Blog posts. Various topics.

[Tony_SS]

The industry is a cabal like any other.

[Damn True]

...and?

The fact remains that the more imported oil and gas is in the system the more expensive the product is to the consumer. Increasing domestic production and refining would provide a large number of jobs as well. To say nothing of the devaluation of our dollar and sending metric craploads of our money to people who'd just as soon kill you as look at you.

[sniper]

The price of a barrel of oil is but one component of the price of a gallon of gasoline. Don't confuse the price of gas with the price of oil. They are only tangentially connected.

Maybe I missed it, but who said anything about gasoline? I think to support your argument, you have to include that but hey what do I know?

The domestic oil companies costs are driven up by the need to import (at great cost) raw crude and large quantities of already refined gasoline. We currently import nearly 1M barrels of gasoline per day during peak demand months. This costs the domestic companies a lot more due to the increased transportation, transfer, and liability costs compared to gasoline that is refined domestically. That additional cost drives up the price per gallon at the pump.

The more domestic oil that is used, the lower the cost to the oil companies. The price of the oil won't change as a result, but the price of the gasoline and heating oil will.

Just a question. If we are exporting manufacturing facilities at such a high rate so that we can then import those prodicts and sell them far cheaper, then why does oil not hold true to the same principle? Oil more expensive to import???? How much does a domestic barrel of oil cost? Answer that and you see the fallacy of your arguement.

BTW, You do know that we get the majority of imported oil from Canada and mexico, right?

[Tony_SS]

...and?

The fact remains that the more imported oil and gas is in the system the more expensive the product is to the consumer. Increasing domestic production and refining would provide a large number of jobs as well. To say nothing of the devaluation of our dollar and sending metric craploads of our money to people who'd just as soon kill you as look at you.

Well their are certainly getting benefits from buying oil from the 'middle eastern boogiemen'. Its not just a one way street... it just does not benefit us directly as consumers.. it benefits other special interests...

There are all sorts of viable solutions out there, but none seem to come to fruition, why do you think that is?

Do you really think a cabal is there to encourage a free market and benefit the consumer?

[Damn True]

You can impress yourself with semantics, straw-men and mythical ner-do-wells otherwise known as "The-Man" if you like but it's a simple question.

Which would provide a greater benefit to our national security, economic growth, employment figures and the cost (to the consumer) of petroleum products (heating/vehicle fuels)?

a) The status quo in which we import the majority of the oil/gas we consume.
b) Take full advantage of domestic resources, and increase the amount that we refine on our shores.

[Damn True]

There are all sorts of viable solutions out there, but none seem to come to fruition, why do you think that is?

Ahh, yes like Brown's gas and carburetors that run on water.

Do you really think a cabal is there to encourage a free market and benefit the consumer?

I've never had a dividend check that bounced.

[Tony_SS]

Oh yes I am soo impressing myself.... geez.

You can preach to the choir all you like, it wont make a lick of difference. Everyone knows how to lessen foreign demand and lower cost. The question is simple

Why aint it happening???? What's the hold up?

Blaming the greenies is the biggest strawman in the world.. they're useful idiots and nothing more.

The last oil bubble you asked if the oil industry was impervious to SEC regulations??? Well, was Madoff impervious to SEC regulations??? Surprise surprise.. its not all unicorns and rainbows..its a controlled, manipulated market.. call it what you like, blame the greenies, middle eastern boogie men or other props, but a cabal is cabal..

[Tony_SS]

Ahh, yes like Brown's gas and carburetors that run on water.

weak. Like electric, hybrid, BIO DIESEL? hmmm. Domestic production, etc etc. Do you think the free market has rejected these?? Do you really think a special interest would let a free market threaten its power structure?... Competition is a sin.

[Damn True]

weak. Like electric, hybrid, BIO DIESEL? hmmm. Domestic production, etc etc. Do you think the free market has rejected these?? Do you really think a special interest would let a free market threaten its power structure?... Competition is a sin.

Any of those, or all might someday replace oil as the primary source of heating oil and motor fuel, but none of them is economically or technologically viable now. The part of the market that is capable of critical thought is in fact resistant to buying products that are stupid.

The oil companies aren't stopping Tesla, Toyota, GM or anyone else from making a realistic electric vehicle any more than Goodyear is stopping you from making a tire that'll last the life of a car. If they were able to do it, they would and they'd sell them all day long. They can't because the technology isn't mature enough. But they still manage to sell a few to the dolts that think that driving an electric reduces their carbon footprint.

That's the point of my post. Fools (at many levels of society) are enriching our enemies, hurting our dollar, weakening our economy and in fact doing more harm to the environment by resisting the utilization of domestic resources as a short term solution until alternative technologies are mature enough to be economically viable.

Someday, but not soon.

