Re: [Goanet] Advantages of Oil @ $ 200 a barrel
--- http://www.GOANET.org --- 2008 International Goan Convention Toronto, Canada http://www.2008goanconvention.com --- Mario Goveia wrote: How does a clean energy bill do anything to increase oil supplies and gasoline refining capacity? Doesn't it just add more expensive regulations that our competitors in Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria and the middle-east are not burdened with? Mario, The easiest way to increase oil supplies is to invade a country, establish a puppet regime and award all the oil contracts in that country to companies from your country. In this regard, the Cheney/Bush team have done the USA a great favour. Once the oil supplies have been cornered, the next step is to increase the price of the commodity. I am presently conducting all my trades on the premise that the Cheney/Bush team will strike Iran before they leave office. When this happens, oil will take about thirty minutes of trading to reach $200 a barrel. Mervyn3.0 PS. I find that one of the biggest advantages of high oil prices is that some people are now forced to take public transport to work. This means that there is a possibility that traffic jams are going to be a thing of the past.. __ Get the name you've always wanted @ymail.com or @rocketmail.com today! Go to http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/jacko/
Re: [Goanet] Advantages of Oil @ $ 200 a barrel
Marlon, One only has to look at the richer tar sands in Alberta. They are profitable only when oil prices are greater than 80-100$ as is the case now. Some minor corrections. Some oil sands projects will turn a profit if they can sell oil above $35. The newer projects need oil prices to be above $55. The problem is that these projects burn natural gas, a clean fuel, to produce petrol, a polluting fuel. California is already passing laws that would effectively ban oil from Alberta. Secondly, the Japanese Govt has been subsidizing the development of hybrid cars for the past twelve years. The US car manufactures have, during the same period, lobbied the US govt not to increase the fuel efficiency of US cars. The result is that the US is now producing cars with dinosaur engines that no one wants to buy. Third, with fuel at $140 a barrel, the cost of transporting China's products to the US is becoming so expensive that it may soon become cheaper to manufacture some products in America. Cheney/Bush are to be thanked for bringing some Chinese jobs to America. Mervyn3.0 __ Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca
Re: [Goanet] Advantages of Oil @ $ 200 a barrel
--- On Mon, 7/7/08, Chris Vaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exactly as some ideologues like to lament, it is warped ideology that has driven this argument. The people standing in the way of increased domestic production of oil are the Democrats and their fundraisers the extreme environmentalist cabal which includes the Sierra Club. Absolute Republican nonsense from Rush Limbagh's fantasies. Carter, a Democrat, proposed moving to solar energy (20% of our needs), a policy which Reagan gutted. Carter was right then on conservation, etc. Reagan and the Republicans wrong since. The Republican fat-cats have lived well off government energy subsidies while pretending to be free-market. See http://www.energybulletin.net/node/9657 and http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0503-22.htm Regards, George
Re: [Goanet] Advantages of Oil @ $ 200 a barrel
Both Chris and Ralph totally miss the point or don't have a point. First of all, wrt America's oil reserves, it was not the whacko environmentalists who put in the current restrictions on oil drilling. California's off shore bans were placed by the then governor Ronald Reagan - a republican. Florida's anti oil laws were in part set by Jeb Bush, the brother of the current president. Lastly, the national bans oil drilling in places like Alaska were set in place by G.Bush Sr, the current president's father. Anyone who calls these guys whako environmentalists, is probably a bigger whako himself! As far as some of the so called oil reserves such as shale oil, the issue is cost and yield. One only has to look at the richer tar sands in Alberta. They are profitable only when oil prices are greater than 80-100$ as is the case now. Current world oil consumption today is around 88 million barrels per day, while actual production from these tar sands is in the hundreds of thousands range - a drop in the barrel so to speak. These marginal sources will not make much of an impact in overall prices. WRT Ralph's comments on the US suffering from high oil prices, one needs to realize that the US economy is extremely dynamic and will adjust to this shock. There is no need for government policy for it to change. In just a year and half, US oil demand has dropped by 1/2 a million barrels a day. This rate of decrease is more than the increase in production that is being generated in places such as the tar sands in Alberta. If prices remain high, we can expect this trend to continue. I can also assure you that the seeds for the next technological revolution in alternative energy are being set in the US, and specifically in the Silicon Valley right now. This is all inspite of the anti-technological policies emanating from Washtington, such as its recent attempt to halt the construction of new solar energy facilities as well as its failure to pass the clean energy bill, while still supporting a $18 billion tax subsidy for the poor and suffering oil industry. The real issue with the US economy is not oil, but its three pillars of deficits - much of it caused by big government. The first pillar is the large federal deficit, thanks to a government that went on a largest increase in spending in over 40 years. This year, the budget deficit is due to cross 500 billion dollars and it does not include the cost of the poorly executed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which when done will have cost the US tax payers approximately 2 trillion dollars. Next, there is the trade deficit, which this year will be around 800 billion dollars. The VP Dick Cheney once commented that deficits do not matter. With the dollar down by 40%, I wonder what this jackass would say now! Lastly, there is consumer debt. In 2006, the US savings rate reached a negative value for the first time in recent memory. With all these deficits, the fundamental cause was excess money in the system - either the government (treasury) injecting too much of money into the system (low interest rates), or the federal government spending too much money, leading to bubbles such as the property bubbles, excessive consumer spending etc. Net result: high inflation and a rapidly deflating dollar. As far as I am concerned the US political system in broken and it does