Peak oil ?

[getterdone]

OK ,Time to wake up, The US will be completely self sufficient in oil at the rate they are going within three years. The US is now self sufficient in natural gas production because of "Hydraulic fracking" This is the drilling technology and its happening all over the US. US production keeps increasing monthly and I look forward to the day when we can say to our enemys in the middle east .Sorry we don't need your oil anymore. Do your own research. CHeck U.S. oil production rising website www.straight.com as an example .
Being able to be self sufficient in energy production in America may fuel an economic boom ,the likes we have never seen. Unless of course we don't go bankrupt first. BIBLEAL Just my humble opinion.

Hi Bibleal, I just wanted to share some thoughts on your post. There seems to be a little confusion on this subject, even by reporters. What the IEA had reported was that the US could be producing an energy surplus in Hydrocarbons, it's a play on words, a lot of people thinks that means oil, but it does'nt, it's mostly about Liquified Natural Gas . As you probably know the price of natural gas is quite low, so in the dollar sense, the US will still be in a energy deficit for the foreseeable future, and will remain an oil importer for a while yet.

Who know's , maybe big companies will start to convert there fleets of trucks to LNG, that would help alot towards energy independence

Just a thought

[daxwc]

Who know's, maybe big companies will start to convert there fleets of trucks to LNG, that would help alot towards energy independence

This should have happened a long time ago in auto's of major cities to combat smog. Change in humans comes hard though; what needs to happen is Government legislates and forces the major oil companies set up their distribution terminals in exchange for tax breaks.

[rlortie]

There is a company chain of truck stop stations here in NW US called "Pilot Truck Stops"... The closest to me is 3/4 mile from my house.

This truck stop acquired the property adjacent to their station and built a rather large LNG-Propane dispensing station. The project was completed over six months ago including the typical fuel station signage. It has never opened for business and the entrances are blocked with concrete abutment blocks.

What is the hold up, no consumers or some other glitch such as Zoning ordinances or local and highway taxation?

PS; By the way, it is illegal for a customer to pump his own gas in the state of Oregon and all stations have attendants, you can 'self-serve' diesel.

Ralph

[preoccupied]

Gold and silver usually go up when oil rises. I opened a Forex trading account about two weeks ago so I can trade gold futures in order to afford the higher inflation prices that are headed our way. So far my account is up nicely.

In my opinion,

I like gold.

I think gold and silver, like all other collectable commodities, is all speculation and is not necessarily tied to inflation. Just because gold and silver used to be currency, doesn't mean it still acts like it. Actual economic factors determine inflation and likely purchasing power, such as peoples interest in draining the market of all available spending money all at once, or the trends like the price of a McDonald's Big Mac.

Oil is so far up speculations butt, of course it would go up with gold speculation, as long as they are all going up on average. And when is the last time anybody has seen speculation go down on average for a long period of time? If speculation went down over a long period of time, you could be pretty sure something like gold or oil or diamonds would go up despite the trend.

While I guess the price of gum has gone up and was inflated, a computer today bought 100 years ago, if possible, would have cost all of the money the most wealthy people then would have had, and thus new technology could mean today's dollars have deflated and everything that is somehow more price-wise was manipulated by a market of individuals through speculation. It's all based on arbitrary meaningless perspectives because the times change so much, but the alternative to that is no new products and the whole market devalues the purchasing power.

About oil - I think,

We have great potential to grow fuel and mine fuel. The more grow fuel the more using fuel in general would be safer on the environment collectively. So to kill two birds with one stone, we should grow as much fuel as possible. But that is not to say we should replace oil with alternative fuels. As energy possibilities increase we should look for new applications for the new surplus in energy. I hear Bill Gates wants to control the weather (hurricanes). That would be a good application for a new energy surplus.

I also think energy prices shouldn't drop because by keeping prices up we could divert extra production into strategic reserves, just saying. Energy prices should try to be a certain price, but despite this they should mine as much energy as possible. This could be done by regulating oil companies to produce as much oil as possible and contributing free oil by regulation to a strategic reserve for the country to try to keep prices at a certain amount. The possibilities then increase after there is a significant reserve, where if the price is desired to be lowered across the board, the reserve could deflate the price of oil by increasing supply by the appropriate amount and the oil companies could be regulated to try to keep prices at the new amount then.

And I think in general that the infrastructure and strategic resources would benefit greatly by regulating corporate entities that produce similar products or natural resources. For example, I would love it if major cable TV and internet providers in the USA contributed from their sales to installing new larger bandwidths. I would suggest capping their profits at an amount and fixing prices until the task is complete, instead of setting a time period or a quota. If it is simply not being done fast enough then allow them to have higher prices and sometimes lower cap in profits. Back in the day, corporations weren't people and by contract they had to serve the community. I don't see why it would be bad if we back to our founding principals some in this respect.

We could probably get foreign oil producers to give us a better deal, you know. It is not always about money, there could be some political or military trade that could be made which would be worth more than the money to the oil producing nation but not very expensive and not in any way compromising on our part. High profile royal weddings, allegiance with fixed amount of immediate military retaliation upon request to their enemies, some invaluable information openness in exchange for cheaper oil, or whatever.