Wanting them to be will not make them so. Throwing gobs of .gov money at them will not make them so. Time and work on the part of engineers to develop the technologies and time and work to put support infrastructure in place has to happen. Until then we can either

a) The status quo in which we import the majority of the oil/gas we consume.
b) Take full advantage of domestic resources, and increase the amount that we refine on our shores.

Those are the choices.

Which would provide a greater benefit to our national security, economic growth, employment figures and the cost (to the consumer) of petroleum products (heating/vehicle fuels)?

Case in point. In Fremont, CA (across the highway from where I work) is a company called Solyndra. They make solar panels. They have been operating under VC funding until a couple of years ago when Van Jones talked some dudes he knows (wink) into giving them a combined $745M in government grants and loan guaranties. "Green Jobs Investment" sounds great right? Well they built a huge factory and in fact employed a bunch of people doing so...but the factory isn't doing much...they've had their third layoff in as many quarters. They canceled their planned June IPO. Why? You can want green tech until you are blue in the face but until someone figures out how to make a panel cheaply enough to create a reasonable ROI for the consumer the market is limited to government or government funded projects where ROI isn't an issue, projects where "it's the thought that counts" or open gobbed green-weenies who think that they are doing their part to save mother gaia and don't care if they see an ROI. The company is likely to go tits up before the end of the year and take that $745M of your money with it. It wasn't "The-Man" that caused it, it's immature technology without a viable market.

[sniper]

Bush opened the door to drill for the oil in the Dakotas. They said at the time that it was not a viable source until oil was atleast $60 dollars a barrel. The say the US is sitting on 2 trillion barrels of oil. The largest amount anywhere in the world. If we kind enough to support US consumption alone, OPEC would merely slash the cost per barrel making it a better buy to keep importing oil rather than losing out on any sales against our own production.

[Damn True]

Bush opened the door to drill for the oil in the Dakotas. They said at the time that it was not a viable source until oil was atleast $60 dollars a barrel. The say the US is sitting on 2 trillion barrels of oil. The largest amount anywhere in the world. If we kind enough to support US consumption alone, OPEC would merely slash the cost per barrel making it a better buy to keep importing oil rather than losing out on any sales against our own production.

I sincerely doubt we could completely cut the cord on imports, and given that a number of the countries we do import with are in fact quite friendly it wouldn't be in our best interest to do so. But, we could significantly reduce the percentage of oil that we purchase from volatile regions and from those who would do us harm. They are pumping and shipping darn near at capacity, demand keeps rising and they build infrastructure to meet demand. So if the share of the market that we absorb is reduced, they'll simply divert that to China or India. Their individual total demand's aren't as high as ours, but the rate of growth there is extremely favorable.

[Tony_SS]

Case in point. In Fremont, CA (across the highway from where I work) is a company called Solyndra. They make solar panels. They have been operating under VC funding until a couple of years ago when Van Jones talked some dudes he knows (wink) into giving them a combined $745M in government grants and loan guaranties. "Green Jobs Investment" sounds great right? Well they built a huge factory and in fact employed a bunch of people doing so...but the factory isn't doing much...they've had their third layoff in as many quarters. They canceled their planned June IPO. Why? You can want green tech until you are blue in the face but until someone figures out how to make a panel cheaply enough to create a reasonable ROI for the consumer the market is limited to government or government funded projects where ROI isn't an issue, projects where "it's the thought that counts" or open gobbed green-weenies who think that they are doing their part to save mother gaia and don't care if they see an ROI. The company is likely to go tits up before the end of the year and take that $745M of your money with it. It wasn't "The-Man" that caused it, it's immature technology without a viable market.

Perfect example - when the gov pics the winners and losers, its not the free market. Eventually like in your example, the free market always wins out. So no it's not a case of immature technology - it's that the govt is impeding true competition. Diesel, Bio diesel are already mature, yes? And given proper capital investment, I believe the market would reward any industry who takes that risk. However, the EPA for example, has so many regulations in place, the unintended consequences provide a result that actually harm the environment and really limit or control a free market creating a scenario were business cannot compete.

Also, take hemp for example.. hemp oils would provide yet another viable competing resource to for heating and energy that would compete in a controlled market - yet we cannot grow a harmless hemp plant? Why? Because it's a huge threat of competition to a lot of industries. So who's to blame? Govt and industries that are embedded into govt, that effectively control the game.

[sniper]

Perfect example - when the gov pics the winners and losers, its not the free market. Eventually like in your example, the free market always wins out. So no it's not a case of immature technology - it's that the govt is impeding true competition.

Nicely done. Not only does it pick the winners and losers, but it tries to direct and control the "free market" with incentives, tax law and other means. Doing so creates false micro economies, that are unsustainable, because of a falsely created drive and demand.

