned about "profits" — a topic that has nothing to do with the fundamental problems we face. And though $40 billion in profit sounds massive to us, in the context of the entire fossil fuel industry, it's far less magnificent.

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter asked "why profits have gone up so high when the consumer is suffering so much." Good question. Perhaps Specter can also ask why government seizes more in profit per gallon of gas than the wicked oil companies. Then, he might want to discuss why Congress continues to obstruct the search for more energy and the import of smart energy.

Start with ethanol (the good kind): The massive farm bill — supported by every senator on the Judiciary Committee — continues the policy of applying high tariffs on Brazilian sugar-based ethanol to protect American companies. Instead of opening this market, Congress is continuing mandates and subsidies for corn-based ethanol (the bad kind). That's a price consumers pay whether they want to or not.

Talk about nuclear energy: The cleanest viable large-scale energy source available to us already provides around 20 percent of our electricity. Congress has done little to promote more use. Leahy's state of Vermont enjoys this clean and relatively cheap energy. Why not the rest of us?

Talk about exploration: Any mention of drilling in the tundra of Alaska incites apoplectic reactions. Yet a sliver of land in Alaska's 19.6 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could yield 10 billion barrels of oil. It wouldn't dramatically affect prices in the short term, but the long-term benefits are clear and numerous.

Talk about refineries: Can we get a new one? Please? It's been 35 years.

So what has Congress come up with instead? It creates unrealistic expectations about renewable energies (and some have great futures) and advocates for punitive "windfall profit" taxes to diverge more money from private industry to centralized government.

How any of this helps consumers or alleviates foreign energy reliance is a mystery.

"Stop ripping off the American people. Ride your bike to work, everybody," yelled a protester from the far-left group Code Pink at oil executives. (She, undoubtedly, had just pedaled her 10-speed to Washington from Fantasia.)

Riding bikes out of necessity — as folks in Third World countries do — is exactly what we can look forward to if energy policy continues to appease the Code Pink crowd rather than help the American people.

Blame the senators? Blame the Republicans! ROTFLMAO!!! :lol: :lol:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
fff said:
Mike said:
Blame senators, not oil execs
Denver Post ^ | 5/22/2008 | David Harsanyi


Have you seen the television spots produced by oil companies? If so, you might be under the impression they were in the business of selling sunflowers and good vibes rather than energy.

In general, oil executives have done a horrid job of defending their industry, opening themselves up to fact-deprived populist attacks that ignore the complexities of the energy mess.

This week's sham of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing saw Big Oil executives from ExxonMobil, Chevron and three other companies take the stand. With quivering voices, they explained basic economic principles to Senate demagogues who, incidentally, bear far more responsibility for high prices than the execs themselves.

The lead demagogue, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, leveled numerous preposterous charges. He claimed that there was a "disconnect" between supply and demand and the gasoline prices that consumers are wrestling with at the pump.

Leahy, one hopes, knows that oil companies have little to do with the price of oil per barrel. He knows full well that they can't control OPEC production or Hugo Chavez or the dramatic increase in oil demand by China, India and other developing nations. So in this case, the only "disconnect" is between facts and Sen. Leahy.

Most of the senators moaned about "profits" — a topic that has nothing to do with the fundamental problems we face. And though $40 billion in profit sounds massive to us, in the context of the entire fossil fuel industry, it's far less magnificent.

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter asked "why profits have gone up so high when the consumer is suffering so much." Good question. Perhaps Specter can also ask why government seizes more in profit per gallon of gas than the wicked oil companies. Then, he might want to discuss why Congress continues to obstruct the search for more energy and the import of smart energy.

Start with ethanol (the good kind): The massive farm bill — supported by every senator on the Judiciary Committee — continues the policy of applying high tariffs on Brazilian sugar-based ethanol to protect American companies. Instead of opening this market, Congress is continuing mandates and subsidies for corn-based ethanol (the bad kind). That's a price consumers pay whether they want to or not.

Talk about nuclear energy: The cleanest viable large-scale energy source available to us already provides around 20 percent of our electricity. Congress has done little to promote more use. Leahy's state of Vermont enjoys this clean and relatively cheap energy. Why not the rest of us?

