Oil prices

wkmac

Well-Known Member
This is kinda on a different subject but it relates to oil prices. I know T. Boone Pickens is not a name that gives a warm and fuzzy feeling and I'd kinda concur with that on some levels. However, recently in a speech of his that I read, he proposed using wind power in a rather unique way that I'd like to throw out. I don't have the speech in front of me so I hope you won't mind a paraphase of it.

Pickens studied the prevailing wind patterns of the US and found that the corridor from the Texas/La. gulf coast to the Canadian border provided an area where you could install wind generators (megawatt) and if connected to the national gird, would generate over 20% of the nation's electrical needs. OK, that's good but it gets better depending on your POV. With that 20%, it's enough to eliminate the need of all natural gas fired generating plants nationwide so you idle those plants (I know the coal but just wait a minute) and then divert the natural gas over to the transportation market, more spefically, fleet vehicles like buses, police cars and maybe even UPS and FedEx vehicles.

2 positives would come from this. The first would be a low carbon emission would be replaced with a zero carbon emission energy source (in theory so don't go playing "gotcha") so there's your first gain so to speak. The 2nd is the natural gas transfer to transportation which replaces a high carbon emission fuel source with a lower carbon emission fuel source so again you have that gain but now by adding natural gas to the transportation mix, we've increased supply without drilling for a drop of oil if you will or begging the ":censored2:s" for more production.

Now granted there is a lot in this mix that can be debated or discussed but on the surface it has both a supply appeal and a green appeal. My guess is that Pickens would most likely recieve special gov't sanction and benefits for this, corp. welfare if you will, and he may be looking at making some $$$$ off the carbon offsets but all that conspiracy theory aisde, my point is that people are throwing around some rather interesting ideas out there other than just drilling and staying on oil. Richard Branson is also spending vast sums of his own money looking for alternatives. I posted recently about the bacteria created that eats garbage and craps oil. I mean people are really starting to think outside the box as this crisis grows so let's not stop that wonderful process on innovation. At the same time don't read any of this to mean that I'm against drilling and energy independence because I'm all for that. It's another reason Pickens idea has some appeal but this thing is way early in life and a long way to go so it's gotta play out for now I guess.

I'll try and find the article about his speech and post the link but I just wanted to pass on the basic gest of the idea that people are starting to think outside the box in the midst of our current situation so be careful to not kill that innovative need that does exist at this time with gov't over reach.

It's time we began to move beyond whale oil ourselves!
 

UPS Lifer

Well-Known Member
We need to do something and it needs to be done fast!

In the short term, I favor some sort of cap on the price oil companies can charge right down the line. It will take a maximum effort to coordinate our resources and develop new technology for alternative fuel resources.

There are to many signs that show we could slip into a major recession or worse. The housing and energy crisis tops the list of triggers that can set this off.

The latest info according to a (CNN news report) on gas station owners..... shows that some are closing and many more are thinking of closing the doors. The price to fill the in ground tanks is so high the owners can not afford to fill them. In some cases they are only making $50 -100 a tank.

Less gas stations = high prices and maybe long lines and rationing!

We are not in a free market situation - Since when is a Cartel or Oligopoly or monopoly considered free market??? They set the price and we pay it - simple as that - it boils down to dependance and the sharks are out. We are being gouged and the country needs to flex it's muscles NOW not in 2 months or 5 months or after the election.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
We need to do something and it needs to be done fast!

In the short term, I favor some sort of cap on the price oil companies can charge right down the line. It will take a maximum effort to coordinate our resources and develop new technology for alternative fuel resources.

There are to many signs that show we could slip into a major recession or worse. The housing and energy crisis tops the list of triggers that can set this off.

The latest info according to a (CNN news report) on gas station owners..... shows that some are closing and many more are thinking of closing the doors. The price to fill the in ground tanks is so high the owners can not afford to fill them. In some cases they are only making $50 -100 a tank.

Less gas stations = high prices and maybe long lines and rationing!

We are not in a free market situation - Since when is a Cartel or Oligopoly or monopoly considered free market??? They set the price and we pay it - simple as that - it boils down to dependance and the sharks are out. We are being gouged and the country needs to flex it's muscles NOW not in 2 months or 5 months or after the election.

"We are not in a Free Market Situation"

Very true but what took us out of being that? And who benefitted? What effect did regulation and gov't intervention have in positioning those forces into a monopoly postition and thus at the same time erect a barrier to keep alternatives from coming to the market? Who controls the lobbyist that have our leaders ears and thus their wallet? My 2nd post in this thread might be a good place to begin to answer those questions.

