BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'

Subject: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 08 - 10:41 AM

The Washington Post provides some ionsights into the character and salaries of the leaders of the United States' largest oil companies.

Worth a read.

Excerpt:

"As oil hit a new record of $134 a barrel yesterday, lawmakers summoned energy executives to Capitol Hill for the latest in a series of ritual immolations. But this one felt more like "The Price Is Right."

This Story
Skyrocketing Oil Prices Stump Experts
Oil Execs Tell Congress: Don't Blame Us
Washington Sketch: Pumping for Answers
Transcript: Washington Sketch
View All Items in This Story
View Only Top Items in This Story
ConocoPhillips executive John Lowe -- come on down!

"Last year, what was your compensation?" Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy asked.

"I don't know the exact amount," the oilman demurred.

"Is it over, say, $100,000 a year?" coaxed Leahy, playing Bob Barker.

"Yes, sir."

"Considerably over $100,000?"

"Yes, sir, it would be."

"Over $1 million a year?"

Higher, Bob, higher! Lowe's cash compensation was $5.7 million in 2007, according to Forbes magazine, and stock options worth $10.9 million bring the price tag to -- ding, ding ding -- $16.6 million."





A

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 May 08 - 10:47 AM

I listened to the hearing yesterday where Big Oil faced a Congressional panel.

When one of them was asked how he justifies unprecendented profits for oil companies when at the same time Americans at the pump and in their homes are hurting, he gave a bizarre smile and said, We like to answer that we re-invest it.

The smile is what lingers.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Teribus
Date: 23 May 08 - 11:07 AM

Interesting piece by Anatole Kaletsky in the Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article3980797.ece

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 08 - 01:54 PM

THat is interesting, T; as is the counter chat. I had no idea copper had risen so high; when I was investigating the salvaged copper market it was around 32 cents.

If oil is just another bubble, drifting free from fundamental demand supply balances, do we expect it to burst? South Sea spices and Dutch tulips are both still back in touch with their actual demand-driven markets. The mania has evaporated from both bubbles, long since. The apparency is that oil supply will not be able to drift back to a saner pricepoint once the panic-and-manic insanity dies out, because it is not a renewable resource. What's your take onthis?

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 May 08 - 05:18 PM

The price in the futures market keeps going up, as the demand from the fast-growing new powers, China, India, etc., continues to grow.

Execs get big bucks, some too much, but the total, if removed from price, is not enough to lower that price a penny. The execs are a convenient target, but a minor one.

Everyone wants a car, a house, central heating, an unlimited choice of goods and foodstuffs and entertainment. Energy costs are just part of the increase.

Too many people!

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Joe_F
Date: 23 May 08 - 09:27 PM

I am not an economist, but I have been told:

The supply & the demand for oil are both inelastic in the short run (in the short run, there are no alternative sources & no substitutes). Therefore, the price, according to the textbook story (which I think has a good deal of myth in it, but never mind), is given by the intersection of two steep, nearly parallel curves, and can change quite a bit in response to even a small shift in either of them.

It's an oligopoly -- a market with a few sellers & many buyers. In the short run, one or a few sellers can affect the price unilaterally. There is a continual temptation among them to form conspiracies, which there is a continual temptation to betray.

In such a market, one must expect unstable prices.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Peace
Date: 23 May 08 - 10:14 PM

No point talkin' morals in a whore house.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 May 08 - 11:02 PM

The sellers affect the futures market by reducing or increasing their throughput, or plausible threats to reduce or increase throughput. They may act individually, or in the case of OPEC, usually in consort. Most items on the futures market may be said to be a situation definable as 'oligopoly'- hog bellies, corn, rice, copper, aluminum, etc., as well as petroleum products.

The supply is also limited by refining facilities, transport, disruption of supplies by events such as war, etc. , but especially by the growth of new markets.