Talk about exploration: Any mention of drilling in the tundra of Alaska incites apoplectic reactions. Yet a sliver of land in Alaska's 19.6 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could yield 10 billion barrels of oil. It wouldn't dramatically affect prices in the short term, but the long-term benefits are clear and numerous.

Talk about refineries: Can we get a new one? Please? It's been 35 years.

So what has Congress come up with instead? It creates unrealistic expectations about renewable energies (and some have great futures) and advocates for punitive "windfall profit" taxes to diverge more money from private industry to centralized government.

How any of this helps consumers or alleviates foreign energy reliance is a mystery.

"Stop ripping off the American people. Ride your bike to work, everybody," yelled a protester from the far-left group Code Pink at oil executives. (She, undoubtedly, had just pedaled her 10-speed to Washington from Fantasia.)

Riding bikes out of necessity — as folks in Third World countries do — is exactly what we can look forward to if energy policy continues to appease the Code Pink crowd rather than help the American people.

Blame the senators? Blame the Republicans! ROTFLMAO!!! :lol: :lol:


You belong to Code PINK frankie?? Do they support CAB :roll: :roll: :roll:
Rolling on the floor like that will shake your brain past any means of recovery OPPPPS to late you can't even read and understand he post!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
kolanuraven said:
There is something much bigger and grander behind all the increase in fuel prices, not sure what it is......but it came on WAY too fast to be just the market, the demand, the Congress, etc etc etc

Yep- Kola and jigs I agree with you-- and many of the Senators on both sides of the aisle are smelling the same reek....Especially when it came out in the hearings that oil usuage now is essentially the same in the US as in 1981- and usage around the world is only up 2.6% from 1981.....

I thought a couple of the oilexecs set the air/manner of what would be learned from the hearings when they couldn't remember how much their last years salaries and overall earnings were..... :roll: :shock: Even tho they are public record.....At least one was honest enough to remember he made over $12 Million- and a couple of the VP's admitted $2-3 Million (even tho theirs isn't public record)....

Definitely some arguments against the "integration" of the industry-and how it has developed into an oligoply- when all testified that they were now so large that none anymore just used self produced oil/gas from their own fields- and for that reason couldn't lower their prices using their oil thats only costing them $35-50 a barrel to produce- as they all now have to buy oil (at least half) off the world market :shock: :roll:

And definitely some indications of the ability being there for them to control prices thru their reinvesting their huge yearly earnings (BILLIONS) in oil commodity's - which can push up or down their product (oil) prices much the same way the oligoply multinational MeatPackers can do with cattle prices--so first time investors like Hillary can make $100,000 off investing the "right" way.... :roll: :wink: :lol: :p
Indications that some openness and transparency needs to be put into what appears now a too secretive backroom global commodities trading program- to prevent such actions....
 

Steve

Well-known member
OldTimer
Especially when it came out in the hearings that oil usuage now is essentially the same in the US as in 1981- and usage around the world is only up 2.6% from 1981.....

if US usage is constant and world usage is up slightly.. where is all the additional production going?

Iran is forced to store its sour crude on tankers??

it seems to me that there are more questions then answers.. or no one is asking the right questions..

but the important questions seldom get asked until after the market sector bubble bursts..
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
I think they all are to blame.

And this " oh..it's China and India and THEIR demand for more oil"

Well, they all just didn't throw out their bikes and rickshaws all of a sudden 8 months ago and start buying gas guzzlers and begin driving, as that is when the prices really started their creep upward.


There is something much bigger and grander behind all the increase in fuel prices, not sure what it is......but it came on WAY too fast to be just the market, the demand, the Congress, etc etc etc

"during the first quarter of this year, China's oil consumption jumped by 16.5%"

16.5% of an already large consumption is pretty drastic for a 3 month period of this year. And it has been increasing at rates similar to that for the past few years.