Go ask Jimmy Carter what effect Nixon's Wage and Price Freeze had on the economics of his Presidential years?

Last I heard, the oil companies were singing in unison, "PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! Don't throw me in the briar patch!
 

UPS Lifer

Well-Known Member
Let's not get started on the Peanut Farmer's presidency arguably the worst of the 20th century and it had nothing to do with Nixon.

Back to the thread - knowing the enigma of the Briar Patch reference, the best minds in this country can come together to solve this problem. We have to take dramatic steps to stop the gouging and do what it takes to promote alternative fuel sources for our transportation industry starting with the Automotive Industry. We need to retool our factories to provide massive hybrid development and a reliable and safe alternative using battery and electric power.

You know it can be done and we are the country to do it. Stop talking and start acting.

The first company that can come up with an electric car that is affordable, safe and offers long range capability that can be plugged in using a regular 110 outlet and recharged fast will CLEAN UP!!!

Here is where the government comes in to spur the development and access to this alternative. Give tax incentives to both manufacturer and consumer ... maybe even underwrite the R/D to speed this along.

Less dependance on gas means less price at the pump; retool the refineries to produce cheaper diesel for the backbone of America - the trucking industry, and then start to work on improved solar energy along with wind and wave technology and hydrogen technology.

Tell me that you don't have the confidence in American ingenuity to get this done...
 

Storm723

Preload Supervisor
recession.gif
 
Let's not get started on the Peanut Farmer's presidency arguably the worst of the 20th century and it had nothing to do with Nixon.

Back to the thread - knowing the enigma of the Briar Patch reference, the best minds in this country can come together to solve this problem. We have to take dramatic steps to stop the gouging and do what it takes to promote alternative fuel sources for our transportation industry starting with the Automotive Industry. We need to retool our factories to provide massive hybrid development and a reliable and safe alternative using battery and electric power.

You know it can be done and we are the country to do it. Stop talking and start acting.

The first company that can come up with an electric car that is affordable, safe and offers long range capability that can be plugged in using a regular 110 outlet and recharged fast will CLEAN UP!!!

Here is where the government comes in to spur the development and access to this alternative. Give tax incentives to both manufacturer and consumer ... maybe even underwrite the R/D to speed this along.

Less dependance on gas means less price at the pump; retool the refineries to produce cheaper diesel for the backbone of America - the trucking industry, and then start to work on improved solar energy along with wind and wave technology and hydrogen technology.

Tell me that you don't have the confidence in American ingenuity to get this done...
OMG, a retired manager that can mix his metaphors.

My confidence in the Partnership is renewed.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Oh this is momentous:

ECB shrugs off Fed concern on dollar
The fight against inflation in the 15-country eurozone will remain the European Central Bank’s top priority even if that clashes with US attempts to prevent a further slide in the dollar, a senior official at the bank made clear on Monday.
35 years after John Connally's famous phrase ("the dollar is our currency but your problem"), not only have the Europeans managed to eliminate the problem, by creating a currency able to largely protect their economies from currency fluctuations, but they have finally - finally! - realised that they have solved the problem.

Jerome was on the mark on this one. Good link BD!
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
This morning on C-Span 2 was a program on Book-TV that presented Robert Zubrin and his book Energy Victory. I only caught less than half of the latter part of the program but it was rather interesting as to the ideas posed. Yes, those ideas were gov't interventions somewhat for those who think we should go due haste down that road but the overall discussion was worthwhile still IMO.

Here's the link to Zubrin's website with more info and the C-Span link too.
http://www.energyvictory.net/

UPSlifer,

Gee, you are so right about the economic policies of Nixon having absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the economics of the Carter years. I feel so much better knowing now that on the day that McCain or Obama is sworn in that the chaos of our economy caused by piss poor management and the massive debt borrowing and inflating the money supply will just disappear into thin air and that whatever ills either of these men have to deal with, will be all created on their own. I feel so much better.

Does this also mean that the good economy of Clinton was all Clinton and no one else? According to your theory, we should get him back in office!

I guess the chaos of Social Security was created last week and had nothing to do with policy over the last 70 plus years as to what Congress did with the money.

