Gas Prices.........

[Zathras]

NPR is discussing coal vs oil vs nuclear right now on Talk of the Nation

 

[Independent]

Afghanistan has no oil, and we're there. It's true that the extremists got some funding from oil money, but they would have gotten that with or without US purchases of oil.

We buy virtually no oil from Libya, but we are involved there militarily. Our allies get some oil from Libya, but (again) they'd be doing that even if we weren't. Yes, a reduction in Libyan oil exports increases oil prices for us, but just a little. More fundamentally, if we just wanted to ensure the continued availability of Libyan crude, we'd by backing Qaddaffi, not bombing him.

Our military forces are designed to be flexible, and we count on the same ones to be available to meet many contingencies. We have relatively little dedicated basing infrastructure the ME that could be axed to save money if, somehow, we decided that we weren't interested in the place. We'd still need virtually the same force structure (which is what costs the real money) to be available for other requirements.

Looks like we have two topics - one economic, one political.

It appears that we agree on the economic topic. IF some activity generates significant negative externalities, we should consider taxing that activity. That's generally fairer and more efficient than ignoring the externality or trying some rigid command/control system. Probably, the argument for taxing will be clearer if the externality involves significant government spending. Correct?

But we apparently disagree on a political topic. To me it's clear that US a big part of US military spending is about oil. In fact, IMO, terrorism is mostly a response to our willingness to mess around in the ME, because of the oil. So anti-terrorism spending is also about oil. So I see an externality that you don't.

I'll try to run through your list quickly, but experience says this will be a dead end. We're in Afghanistan because a bunch of Saudis and Egyptians used it as a staging area for a terrorist attack, we don't have any arguments with typical Afghan farmers. Oil trades on a world market, so Libyan oil is just as important to us as any other oil (but, IMO, there's not much of it and Libya is mostly a sideshow). Our military is capable of fighting anywhere in the world - South America, Africa, etc. But we're actually spending the money and lives in areas connected to oil.

 

[Rustic23]

We have over 80,000 troops stationed in Europe, 60,000 in Japan and Korea. All these troops are not supporting Oil. In fact we have troops all over the world, United States military deployments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, that have nothing to do with Oil.

 

[Zathras]

We have over 80,000 troops stationed in Europe, 60,000 in Japan and Korea. All these troops are not supporting Oil. In fact we have troops all over the world, United States military deployments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, that have nothing to do with Oil.

I don't believe anyone argued that our military is solely used to protect oil interests.
Just that some of our military expenditures (and probably foreign aid) are to protect our interest in oil safe.

 

[Rustic23]

As it should be. IMHO.

 

[wolfbay]

I saw a chart somewhere that showed a strong inverse correlation between the value of the dollar vs other currencies and the price of oil. Could 15 trillion debt,1.5 trillion deficit,zero interest rates, and money printing in the trillions have something to do with high oil and other commodity prices?

" I've got debts no honest man can pay" Bruce Springsteen

 

[Leonidas]

However, the discussion on the use of natural gas makes me wonder, "where is T. Boone Pickens when you need him most?"
He has got the be the biggest force behind NG and he proposed long ago to convert commercial vehicles (and others) to NG ASAP. You would think this is a perfect time for him to push natural gas and for the whole country to listen closely. Then go out and start the conversions.

I think he's an interesting character and I do pay attention when he is mentioned.

In a recent interview he said something about being out of the windmill business because he got tired of fighting a losing battle to get the necessary transmission lines where they were needed. Of course converting the US commercial truck fleet into natgas burners has always been his main goal.

Other than making money of course, because Boone is a green energy kind of guy - dollar bill are still green on the back right?

The windmill deal always looked like a way to make a few billion in chump change while he was waiting for the big payoff in his natgas plays.

Anyway, Boone figures the whole thing (natgas commercial fleet) can be done for a few measly billion here and there in tax subsidies.

 

[HFWR]

I saw a chart somewhere that showed a strong inverse correlation between the value of the dollar vs other currencies and the price of oil. Could 15 trillion debt,1.5 trillion deficit,zero interest rates, and money printing in the trillions have something to do with high oil and other commodity prices?

