Key is that it will COST huge amounts of money to move to alternative energy, and it will take time. No one has even come up with a real plan to make the switch, or know what the alternative is going to be.

I agree that the cost is huge- and that’s why private industry needs the government to come up with both the plan and the best alternatives.
…..
bayam on June 18, 2008 at 4:37 PM

So private industry needs the government to do their planning and find their alternatives?

In a word, ROTFLOL.

Reagan said it best: government is not the solution, government is the problem.

Government killed off nuclear power, which would eliminate having to burn oil to produce electricity.

Government is the reason we haven’t had a refinery built in this country in something like 30 years.

Government is the reason why refineries that were in this country have closed up shop or moved elsewhere,

Government is the reason we haven’t already drilled in ANWR and offshore.

Government is the reason gas has to be specially formulated for every state and region to have just the right blend of additives, meaning that gasoling produced for one state can only be purchased in that state.

And in the face of record oil prices, the government’s action is to make oil executives testify at a Congressional hearing so the politicians can grandstand about how serious they take the issue.

The government can’t solve the problems, but it could contribute greatly by learning when to get out of the way.

Monkei on June 19, 2008 at 7:08 PM

Basic economics. What percent of profit do you think that oil companies make?

Wow, you are putting a lot of faith in companies that have made record profits for no reason at all to all of a sudden bring oil prices down just because the supply is greater. We are already using less oil which means there is already more supply …so just what the heck are you talking about!

Deal?

How’s that?

wise_man on June 19, 2008 at 10:35 AM

‘Bout what I expected: puerile pontification.

bayam on June 19, 2008 at 12:34 AM

For someone who wants to spew non-sense, you sure take the cake… or should I say split pea?

I have read everythingyou have said.. and it is the same CRAP I see everyday. How about you make some effort to learn more about Oil and Natural Gas, how you explore and produce then worrying about the open market!

And BTW… when you said Jim Rogers was not a Hedge Fund “Legend” or even involved in Hedge Funds…. I think you are lying to yourself! Jim Rodgers INVENTED the Quantum Hedge Fund! I even used your freaking Wikipedia crap website, So stick it will you!

And your evidence for this claim is?

I believe that there are many plans in the hopper, but they have to be cost effective. Having the government direct the show will not make them so. Instead, the layers of bureaucracy will be expensive and yield less than optimum results.

BTW Energy concerns involve more than fueling cars.

Amazingly it looks like the Republicans might actually be getting smart on the issue of drilling for domestic oil. Yesterday President Bush came out in support of …

…John McCain’s plan to lift the ban on fresh oil drilling off the US coast a….

misterpeasea on June 19, 2008 at 2:44 AM

LOL, you’re lying about me again. Well, turnabout is fair play. So I guess I get to lie about you in response.

Here’s a lie about misterpeasea. He’s a good conservative who doesn’t want Obama to win the presidency.

Here’s another lie. misterpeasea never goes to the daily kos, and the huffington post to get his talking points about how horrible McCain is.

And one more lie is that misterpeasea always tells the god’s honest truth about McCain. No matter his other disagreements, he’s a stand up guy who debates honestly and never accuses others of things that are not true. misterpeasea would ‘never’ do that, because misterpeasea wants what is best for his country, no matter his personal feelings about a candidate that he didn’t vote for.

How’s that?

“For years, the president has pushed Congress to expand our domestic oil supply, but Democrats in Congress have consistently blocked such action,” she said.

She said? Fight the smears!!

Can I ask why you are for this?

upinak on June 18, 2008 at 3:40 PM

Bipartisanship?

I’m not for it. In fact, I am vehemently, adamantly opposed to bipartisanship, 99.9% of the time. It’s John McCain who is for it. Bipartisanship! Getting things done! (It’s on his talking points page where the inaptly named wise_man goes to report his efforts and get his reward points.)

Bipartisanship leads to really bad outcomes, like:

McCain-Feingold
McCain-Lieberman
McCain-Kennedy.

