Just some interesting facts:

When George W. Bush became President the price of a barrell of oil was $33.60. This week that price has hovered around $60.00. (thats a 78% increase) What struck me as most interesting was that the global average for producing crude oil is about $5 a barrell. That's a 1100% mark-up, an extraordinary profit margin for oil producers.

http://strata.geol.sc.edu/petroleum-reserv...ves-consum.html

With the exception of a brief period during the first Gulf War, the price of oil fluctuated between $10 and $25 a barrell from 1986 until 2001.

I seem to have forgot, how did the Bush family get their money? Oh and aren't they well connected and freindly with a family somewhere over there in the middle east? I just can't remember but I think I heard something...

As I recall the Bin Laden family (admittedly a huge clan with little contact with Osama) financed many of GWB's failed oil ventures. Probably explains why GW senior was meeting with them on 9/11 and why the Bin Laden family and Saudi royals were the only ones allowed to get a plane in the air right after the attack.

I've repeatedly asked this question before, but no one's ever answered it, instead dancing around this ridiculous issue with more political insults: Just how is Bush responsible for the rising price of oil?

Entirely overly simplistic answer:

During wars strategic resource markets become tight. Some hoard, others - usually those at war - use MUCH more of any given resource. Based on uncertainty prices skyrocket for anything people are worried about.

Further, capital becomes tighter in an uncertain market - sometimes driving inflation as Business and Gov't chase short money.

The cost of oil has risen in this uncertain market because the more the turmoil in the middle east- the less STABILITY - no one can predict whats next (If they tell you they can they are lying - 'Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war...' Shakespeare knew that once you had unleashed uncertainty it was infinately harder to get the dogs back on the leash -restrained)

Bush & Co were/are inept and internationally politically inexperienced. Worse they have a certain JC Capitalist view of the world as they would like it to be. They tend to treat the world as if that view were true rather than treating the world as it really is where they find it.

They deliberately pushed for military action because they believed that it was the simple way of accomplishing their goals, and the hell with anyone who didn't agree. " I'm bigger and stronger than you, who are you to dare to annoy me pissant!"

They have created the uncertainty, they have alienated the rest of the international communitty by ignoring or patronizing them - they have created a situation where people will try to preserve what they have rather than spend, and where the cost of natural resources has gone through the roof - look at the markets if you don't believe me.

This mess is entirely their fault.

Who else is to blame? The Russians? The Chinese?

No - whatever else history will say - it will be very harsh with W for his unswerving pursuit of an misguided ideology in opposition to reality.

Rob

[ June 25, 2005, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

So Bush is to blame for the huge increase in oil demand in China and India?

So Bush is responsible for the fact that no refineries have been built in this country in over 30 years?

So Bush is responsible for the dozens of ridiculous "special blends" of gasoline, which lead to higher costs?

So Bush is responsible for the high gas taxes so prevalent in many states?

OK, thanks for clearing this up.

Some people are so clueless. Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable.

-So Bush is to blame for the huge increase in oil demand in China and India?

Two countries with half the worlds population which currently use <5% of world oil; while we have <5% of the worlds population use 42% of the worlds oil - and more of other natural resources. Yes - he is responsible for abdicating responsibility for any conservation planning while his administration continues to kowtow to multi national corporate profits and destabilize the economy through reckless foreign adventurism.

-So Bush is responsible for the fact that no refineries have been built in this country in over 30 years.

Two have - one in LA, and one in CA; two in Texas have expanded -just not enough to meet a demand that has INCREASED 16% in the last decade domestically, while per capita use in the rest of the industrialized world is down dramatically. Bush is responsible for totally abdicating any national energy policy in favor of the corporate profits of his family's cronies.

-So Bush is responsible for the dozens of ridiculous -special blends- of gasoline, which lead to higher costs?

Bush and Co through the Oil Industry have been crying about the high cost of those -special blends- for 40 years - even though the Trade Industry Council has stated that the cost of those blends comes to less than 1/2 cent per gallon. The GAO oil industry report in 2003 stated that the costs had been passed on to the consumers at VAST markups, sometimes of over 1200%.