In an article headlining the NY Times 'Week in Review,' April 20, John Hess, CEO of the Hess Corporation, warned that an oil crisis was looming if the world didn't deal with runaway demand that strained supplies. J. van der Veer, Shell Oil CEO, said recently that "the energy outlook does not look rosy."
Suplies are already stretched. Countries outside OPEC, which since the 1970s have been the source of new oil discoveries, have said they expect little or no growth this year in oil production. These countries include Canada, the biggest supplier of both oil and gas to the United States, Mexico (third largest) and Nigeria (4th largest).
The OPEC countries are seeing record revenues, and see little reason to increase production, which in essence mortgages their future.

Fourteen of the Top 20 oil companies are state-owned, leaving western oil companies such as inaccurately maligned Exxon-Mobil, etc., in control of less than 10 per cent of the world's oil and gas reserves. The five largest international oil companies found less oil last year than they pumped out of the ground, despite spending over $100 billion on exploration.

How to save? A few suggestions.
Reduce distance driven 25 percent. For the U. S., the amount saved would be close to the amount of oil imported from Saudi Arabia, Angola and Ecuador.
Combine trips. Plan ahead. Vacation closer to home. Use car pools and public transit if possible.

The article suggests using more diesel vehicles because they are more efficient- but with the demand for air conditioning, room for kids and hockey equipment, etc., This may not help much. Large SUVs are comfortable and roomy, but the new generation of smaller SUVs is excellent (my younger daughter, who needs carrying capacity because she lives in the country, changed from a large Toyota 4-runner to a Santa Fe and saves several hundred dollars every year).

Good article- "The Big Thirst," Jad Mouawad, New York Times, April 20, 2008, Week in Review Section, pages 1 and 4.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 May 08 - 10:07 PM

Futures traders are cashing in their gains and the price is down a bit today. Item on BBC News.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 25 May 08 - 12:01 AM

Global economic greed rules! Thank the politicians who got us into this mess! Brian Mulroony , Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher come back to haunt us!

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 08 - 11:18 AM

The Big Thirst , By JAD MOUAWAD, Published: April 20, 2008 in the New York times, referenced above.

"Rising prices and fears about the security of future supplies finally persuaded Congress last year to approve the first increase in fuel efficiency standards in 30 years, raising the average fleet-wide standards by 40 percent to 35 miles a gallon by 2020. The push, which was resisted by American carmakers for years, is underwhelming. The same goal could be reached overnight if everyone drove a Honda: the Japanese carmakerÕs fleet already averages 35 miles a gallon.

ÒThe country has been living beyond its means,Ó said Vaclav Smil, a prominent energy expert at the University of Manitoba. ÒThe situation is dire. We need to do relative sacrifices. But people donÕt realize how dire the situation is.Ó"

Some excellent insights into the reserves and consumption numbers.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 May 08 - 02:39 PM

That Honda claim of 35 mpg is inflated. In another thread recently, I posted figures for a number of popular cars. Here is the Honda lineup:
Honda Accord- 4cyl, 2.4L         City 22, Hwy 31
Honda Accord- 6 cyl 3.5L         City 19, Hwy 29
Honda Civic- 4 cyl, 1.8L       City 26, Hwy 31
Honda Civic- 2L manual          City 21, Hwy 29 (needs Premium)
Honda S2000- --                City 18, Hwy 25 (")
Honda Odyssey- 6 cyl 3.5L       City 17, Hwy 25
Ridgeline Pickup-                City 15, Hwy 20
CRV 4WD-                         City 20, Hwy 26
Element 4WD-                     City 19, Hwy 24
Pilot 4WD                        City 15, Hwy 20

Several Makes have equivalent figures. The Toyota Prius is best-
Toyota Prius-                   City 48, Hwy 45

Chevy Malibu is popular, but not their most economical vehicle- Costs about the same to run as a Honda Accord.
Malibu- 4cyl 2.4L                City 22, Hwy 32
Malibu- 6 cyl 3.5L               City 18, Hwy 29

Figures from the government. Most models sold in the U. S. and Canada are listed.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov.feg/findacar.htm


Lots of nonsensical or inaccurate claims abound.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 08 - 04:13 PM

A 6-cylinder 2007 RAV4 gets 20 miles to 22 miles per gallon in mixed driving.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 25 May 08 - 04:23 PM

Most of the numbers claimed prior to this year were "expected" mileage under set conditions and never reflected real life in the first place. Although the standard was just increased, the way the expected mileage calculations were figured was changed. As a result almost all of the models, regardless of maker to a hit to their claims.