Sincerely,
Preoccupied

[getterdone]

Lots of food for thought in that post

On the subject of regulating the market, I have to disagree, as far as natural gas is concerned, the companies do a good job of regulating itself. When the prices are too low they shut the valve and wait for it to go up rather than give it away. Oil is a different story because its produced all over the world and so many different factors affect the price.

The last paragraph of your post left me scatching my head. I'm not a pacifist, however I dont think that the young people that serve should ever be put in harms way for any other reason than defence. Cheaper oil is not a very good reason to risk anyones life.

[getterdone]

Hi Ralph, I think its a question of what came first , the chicken or the egg.

They must be building these stations in different areas and getting ready for the switch. IMHO this would be good. They say that at current prices, the fuel savings would be approx. 40%,and they'll have the security of a stable price. The fleets that convert will have a big advantage over there competition, the rest will have to convert or risk getting squeezed out

[preoccupied]

Lots of food for thought in that post

On the subject of regulating the market, I have to disagree, as far as natural gas is concerned, the companies do a good job of regulating itself. When the prices are too low they shut the valve and wait for it to go up rather than give it away. Oil is a different story because its produced all over the world and so many different factors affect the price.

The last paragraph of your post left me scatching my head. I'm not a pacifist, however I dont think that the young people that serve should ever be put in harms way for any other reason than defence. Cheaper oil is not a very good reason to risk anyones life.

You disagree with regulating the market? Well, I'm sure you have your reasons. I don't know - if prices are shut down by decreasing production then there is loss of production and the country and its people have less strength. Controlling price sounds good but decreasing production is bad IMO.

Here is some food for thought. I googled "American internet speeds" and the first thing was this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/0 ... 55054.html

So,
In a time when corporate entities and the highest income earners are earning record profits, I would like to pretty strongly claim that the *infrastructure is the reason they have this opportunity to produce. If they do not build a stronger infrastructure over time, which most effectively would be done through temporary profit capping and price fixing at various intervals, the opportunity will fall behind other countries that do do that.

The infrastructure is also the customer base, and if we are not contributing majority of labor and investments towards higher income earner's product consumption, the infrastructure should be paying laborers high enough wages to buy the market that is mostly marketed towards them. Ford paid his employees enough to buy his cars. So regulation would improve the market by allowing the people buying products to earn more money. I spoke about this in my own post about housing.

Are all of you guys Republican and conservative variations? I am an independent swing voter.

[jim_mich]

Gold has gained 56% since I made that post two and a half years ago.

Preoccupied, you dumb socialistic a-hole. Keep the government out. All they do is f### things up. Hot water heaters now grow bacteria because the temperature is set to low. New toilets don't flush. Washing machines stink because they don't use enough water to fully rinse all the dirt away. New dishwashers will have a hard time getting dishes clean with the new government mandates. The government already has its finger in way too many things. Do you really think some government official would be smarter than oil companies in deciding the most economical method of supplying energy needs to the public? What arrogance!!

Many individuals making many individual decisions are the very best method to insure a steady flow of goods and services at a fair price. Those that fail go out of business. Those that do a good job prosper. As I said, keep the government out of things. All they do is f### things up.

That LNG station was probably some government sponsored project. Obviously there is no demand for its services.

In Michigan there are diesel filling stations without any people or buildings. Just insert a special credit-card into the pump and fill up.

[preoccupied]

Gold has gained 56% since I made that post two and a half years ago.

Preoccupied, you dumb socialistic a-hole. Keep the government out. All they do is f### things up. Hot water heaters now grow bacteria because the temperature is set to low. New toilets don't flush. Washing machines stink because they don't use enough water to fully rinse all the dirt away. New dishwashers will have a hard time getting dishes clean with the new government mandates. The government already has its finger in way too many things. Do you really think some government official would be smarter than oil companies in deciding the most economical method of supplying energy needs to the public? What arrogance!!

Many individuals making many individual decisions are the very best method to insure a steady flow of goods and services at a fair price. Those that fail go out of business. Those that do a good job prosper. As I said, keep the government out of things. All they do is f### things up.

That LNG station was probably some government sponsored project. Obviously there is no demand for its services.

In Michigan there are diesel filling stations without any people or buildings. Just insert a special credit-card into the pump and fill up.

Holy f### on a f### sandwich!

Jim you are referring to the advantage the market has with game theory verses mandated decisions by the government. If you look at game theory specifically in various topics you will see that altruism exists because all variables of selfishness are collectively considered. Therefore based on the best math available, if the invisible hand of the market exhibits altruism it should be better off. So just because a lot of unintelligent regulations are being mandated, doesn't mean that alternative intelligent regulation wouldn't be beneficial or even *necessary. You might agree that there is a lot less altruism in the market than is necessary to have the strongest infrastructure possible.

The regulations you mentioned is purely political. I agree with your arguments about the toilets and other product inequalities caused by stupid regulations. They seem to be very stupid regulations for legitimate reasons. I would ask for the regulations to be changed, if it were up to me. AND it appears that the regulations you mentioned suck because they are mandates motivated by fear alone and artificial preservation of some kind - preserving, water, heat and energy with no real measure of the need because of no game theory involved. In that case there is no mathematical basis for the regulations.