-So Bush is responsible for the high gas taxes so prevalent in many states?

Bush is responsible for not taking any effective leadership role in curbing the US conspicuous consumption of a majority of the worlds resources. His administrations relentless pursuit of cutting public transportation funding, and his door holding policies for WHATEVER the big oil companies and other industries want. With an effective Federal Transportation Strategy that didn't continue to reduce money to states for highways and transportation; maybe the states would not be left in the lurch of trying to charge for end use

-OK, thanks for clearing this up.

Your welcome. Anytime.

-Some people are so clueless. Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable.

You can say that again.

Rob

Brilliant, ITJock!

On top of which, didn't W claim he'd get on the phone and call his Saudi friends, whose asses he kisses every chance he gets, to get them to lower prices, even though any person with a rudimentary knowledge of the global economy realized that the Saudis alone couldn't determine oil prices, and in any case it was in their best interest to keep them elevated? W was _____ (rhymes with "crying") yet again.

(Also, didn't he and his neocon cronies claim that Iraq's oil revenues would pay for its national reconstruction by now? That is, it would be able to underwrite reconstruction even after the corruption and the misaccounting under Bremer & Co. for $8 billion, etc. LIARS.)

"Would I lie to you?
Watch me, watch me.
Would I lie to you?
Would I lie to you? Wooh.
Would I lie to you?
Would I lie to you?
Watch me now.
Would I lie to you?
Would I lie to you?"
--Eurythmics, "Would I Lie to You?"

[ June 27, 2005, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

... get on the phone and call his Saudi friends....

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the US, announced his resignation today.

Silly, silly MIB. You know as well as me that it is BILL CLINTON'S fault! It is Bill Clinton's fault for everything and anything that has gone wrong during the Bush administration. Repubs will continue to blame Bill until their last dying breath. Pardon me while I wipe down my keyboard now that it is oozing with sarcasm.

People forget that there is not a single child in China who has not read Sun Tzu; and barely a handful of American ones who have...

AP-
"SHANGHAI, July 4 - The Chinese government on Monday sharply criticized the United States for threatening to erect barriers aimed at preventing the attempted takeover of the American oil company Unocal Corp. by one of China's three largest energy firms, CNOOC Ltd.

Four days after the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a resolution urging the Bush administration to block the proposed transaction as a threat to national security, China's Foreign Ministry excoriated Congress for injecting politics into what it characterized as a standard business matter.

"We demand that the U.S. Congress correct its mistaken ways of politicizing economic and trade issues and stop interfering in the normal commercial exchanges between enterprises of the two countries," the Foreign Ministry said in a written statement. "CNOOC's bid to take over the U.S. Unocal company is a normal commercial activity between enterprises and should not fall victim to political interference. The development of economic and trade cooperation between China and the United States conforms to the interests of both sides."

Rob

Price of oil hitting another record high--$66 this time.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/e...econ-usat_x.htm

They have a nice graph in the middle of the page showing the price of oil during the war for "Iraqi Freedom".

Was just reading about a story on this on CNN-Money. Betting is going that gas will hit $3.00 a gallon in the very forseeable future. Love my old Toyota. She might not be a youngin, but she gets between 25-32 mpg. Not too shabby.

“I would work with our friends in OPEC to convince them to open up the spigot, to increase the supply. Use the capital that my administration will earn, with the Kuwaitis or the Saudis, and convince them to open up the spigot.”

Maybe Georgie could take a few minutes from his 5 week vacation and "jawbone OPEC", get them to "open up the spigot."

In the Miller Beach section of Gary, Indiana: Monday, 8/8...gas: $2.18, Thursday morning 8/11...$ 2.36. Thursday evening...$2.45. Yeah, this has GOT to be good for the economy. Didn't Georgie learn anything from his father's failed administration? IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID! By the way, it's $2.93 for low grade unleaded in Chicago, but that was this morning. It could be well over $3.00 a gallon by now. Hey neo-cons, aren't you thrilled you voted for this idiot?

