Global warming could cost billions

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Nov 2 2006, 06:41 AM) [snapback]342488[/snapback]</div>

Not really true. Most of our energy is domestic. In the words of Jimmy Carter: "We waste more energy than we import." However, as long as we insist on wasting such a high percentage of our energy, we are indeed dependent on foreign sources, so your underlying point is valid.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Nov 2 2006, 06:41 AM) [snapback]342488[/snapback]</div>

It's worth noting, that from an economic point of view, a trade deficit is synonymous with a low savings rate. We save too little and borrow too much. As long as combined public and private borrowing exceeds savings, we'll have a trade deficit. This is one of the hidden costs of buying on credit.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Nov 2 2006, 06:41 AM) [snapback]342488[/snapback]</div>

Agreed.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Nov 2 2006, 06:41 AM) [snapback]342488[/snapback]</div>

Agreed absolutely and emphatically!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Nov 2 2006, 06:41 AM) [snapback]342488[/snapback]</div>

I disagree with rebates for the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles. Higher fuel prices and taxes on gas-guzzlers can create sufficient incentive for the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles. The revenues from fuel taxes and gas-guzzler taxes should go to R&D so that fuel-efficient vehicles become cheaper to produce and buy. This will save the end consumer far more than a rebate.

 

"Terrorism - there can be no doubt that our thirst for oil puts money in the hands of terrorists"

Actually, it puts money in the hands of oil companies. The profits of companies like Exxon due to the rise in oil prices have become truly obscene.

 

This sentence probably encapsulates the REAL motivation our GW ignoramuses have: they somehow see GW and evolution as two sides of the same coin as an attack of their religious beliefs.

 

I'm terribly fearful that, unless other markets which are more sensitive to the issues of GW put the pressure on ours and force a change somehow, the inertia of short-term decision making and the lack of any incentive to make sacrifices now for manifold long term gains in the future will ultimately be our downfall...as well as a major contribution to climatic effects that will change the way of life on Earth.

Unless the ease of exploitation of natural resources is threatened, nothing will change.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Nov 2 2006, 01:21 PM) [snapback]342645[/snapback]</div>

Agreed.

I can't quite explain the logic (or lack thereof) to myself, but I think you're right, absolutely.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Nov 2 2006, 01:14 PM) [snapback]342639[/snapback]</div>

Really? I could care less if their profit was one dollar or one trillion. Eventually all of their profits get pumped back into the various economies of the world and provide jobs and demands for services people like you and I provide. Contrary to popular belief, wealthy people do not use $100 bills to light their cigars. They use those $100 bills to buy things like Gulfstream jets, large mansions, yachts. Products and services which provide good jobs for both the blue and white collar classes.

Don't like their product? Then don't buy their oil. Millions of people live an "oil free" life. No plastics, no products made from or associated with oil, no modern appliances, etc. It is difficult at best compared to modern lifestyles, but can be done.

And if the profits are so "high" as you purport, then obviously they face little competition so why don't you start an oil company yourself. Anyone can. First you need to buy land which has a reasonable expectation of having oil underneath it. It won't be cheap because the seller will know also. Then you need to get the proper permits, assemble the drilling crew, geologists, and engineers, purchase the equipment needed to drill the well.

For a simple land based oil well expect to spend about $4,000,000 give or take a few million for each well drilled. Even with the best technology and geologists available expect about only 1 in 20 wells to be producers. You might drill a hundred dry holes or hit one with well head pressures of over 3,000 psi on your first hole. Then if you get oil you have all the associated costs of transportation, storage, environmental concerns, etc. You might get $70/bbl or in two years get $20/bbl. A large breakthrough in battery technology or fuel cells, for example, would soon drop the price of oil to the floor. Maybe we will be able to harness fusion power sometime in the future. But none of your overhead costs associated with the operation of that oil well will change.

Now, if you were to do the above what should your profit be? I'd rather decide for myself rather than having some Senator conclude I made "just too much money" and slap me with a "windfall profit tax". Do doctors make too much money? Should we hit them with a "windfall profit tax" above a certain threshold? Or should we "windfall tax" just "evil" rich people?

Does anyone really want some Senator decide how much you or your corporation can profit each year???

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Nov 2 2006, 01:27 PM) [snapback]342693[/snapback]</div>

Thats odd... i didn't hear anyone suggest that we do...

As for this "eventuality" of the money getting pumped back into economies around the world - how long term are you talking? When you're talking about that much money, I'm thinking something like 5+ generations if not more - look at the Kennedy family, for example. They made a ton of money and a majority of them have been living off it ever since... When you start talking about it taking generations for this money to make it back into the economy, it really doesn't matter that it is - the short term results are still the same.

You say we should just go into the business ourselves, given that profits are so high... The problem, as you wisely pointed out, are the barriers to entry - finding oil, startup costs, etc. For someone already in the business, adding one more well is a fairly small incremental cost to their doing business. but it's a huge cost for someone who wants to start in. And the fact is that they are making money, tons of it. The basic reason is because they can. They simply have the ability to raise prices, and people will pay it. The American public will bitch and moan all they want about high gas costs, but when you get right down to it, very few of them will stop buying gas to fuel their cars and through them their desired lifestyle.