" I've got debts no honest man can pay" Bruce Springsteen

Kind of like holding a rattlesnake: you don't want hold him, but you don't want to let him go, either...

 

[jazz4cash]

I cannot think of any industry other than gasoline/oil refining that reports record profits when thier raw material cost is at all time highs.

 

[Texas Proud]

I cannot think of any industry other than gasoline/oil refining that reports record profits when thier raw material cost is at all time highs.

Well, it is because they are not buying the raw material per se.... they pay a royalty and make a profit off that raw material that easily makes up for any loss in refining...

Most companies that you speak of are fully integrated from top to bottom... they get to raise their price because of price inelasticity (sp).....

 

[mb]

Saudi Arabia has cheaper gas...

I bet Venezuela also has cheaper gas... (just a guess based on their ruler, nothing else)


Yours cost more probably because of taxes... I remember seeing a table on actual gas prices before taxes and most all countries were pretty similar... and I think the UK was lower than the US... it is the taxes that make the difference...



Edit.... looked it up.... here is the price in 2007

Kuwait 91 cents a gallon,

Saudi Arabia 45 cents a gallon,

and Caracas, Venezula 14 cents a gallon!

They don't import 13M barrels oil/day either.

 

[mb]

But it won't cut greenhouse gas emissions and isn't sexy technology that needs "assisting", and the whole "fracking" controversy is abrew, so I'm afraid CNG won't find support in some quarters. But it does address a lot of problems.

Substituting natural gas for oil does reduce CO2 emissions because you get more energy per carbon from natural gas than you do from oil.

The energy in HC fuels (including coal) increases with the hydrogen to carbon ratio. So NG is the best and coal the worst from a green house gas point of view.

According to the numbers on the site given below, the CO2 savings is almost 29% for substituting NG for oil.

NaturalGas.org

 

[samclem]

Substituting natural gas for oil does reduce CO2 emissions because you get more energy per carbon from natural gas than you do from oil.

The energy in HC fuels (including coal) increases with the hydrogen to carbon ratio. So NG is the best and coal the worst from a green house gas point of view.

According to the numbers on the site given below, the CO2 savings is almost 29% for substituting NG for oil.

NaturalGas.org

But, burning natural gas produces far more water vapor than burning oil (per BTU produced), and water vapor is a potent contributor to atmospheric warming. So, burning oil and NG contribute about the same amount of greenhouse gases on an instantaneous basis. The difference, according to some, is that water vapor is less of a problem because the feedback loop is shorter, wheras the feedback loop time for CO2 is longer.

Anyone advocating NG as a means to address climate change needs to also cover the important amount of methane lost to the atmosphere while extracting NG using modern methods. Methane has a very high global warming potential (GWP). This gets overlooked a lot.

 

[Zathras]

But, burning natural gas produces far more water vapor than burning oil (per BTU produced), and water vapor is a potent contributor to atmospheric warming. So, burning oil and NG contribute about the same amount of greenhouse gases on an instantaneous basis. The difference, according to some, is that water vapor is less of a problem because the feedback loop is shorter, wheras the feedback loop time for CO2 is longer.

'Shorter' is actually seconds to days (at most).
CO2 is decades. Your statement is really a stretch.

You second point regarding additional methane production is a good issue. However, I don't think it balances the lower co2 from burning Nat gas vs oil.

 

[Rustic23]

Jazz,
Have you looked at the Corn farmer lately. I believe you will find the farmer is making a profit while corn is going sky high. Why would you think the oil producing companies would be any different?

 

[samclem]

'Shorter' is actually seconds to days (at most).
CO2 is decades. Your statement is really a stretch.

You second point regarding additional methane production is a good issue. However, I don't think it balances the lower co2 from burning Nat gas vs oil.

And methane is decades, too.
All this presumes that we understand the feedback loops and interdependencies, and that any resultant (possible) change is a bad thing. ( . . talk about a stretch!)

 

[Zathras]

And methane is decades, too.
All this presumes that we understand the feedback loops and interdependencies, and that any resultant (possible) change is a bad thing. ( . . talk about a stretch!)

Bold mine.
You have me at a bit of a loss. I have never argued that "any resultant (possible) change is a bad thing".
I also have never heard anyone argue that any change in the climate is a bad thing. Where did you get the idea that anyone holds this position?