Hey, wait a minute, that doesn't work. There was this idiot called Jim Kelly, who got the bright idea to take a stock public. It made no sense that the stock had done very well on it's own for decades, made even the lowest level UPSer a millionaire and allowed the company to do what it saw fit to do or the customer demanded of us to do. Instead, the decision was made to go public and now the days of a young supervisor "PARTNER" making his place in the sun are gone (Hey but I got mine, RIGHT?) we no longer answer to the customer but rather some Wall Street Analyst and last and the best of all, pre-public historical stock price trends when compared to the post private era are conclusive beyond doubt that remaining private was by far the much smarter course of action. Even Eskew on the History Channel's "History's Business" admitted point blank that going public was the worse decision made during his entire career.

But hey, I'll go to work on Monday knowing that the Kelly decison in 99' has absolutely no effect whatsoever with what we do or how we do it today at UPS! So sayeth UPSlifer!
 

UPS Lifer

Well-Known Member
wkmac,
I think we should take responsibility for our own actions not play the blame game. This goes for every president, and every CEO, ....in UPS... region Mgrs, District Mgrs, right down the line to the drivers and PT employees.

A real leader will be able to affect change and make a difference. A loser plays the blame game.

wkmac - wkmac - wkmac --
Let me answer the Kelly thing first.

I personally feel that the decision to go public was not in our best interest. I did not want to see it happen. I was able to predict within hundreds of dollars the yearly growth and dividend I would receive. I thought the decision represented the interests of the folks that were retiring within the next 2 years after the stock went public.

I will go on record as being highly critical of the CEOs after Kelly. It was and is their responsibility not Kelly's, for achieving stock growth and return on investment as well as net profit, etc. etc.... I personally think UPS needs an outsider to start running this company. A person who can WOW Wall Street as well as our customers and employees. ...UPS still doesn't have that!

UPS has reached a certain level of success and can't break through to the next level.

So sayeth UPS Lifer! Amen and peace be with you! LOL!

Continue to live in the past - play the blame game and we will never move forward!

Now..let's MOVE FORWARD...What has the Democratic Congress done TODAY about Social Security?

Oh I am not a party line Republican as you probably think. I will give Clinton high marks except for his moral character which I will condemn him for. Bush has a head start for the worst president of the 21st Century and I hope he keeps that title because I don't ever want to think it could be worse than now except for the Peanut Farmer years!!!

But why roll around in the mud of the past when we have so much of it to roll around in now.... there is plenty to go around for everybody! LOL
 

Overpaid Union Thug

Well-Known Member
Got the following in an email today. I thought it was pretty funny.


THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

OPEC sells oil for $136.00 a barrel.
OPEC nations buy U.S. grain at $7.00 a bushel.
Solution: Sell grain for $136.00 a bushel.
Can't buy it? Tough! Eat your oil!
Ought to go well with a nice thick grilled filet of camel ass!!!
 

scratch

Least Best Moderator
Staff member
I wish it were that simple, BAU, I would be all for it. If they didn't buy grain from us, they would just buy it cheap from another country. Maybe we should just pack up our military and move everybody out of the Middle East. I wonder how long the Saudi royal family would last then.
 

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
Interesting analysis from CIBC. Among other things they are predicting oil prices of $200 bbl by 2010 which will translate into $7 per gallon at the pump.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Big & Sratch,

Hey that sounds like a Redneck comedy team or the local Country music radio DJ team.:wink2:

OK to my point, here's a link to an article entitled "A Plan to Destroy OPEC" that you might find interesting. Not saying it will or will not work but it just shows people are really thinking outside the box and more importantly it's time to get the word out. Washington and it's fellow travelers IMO are dominating the conversation over how to proceed with our energy problem. This discussion needs to be completely wide open to everyone and "ALL" ideas on the table and out front for all to see. This is one time we need complete openness and complete transparency, period! Hope you guys find some food for thought in the piece.

http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/The_Plan_To_Destroy_OPEC_999.html

I know people more and more are demanding gov't action and I'm a realist enough that intervention in the market will come to win the day. But if we must go that route then give thought to the idea mentioned at the link about mandating FlexFuel vehicles. I said give thought so I'm not giving full endorsement as we need that big conversation I spoke of. Here's why I said consider the flexfuel mandate.

from the article above:
Thus the effect of a US flex fuel mandate would be global, and within a few years, put hundreds of millions of cars on the road worldwide capable of running indifferently on either methanol, ethanol, or gasoline. With such a market available, alcohol fuel pumps and associated infrastructure would quickly appear, and the vertical monopoly that the oil cartel holds on the world's vehicular fuel supply would be broken, as gasoline would be forced to compete everywhere against alcohol produced from multiple sources, including biomass, coal, stranded natural gas, recycled urban trash, and so forth.