It used to amuse me that my '68 Mustang with a 289 CI engine which was made almost entirely of steel, weighed less and got better gas mileage than my brother's '82 Trans Am with a 305 CI engine. Alot of the latter was plastic!

Don't let anyone be an apologist for Big Oil! It's no conspiracy theory, they do manipulate the market with their practices.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: bankley
Date: 25 May 08 - 05:04 PM

a good book is "It's the Crude, Dude" by Linda McQuaid,

also 'Crossing the Rubicon-The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil"   by Michael Ruppert

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 May 08 - 06:15 PM

More nonsense about "big oil."

Only 7% of the world's oil reserves are controlled by the big private oil companies- Exxon-Mobil, Shell, BP, Conoco-Phillips, Chevron, Total, etc. They spent 100 billion in exploration, and found less than they sold. (See other threads)
The bulk belongs to state-owned concerns: Saudi-Aramco, Iran, Iraq, Pemex (the article considers only liquid oil reserves, Canada's oil sands are left out). The first three named have about 45% of the liquid reserves.
A brief article in the Washington Times: http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080524/BUSINESS/437976751/1001

Canada is the No. 1 supplier to the U. S., followed by Saudi Aramco, Mexico, and Nigeria.

McQuaid's book is interesting, but her premise, perhaps OK in the miniscule mind of Bush, is off the mark.

Refineries are expensive, new and larger ones are being built offshore, so that much refined product is imported to the U. S. along with crude. (figures in other threads)

So-called big oil no longer calls the tune. They are competing for product in a world filled with growing, thirsty giants.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Peace
Date: 25 May 08 - 07:05 PM

"They are competing for product in a world filled with growing, thirsty giants."

Big thirsty giants with big armies, too.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 May 08 - 07:11 PM

It must also be realized that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of ordinary people, depend on pension funds, savings and loans, bank and other investment options that own 'big oil' stocks, or are individually invested in these oil companies. And hundreds of thousands depend on petroleum and its products for their jobs.

"Big oil' is not responsible for the ills of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 May 08 - 07:56 PM

Brian Mulroony, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher come back to haunt us!

Come back? They never left. They're all still NeoCon/BuShite heroes.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 25 May 08 - 09:41 PM

I still don't understand what all the fuss is about in the US, petrol prices are half what they are here in UK/Eire!

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 08 - 11:20 PM

You would understand, Jim Martin, if your prices doubled in 60 days, methinks.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 26 May 08 - 04:15 PM

And UK drivers benefit from a lot fewer miles than we have in the US

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 26 May 08 - 04:33 PM

Very telling, the term "re-invest".

I wonder how much of the profit goes into the futures market bidding up the prices?

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 May 08 - 05:34 PM

I keep remembering that pained, twisted smile that I mentioned above. Wonder what was going on in his head. Could be that it was just because he knew that he wouldn't be believed. Or it could be that he's not as good an actor as the position requires.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 26 May 08 - 05:39 PM

He was imagining the tar and feathers waiting for him in the cloakroom!

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: GUEST,robomatic
Date: 26 May 08 - 08:10 PM

I 'member back in '98, '99 when a barrel of crude was going below $10. and there were 'experts telling the media that this would go on for years.

No one was holding bake sales for the oil companies.

The present events have been long time coming, and have been expected for a long time.