And yes, methane is many years to decades as well. Which is why I compliment you on your second point. Few people consider that aspect.

 

[samclem]

I also have never heard anyone argue that any change in the climate is a bad thing. Where did you get the idea that anyone holds this position?

I'm sure we both have a common understanding of events and are somehow talking past each other. I have heard many people (A. Gore most notably) who maintain that a particular change in climate (warming) is a "bad thing." 30 years ago, when some scientists postulated that the earth was cooling, that was also cited by some as a "bad thing."
Or, to put it another way, I've seen no reporting in the popular press of UN reports concerning changes in climate that would be a "good thing." Some might conclude that, remarkably, the climate we happen to have today is the best one possible. Hmmm.
The whole reason climate change is a widely discussed issue is due to the claimed deleterious effects of such change. Otherwise, a small change in the global temps would just be an interesting observation that fails to catch the attention of the public and policymakers. It would be like the ongoing gradually shift in magnetic poles--interesting, but generally insignificant (well, until . . .)

 

[Texas Proud]

I'm sure we both have a common understanding of events and are somehow talking past each other. I have heard many people (A. Gore most notably) who maintain that a particular change in climate (warming) is a "bad thing." 30 years ago, when some scientists postulated that the earth was cooling, that was also cited by some as a "bad thing."
Or, to put it another way, I've seen no reporting in the popular press of UN reports concerning changes in climate that would be a "good thing." Some might conclude that, remarkably, the climate we happen to have today is the best one possible. Hmmm.
The whole reason climate change is a widely discussed issue is due to the claimed deleterious effects of such change. Otherwise, a small change in the global temps would just be an interesting observation that fails to catch the attention of the public and policymakers. It would be like the ongoing gradually shift in magnetic poles--interesting, but generally insignificant (well, until . . .)

Well, I will say that they DO say why it is a bad thing.... that there will be ice melting and the oceans will rise and a lot of people living along the coasts at various places will be living in the ocean... etc. etc. etc.... I also remembe reading that we would have more violent storms (hurricane, tornado etc.) that kill more people... and that growing food will be harder...

If all it was was an interesting thing.... then I am sure they would ignore it...

 

[Independent]

I don't believe anyone argued that our military is solely used to protect oil interests.
Just that some of our military expenditures (and probably foreign aid) are to protect our interest in oil safe.

As it should be. IMHO.

Which leads me to the conclusion that we should pay for that fraction of our military with a tax on oil, because the people who use the oil the most get the most benefit.

My suggestion was $1 per gallon of oil, which is $300 billion per year. That's way less than our total military spending.

 

[HFWR]

I'm sure we both have a common understanding of events and are somehow talking past each other. I have heard many people (A. Gore most notably) who maintain that a particular change in climate (warming) is a "bad thing." 30 years ago, when some scientists postulated that the earth was cooling, that was also cited by some as a "bad thing."
Or, to put it another way, I've seen no reporting in the popular press of UN reports concerning changes in climate that would be a "good thing." Some might conclude that, remarkably, the climate we happen to have today is the best one possible. Hmmm.
The whole reason climate change is a widely discussed issue is due to the claimed deleterious effects of such change. Otherwise, a small change in the global temps would just be an interesting observation that fails to catch the attention of the public and policymakers. It would be like the ongoing gradually shift in magnetic poles--interesting, but generally insignificant (well, until . . .)

Al Gore is part of the problem, because he's such a polarizing figure. My take on it is that the results of global warming/climate change are happening faster than the models predicted, and may cause, at some point, a non-linear response in the system. Gradual warming would likely be harmful, but manageable. But a sudden, step-function change could be much less manageable.

Granted, lots of pseudo-science on this subject, but the general trend of both temperature and CO2 looks pretty incontrovertible.

 

[John Galt III]

Anyone else notice that the last time they did the "pump and dump' on oil (2007?) that when gas was $4 a gallon, crude was all the way up to $150 a barrel ? Gas is now $4 a gal, and crude is only $110 approximately. Hmmmm....

 

[W2R]

It's time...

YouTube - Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!"