Open your mind! I'm not spouting random fears. I'm thinking (at least a little) about what I am asserting or have an opinion about.

[jim_mich]

I've been around for almost 2/3 of a century. I've seen a lot of government regulation. Most all of it has caused as many or even more problems as were solved. More government is never the solution. Every time government gets involved it cost more for less. All regulations are purely political. People are threatened by force do to what some bureaucrat demands. There are never SMART regulations. All regulations are dumb.

[getterdone]

Goverment Regulations?

In Canada we have brail on drive-thru ATMs??

[preoccupied]

I've been around for almost 2/3 of a century. I've seen a lot of government regulation. Most all of it has caused as many or even more problems as were solved. More government is never the solution. Every time government gets involved it cost more for less. All regulations are purely political. People are threatened by force do to what some bureaucrat demands. There are never SMART regulations. All regulations are dumb.

There are 6 proposals that I know about for Michigan in the general election. They would all create or change regulation.

This is what I got from my Representative about PROPOSAL 12-3 for Michigan in the general election on Nov. 6.

"A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY

THIS PROPOSAL WOULD:

Require electric utilities to provide at least 25% of their annual retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources, which are wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower, by 2025.

Limit to not more than 1% per year electric utility rate increases charged to consumers only to achieve compliance with the renewable energy standard.

Allow annual extensions of the deadline to meet the 25% standard in order to prevent rate increases over a 1% limit.

Require the legislature to enact additional laws to encourage the use of Michigan made equipment and employment of Michigan residents.

People voting YES say:

This proposal will require new investments in Michigan infrastructure, creating new Michigan jobs and helping to turn our economy around.

The proposal in the long run could decrease energy prices.

Switching to renewable energy sources protects our rivers, lakes and air.


People voting NO say:

Energy rates are too high in Michigan already and could be higher because of this amendment. Michigan already has a renewable target of 10% by 2015, and providers are making progress toward reaching this standard.

Energy policy should not be included in the Constitution.

A significant amount of the energy would come from wind. Installing the necessary wind turbines would alter the state’s landscape."

I think what proposal 12-3 is trying to do is create more renewable energy use, but this would require a lot of business start ups and investments on the part of electric companies. I don't know if all of the factors to cause the wanted renewable energy use are calculated. For one, 25% seems like a random number. It takes no consideration for the production involved or cost of. And asking for over 1% not to be added to price of electricity to cause the infrastructure to be built assumes that either the electric companies will do all of the infrastructure building using just a 1% increase in revenue or that they will use a willing amount of their own funds to meet the random 25% deadline. Using their own funds, not added by market changes, will be fought by share holders and managers, so only price fixing and profit *capping would be able to create the environment for incentives to getting it done. I didn't see anything about profit capping in the description.

I don't think I will support PROPOSAL 12-3 because there is already 10% by 2015 in place. And I can't necessarily agree with plans to make random new quotas based on no game theory of any kind.

I am curious about PROPOSAL 12-2 because I saw a documentary on Walmart and it would be pretty radical if Walmart employees got to be paid better, even if it were an insignificantly small pay raise, so that government programs would take them off of their tits. Walmart asks their employees to get government aid because they will not pay them more, despite being able to easily, since they are so profitable. Walmart F###s their associates, according to the documentary I saw.

I have not discussed PROPOSAL 12-2 with anybody. This would be a great, since it's almost time to vote. Jim_mich! - What is PROPOSAL 12-2 to you? If you don't mind me asking.

[terry5732]

Prop 12-2 is just words on paper

The Walmart employees already have the right to form a union

Including public workers is just wrong. Even FDR recognized that.

[rlortie]

---


Well done. Trouble is, people voting for him will NOT understand this....so sad....
Subject: Abbott & Costello explain today's unemployment


COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 8.1%.
COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
ABBOTT: No, that's 14.7%.
COSTELLO: You just said 8.1%.
ABBOTT: 8.1% Unemployed.
COSTELLO: Right 8.1% out of work.
ABBOTT: No, that's 14.7%.
COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 14.7% unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, that's 8.1%.
COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 8.1% or14.7%?
ABBOTT: 8.1% are unemployed. 14.7% are out of work.
COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, Obama said you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.
COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!
ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.
COSTELLO: What point?
ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.
COSTELLO: To whom?
ABBOTT: The unemployed.
COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.
ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles that would count as less unemployment?
ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?
ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how Obama gets it to 8.1%. Otherwise it would be 14.7%. He doesn't want you to read about 14.7% unemployment.
COSTELLO: That would be tough on his reelection.
ABBOTT: Absolutely.
COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
ABBOTT: Correct.
COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
ABBOTT: Bingo.
COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to have Obama's supporters stop looking for work.
ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like the Obama Economy Czar.
COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!
ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like Obama.

[getterdone]

funny but true, and what about the young people still trying to get their first job, they dont get counted either