Well Gee...

It's only (roughly) 3.28 Eur ($4.10 per gallon) here.

Greece.

Rob

This morning gas was 99.1 per litre near home.

That translates to $3.47 per gallon

They said on World News this morning if the price of gas doesn't give you sticker shock, just wait until winter when people need to pay their bills for heating fuel. Nice. Already airlines are adding a fuel tax on their latest fare increases as well. Of course the much trumped up energy bill passed by Shrub does little or nothing to deal with the current energy crisis.

Right, and in addition the bill gives tax breaks and subsidies to oil and energy companies. Can someone please explain to me why oil companies, already rolling in it, need subsidies to drill for more oil? As one commentator pointed out, Adam Smith probably qualified for a subsidy in this bill from all the energy he's producing spinning in his grave. :mad:

Wasn't the price of oil supposed to go down once we opened up the Iraqi oil fields that had basically been shut down during the anti-Saddam embargo?

Oh, that's right, the "reconstruction" of Iraq is going so badly that they are planning on rationing oil in the country with the second-largest reserves in the world, and there are black-market sellers of gasoline on Bagdhad streets.

Meanwhile, our government has done NOTHING to promote conservation or reduce dependence on foreign oil. I guess for rich people like him the cost of anything really doesn't matter.

Oh, and International has introduced a NINE-FOOT TALL PICKUP THAT HAS A GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT OF NEARLY 13 TONS! It gets a huge 9 miles per gallon of diesel fuel, which is itself more polluting than gasoline.

\"The Pickup Truck With 'Roid Rage\" - registration required

[ August 12, 2005, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: CPT_Doom ]

AS memory serves, I recall that Iraqi oil was supposed to have financed the war in Iraq!! Remember???
What will be really interesting to see will be the 3rd quarter profits from the oil companies, which should be through the roof, that and given the fact that they and most other corporations were given nice big fat breaks by Shrub with his energy policy, it will be almost obscene.

[ August 12, 2005, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

Indeed. Nice to have the economy growing at a pace not seen in 20 years or more, too. The economy is booming and shows no signs of stopping. Imagine how stronger it would be if oil prices weren't so ridiculously high.

When oh when are you Kool-Aid drinkers ever going to stop blaming Bush for the price of oil? As bad as parts of the energy bill are--the incentives for people to buy hybrid cars and for companies to find more oil and other sources of energy are all good--it could be better. Without a refinery having been built in over 30 frickin' years, THAT would have a positive effect on gas prices in the U.S. Every price hike in the last two weeks was blamed on, among peripheral things, refinery problems. A refinery fire in Philadelphia, tropical systems in the southeast--these are but two of the so-called refinery problems oil futures "experts" claim to be a reason in the price surge.

Of course, this is all irrelevant, because it's somehow all Bush's fault.

A record $2.57 a gallon for unleaded here. :mad:

Canadian?

25,999 pouonds. One more pound, and you'd have to have a commercial driver's license to operate it.

I don't know where you get that from. The economic growth in the 2nd quarter according to the treasury was 3.4%. Decent, but hardly the best in 20 years, and given that the economy is being stimulated by a deficit that amounts to 3% of the GDP, it's really not that impressive.

That deficit also contributes to the high oil prices by weakening the U.S. dollar by the way. Oil prices haven't gone up nearly as much measured in Euros.

Actually MIB, Kool-Aid has to be a childish thing of yours. It is not summer unless your oil prices go up and you have a purple tongue. I guess that would make rimming more colorful Where you put that popsickle is up to you.

Ya know, those city buses will run just fine on bio-diesel. As will interstate trucking and shippers transports. Grain alcohol will power your cars' ICE with some tweeks. Both fuels are sustainable and can be completely manufactured at home in the U.S. But real economic grow and prosperity for everyone has never been the goal of America. It has always been using capitalism as a religion to subjugate the masses. Farmers are not to have econimc clout and power over the feeble rich's food supply. ADM is the supermarket to the world while folks at home go hungry. Call me bitter. But the GMO's leave a bad taste in my mouth. Herbicides and pesticides in my food and water have made me irritable

Applause!

