Oil surpasses $138 a barrel

SmokinJoe · **Posted:** Wed May 21, 2008 9:15 pm

Hope the speculators are eating well tonight. I know some oil execs. that are

ChesterCRD · **Posted:** Wed May 21, 2008 10:46 pm

I think there is more to the oil prices than most people want to believe. It's a long term problem and a gradual increase in prices that gives us time to react is the best we can hope for. Friend of mine sent me this partial video. I may buy the rest. Few people seem willing to admit that this isn't a short term problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sPDNR2YS3s

If you don't want to watch, the reasons presented are:
1. New consumers in China and India.
2. Under investment in the 1990's due to low prices.

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Wed May 21, 2008 10:59 pm

... for when Gasoline was $1.39 in the late 70's that would equal $4.17/ gal now.
Though, back then diesel was cheaper.

Another trivial factod

Steve

dieselenthusiast · **Posted:** Thu May 22, 2008 12:34 am

"Investment bank Goldman Sachs has said it thinks oil prices will average $141 a barrel in the second half of this year and could top $200 a barrel by 2010.
U.S. investor Warren Buffett, the world's richest person, said on Wednesday he expects the dollar to keep falling as policies needed to correct the slide had yet to be implemented."

dieselenthusiast · **Posted:** Wed Jun 11, 2008 2:25 pm

Oil soars past $138 a barrel as dollar falls and Energy Department reports supply drop

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:34 pm

I sent the following email to my US Congressman. The main employment in the area for Scientists is Fermi Lab, so he may not be a Rocket Scientist, he was an Atom Crasher and should understand our Energy Problems that go beyond our CRDs and the price of #2 Diesel and other Biodieselo blends we use.

Representative Foster:
I am passionately opposed to the Finger in the Wind Energy Policy as presented by Senator (Richard) Richard Durbin and find it to defy the Laws of Economics and the Laws of Physics. With you being a Scientist, your understanding of the Laws of Physics should be very keen and you should be able to understand my point.
To solve our energy problems and maintain our quality of life in all aspects we need to have an abundant energy supply. With out energy we do not have sufficient income to provide a tax base to fund the needed and the optional Government programs.
1) As much as I like Wind and Solar power, this cannot amount to no more than 20% of our needs. The use of wind power is best in the rural areas where helps clean up the grid (by balancing the three phases) and supply clean electric power at the fringes of the grid where it tends to weaken in distribution.
2) Natural gas should be used for heating homes and powering vehicles in congested areas where the local vegetation cannot clean up the air. Natural Gas Hybrid busses in congested areas would be more efficient than conventional busses. Conventional Modern Clean Technology Diesel is best used for over the road and rail applications where hybrid is not cost effective.
3) Industrial processes that use Natural Gas to produce gasses such as Hydrogen and Carbon Dioxide should be encouraged to find other sources to produce these products.
4) Also, using natural gas for electric power is just plain stupid to put it mildly.
5) Coal is difficult but not impossible to clean up, but converting coal to natural gas we can have clean energy. Scrubbers that use Calcium Carbonate (Lime) recover nutrients from the coal exhaust that are beneficial to Agriculture when properly used.
6) Responsible oil drilling that is needed in the interim should be allowed and encouraged and not tossed around like a political football to appease voting blocks.
7) Clean Nuclear Technology that incorporates the reprocessing of the fuel rods and reprocessing of other stock piled nuclear waste is the most sensible solution. With the proper reprocessing, the level of radiation can be reduced to the level of the uranium ore when it was mined, making any waste to be stored safer until the technology is developed to use it again. Further more, Clean Nuclear Technology does not produce Carbon Dioxide and will allow vegetation to perform its natural functions of maintaining environmental quality. I strongly support sound environmental stewardship but reject the political football debate on climate change. I don’t need to be scared into taking on the responsibility.
8 ) Waste heat from all power plants should be used for heating and industrial processing instead of sending it up in cooling towers. This would require industrial parks that would use this energy to surround the power plants. This may require infrastructure such as highways, rail, waterway transportation, and tax incentives to motivate industry. I travel extensively for my work and bringing employment to rural areas where most power plants are is long over due.
To put this into motion will require the input of people in both parties and have the same level of dedication as the Manhattan Project had during World War II. The language in this Comprehensive Energy Policy should be straightforward and understandable by all of Congress, the News Media, and Public. It should be as they say, a “No Brainer” that any President would sign with out reservations.
In summation, you have the background to compose the needed motivational legislation that is needed to get things going. If you take the challenge and present this legislation, I will strongly support it. If you do not accept the challenge and spout politically correct platitudes as others are currently doing, I don't want to hear it. Not applying your scientific background to compose a Comprehensive Energy Policy is a waste of your God Given Talents and Abilities.

Respectfully,

Steve

Oil surpasses $138 a barrel

Who is online