I bold and underlined to highlight one source from which we "could" get fuel which in this day and age presents a very interesting line of thought.

Big, I loved your idea. Works for me.

Scratch, The last 2 sentences of your post spoke volumes but like an extreme herion addict, we are addicted and can't leave the region because of it.
 

UPS Lifer

Well-Known Member
Interesting analysis from CIBC. Among other things they are predicting oil prices of $200 bbl by 2010 which will translate into $7 per gallon at the pump.

What a relief! I thought gas would be $15 a gallon by 2010!!! When is America going to say enough is enough!

I blame all of us for this; both sides of the isle and the president because nobody is trying to tackle the issue. We already have an idea of what the price of gas will be 2 years from now. When are we going to try and reverse the trend?

The president should make a recommendation to establish a bipartisan committee to bring substantial solutions to eliminate oil dependancy to the table. Participants should include alternative energy experts as well auto industry R/D experts. The committee should have a time limit and a leader who is above reproach with no political ambitions and has a proven record of getting things done!
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
Most everyone seems to balk at drilling and saying that would take years to realize any relief........but hey, you gotta start somewhere. If Clinton had agreed to drilling, we'd already be there.

I rec'd an e-mail the other day (sorry, I deleted it) that showed what a small desolate area of ANWAR is designated for the drilling. The dems. e-mails are always showing beautiful fields of wildflowers letting you believe these would be destroyed. The picture is NOT where the drilling is proposed.

There was also a picture of hundreds of caribou, deer or something like that grazing around a drilling site somewhere. Hey, I live within a 10 mile radius of San Onofre.......I'm OK (I think!).

In fact, nuclear (or is it nucular?) is where we need to be !! I've invested in SGR (Shaw Energy Group) because I feel that's where the growth is going to come. Go SGR !!
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Moreluck,

If you are saying that "most everyone" meaning the folks here, I disagree. Even outside BC I still disagree. Now the slack jaws in media and politics, you may have a point but among us "normal" folk, I think drilling is not off the table.

However, 2 problems with more drilling that we must at least face.

1) We open up new areas of drilling only to see that oil be sold off into international markets for a higher price.

That is business so it's something to think about.

2) We drill adding to the market supply and OPEC cuts production furhter to keep the price of oil where it is.

You say that makes no sense but consider this. You know you have a finite product in which a new source adds to the market. At the lower price you make less money while using up your finite product. By cutting your output in light of the new influx of supply, you still keep the price up while you make the same money as you would at the lower price but you now increase the longevity of the finite product stockpile so either way there's nothing lost although nothing gained and the same applies to us who use the oil and we're now using up our supply instead of theirs.

What we need is something that competes head on with oil that does nothing to the supply to increase but instead decreases our demand on world oil markets. What if we could decrease domestic demand for oil to the point that what we had along say with Canada and Mexico was more than enough? Oil alone and drilling more alone over the longhaul is not enough to do this.

How then would the entire geo-political/economic world of the Mideast look if we no longer needed any oil resources from outside our own North American footprint? What would happen if we so changed the face that we became a net exporter of oil because we couldn't use all that we produce, even at current drilling levels? What would that do to the bank accounts of those who hate us in the Middle East as our increasing supply in light of our dropping demand implodes global oil prices no matter how much they cut?

That should be the goal and what we should stay focused on IMO and yeah, it'll hurt getting there but we're America, we can take it!
 

UPS Lifer

Well-Known Member
Moreluck,
Nuclear came up when I used the dictionary. Nucular is probably the way Bush says it! LOL!

I have mixed feeling on more oil drilling. I think we probably need to do this. BUT I recently have wondered if some of the price increase is trying to break our backs by agreeing to provide more areas to drill for oil. You just have to wonder.

Another concern of mine would be complacency in thinking this is going to fix the problem. All it does is to defer the problem to a future date.
Oil dependency needs to be curtailed.

Nuclear energy if developed properly is very beneficial. But America is scared of it! This is a major hurdle. Disposing the waste is another hazard that America is scared of. It is like prisons... we need them but nobody wants them next to them!!

I am sure that these questions could be addressed with minimal concerns. We do need to consider future generations no matter what we do.
 
Top