Rob

Not so fast.

Study Cites Inefficiency Of Alternative Fuels

Same thing, but with footnotes:

Canadian Statistical Assessment Service: Ethanol Isn’t Worth the Energy

Nice to here from my Twin

GM made an amazing electric car in their EV project. They only leased the cars and then shit canned the project like several thousand employees.

Bio-diesel can also be reclaimed from food waste. Due to the diesel engine structure bio-diesel means anything that can be burned in a diesel engine. So non-food grade plant oils and such could be burned. One could skip most of the manufacturing process in some situations. Seeing as how the processes of grain alcohol has been relatively neglected when compared to gasoline, there is no doubt room for improvement.

The energy needed for alternative fuels can be provided by clean and green methods. These alternative fuels also burn cleaner. So the environmental cost should be amazingly less if done properly. However, using green methods of energy would also lead to improvements in that field. So an electric tractor or fuel cell trucking would make the alternative fuel obsolete. Something to hope for.

If the farmer could downscale fuel production and keep it local on his farm, the process would only involved transporting locally. So you could save on that part of the equation. I would think that the resources consumed for fuel production would be much less than raising cattle. It would be interesting to see the transition of wealth and power back to the working class again with localized production. As well as the health benfits from using grain for fuel instead of raising beef. You just might saved the world that does not want to be saved. Shut up and eat your broccoli George!

Do the studies include the cost of just one oil spill? toxins in our food chain? Any hoot, thanks for your input.

Depends on how you're raising your cattle, but generally speaking, raising cattle would consume less resources per unit of land. If the cattle are out there grazing, there is very little input required, other than water and sunshine to keep the grass growing. If they're being fed corn, well, whether you raise corn for fuel or for cattle or for people, it takes the same amount of fertilizer, etc., so the inputs would be the same.

You'd be lucky to get an engine that ran ten seconds before it sputtered to a halt.

Before you can burn "anything" in a diesel engine, it has to be injected into the cylinder first. The fuel injectors have tolerances that are measured in microns. Of course, you can settle for incomplete combustion, but then the emissions will be off the scale.

Diesel Engine Injectors

Edited to add:

Gogle for diesel engine injector tolerances

[ August 14, 2005, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

Not so fast - that is not quite what the studies state.

1 - They state that the excess energy required is due to the undeveloped state of the alternative fuel infrastructure.

2 - They postulate that the excess energy would have to come from fossil sources. They also include in some of those estimates the postulation that the electricity used to create the technology would come from oil burning electrical plants.

Those are two pretty severe restrictions on a study showing the relative viability of two sources.

I would not accept that methodology from an undergraduate.

If a gas car burns 20 mpg and a Bio car burns 16 mpg ; I still submit that the Bio car is preferable for a multitude of economic and environmental reasons - not least of which is energy independence.

Curiosity overwhelms me as to who sponsored the Cornell study - Cornell is infamous for its corporate sponsored studies - but with this one I could not find the information online.

Rob

Something else to note is that one of the articles notes that the gasoline uses up 15% more energy in its refinement and production than it produces--and where the efficiency of the alternative fuels is likely to improve, the efficiency of crude oil will probably get worse over time. We will be relying more and more on frontier oil fields that are offshore or in remote areas, enhanced oil recovery programs, and bitumen and heavy oils that are more costly to refine.

I'm not sure that's what it says.

If your interpretation is right, one starts with 215 BTU of energy in crude oil. After refining, one has 100 BTU of energy in gasoline, kerosene, whatever. That "uses up" 15% more energy than is produced. I.e., processing uses 115 of the original 215 BTU to end up with 100 BTU worth of fuel. Clearly, that is frightfully inefficient.

If my interpretation is right, one starts with 115 BTU of energy in crude oil. After refining, one has 100 BTU of energy in gasoline, kerosene, whatever. That requires 15% more energy than is produced. I.e., processing uses 15 of the original 115 BTU to end up with 100 BTU worth of fuel.

