Sigh, I don't believe I have to be this pedantic, but if you want to play that game let's play.

Sustainability of our society with as minimal impact to the planet as possible is the goal. Finding that balance is no easy task and I don't claim to have the answers. However, when I see a public policy decision that clearly serves neither of those goals I do not find it difficult to be indignant about it.

Yes, it would provide jobs for Americans, but (to be ridiculously pedantic), so building oil burning factories. Should we do that? Think of the jobs!

Where are you getting the 70% retention? Any foreign investment in Iraqi oil would be based on flat fee based contracts: they would get NO revenue from the sale of oil.

Besides, it would be a very risky investment for an oil company given the instability of the Iraqi government. Analysts are not even sure that US oil companies would even want to venture into this.

Again, we clearly disagree. I DO believe that oil exploration and tapping into those oil reserves has a relevant benefit to society and does it with minimal risk to the environment.

To me, it is a public policy decision that benefits society.

Old link (knew I should have bookmarked that article), but this is close to what I read.

Oil companies would immediately take 70% of profits to pay for their infrastructure improvements, then revert to around 20% after those costs are paid.

Not to derail with a reference several pages back, but Alex there is a flaw in your grand plan for your next vehicle. Speaking in terms of damage to the environment, there is an issue with your "plug-in electric" vehicle plan. The energy from your electrical system comes from somewhere, and that somewhere often takes its own toll on the environment.

Now, obviously, if we switched to nuclear, it would be a different kind of damage than the use of coal. Sure, we have hydro and wind power, but if I recall from a thread about a year or so ago, only a portion of our power comes from wind and water.

***

I don't understand why there isn't more talk of biodiesel. And by biodiesel, I don't mean ethanol. Biodiesel can use oil from more sources than merely corn, which is already inefficient to produce. Besides which, we already use quite a bit of oil in this country (Fast Food Nation, anyone?), which could be recycled into fuel thus not only reducing the amount of oil production needed, but also providing some cost recovery for the food service industry and less oily substances entering our water systems by way of drains.

What's more, certain types of biodiesel do not even require special equipment on the vehicles (instead the oil is treated to prepare it for use) - so vehicles on the road today (even that beat-up '63 Beetle in your local high school parking lot) could be running on biodiesel. Today's diesel vehicles are also highly efficient (making CA's issues with the sale of new diesel passenger cars somewhat silly).

And if we can't produce enough palm/peanut/corn/etc. oil? We can patronize any of a number of 3rd world countries, whose mainly agricultural economies would benefit, thus raising the quality of life for people around the world. But because so very many countries could produce what we need, we need not be slaves to their resources.

One possible issue with this sunny outlook would be the potential for food shortages in countries who switch over too much production from food to fuel, but with nearly every nation around the world able to produce it, the pricing would be kept fairly low, minimizing the possible impact on food.

***

As far as the impact of speculation on oil prices - I agree that that is where the problem is. Only there's a hitch: we can't stop oil futures from being traded in the major markets because of the practical applications of futures trading. Many companies anticipate their needs and guarantee access to them by purchasing futures in their necessary raw materials (be it cotton or oil, or whatever). Others use futures to hedge their bets and average out the cost per unit needed by stocking up (in a theoretical sense) on what they may need in the coming months, so if there's a sudden drastic increase in price, it doesn't completely destroy their ability to make a profit on their core business.

Airlines, for example, try to stock up on oil futures when prices dip, to soften the blow when prices rise, bringing down their average fuel cost per flight mile.

When the fear is of constant increasing prices, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy as they continue to buy any fuel below the price they fear it's going to rise to (until, due to demand, it does indeed rise to that price). Then on top of the "legitimate" buyers of futures, there are speculators, who hope to sell their shares to those same companies when their stores of fuel become limited.

(legit put in quotes because, of course, speculation is, in fact, legit in most respects)

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here


Here

Found these in just a few minutes of searching. There is much, much more out there.

But I disgaree, so no, it doesn't matter how simply you state what you think.

Al Gore says burning fossil fuels is killing the planet (this is a paraphrase so I'm not chatized for not having a link to a quote). We should all reduce what we use. Al Gore, though, is so important, that he can jet around to all corners of the earth and travel in motorcades when I suppose he could make a speech via a sat link. His carbon footprint drawfs that of those he chastizes. Because he is wealthy it is OK for him because he purchases carbon credits.

Mind you, I don't think Al Gore should change his habits. I don't really care. Just don't tell me or Joe Sixpack or anyone else that we aren't doing our part because we drive an SUV (which I don't, by the way).

[Directed at Morrigoon]

Yes, electric is not a panacea, but it is a mode of delivery I am willing to work with. I am perfectly aware that electricity is not without cost. However, there is also that fact that the negatives are easier to ameliorate when they are produced at a single site (such as from a electric plant) than when we have to clean up the mess of 500 million individual fuel fires.

So a car that fulfills 80% of my driving needs on electric but still has the capacity to use more traditional fuels for the other 20% is a compromise I am willing to make. If more of that electricy can be drawn from nuclear, solar, and wind, then wonderful. I personally am not a fan of hydro in the American Southwest.

But I make no claim to sainthood. It was just in response to the idea that unless you are personally doing everything possible then just shut up. I'm not, but I'd venture to say that I have done more than most.

I'm willing to consider biodiesel if it is moderately convenient to my driving practices (currently it would not be). However, biodiesel is also not a panacea as fulfilling our energy needs would put pressures on food prices (if not directly through use of food for fuel then indirectly through increased competition for arable land) and is still essentially creating a few billion individual fires that while better than other fires still isn't all that ideal. But I'm not opposed to it if there is a sufficient distribution network for my needs.

Fair enough. I have no idea what the charitable contributions of oil corporations are. I admit that I'm not sure why I view a corporation as different than an individual when it comes to charitable giving.

Hey, no fair- I asked for examples to support KB's statement that deregulating (in particular, Energy) industries was a positive for anyone other than the powers that be, and all I got was a ersatz Econ lesson.;)


Good return, JW.