Oil is now below $ 65 a barrel. When oil was at $100 a barrel there were food shortages in Venezuela (that is all you really need to know about socialism).
When oil was riding high, Hugo went on a spending spree. As oil drops, those bill are coming due. I read somewhere that Venezuela needs oil to be something like $95 a barrel to meet their balance of payments.
About those Russians fighter jets you bought Hugo -- I am pretty sure Vladimir does not take Visa.
I really am not that worried about Venezuela these days
Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
It's About Time!
The Bureau of Land Management seems to read my blog (well, probably not) as they have finally published proposed regulations regarding shale oil. (HT Instapundit)
I do not think shale oil is a panacea, and I remember as a kid that shale was kicked around as a cure to our energy woes. But while it is not a cure all, shale oil will provide time to transition to something else, and along the way, counter act the speculation that is driving oil prices up (a better way to counter act speculation than threats of government action).
I do not think shale oil is a panacea, and I remember as a kid that shale was kicked around as a cure to our energy woes. But while it is not a cure all, shale oil will provide time to transition to something else, and along the way, counter act the speculation that is driving oil prices up (a better way to counter act speculation than threats of government action).
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
DRILL DRILL DRILL!!!
Frank J has a program to solve the oil crunch that is almost as well thought out as T. Boone Pickens.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
T. Boone Pickens has a Plan
Granted, Custer had a plan also, but I think T. Boone has thought his out better.
In short, it would use wind power to replace the current natural gas electric generating plants and use the natural gas to power automobiles. I have no clue if his numbers work out, but it is a start!
I am a big supporter of wind power so of course I think his plan is great. And best of all, it is nowhere near Teddy Kennedy's yacht, so I guess Teddy will be on board.
But this is not the only way. One reason I want government to stay out of the energy issue is that there needs to be multiple roads. Instead, all government has given us is an ethanol subsidy that does nothing but increase corn prices.
If I had my way, this is what would happen:
1. Allow more drilling in the Artic and offshore. This will ease uncertainty and speculation which is what is responsible for much of the recent run up. This is only meant to be a temporary measure however, to give time for other things to come online.
2. Pass the Zurbin plan requiring that all gasoline powered cars must be triple flex fueled within three years of passage. The technology is there already (and US car manufacturers have an advantage right now). The triple flex fuel portion is to drive some production into methanol, which does not use food crops, though it is less efficient then ethanol.
3. End the corn ethanol subsidy. It does nothing.
4. End tariffs on Brazilian ethanol. Brazilian ethanol is sugar based and has a much higher energy output/energy input than corn ethanol.
5. Pass regulations on shale oil production.
6. Throw up no barriers to the importation of Canadian tar sands oil.
7. Exploit the Bakken field.
8. Electric cars are great. The electricity has to come from somewhere. Reduce barriers for wind farms.
9. Build a new generation of nuclear plants.
10. Listen to T. Boone.
Did I leave anything out?
In short, it would use wind power to replace the current natural gas electric generating plants and use the natural gas to power automobiles. I have no clue if his numbers work out, but it is a start!
I am a big supporter of wind power so of course I think his plan is great. And best of all, it is nowhere near Teddy Kennedy's yacht, so I guess Teddy will be on board.
But this is not the only way. One reason I want government to stay out of the energy issue is that there needs to be multiple roads. Instead, all government has given us is an ethanol subsidy that does nothing but increase corn prices.
If I had my way, this is what would happen:
1. Allow more drilling in the Artic and offshore. This will ease uncertainty and speculation which is what is responsible for much of the recent run up. This is only meant to be a temporary measure however, to give time for other things to come online.
2. Pass the Zurbin plan requiring that all gasoline powered cars must be triple flex fueled within three years of passage. The technology is there already (and US car manufacturers have an advantage right now). The triple flex fuel portion is to drive some production into methanol, which does not use food crops, though it is less efficient then ethanol.
3. End the corn ethanol subsidy. It does nothing.
4. End tariffs on Brazilian ethanol. Brazilian ethanol is sugar based and has a much higher energy output/energy input than corn ethanol.
5. Pass regulations on shale oil production.
6. Throw up no barriers to the importation of Canadian tar sands oil.
7. Exploit the Bakken field.
8. Electric cars are great. The electricity has to come from somewhere. Reduce barriers for wind farms.
9. Build a new generation of nuclear plants.
10. Listen to T. Boone.
Did I leave anything out?