I can Google, but it's time to eat.

As you suggest, when we run out of the high-class Brent and North Sea stuff and get down to the stems and seeds, so to speak, the amount entering the system will have to increase to maintain a decent output level.

I'm sure that both Pimentel and Patzek get grants from corporate sponsors. Again, Google is our friend.

[ August 14, 2005, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

You could be right, since that does seem very inefficient--but if so, the 15% isn't an appropriate comparison for the stats cited on ethanol, etc. because they're accounting for production and transportation costs as well as refining. There's certainly substantial use of energy in exploration, development, production and transport of fossil fuels. But in any event, I think even if the fuels are very inefficient now, that they can probably be improved substantially as the technology matures. After all, if you judged the viability of automobiles by Cugnot's machine, we'd have stuck with horses forever.

Just had another thought--the 215% could be quite right, if they're only counting gasoline and ignoring the fuel value of the other products of crude oil refining. That would be really deceptive, though.

You can get lost in the numbers. Ethanol may not be worth the energy. However, it is worth your environment.

The point of using alternatives fuels in your ICE is that it can be implemented quickly. You can use cleaner technology without enormous costs and wasting even more processed resources in new vehicles. The technology is available to the masses.

Right now you can get an electric car and charge it with electric power sources that are completely off the grid. Yes the solar cell manufacture does require the nasty stuff as does the car. However most solar cells are rated for around 25 years. A well built electric car is highly maintainable. It often requires less maintainance. The big expense is the batteries every five years

Wilde Evolutions has done electric conversion on SUV's that have greater range and utility than the ICE counterpart under all conditions.

I just wish I could afford the technology that is available now. It is not too expensive. I am too poor. It is not even a debate for me. It is an obvious response to protect your habitat and insure your survival.

I am not to proud to sweat and ride a bike to work. Actaully riding makes work suck a lot less.

Twin I know people who use bio-diesel. You still have to process your fuel even if you reclaim it. You just do not have to regrow it. Bio-diesel is much less toxic. I have used it as degreaser in a bike shop. It is only volatile enough that you can smell it. And yes, I am truly in awe of your Googling

You are eliminating the need for crops for livestock. You then have the crops for fuel. Is the massive amount of water and feed it takes to grow a pound of beef a valid comparison with the water and feed needed for a gallon of grain alcohol? What are the byproducts of the beef? What are the byproducts of ethanol? Would it be an acceptable sacrifice to eat less meat and have energy independence, clean air and water? With our current crop overproduction we should be able to have food and fuel. We might have to let cattle graze golf courses though.

MIB, your obsession with Kool-Aid concerns me. To set the record straight, I haven't had Kool-Aid in at least 30 years. I also recall how the price of gasoline spiked late in the Clinton administration, and I clearly remember how every neo-con on the planet was blaming Clinton. I guess it's an occupational hazard. Just where is all the oil in Iraq? Can't blame Clinton for that one, can you? Oh wait, I forgot about the national debt...what was it when Clinton was in office? Oh, if memory serves me, we had a SURPLUS! Gosh, that's a term I haven't heard in several years! Yup, things are just rosy with the shrub in office.

Debt v. deficit.

There was a national debt when Clinton was in office. In at least one year, though, there was no deficit.

I know what you meant to say. This post will self-destruct, probably.

Dear OPEC,

Please open up the spigot.

Love,
W

OK, I done my part, where's my bike at? I only got 4 more weeks left on my vacation.

[quote]twin58:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Lksimcoe
That translates to $3.47 per gallon.[/quote]Canadian?

Yes Canadian.

I get paid in Canadian,

Converting it to American dollars has no relevance to me unless I plan on going to see my sister in Michigan.

But then it could be worse. A co-worker of mine just got back from England, and it was 99 pence per litre. That's roughly 2 pounds per US gallone, or $4.00 (I think)

I just filled up with a half tank on my way back from grocery shopping. Now $2.67 a gallon, unleaded at my Conoco. Thats up 10 cents a gallon from Friday. I am not going to be driving as much. I simply can't afford this. Paid $15.00 this morning for a half tank, and this is in a compact car. The SUV gas bills must be unbelievable.