We are starting to pay on the back end of all that money we saved by outsourcing the past 10 years or more. We are paying in a lot more ways than just gasoline check steel prices and China is largely behind that also. To save a few bucks at Wal-Mart we are going to be paying for years and years to come.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Why $4-a-gallon gas is a bargain

Even with the recent spike in the price of fuel here, the US still hasn’t caught up to much of the world. Drivers in Norway and Great Britain pay more than twice what we do for a gallon of gas

The next time you have to take out a loan just to fill up your tank, remember this: Four-dollar-per-gallon gasoline is cheap.

There's no doubt that high fuel prices are hurting low-income consumers, and high energy costs are placing a tax on the economy that is slowing investment while sending billions of dollars overseas. It's unsurprising that presidential candidates and members of Congress issue new proposals practically every day for lowering gas prices: Stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve! Suspend the federal gas tax! Open ANWR to oil drilling!

Talk back: Have you been hit with 'sticker shock' at the gas pump?

These proposals are delusions, and Americans are living in a fantasyland when it comes to energy and energy prices. Over the past few years, consumers have been inundated with news stories about the soaring price of gasoline. Invariably, these stories include comments from a motorist who is outraged at the evils of a) Saudi Arabia, b) OPEC, c) Big Oil, d) all of the above.

But by almost any measure, gasoline is still cheap. In fact, it has probably been far too cheap for far too long. The recent price increases are only beginning to reflect its real value.

Paying 1920s prices
When measured on an inflation-adjusted basis, the current price of gasoline is only slightly higher than it was in 1922. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 1922, a gallon of gasoline cost the current-day equivalent of $3.11. Today, according to the EIA, gasoline is selling for about $3.77 per gallon, only about 20% more than 86 years ago.


Given the ever-increasing global demand for oil products -- during the first quarter of this year, China's oil consumption jumped by 16.5% -- and the increasing costs associated with finding, producing and refining crude oil, it makes sense that today's motorists are paying more for their motor fuel than their grandparents and great-grandparents did.

Gasoline is also a fairly minor expense when you consider the overall cost of car ownership. In 1975, gasoline made up 33.4% of the total cost of owning and operating a car. By 2006, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, gasoline costs had declined to just 17.1% of the total cost of car ownership. Of course, fuel costs have risen by about $1 per gallon since 2006, but even with those increases, fuel continues to be a relatively small part of the cost of car ownership.

By contrast, the fixed costs of ownership -- insurance, licensing, taxes and financing -- have increased nearly fivefold since 1975. Maintenance costs have also quintupled over the same time period. Given those increases and the relatively low price of fuel, it's not surprising that Americans are opting for big vehicles with powerful engines.

Considering the overall cost of owning a vehicle, fuel expenses just aren't a very big deal.

High prices, lower consumption
Significant declines in U.S. oil consumption have occurred only after prolonged periods of high prices. Over the last two decades, U.S. consumers have been spoiled by low fuel prices. And those lower prices led to a buying binge that put millions of giant SUVs, pickups and other gas guzzlers on our roads.

Today's higher prices are forcing consumers to adapt. The EIA now expects U.S. gasoline consumption to decline this year -- the first drop in demand in 17 years. In April, sales of small cars in the United States were up by 17% over the same period a year earlier, while sales of SUVs, trucks, and large cars all fell by about 30%.

On the environmental front, people concerned about greenhouse-gas emissions should be cheering today's oil prices. Expensive motor fuel is the only thing that will lead consumers to use less and make the switch to hybrid vehicles, smaller cars and public transit. Higher oil prices are persuading automakers to change their fleets.

Last week, Nissan Motor Company announced that it will begin selling an electric car in the United States and Japan by 2010. Carlos Ghosn, the chief executive of Nissan, made it clear that fuel prices were a factor in the company's decision to build electric cars, telling The New York Times that "the shifts coming from the markets are more powerful than what regulators are doing."

A gallon of gasoline in the U.S. is also dirt-cheap compared with gas in other countries. British motorists are paying about $8.38 per gallon for gasoline. In Norway, a major oil exporter, drivers are paying $8.73. In 2007, out of the 32 industrialized countries surveyed by the International Energy Agency, only one (Mexico) had cheaper gasoline than the United States.