You can check the web for an article that was published in Scientific American called "The End Of Cheap Oil". One of the best explanations of where we are, I think it was published in '98 if not earlier. I read it through at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 May 08 - 08:58 PM

Until 1972, the price was below $20/bbl. In 1999, the price dipped briefly to about $13/bbl (Asian economic crisis), by in 2000 it was back to over $20/bbl. The upward climb began in approx. 2003, up to $60/bbl in 2006.
The median price has been $26.50 over the period 1970-present. Charts and history at WTRG:
Oil price history

The major oil companies do not dominate oil production and prices; state-owned oil and the futures market call the tune today. Like all commodity prices, there are wide swings in prices.

OPEC was founded in 1960 with five members, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. By 1971, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Libya, Algeria and Nigeria joined OPEC.

The WTRG website linked above gives a detailed analysis of oil prices and the reasons for price shifts. A fascinating story.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 08 - 09:18 PM

What is interesting about this history of oil prices is that the beginning of the current ramp-up and Cheney's secret meetings with oil executives, which he would never come clean about, are almost exactly date-coincident, within the resolution afforded by the graph.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 May 08 - 10:07 PM

The chart shown by Amos is one of several from the WTRG article.
The Iraq war shut down the Irag production, which still has not recovered to its pre-war level. To this extent, Bush-Cheney caused a sharp price increase, as supply was disrupted.
Coincidental were the rather frantic efforts by China to find secure supplies and the Russian takeover of private oil companies. Venezuela and Ecuador are pushing out the private companies. Add to this the fact that the private companies have not found much in the way of new reserves, and the futures traders get a bit excited.

Secret meetings with oil execs- which ones and why? Royal Dutch Shell, the largest? British Petroleum? French Total? Or the American companies like Exxon-Mobil (2nd largest)?
Perhaps he wanted someone to take over Iraq production, which of course they wouldn't touch with a ten-foot (or whatever length) pole. OPEC could object and cut off or re-direct sales from Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon et al. to other eager customers like the European Union, China, India, Russia, etc.

Since Canada is the No. 1 supplier of crude and refined oil to the United States, perhaps Cheney was unfolding a secet plan to invade Canada and give them a chance to control the energy resources--- Now, isn't that a thought? And all that land in wheat, which could be converted to growing 'biofuel'?
Canada, the 51st state, whether the Canucks like it or not?

(How does anyone keep anything secret anymore?)

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 May 08 - 10:31 PM

Australia is already the defacto "51st state" .... :-P

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Peace
Date: 27 May 08 - 12:18 AM

Well, if Canada becomes the 52nd state, then we'll all be playin' with a full deck . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 27 May 08 - 08:59 AM

Railways need to make a come-back in a monumental way to reduce the amount of fuel wasted in transportation of people and goods by road!

A complete re-think is also going to have to take place by governments and all of us in the way we shop, the obsession with 'just-in-time' flows of goods will have to be re-thought as this is an extremely un-sustainable way of going on! Don't even get me started on 'food-miles', especially of organic produce which should be grown locally!

All future planning of factories/warehouses should ensure, ideally, that they be located by an existing railway or, if absolutley necessary, then a railway be built to serve these facilities. Again, ideally, they should be clustered to maximuse use of the railway infrastructure.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 May 08 - 09:17 AM

... except the pollies, obviously... :-P

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 May 08 - 05:46 PM

Over the last 40 to 50 years our glorious leaders, here in the UK, have presided over a situation in which:

- Public transport has been down-graded and made very expensive and unattractive.

-Freight has been taken off the railways and moved on to the roads.

- The road network has been expanded enormously.

- Planners have designed cities and towns around the motor car.

- Employers have moved out of the cities so that everyone has to drive to work.

- Shopping centres have been built out of town or built in places where people have to drive to them.

And it never seems to have occurred to anyone that increases in the cost, or decreases in the supply, of oil might cause problems (it probably did occur to someone but it was a message no-one wanted to hear).

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 27 May 08 - 06:45 PM

The same type of developments occured here across the pond.

- large suburban neighborhoods built (without sidewalks) with no local "neighborhood" stores.