It takes bipartisanship to push through really crappy legislation that screws America and the American population.

Tell us again, “wise”_man, how John McCain really isn’t upset about “obscene profits.” “Obscene profits” is just his pet name for profits, because he likes them so much. He calls his Hispanic Outreach Director “Obscene Juan,” and his favorite wife “Obscene Cindy,” and his favorite Senator “Obscene Teddy.” And don’t forget his favorite pristine nature preserve, “Obscene ANWR.”

Last but not least, his favorite suck-up operative, “Obscene wise_man.”

Is it your hope by spewing gibberish about your fears that it will arrange itself into cogent thoughts. What part of my posting did you have a hard time with. You even highlighted a thoughtful passage. To repeat your highlight:

“My intention is not to lower prices-although that would happen-it is simply to harvest our own and contribute to the world’s supply of oil. Meanwhile as an added bonus, trillions of dollars would stay here. Is this getting to be too difficult a subject for you?”

Is that something you are against? Pity and to the point I thought. Reading Barron’s won’t help with your choice.

You do realize of course that your phobias about energy are what drive a bubble. Well, actually you would know that, as you have already stated how much money you make by being insightful. There’s a book you could write. “How I used Myself as a Contrary Indicator”. You could go on to tell folks that whenever you started foaming about things economical and feigned concern for the little man you shorted your own instincts. Ah yes, Bayam in lights, I can see it now. People actually listening.

Here’s a chart of the next bull market when the crude oil bubble splats.

http://www.mrci.com/pdf/dxc.pdf

Don’t forget our psychic bet. Crude oil prices will be lower in ten years than they are today, substantially lower especially if the government doesn’t get involved.

The US drilling in Alaska or offshore won’t fundamentally change the supply-demand equation. America simply doesn’t hold significant crude oil reserves (shale is differently). People are incredibly misinformed on this reality.

The new figures say differently. And with the higher prices, it is economical to extract oil from deposits that we could not reach before.

Use the new figures that show deep deposits that we found in the last few years. Brazil isn’t the only nation that’s been using the products of Moore’s Law and new sonar/seismograph algorithms to find things. Of course, some of “our” findings are owned by Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum, but they are reasonably reliable allies.

YES WE CAN drill our way out of this. What’s more, if you believe that that USA is the greatest force for good in the world as many of us here do, there is a moral imperative to do so. That doesn’t mean abandoning hybrids, nuclear, wind, and solar, but it does mean that we need to ensure that America’s economy and fighting forces will have all the fuel they need for as long as they need it.

You continue to dodge the points made. Barron’s, wall street, Saudi profits?, peak oil, ANWR, Bush supporters talking econ, what the hell are you smoking? A focus on drilling only?
Chinese and Indians reaching parity with us-now you have moved on to the crack pipe. You really have not a clue. A tip, “It’s better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and leave no doubt!” BDS has taken you around the bend.

Look I’ll repeat this again: I added a Dollar chart to confirm your fears :)

Nice dodge Bayam.

You mentioned Intel and solar energy. Hmmm. Private sector leading the way. You are starting to get it. The private sector allocates and determines things very well, thank you. I certainly trust that secret hand, as they say, rather than the Al “I’m not a moron” Gore’s of the world directing traffic.

But back to my larger point. We would be pumping our own oil, not someone else’s. My intention is not to lower prices-although that would happen-it is simply to harvest our own and contribute to the world’s supply of oil. Meanwhile as an added bonus, trillions of dollars would stay here. Is this getting to be too difficult a subject for you?

As to Intel, a fine company but a bad investment these last 10 years along with most of the tech stocks that caught up in the tech bubble of 1992-2000. I give you a chart to gaze upon in your leisure. The fact that I think the same will be happening with crude oil as it approaches $170 a barrel is besides the point.