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Oil Policy
Energy policy should be a big issue in this election. I am a big believer in alternative energy and a big supporter of biofuels (I oppose the ethanol subsidy, rather I would end the tariffs on Brazilian ethanol and mandate that all gasoline powered cars in the United States be flex-fuel by 2012). I am happy to see that Obama has been talking about biofuels and he has come close to the Zubrin plan, though he has not mentioned it by name. Someone should, immediately, send Obama a copy of Zubrin's book "Energy Victory".
But for the foreseeable future, oil will still be important and it has to come from somewhere. Obama opposes drilling here, drilling in the Artic, and now his comments against tar sand oil. He also complains about the price of oil. His answer is to threaten the oil companies.
I do not think the oil companies are charitable institutions. They are businesses and their goal is to maximize profits. But maybe instead of demonizing them, they should be allowed to drill somewhere. Oil is going up and up, and most of what I read suggests that it is a bubble -- demand increases in China (which had been heavily subsidizing gasoline, increasing demand) in and of itself do not account for the increase. Uncertainty over Iran and Iraq play into it. But ultimately, it is the THREAT of future events that are driving the price. Allowing drilling the Artic or offshore might reduce uncertainty and allow prices to come down to a more reasonable level.
I am not suggesting that we will see $1.10 regular gas ever again -- I know that will never happen. But we need to reduce prices for no other reason than the fact that much of our oil money goes to places that are trying to destroy us -- in effect, we are paying for attacks against us. And drilling here and now, along with buying Canadian oil and getting shale oil regulations passed will give us the breathing room necessary to get alternative sources online (and also a few years so that a flex-fuel mandate will have time to operate). That is important, pushing for drilling now does not mean that alternative energy is forgotten. In fact, under Senator McCain's plan, there would be both. Senator McCain even calls for a flex-fuel mandate!
But for the foreseeable future, oil will still be important and it has to come from somewhere. Obama opposes drilling here, drilling in the Artic, and now his comments against tar sand oil. He also complains about the price of oil. His answer is to threaten the oil companies.
I do not think the oil companies are charitable institutions. They are businesses and their goal is to maximize profits. But maybe instead of demonizing them, they should be allowed to drill somewhere. Oil is going up and up, and most of what I read suggests that it is a bubble -- demand increases in China (which had been heavily subsidizing gasoline, increasing demand) in and of itself do not account for the increase. Uncertainty over Iran and Iraq play into it. But ultimately, it is the THREAT of future events that are driving the price. Allowing drilling the Artic or offshore might reduce uncertainty and allow prices to come down to a more reasonable level.
I am not suggesting that we will see $1.10 regular gas ever again -- I know that will never happen. But we need to reduce prices for no other reason than the fact that much of our oil money goes to places that are trying to destroy us -- in effect, we are paying for attacks against us. And drilling here and now, along with buying Canadian oil and getting shale oil regulations passed will give us the breathing room necessary to get alternative sources online (and also a few years so that a flex-fuel mandate will have time to operate). That is important, pushing for drilling now does not mean that alternative energy is forgotten. In fact, under Senator McCain's plan, there would be both. Senator McCain even calls for a flex-fuel mandate!
Why does Barrack Obama hate Canada?
The guy is running as the man to repair US foreign relations.
It is bad enough that he ran against NAFTA. Now he is attacking Canadian tar sand oil. Personally, given the choice of sending my gas money to Saudi Arabia, Hugo Chavez or our friends to the North, I will choose Canada.
Why does Obama hate Canada?
It is bad enough that he ran against NAFTA. Now he is attacking Canadian tar sand oil. Personally, given the choice of sending my gas money to Saudi Arabia, Hugo Chavez or our friends to the North, I will choose Canada.
Why does Obama hate Canada?
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Oil in North Dakota?
There seems to be a lot of excitement in the blogosphere over this press release, claiming that there is a large oil field in North Dakota. From the looks of the map, I wonder if the field is some sort of extension of the tar sands in Canada.
That said, the release claims the oil is difficult to extract, and that only now, with prices as high as they are, is it economically viable.
If true, this would be great. However, like the occasional shale oil boomlet, I will believe it when I see oil coming out of the refineries.
That said, the release claims the oil is difficult to extract, and that only now, with prices as high as they are, is it economically viable.
If true, this would be great. However, like the occasional shale oil boomlet, I will believe it when I see oil coming out of the refineries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