- SuperWalmart allowed to be built thus closing any shopping centers nearby.

- Bussing to schools required to desegragate schools (good intentions with very expensive results)

- Apartment buildings in the city destroyed to make way for more offices without real investment made in mass transit meaning people have to drive in to the city.

**note: People can take mass transit but this means more time on busses or trains and usually is riskier as far as crime goes and expensive as taking the car in the first place**

Although the investment required would probably be regarded as cost prohibitive, I believe that upgrading the rail system to be somewhat maglev would be a good way to go, reducing the weight of the train itself and increasing the weight of goods it could carry.

I also believe that traffic control to keep rigs off the highway during rush hour would probably be beneficial.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 08 - 07:33 PM

IMagine if the huge undertaking of the Interstate highway system in the U.S. had included maglev interstate transport, making it viable to go from LA to New York. I suspect we'd have a much less oil-dependent economy. At the time, of course, there was no scarcity and OPEC was still a future event.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 27 May 08 - 07:48 PM

Perhaps we should also rethink the use of canals for transport. Several small scale canals, such as the Chesapeake & Ohio (C&O) were actually bought out by the railroads to avoid competition. Barges can transport a humongous load compared to rail transit

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 May 08 - 08:28 PM

"large suburban neighborhoods built (without sidewalks) with no local "neighborhood" stores"


I'm not making this up, you know.

There is a little town called 'Plainlands'. There was a butcher next to the highway & a local crossroads - great local quality meat. A short distance away was built a Woolies small supermarket with a couple of shops.

Some idiot on the cross road then tried to drive his car with several family members thru the middle of a B Double petrol tanker (they have an extra tanker trailer as well as a full load on board) doing 100 kmph on the double road highway... the burning mess ended under a main feed HV power pole, which caused loss of power over a considerable area. According to the Aussie 'political rules of road improvement', this meant that several million dollars were then spent to build an overpass and cloverleaf spaghetti junction.

This went BETWEEN the butcher shop and the Woolies - thus making it IMPOSSIBLE to walk from one to the other without becoming roadkill - and one needs to drive round a mile long loop to get from one to the other, if you can merge into the traffic...

Great planning, guys...

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 27 May 08 - 08:47 PM

I believe you!

They also saved money on the roadways by making them narrow, too narrow for you to safely ride your bicycle to the nearest stores as well.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 May 08 - 09:05 PM

A good point has been raised. American railroads are in sad shape. Public transport in the cities takes forever if any changes are necessary.

The neighborhood without stores, or a small nearby mall that must be driven to, are the rule in newer housing developments (since WW2) in the U. S. and Canada.
A small shopping center with medium-size grocery (limited choice), restaurant, specialty ladies clothing, vet, dentist, coffee shop, florist and drug store is a mile away, but major stores or most doctor's offices require a drive of several miles.
Public transportation from home to job is fair IF one works in the city center office towers, but getting anywhere else requires a car or hours on the bus-rail system. Many jobs now are not in the city center, but are in far flung 'industrial' developments.
This situation cannot be changed at this late date; impossible to pay for change now.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 May 08 - 09:05 PM

So you have to ride on the footpaths... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Amos
Date: 27 May 08 - 09:12 PM

Gummint-subsidized Segways is the answer.



A

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 27 May 08 - 11:18 PM

Maglev? Not sure of the economics of this - would like to know what their power consumption is compared with conventional electrified railway system, suspect latter is more economical.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 27 May 08 - 11:21 PM

Also, very high construction costs for Maglev because of the need to be totally elevated on huge concrete structures which are a massive blot on the landscape!

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Amos
Date: 28 May 08 - 12:00 AM

YEah, I should do more homework before I shoot off my mouth on fantasies.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Peace
Date: 28 May 08 - 12:22 AM

I'd druther take a train than a plane any day. However, the cost of doing so is prohibitive--in Canada at least.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 28 May 08 - 07:06 AM

'Peace' - cost always keeps cropping up whenever people ask for sustainable transport. How sustainable is air/road transport which never seem to pay their true dues which railways are always expected to. There is a desperate need for a very level playing field between all modes of transport but will it ever happen due to the influences of vested interests in all the oil-hungry modes of transport. This is where governments can, and must, exert their powerful influences to ensure fair and just taxation to attain this level playing field.