Last year, drivers in Turkey were paying three times as much for their gasoline as Americans were. The IEA data also show that in India -- where the per-capita gross domestic product is about $2,700 (about 6% of the per-capita GDP in the United States) -- drivers have been paying more for their diesel fuel and gasoline than their American counterparts.

(Gasoline is also cheap compared with other essential fuels. A Starbucks venti latte costs the equivalent of $23 per gallon, while Budweiser beer runs $11 per gallon.)

The simple truth is that Americans are going to have to get used to more expensive gasoline. And while they may continue grumbling at the pump, they need to accept the fact that even at $3.50 or $4 per gallon, the fuel they are buying is still a bargain.



http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/Why4DollarAGallonGasIsABargain.aspx
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
The good news from that article above is Nissan announcing it will start selling an all electric car in 2010. This will be the biggest change to hit automobiles in 100 years. There is no reason that millions of Americans and people world wide are not driving 100% electric vehicles.

It has already been done and tested in Californina 8 years ago or so. Problem was the government was trying to force car makers to make them because of environment, and they lobbyed to niche the deal. But the cars were succesful and can be again.

Sure most of us on here can not drive an electric car living in the rural, but think of all the millions and millions living in large cities that drive less than 50 miles a day who could all drive 100% electric cars, especially if plug ins were provided at work parking lots to charge them for drive home.

Anyone that has not seen it should search out the movie "Who killed the Electric Car" you libs and Bush haters will love it because he played a roll in to stop the forced electric car law in California. Not sure of all the details but I am sure he was to blame for it.

If you saw this show you would see how an all electric car would change the auto industry and could criple the oil industry when they take hold.

Just imagine a Ford Explorer that drives like a regular explorer but uses Zero Gasoline, just needs plugged in when you get home.

If any of you own or have driven an electric golf cart, you can imagine how possible it could be. If we can send a man to the moon how easy should it be to make larger versions of golf carts?

Here is a link to Nissans Electric Car

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080310/FREE/833121356/1023/LATESTNEWS
 

fff

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
The good news from that article above is Nissan announcing it will start selling an all electric car in 2010. This will be the biggest change to hit automobiles in 100 years. There is no reason that millions of Americans and people world wide are not driving 100% electric vehicles.

It has already been done and tested in Californina 8 years ago or so. Problem was the government was trying to force car makers to make them because of environment, and they lobbyed to niche the deal. But the cars were succesful and can be again.

Sure most of us on here can not drive an electric car living in the rural, but think of all the millions and millions living in large cities that drive less than 50 miles a day who could all drive 100% electric cars, especially if plug ins were provided at work parking lots to charge them for drive home.

Anyone that has not seen it should search out the movie "Who killed the Electric Car" you libs and Bush haters will love it because he played a roll in to stop the forced electric car law in California. Not sure of all the details but I am sure he was to blame for it.

If you saw this show you would see how an all electric car would change the auto industry and could criple the oil industry when they take hold.

Just imagine a Ford Explorer that drives like a regular explorer but uses Zero Gasoline, just needs plugged in when you get home.

If any of you own or have driven an electric golf cart, you can imagine how possible it could be. If we can send a man to the moon how easy should it be to make larger versions of golf carts?

Here is a link to Nissans Electric Car

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080310/FREE/833121356/1023/LATESTNEWS

And how is this electric car to be powered? Electricity isn't free either. In fact, the next spike in prices is expected to be the soft coal that fuels electrical power plants.
Consumers struggling with high gas prices, rising food costs and falling home values have something new to worry about: Sharply rising electricity rates due to a surge in coal prices over the past year.
There is an abundance of coal in the United States, but like other commodities its price is increasingly dependent on events elsewhere in the world. Snowstorms this winter cut coal production in China and heavy rain flooded mines in Australia — the world's largest coal exporter. Meanwhile, demand for coal to generate electricity and make steel is rising almost everywhere, especially in fast-growing China and India.

That has increased the world's appetite for American coal, helping to push up the price of the fuel utilities burn to drive the steam turbines that generate half of the country's electricity. U.S. coal exports jumped 19.2% last year, according to the Energy Department, and are expected to rise another 15% this year.