Believe it or not, the cost of getting oil out of the ground and processing it hasn't really changed much in the past 10 years or so. In fact, if anything the processes have improved (as things always do) over time, meaning that you can extract more at a lower cost. And yet we were seeing prices earlier this summer that were triple what they were 10 years ago.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Nov 2 2006, 01:21 PM) [snapback]342645[/snapback]</div>

I not quite sure how you associate GW with religion but if you want to believe that evolution is not true and perhaps people somehow magically arrived on earth a few thousand years ago... well I just don't know what to say. But if those are your beliefs I respect that. I for one am glad our country has specific laws respecting religious freedom and your beliefs are between you and your leader or your God. Debating religious beliefs is often futile and more often than not leads to anger and resentment by both parties.

All throughout this debate we have been stressing scientific points and now you tell me evolution is some sort of hoax and GW is an assault on religion. Not quite sure I see the connection (did Al even bring that up in his movie??).

???
Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Nov 2 2006, 02:42 PM) [snapback]342707[/snapback]</div>

So why the complaint about high profits??


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Nov 2 2006, 02:42 PM) [snapback]342707[/snapback]</div>

Nope, every penny is immediately put back into the economy. Tell me, how much money do you think Bill Gates and the Kennedy's have stashed in the proverbial "mattress"? I'd wager every dime and then some is in interest bearing accounts, funds, property investments, etc. all of which benefit everyone by creating jobs, lots and lots of them. If banks had no or little capital how much do you think your mortgage or car loan would cost? Quite a bit. Less capital available equals higher interest rates. You and I may be jealous or resentful to some extent (a natural human emotion), but as I stated before if you don't like it, be smart, invent or produce something everyone wants, and be willing to take some risks.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Nov 2 2006, 02:42 PM) [snapback]342707[/snapback]</div>

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of American companies who have nothing to do with oil could easily become startup oil companies with excess capital and borrowing capability on hand. So why don't they do it? Because of the risk. Sure oil companies are living high off the hog now, but what about the years where they lose money? No one complains then.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Nov 2 2006, 02:42 PM) [snapback]342707[/snapback]</div>

I believe that too and am sorry if I implied otherwise. So why are the prices high? Because people will pay it. Simple supply and demand (and OPEC to some degree). An OPEC style cartel may be illegal in our country but we still consume more oil than we produce and have to live by their rules.

Rick
#4 2006

 

It's good to see we can agree on something

The question of the money is really one of semantics. I should have said wealth. Yes, technically all the little penny's get back into the economy when they purchase stocks and bonds and what have you. but despite that, the distribution of wealth just keeps getting more and more severe. It doesn't matter that every penny gets back into the economy - it's what those penny's do for the people who earn them. For most people, a little bit of it goes towards earning money for them in some manor. But most of it goes straight out of their pockets - tax, mortgage, utilities, loans, etc. Those who are wealthy, like those in control of these oil companies, are set up the exact opposite way. Their money makes more money for them - they don't need the Oil companies, they could live off their interest without any problem. But such a high concentration of wealth is bad for the economy. I would love to go into more detail, but the books i would like to quote from are at home.

Do you honestly believe it's the fortunes of the rich and powerful that go to back up your loans? True, it's possible that you could have a million people taking loans out against Gate's fortune - but thats not how it works. When someone goes in for a loan, they're essentially borrowing the money from their neighbors. If i put 10k into the bank, even in a savings account, you can be assured that the bank is sitting there saying "we'll give you 3%, sure... but we'll take your money and loan it out to your neighbor over here for his house payment, and make 6% off of it." Very little of the money that supplies loans comes from fortunes like those discussed here - most of it comes from you and me.

You are absolutely wrong when you say hundreds or thousands of American companies can enter the Oil market. With only a very few exceptions, companies are extremely specialized. You create computers, or software, or cleaning products, or medical devices. Companies don't just suddenly branch out into something they know nothing about - you'd be shooting yourself in the foot. The current Oil companies have such a huge control on the market that they can easily run anyone out of business at anytime, just by undercutting their cost of operations a little bit. and the cost for a startup is higher than that for an established oil company, simply because they have to gain the experience and expertise. It's not because of the risk, it's because it simply isn't the area they have expertise on. I would challenge you to name some companies America who could successfully enter the market.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 2 2006, 11:08 AM) [snapback]342638[/snapback]</div>

Except in the transportation sector where we import 58% (and rising) of our energy. During Carter's administration this was certainly more correct and for electricity generation you're spot on. Though in the coming years we're gonna be importing more and more NG for power plants that consume that fuel.