Tesla btw might not be the best example of success. They recieved almost 500 million dollars from the DOE. How in the hell do you NOT succeed with that kind of infusion? And that is not even including the other millions they have blown through.
FYI: Ford btw, recieved 6 BILLION from the DOE.

[Damn True]

Interesting POV guys but we disagree. The way I see it, a company like Solyndra or perhaps Tesla (though it remains to be seen) has been given every advantage and opportunity to succeed. (I vehemently oppose .gov funding for companies like this) They have access to the best and brightest engineering talent in the world here in Silicon Valley and they are failing. Not because of a manipulated market, if that were true they'd be making a killing, but despite it, because despite having nearly every possible advantage and the best available technology, the product doesn't work well enough to be compelling to the market. This was the case when they were operating solely on VC funding, and it's still the case when they are operating on your money.

Tesla btw might not be the best example of success. They received almost 500 million dollars from the DOE. How in the hell do you NOT succeed with that kind of infusion?

Because, even with significant subsidies from the govt (which I oppose) the product is too expensive and doesn't work well enough to be compelling as anything other than a novelty. I suppose we'll see one way or the other when/if their "Model S" 4-door hits the market. They are billing it as much more compelling to the average consumer. The fact will remain though that you are plugging it in and therefore simply moving the emissions from the tailpipe to the power plant.....and infrastructure for remote charging is going to be tough to find.

[Damn True]

Where is the demand for electric cars?

Still, as Gott and others have pointed out, while the industry may be tinkering much more seriously with the concept of mass-producing alternative vehicles, the market isn't quite there yet. Gott says in the last two months pick-up truck sales hit a two-year high, and hybrid vehicles still only account for between 2% - 2.5% of the market.

"The consumer doesn't want [electric and hybrid vehicles] yet, because they're still too bloody expensive for what they deliver," he says. Indeed, sales of the two most advanced models around, the Nissan Volt and Chevy Leaf, are miserable. (Though to be fair, both carmakers are still ramping up production and working out the kinks.) Gott says that the next big hybrid market will come from commercial fleets, such as those operated by parcel delivery companies.

Mixed-up names notwithstanding, the cars need to get a lot cheaper before they are commercially viable.....and even that won't alter the fact that they aren't really "green" but they might get cheap enough to offer a realistically attainable ROI for the consumer. Either way it's the immaturity of the technology that is the roadblock.

[sniper]

"green technology", Electric cars are no different that airport "security". They are the illusion of change. The illusion of doing something good. It's a symtom of the problem of the American culture. The, what would you rather do, nothing; syndrome.

[Tony_SS]

Where is the demand for electric cars?



Mixed-up names notwithstanding, the cars need to get a lot cheaper before they are commercially viable.....and even that won't alter the fact that they aren't really "green" but they might get cheap enough to offer a realistically attainable ROI for the consumer. Either way it's the immaturity of the technology that is the roadblock.

Diesel and bio diesel are plenty mature. So where is it?

[Tony_SS]

[Damn True]

Diesel and bio diesel are plenty mature. So where is it?

Diesel in the US suffers from two problems.

The first is a matter of image. Most people think a diesel powered car will smoke and sound like an old Mercedes 300D or their neighbors 1-ton Chevy. Since most Americans haven't been to Europe where the majority of cars on the road are diesel and you'd never know it they don't realize that this is no longer the case. So the demand for passenger car diesel is fairly low.

The second is that they are doing the math wrong. Yes diesel in most metro area's costs about 7-10 percent more. But when you get 10-20 percent better mileage it works out. The cars are more expensive but the premium from gas to diesel models is in most cases a lower percentage than comparable gas to hybrid comparisons as well. US and Asian automakers have dropped the ball on diesel in the US. They are afraid of it. Every Euro automaker (other than the strictly performance/super performance brands) will offer at least one diesel model in the US this year. Audi will offer everything they import with a diesel option by 2011. ChryCo (via Fiat) could score a huge win if they can be the first to the US market with a modern diesel if they can get off their a$$ an import the Cinquecento or the Alfa 159.

Bio-diesel is a non-starter for high pressure modern direct injected diesels. It's fine I suppose for an F-350 or a John Deere but it's use will void the warranty on any 2010 or newer VW or Audi, IIRC the same is true for the Blue-tec diesels as well in Daimlers. Non-standardized production methods, non-standardized shipping and storage methods, no purity regulations. From an economic standpoint it's not nearly as bad as ethanol but it's potential is limited by many of the same factors.

[Tony_SS]

Ok, so its a matter of marketing and education. So why not the push? You state the automakers aren't confident in demand. I disagree. The EPA effectively stiff-arms manufacturers with overzealous regulations and bureaucracy so that its in no way feasible for a clean diesel to even compete in the market. So its govt intrusion that controls/manipulates the market. We don't have a free market system here in many regards.