"As more of the world develops and uses more energy, and supply tries to keep up with demand, we're going to have these pinch points," said Carol Pfeiffer, director of fuels for the U.S. for utility giant E.On.

Central Appalachian coal, a benchmark grade that's widely used by power plants, has jumped from around $40 a ton in early 2007 to almost $90 a ton now. Coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana, which has about three-quarters the heat content of Central Appalachian coal, jumped from less than $10 a ton to almost $15 a ton over the same time period.

Utilities must burn more Powder River Basin coal to generate an equivalent amount of energy, and it must travel east by rail, which adds significantly to its final cost. Utilities such as American Electric Power, for instance, mostly burn Appalachian coal in their eastern plants, but rely on cheaper Powder River Basin coal in the west.

Facing such steep price increases, utilities nationwide are raising rates and are likely to push for even more dramatic increases in electric rates in the coming months. In parts of coal-dependent West Virginia, for instance, electricity rates will rise 15% this year. That's one of the biggest increases in American Electric's history, a rate hike the company attributes largely to rising coal costs.

West Virginia is far from alone. In Kentucky, which like West Virginia gets more than 90% of its electricity from coal, the four biggest utilities have raised rates an average of 12% over the past 12 months, according to the Kentucky Public Service Commission.

Pamela Earlywine, a single mother of two in Paris, Ky., says her monthly electric bill has risen about 20% since last year. "We'll just have to cut back even further," Earlywine said. "I'm already paying at least $30 more every month, so that changes my whole budget."

American Electric's planned 15% rate hike may not sound like much, but it means a bump of $900 a month for Twin River Hardwoods, a small, rural West Virginia sawmill whose monthly electric bill is already $6,000. "That would hurt," said owner Tony Woodyard.

The national average retail price of electricity rose 2.3% last year, the Energy Department says. But in West Virginia, prices rose 4.6%. Energy research firm Global Insight expects rates to rise 5.7% nationally this year, largely due to coal costs, and Stifel Nicolaus analyst Barry Bannister recently forecast that fuel costs will boost retail electric rates 69% by 2015 — more than double the increase of the last 10 years.

While states and utilities nationwide are taking steps to reduce their dependence on coal, the amount of the nation's electricity generated by burning it will actually grow to 54% by 2030 from 49% now, the Energy Department says.

Despite recent price increases, coal is still cheap compared to other fuels. In 2006, for instance, coal cost $1.69 per BTU, or British thermal unit — a measure of how effectively a burning fuel generates heat — according to the Energy Department. Natural gas, in contrast, cost $6.87 per BTU.

Some of the reasons coal prices are up, including the weather related disruptions in China and Australia this winter, will likely be resolved quickly. But other causes are more long-term in duration. Ports in Australia aren't adequate to handle growing demand, leaving ships lined up 30 to 50 deep waiting to load coal. South Africa faces similar transportation bottlenecks.

Demand for coal, meanwhile, is growing worldwide. China recently shifted from mostly exporting coal to mostly importing it.

In the U.S., transportation costs, rising wages and expensive new safety regulations have boosted the cost of mining coal. The prospect that Congress will pass laws sharply restricting polluting carbon emissions raises the possibility of even greater cost increases as producers spend on equipment and technology to cut emissions.

But until utilities face carbon restrictions, their biggest headache is coal costs.

In West Virginia, American Electric chalks up 54% of its recent rate hike to increased coal costs, and 32% to the rising expense of buying power from other companies — which is also more expensive due to rising coal prices. The remainder of the increase is to pay for equipment that will reduce coal plant emissions.

American Electric is able to limit its rate increase in West Virginia to 15% — even though coal prices have doubled recently — because, like most other utilities, it buys coal via a portfolio of hundreds of contracts that let it lock in prices. But as contracts expire, they must then be re-negotiated at rising rates.

Analysts differ on what coal prices will do next. Goldman Sachs' Michael Molnar thinks coal's price spike is due mostly to short-term factors and will encourage mining, which will bring down prices by bringing more coal to market. Citigroup Global Markets analyst Alan Heap disagrees, arguing that the short-term problems in coal hotspots like Australia and China highlight serious underlying problems with coal supplies.

