--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Yea, prop 13 really f**ked us, but it was an overreaction to >property >taxes that had spiraled out of control. We are also >beginning to spend a >lot more on education now, and a recent >initiative has lowered the >percentage of votes necessary to pass >school bonds (to 60% I think). I >think Ca. is more liberal >on issues like gun control, reproductive rights, gay rights, >environmental >issues etc. And there are pockets of conservatism >especially in Southern >California. I think that, with the immigrants starting to vote, that California has become more liberal than it was 10-20 years ago, when it was solidly in the Republican camp. GWB is clearly more conservative than the mid-point in California, but California is a fairly mixed bag with some ultra-conservative elements. From what I heard from friends with kids in the California school system, Texas schools are a cut above California schools. > > > > Texas is actually increasing the amount of money it spends on schools. > > Indeed, Bush's major initiate, which was defeated, > > was to > >?? Sorry, I got that from the wrong edited file. What I was saying was that his major initiative, which was defeated, was to switch a significant fraction of school funding from property taxes to a new business tax. This proposal was defeated by conservative Republicans. > >The Nation's. His cabinet choices don't strike me as being very >centrist >at all. So much for healing and working together or >whatever the catch >phrases were. Well, I think that his picks do not represent the hard line of Newt and Tom Delay. His picks seemed fairly mixed from one or two very conservative Republicans to a number of fairly moderately conservative Republicans. He promised a few Democrats, but they've been turning him down. I think he'll have to admit that he couldn't find one that wanted to be in his cabinet. > >But that's just saying he believes what he wants to believe and >makes no >effort to find the truth. It's not as if he lacks the >resources to >determine what the deal is. Its not a matter of resources, its an understanding of possibly and maybe in science. IMHO, he doesn't have the critical thinking needed to determine that there is a substantial probability that global warming is caused by the actions of humans. There is a parallel of this on the left. The successful opposition to nuclear power has increased our dependence on fossil fuels. Indeed, I think that this "success" of environmental movement has contributed as much to global warming as industrial lobbyists. I would further argue that the lack of appreciation of probability that this opposition is based on is of the same kind as the lack that GWB has. Personally, I find this lack to be extremely frustrating because reality seems to have very little to do with what we decide. > >I'm not a luddite when it comes to most issues, but keeping >wilderness >pristine is one issue that I have difficulty compromising >on. If you >stick roads and platforms and pipelines or whatever in >there you upset a >delicate ballance in one of the few untouched >places in the world. Do you know what sort of infrastructure would be needed? Do you know what environmental impact the North Sea exploration has had? Do you have an analysis of what the environmental impact is likely to be? My educated guess is that it can be made to be quite localized and limited. I'd be happy to detail what that guess is based on, if you want the discussion to go in that direction. > >Note that we've been way ahead of the country in emission standards >for >many years. The air in LA is actually much cleaner now than it >was 30 >years ago when there were fewer people and fewer cars. That's true and worthwhile. But it has little to do with energy usage. Indeed, IIRC, the anti-pollution devices actually reduce gas mileage. >This however, does not excuse the proliferation of gas hogs, but is >that >just a California thing? No, but the hypocrisy of driving gas hogs, using more and more electricity and refusing to allow the construction power plants or oil rigs in your back yard is Californian at its heart, IMHO. > > >Why would they do that? Very suspicious if you ask me. People would sell oil below cost because it�s more expensive to hold onto it. Let me give you an example. Oil prices are at $22/barrel. The forecast is for prices to be in the $19-22/barrel range for the next three years. The total cost to develop a field is priced at $15/barrel. It looks as though the projects will turn a very reasonable profit, and the field starts development. A fair amount of money is poured into the project. It progresses to the point where there are a number of wells that have been drilled and completed and are just starting to go online. Then oil prices head south to $12/barrel. What should the company do? Once production has started, it often can't just be stopped without damaging the field and lowering the total amount of oil extracted from the ground. The price should rise in the future, but the price was _supposed_ to stay steady above $19/barrel. One can, and they probably do, keep the development moving as slowly as possible and delay the drilling of new wells. But, even with that, it makes economic sense to minimize losses by selling oil now to recoup some of the investment costs, instead of simply writing off the total investment made to date. >Did we need oil any less a couple of years ago? Yes. IIRC, oil consumption has risen about 8% to 10% over the last two years. Given the fact that most oil companies were using $10-$15 dollars/barrel as the price to determine the economic feasibility of new production, oil production did not rise as fast. The glut was used up, and a small shortage was found to exist. >What is the root cause of this (and other) supposed crisis? The nature of the market. Oil prices have been very low for years. Look at the layoffs I was talking about. They reflect an industry that has seen very hard times. Due to three usually warm winters, natural gas consumption has been low. So, the price of gas was low, down to $1.50 to $2.00 per million BTU IIRC. Stores went down without much concern, because this winter was expected to be mild too. But, it wasn't. Natural gas is in very short supply now. And...people who heat with natural gas will not lower their thermostat _that much_ when the price rises, or cut their power usage when the price rises...especially when the price increase is not passed on to consumers...so demand stays flat. Natural gas prices have risen to over $9.00/barrel. Drilling for gas wells has risen dramatically in response, but it won't be in time for this winter. So, prices remain high. But, come April, future prices drop $3.00/million BTU. >Everyone in this country is dependent on oil and it is >controlled by a very few people, are you telling me that there is no > >method to their "madness"? Are you seriously suggesting that the oil companies were behind the drop in price from $22 to $11 dollars/barrel? Or, '80s drop from $33 to $12 dollars/barrel? Why in the world would the seven sisters deliberately destroy their own profitability? There is, of course, a well-known conspiracy to control oil prices. Its called OPEC, and it is an abject failure. Cheating on production quotas is endemic. Further, since there are a number of non-OPEC oil producers, its power is limited. I would guess that there are over 30 significant players in the game, with a tremendous breath of interests and political idealologies. A conspiracy this size just doesn�t work. One final note. I just read that Gulf Coast drilling will not go up, even if prices remain high, because there are no available platforms to send out into the Gulf. It takes years to build a big new platform, and companies will need assurances that the present prices are stable before gambling billions of dollars on a new platform. Dan'm Traeki Ring of Crystallized Knowledge. Known for calculating, but not known for shutting up _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