Again, this must be done on a global basis - enter stage left - THE UNITED NATIONS, failing the existance of any other equal global organisation!

I'm afraid the free market is just not an option to solve this problem

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 May 08 - 09:21 AM

Jim, once you say the magic phrase "United Nations", certain types froth at the mouth about 'World Fascist Dictatorship Govt', definitely preferring Their Own Little Parochial Fascist Dictatorships... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 May 08 - 03:17 PM

Americans vilified President Wilson, who supported membership in the League of Nations. Americans will definitely 'froth at the mouth' about efforts of the United Nations, except when it serves their immediate interests.

The EU is a great step forward in European cooperation, although it has many problems which will take time to resolve.

NAFTA, which would at least allow for some integration of transport and services in Norh America, is under strong attack.
Americans remain xenophobic and isolationist, and unable to cope with developing globalization and the rise of powerful nations over which they have no control.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 28 May 08 - 05:05 PM

I suspect that the Mag lev trains operating on raised platforms were more not decided by the operating requirements of the train itself, but rather to put a maglev train through an area that had already been developed.

I'm not talking about a train that uses fully electric magnets but a combination of electromagnets and either rare earth and/or normal ferrous iron magnets. The weight of a standard freight train is mostly in it's running gear which needs to be made of very thick and heavy metals to sustain the train on the track. By allowing a great deal of the load weight to be offset by magnetic field with the train being only guided above the track allows for a reduction of the weight of the running gear thus saving a great deal of fuel that is just pushing that weight from point A to point B.

Anyway, the term "cost prohibitive" seems ludicrous when compared to "can't function because we can't travel or move goods across the country"

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 28 May 08 - 06:56 PM

Yes, but how much energy is actually used getting the electricity to where it's needed along the track?

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 28 May 08 - 07:03 PM

Don't know, but the Erie Pennsylvania line ran with overhead electrical lines, I don't see how this would be much different or more expense. The huge engines (diesel electric) put out a hell of a lot of horsepower to the wheels usually with anywhere from two to five "tractors" depending on the size of the train. I'm wondering how much pure electricity could be generated.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 28 May 08 - 08:07 PM

I don't know, but I get the gut feeling that an awful lot of energy would have to be used to get the electricity to the powerful 'Maglev' magnets.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 May 08 - 01:55 AM

I like Maglev, but consider that if you move a magnet relative to a conductor (the rail), you generate a current in it and this is a loss of energy to the (moving) system.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 May 08 - 03:53 PM

Article today in the NY Times about the status of natural gas imports. A billion dollar refinery was built at Cheniere (LA), and several tankers constructed.
There is not, at his time, any supply. Demands by Spain, Japan and others have slowed supply to a trickle and the tankers have been directed to service elsewhere. The new refinery sits idle.
The truth is that the unused natural gas in overseas fields is unsufficient to help American needs.
NY Times, May 29, 2008, "Global Demand Squeezing Natural Gas Supply," Clifford Krauss.
Natural gas has also risen dramatically in price, and next winter will be an expensive one with demand greater than supply in some areas.

On the BBC a few days ago there was a report from Qatar that a gas pipeline has been built to provide natural gas instead of oil to the other Emirates and their fast growing needs, and conserve the oil for Qatar's booming economy.
Natural gas, once unwanted by many oil producers, is now an
important part of their exports.

Indonesia is pulling out of OPEC and will devote their production to their needs first.

Subject: RE: BS: The Nature of 'Big Oil'
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 May 08 - 05:29 AM

Funy how for nearly a century the oil rigs have beenburning off the excess gas that comes up the drill hole. Supposedly 'for safety' - wonder how much 'GW effect' that has created...