For their part, utilities such as American Electric, E.On and Duke Energy see coal prices dipping slightly in coming months and years as supply constraints in Australia and Asia ease, but think growing demand will prevent prices from ever crashing back to last year's levels.

"There not a whole lot of reason why the prices would start to temper," said Chuck Zebula, senior vice president of fuel supply at American Electric.

That's bad news for consumers like Rodrigo Goines, 36, a disabled Lexington, Ky., resident whose government assistance checks barely cover his meager living expenses now.

"I'm not going to be able to afford it," Goines said. "If they keep raising these rates, I'm gonna be in trouble."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-04-28-electricy-rates-coal_N.htm
 

per

Well-known member
Ya but at least with an electric car the dirty emissions are in someone Else's community allowing us to delude ourselves into thinking that electric cars are emission free. Petroleum is still cheaper than electricity here.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Electric if fine....BUT....BUT.....BUT....it takes fossil fuels to create that elec to power that elec car!!


So you're right back where you started!!!
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Especially when it came out in the hearings that oil usuage now is essentially the same in the US as in 1981- and usage around the world is only up 2.6% from 1981.....

Do you remember who made that claim? I tried to find a transcript of the hearings where that was talked about but didn't have any luck.

Information from the EIA tells a different story. This is the consumption for the United States in thousands of barrels per day:

1981 - 16,058.0

2007 - 20,697.54

It appears to me that represents an increase in consumption of almost 29%. To me, an increase in consumption of 29% is not using "essentially the same."



=============================


This is the consumption for India in thousands of barrels per day. The latest year available is 2006.

1981 - 729.0

2006 - 2,571.9

India's oil consumption has grown by over 350%. And that was just for the latest year available - 2006. Their economy has grown rapidly since then.


==============================


This is the consumption for China in thousands of barrels per day. Again, the latest figures available are for 2006.

1981 - 1,705.0

2006 - 7,201.28

That's more than a 400% increase in consumption. And that was just for the latest year available - 2006. Their economy has continued to grow rapidly since then.



Here's a link to a good spreadsheet with world oil consumption by country. There are three pages of information.

http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/spreadsheet/1015635?page=1


Here is a chart from the Department of Energy that shows world oil consumption from 1960 through 2005:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1110.html


This spreadsheet is easier to read and contains basically the same information from the EIA showing total world consumption from 1970 through 2005:

http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/spreadsheet/1001612


It shows world oil consumption in 1981 of 60,944 thousand barrels per day.

World consumption for the latest year available - 2005 - is 84,021 thousand barrels per day.


These figures are straight from the Department of Energy and they show that from 1981 to 2005, worldwide consumption has increased by almost 38%.

Oldtimer, how in the hell can anybody claim that "usage around the world is only up 2.6% from 1981"?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Texan said:
Oldtimer said:
Especially when it came out in the hearings that oil usuage now is essentially the same in the US as in 1981- and usage around the world is only up 2.6% from 1981.....

Do you remember who made that claim? I tried to find a transcript of the hearings where that was talked about but didn't have any luck.

Information from the EIA tells a different story. This is the consumption for the United States in thousands of barrels per day:

1981 - 16,058.0

2007 - 20,697.54

It appears to me that represents an increase in consumption of almost 29%. To me, an increase in consumption of 29% is not using "essentially the same."



=============================


This is the consumption for India in thousands of barrels per day. The latest year available is 2006.

1981 - 729.0

2006 - 2,571.9

India's oil consumption has grown by over 350%. And that was just for the latest year available - 2006. Their economy has grown rapidly since then.


==============================


This is the consumption for China in thousands of barrels per day. Again, the latest figures available are for 2006.

1981 - 1,705.0

2006 - 7,201.28

That's more than a 400% increase in consumption. And that was just for the latest year available - 2006. Their economy has continued to grow rapidly since then.