Viking, the scientific community, is largely concerned about anthro GW, as you know. Most of the sources that you've cited have been debunked so I don't understand what your specific objection is. If conservatives were spouting it I have the feeling that you'd more readily accept it. I do think that Gore has latched onto this a the liberal version of the terror threat. "Conservatives are soft on GW so don't vote for them or your children will die" is certainly one way to look at it. I've always objected to that portrayal of the problem. None-the-less, there is deep concern in the scientific community and most folks there are saying enough research let's tackle the problem. If the scientific community really wanted to bilk this for all its worth they'd love the controversy because then they could claim that more research is needed. More grants, larger operating budgets and the like. Most folks want action not more research.

I agree with you that we don't wanna tax ourselves "back into the stone age" but we need more than just a free market approach to solve this problem.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Nov 2 2006, 12:57 PM) [snapback]342770[/snapback]</div>

Actually, money is fungible. That means that once it enters the system, you cannot distinguish a dollar put in by Bill Gates from a dollar put in by John Q. Public. The really rich put their money largely in municipal bonds because they are tax-free. The interest rates are lower, but if you are in a high enough tax bracket you come out ahead.

But when Bill Gates puts money into muni bonds he is satisfying the demand from that sector, which frees up other money to meet other demand, including demand for personal loans.

No, the problem is not whose dollar you get when you take out a car loan. The problem is when disparity of wealth becomes so great that some people can buy obscene luxuries while other people go hungry, or lack for health care. Incentives help drive the economy because people will work harder if they get something for it. But beyond a certain level of wealth (which will be different for different individuals) there is no longer any incentive. An economy functions better when nobody is destitute and nobody is rich enough that they can lay back and let someone else do all the work.

America fails on both counts: It fails to meet the most basic needs of the working poor, and it fails to hold the super-rich accountable.

 

Just as a kicker here, the cost of the Iraq war SO FAR, is equal to what compliance with Kyoto would have cost.

ETS

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Evil Twin Skippy @ Nov 3 2006, 02:36 PM) [snapback]343382[/snapback]</div>

Yea, but would Halliburton have made as much money?

 

Mass extinctions, plummeting biodiversity, deforestation, pollution, habitat loss, global warming...blah blah blah...whining lefties.

Oh wait, it's going to cost me money? ICEBERG!

sarcasm mode /off/

 

Interesting banter.....

I thought I would add a bit of personal knowledge......third hand I realize.

A friend of mine is a VP of engineering of a small gas and oil company in Tennessee. When I asked him about the concept of "Peak Oil" he said "there is still an extremely large amount of oil to be had but ever since the large oil companies top management became accountants these people have decided the risk was too high for the cost involved. Previous top brass in oil companies were risk takers and the companies became successful because of this risk taking. Until the bean counters are replaced by risk takers large oil and gas companies will not go out and find the remaining oil."

I was surprised by this statement. I thought it might be useful to include this fragment of knowledge from someone on the inside even if it is 3rd hand. I do not believe I have skewed his comments in any way.

 

The problem with peak oil is that no one (not even your friend) knows how much oil is really left. True, there could be vast quantities like you suggested, but there also might not be. We might go to tap these stockpiles and find that they aren't as deep as previously thought. unfortunately, with the oil all so far under ground, the best anyone can do is guess.

I would definitely agree with you, though, that the top management in the companies are bean counters and only care about profits - which means that they (currently) don't have much incentive to take many risks.

 

Pretty much all of the easy to get at oil is already in production. Most of the remaining fields are either offshore and therefore more expensive to produce, or they're in politically unstable areas, or they're in ANWR :lol:

It's important to note too that you can only get so much of the oil out of a particular field. As technology advances, this number goes up and has allowed the tweaking of reserves estimates. Of course, there are many reasons to upwardly inflate reserves so in many cases we don't really know what's out there. Saudi is the classic example of this. They won't tells what they're reserves are and we won't find out that they've peaked until our demands for more oil production can't be met. Then we'll know.

A geophysicist that works for BP was telling me that in his estimates there aren't any uber fields left and that it's mostly small time stuff. The field discovered in the Gulf of Mex recently is about the same size as ANWR (15 Gbls or so) but it's sitting in 7000 ft of water, 5+ miles below the sea floor. Oil will have to remain expensive for it to be economical. The risk to exploit it is high too because of the weather situation in the Gulf. Nobody wants to spend $2 billion on an oil platform only to have it beaten to a pulp by the next cat 4 hurricane.

Who knows how much untapped oil is still out there? My gut tells me "not a lot" but I don't think we've peaked yet. That probably won't happen until 2020 or so. That's about halfway between the Stuart Littles and the Ostriches.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Nov 3 2006, 03:23 PM) [snapback]343539[/snapback]</div>

Chicken littles, I think.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 29 2006, 08:42 PM) [snapback]340505[/snapback]</div>

Hasn't it already cost Billions? Want to get to the bottom of the Global Warming debate? Follow the money baby! <_< :blink:

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 3 2006, 10:36 PM) [snapback]343662[/snapback]</div>

ha ha, so it is.