Those hoss trucks and SUV's that contractors and the morally corrupt use to feel safe in, are often business expense write offs. It might work to make alternative fuels write off-able but not the conventional petroleum products. I have come across a lot of people that use their company truck for their personal use and single occupancy vehicle. I doubt a lot of people are honest about pro-rating the vehicle usage. It is sad to see these city-slickers driving around in four wheel drive vehicles, Especially when there is not even a bed liner in the truck. You know they are posers.

Erik, I have wondered the same thing. After all, how many unpaved mountains are there in the Lincoln Park neighborhood of Chicago? Zero. It seems to be a huge waste of resources. If gas prices continue the way they have gone in the past week, pretty soon you'll be able to buy an SUV for a ham sandwich. Say, come to think of it, those SUV's would make dandy mobile meth labs!

As incredible to me as it sounds, I read an article about the gas price situation in my business section this morning, and supposedly sales of SUV's are still doing fairly well. I guess we just don't get it. I think I am most angry at oil companies first, then Congress next. I am angry at oil companies for doing nothing to steer us away ( but keep us hooked)from our dependency on a fossil fuel which is finite, and then Congress next for having no balls, and no interest to steer us into new/cleaner technology which we should have done decades ago. And I also get angered every time a bill comes up which demands better gas milage from our cars, but which gets shot down every time by the car manufacturers who claim they can't do this. Thats b.s. The U.S. could have been #1 in new technology, instead of number one for sucking energy. :mad:

[ August 16, 2005, 06:24 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

Yet it's in the choices we have that we value, in many ways. Consumers who choose to buy SUVs rather than more fuel efficient cars, taxpayers who do not support additional spending for mass transit, citizens who do not support recycling programs through their communities, adults who respond like lemmings to advertising and buy because they're stimulated to, rather than because they need the item.

The oil companies, as are the car manufacturers, are in the business of making money, so it is no surprise that they would push to make the most. I do think legislation can help, such as the idea of tax advantages for developing and using fuel efficient cars, for reclaiming brown fields and older developed areas for more close-in, urban living that would decrease the pressure on outlying areas, helping to minimize commutes while allowing mass transit to be a more viable option, and also to reinvigorate alternatives to driving alone (car-pooling, bike lanes, etc.). But, such legislation will only come not when Congress gets a will, but when the people of the country really demand it and will support it.

I do think it's incredible that SUV sales are up.
But you can thank the 3 months and counting promotions of "employee pricing" for that.
you have a lot of people who had been lusting after SUVs for a long time and could not resist the allure of buying one for $10k less than previously. Stupid in the face of $3+ gas prices? sure!

But there's the thing for me.... yes, the Bush administration has its part to play in it.

Yes. the oil companies are greedy bastards.

Yes... the Iraq war was supposed to not only be self sufficient but to also make our gas prices lower.

But in the end... the ultimate responsibiliity for rising gas prices is ... us... we ourselves are the most responsible since we are the ones who insist on driving gas guzzlers that get 10miles/gallon of gas and are the size of a NYC apt.

We can continue to gripe about the ridiculous price of gas (and rightly so) but if we all don't look at OURSELVES in the mirror and point the finger back at us... then nothing will happen.

we're wanting our own subsidies in a way aren't we? When we talk about conservation, are we talking about other people only? or are we willing to make sacrifices also?

Until we, the american people, can cut back on our egos and need for "bigass, macho trucks" so that we can feel like uber-Lords of the road, all this finger pointing (many justified) won't do any good in solving the problem.

Just think if we all could reduce our gas consumption by 10%. What would that do to gas prices?

Here's the latest news about the SUV angle courtesy of the article from the times

This is kind of ironic. If you could see the number of huge SUVs bought in Baghdad by the U.S Govt., parking lots full of them. And KBR making profit by supplying the fuel........