Here's a link to a good spreadsheet with world oil consumption by country. There are three pages of information.

http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/spreadsheet/1015635?page=1


Here is a chart from the Department of Energy that shows world oil consumption from 1960 through 2005:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1110.html


This spreadsheet is easier to read and contains basically the same information from the EIA showing total world consumption from 1970 through 2005:

http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/spreadsheet/1001612


It shows world oil consumption in 1981 of 60,944 thousand barrels per day.

World consumption for the latest year available - 2005 - is 84,021 thousand barrels per day.


These figures are straight from the Department of Energy and they show that from 1981 to 2005, worldwide consumption has increased by almost 38%.

Oldtimer, how in the hell can anybody claim that "usage around the world is only up 2.6% from 1981"?

Don't remember his name- Old fart Senator :wink: :roll: - but agreed to by the oil men...550,000 barrels in 1981--553,000 barrels in 2008 for the US....
Same Senator that questioned the Energy Commissioner on why GW and Condi Rice are promising the US will give the Saudis a nuclear power plant- when they are floating on oil and live surrounded in unused desert and sun- a perfect situation for the biggest solar energy plant in the world :???:

The claim was that US oil usuage actually went down during some of the years following 1981 because of energy conservation- but now is increasing again....

That is one of the problems with this whole thing- You have a worldwide cartel that is throwing differing figures out there in every article I read....

The Big Oil's claim was that usuage hadn't grown that much- but many of their old fields have dried up and their ability to develop new ones is not as good as it was.....

But everyone agrees that demand is no where near the amount to justify raising the cost by 100-150% as oil has- especially since the supply is being met- and there are no shortages...

Personally I think if the US attorney/President would get the FBI/Investigators snooping at the Commodities Exchanges you would immeditely see oil prices start coming back toward normal....
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
fff said:
And how is this electric car to be powered? Electricity isn't free either. In fact, the next spike in prices is expected to be the soft coal that fuels electrical power plants.

Man you are as negative as OT :roll: I am sure people will be happy to pay Penny's on the Dollar for transportation daily cost even if those penny's spiked a little.

This is a thing most Liberals would love! You better go check your Liberal owners manual. And not be against it just because I am for it, that shows your shallowness.
 

Bullhauler

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Electric if fine....BUT....BUT.....BUT....it takes fossil fuels to create that elec to power that elec car!!


So you're right back where you started!!!



Last report I heard this country has something like a 10000 year supply of coal. Also we are always cursed with plenty of wind in the plains.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Electric if fine....BUT....BUT.....BUT....it takes fossil fuels to create that elec to power that elec car!!


So you're right back where you started!!!


The trade off will not be the same. Have you ever put a battery charger on your car, if so it used a lot less energy to charge than to drive that car 100 miles at $4.00 per gallon of gas.

Plus even if the cost are the same, there are many ways to make electricity, heck a really green person could have a solar powered charger and use no energy off the grid to power his car. Plus this is just a first step towards a move away from dependency on oil. Or should I say a first positive step, the government messed things up with ethanol, but the free Market can correct it will consumer demand.

The biggest thing here is it should do two things, lower gas prices for those still driving regular vehicles and help send transportation energy into the next century. All done by the free market, since government already killed the electric car while propping up losing things such as ethanol.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Don't remember his name- Old fart Senator :wink: :roll: - but agreed to by the oil men...550,000 barrels in 1981--553,000 barrels in 2008 for the US....

:lol: Old fart Senator could describe a lot of them. Every time I see Senator Byrd, it makes me think that we need some type of age limits for the people that make our laws.

It would be nice if they had the balls to impose some type of limits on themselves. When they see a colleague deteriorate that badly, they should do something about it.



I thought it was pretty well established that our consumption in 1981 was 16,058,000 barrels per day.

And that our consumption in 2007 was 20,697,540 barrels per day.

I'm not sure where you come up with the figures of 550,000 and 553,000. We used more oil than that in an hour in 1981. And an increase of 3,000 barrels would only be an increase of just over one half of a percent - not even the 2.6% you had mentioned previously.

I've tried to google around and find those numbers with no luck. I've read articles about the hearings until I'm sick of them - I give up now. If you're going to keep on being our Congressional reporter, I wish you would start taking better notes. :wink:
 
Top