This is tech and housing

http://www.investech.com/

This is crude oil

http://www.mrci.com/pdf/cl.pdf

and just as the Empire state building came to represent the excesses of the 1920’s here’s the crude symbol:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080610094436.jmv7az8n&show_article=1&image=large

it even looks like the crude chart.

Remember what I have said. Crude oil will be lower in ten years than it is now. If Jimmy Rogers disagrees then using your logic I must be smarter than him. Oh well, he’ll get over it.

the dollar as promised

http://www.mrci.com/pdf/dxc.pdf

Crude oil will be lower in ten years than it is now.

Oil demand is expected to increase by over 30% in the next 12 years. But I’m not going to argue with brilliant oil price strategists who say that it’s going lower, any day now! I’ve made too much money investing against people like you so it would be more appropriate to express my gratitude. But it pains me to see so many people get screwed by high oil prices while our government doesn’t take any real action to change the long-term dynamics.

The Apollo program wasn’t started because anyone really knew how or had developed the technology to put a man on the moon.

My intention is not to lower prices-although that would happen-it is simply to harvest our own and contribute to the world’s supply of oil. Meanwhile as an added bonus, trillions of dollars would stay here. Is this getting to be too difficult a subject for you.

Nothing quite like a GW Bush supporter trying to share his views on economic policy. It’s great that you’ve heard of Intel. If you read Barron’s, you’d know that many on Wall Street want to see the government take real action- beyond drilling regulations. Many global fund managers see current, macro changes coupled with high oil pricdes as threatening the American way of life. (A falling dollar matched by rising incomes in developing economies means that more Chinese and Indians will achieve purchasing parity with US citizens.) A focus on drilling only isn’t the right approach.

You seem to have trouble understanding the highly liquid nature of large markets such as crude oil. The Saudis aren’t going to profit any less because Americans buy a little more oil from ‘American’ sources. At peak output of 800k barrels a day, ANWR doesn’t solve our problems. Nor will the massive wealth transfer from the West to the Middle East be slowed- something the Wall Street Journal has noted may represent Bush’s greatest legacy. Lasting, high energy prices will continue to hurt the economy, regardless of where the profits end up.

bayam on June 18, 2008 at 9:45 PM

Economics 101: Increase supply, price goes down.

There we go again… 1 million barrels a day from ANWR won’t do jack to worldwide oil prices.

bayam on June 18, 2008 at 3:48 PM

A million barrels here and a million barrels there and pretty soon your talking about some real oil.

You mentioned Intel and solar energy. Hmmm. Private sector leading the way. You are starting to get it. The private sector allocates and determines things very well, thank you. I certainly trust that secret hand as they say rather than the Al “I’m not a moron” Gore’s of the world directing traffic.

But back to my larger point. We would be pumping our own oil, not someone else’s. My intention is not to lower prices-although that would happen-it is simply to harvest our own and contribute to the world’s supply of oil. Meanwhile as an added bonus, trillions of dollars would stay here. Is this getting to be too difficult a subject for you.

As to Intel, a fine company but a bad investment these last 10 years along with most of the tech stocks that caught up in the tech bubble of 1992-2000. I give you a chart to gaze upon in your leisure. The fact that I think the same will be happening with crude oil as it approaches $170 a barrel is besides the point.

This is tech and housing

http://www.investech.com/

This is crude oil

http://www.mrci.com/pdf/cl.pdf

and just as the Empire state building came to represent the excesses of the 1920’s here’s the crude symbol:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080610094436.jmv7az8n&show_article=1&image=large

it even looks like the crude chart.

Remember what I have said. Crude oil will be lower in ten years than it is now. If Jimmy Rogers disagrees then using your logic I must be smarter than him. Oh well, he’ll get over it.

We are paying the consequences today for the failed policies of Bill Clinton 12 years ago. Vetoing offshore drilling and locking up hundreds of thousands of acres of federal lands.

Supply and demand is a very powerful mechanism, not to mention the arrogance of asking for more and more oil from the middle east and refusing to use any more of our own.