not matter which of the two parties come into power. For all practical purposes, the two parties have morphed into one giant immobile morrase. The US federal government which sucks in around 70% of its citizens taxes, needs to have its powers and spending severely curtailed. The departments of the treasury, education, energy, defence need to be slashed. Social security, medicaid and other unsustainable services that future generations will not be able to use, need to slashed, if not totally eliminated. It is absolutely ridiculous that the present generation has to pay for these services that it will never get to use. The biggest enemy of the US is its own federal government. Marlon --- Chris Vaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In oil shale deposits, there is more than 1 trillion barrels of oil. -- about four times the total reserves of Saudi Arabia! And if estimates of shale reserves as high as 2 trillion barrels are true, that would be a 300-year supply of oil just from shale. In addition, according to the American Petroleum Institute, Federal lands hold 651 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough to fuel 60 million households for 160 years. It is pure politics by the irresponsible Democrat Party to please their environmental wacko lobby that these resources remain untapped and the country remains vulnerable to pariah petrostates As far as the remark that America will become poorer and therefore have less to squander on invading the rest of the world -- a reminder. It was the liberation of Europe by the United States that all of Europe doesn't speak German as their
Re: [Goanet] Advantages of Oil @ $ 200 a barrel
Marlon, Thanks for keeping a keen eye to counter the bogus ideological propaganda on Goanet. Cheers, Santosh --- On Mon, 7/7/08, Marlon Menezes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone who calls these guys whako environmentalists, is probably a bigger whako himself! As far as some of the so called oil reserves such as shale oil, the issue is cost and yield. One only has to look at the richer tar sands in Alberta. They are profitable only when oil prices are greater than 80-100$ as is the case now. Current world oil consumption today is around 88 million barrels per day, while actual production from these tar sands is in the hundreds of thousands range - a drop in the barrel so to speak. These marginal sources will not make much of an impact in overall prices.
Re: [Goanet] Advantages of Oil @ $ 200 a barrel
2008/7/7 Marlon Menezes [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Both Chris and Ralph totally miss the point or don't have a point. RESPONSE: For once, I bought your story, lock, stock and barrel! -- DEV BOREM KORUM. Gabe Menezes. London, England
Re: [Goanet] Advantages of Oil @ $ 200 a barrel
For the record, conservative estimates put the total amount of recoverable oil in the U.S. in conventional deposits at about 39 billion barrels. Offshore there is another 89 billion or thereabouts. In ANWR, 10 billion barrels. In oil shale deposits, there is more than 1 trillion barrels of oil. -- about four times the total reserves of Saudi Arabia! And if estimates of shale reserves as high as 2 trillion barrels are true, that would be a 300-year supply of oil just from shale. In addition, according to the American Petroleum Institute, Federal lands hold 651 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough to fuel 60 million households for 160 years. It is pure politics by the irresponsible Democrat Party to please their environmental wacko lobby that these resources remain untapped and the country remains vulnerable to pariah petrostates like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran and others who wish the U.S. ill (17 of the 9/11 suicide bombers were Saudi). But there is currently strong pressure from the U.S. public to proceed with drilling in previously unexploited areas. As far as the remark that America will become poorer and therefore have less to squander on invading the rest of the world -- a reminder. It was the liberation of Europe by the United States that all of Europe doesn't speak German as their universal language. And fifty million Iraqis and Afghans also call it liberation not invasion as has been suggested - Original Message - From: Gabe Menezes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994! goanet@lists.goanet.org Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 4:53 PM Subject: Re: [Goanet] Advantages of Oil @ $ 200 a barrel 2008/7/5 ralph rau [EMAIL PROTECTED]: There are some definite benefits including: (1) America will become poorer and therefor have less wealth to squander on invading the rest of the world. (2) America and the rest of the world will just have to use less oil. This means less CO2 emmissions. Humankind will get some relief from global warming. (3) The world will finally be incentivised to develop alternate technologies which have been postponed for too long due to dirt cheap oil which just 7 odd years ago was below $ 20. After all,t oil production has peaked and the world will run out of oil in less than 100 years - maybe in 50 or 75 years. Oil at $ 200? Yes...bring it on. Ralph Rau Dubai RESPONSE: You might be out of a job, oil in the ground is no good to
Re: [Goanet] Advantages of Oil @ $ 200 a barrel
2008/7/5 ralph rau [EMAIL PROTECTED]: There are some definite benefits including: (1) America will become poorer and therefor have less wealth to squander on invading the rest of the world. (2) America and the rest of the world will just have to use less oil. This means less CO2 emmissions. Humankind will get some relief from global warming. (3) The world will finally be incentivised to develop alternate technologies which have been postponed for too long due to dirt cheap oil which just 7 odd years ago was below $ 20. After all,t oil production has peaked and the world will run out of oil in less than 100 years - maybe in 50 or 75 years. Oil at $ 200? Yes...bring it on. Ralph Rau Dubai RESPONSE: You might be out of a job, oil in the ground is no good to the Oil producing Nations! The sooner Countries like India and China stop subsidies the sooner we shall have a curb on oil consumption. Politics will be played in India and our resident BJP stalwarts will cry hoarse...foul! The bottom line is, someone has to pick up the tab for the subsidies and in India it is the poor people who have to do so, through increases in prices of staple foods. India was shining, during BJP rule, or was it really? Today it is about tanked out. If the Sensex gets to 12,000 buy like mad, sell your mother-in-law. If Stg/Inr gets to 90, fill yer boots up man! If there are any perpetual or first class Bonds in India including Govt. debt yielding above 10 percent, again fill yer boots up man. -- DEV BOREM KORUM. Gabe Menezes. London, England
