To me the most interesting US House of Representatives race of the year will be that in Maryland's Sixth District. I used to work and go to church in this district. Back in the 1970s I worked at Ft Richie, near Hagerstown and near the Pennsylvania border, and went to church in Hagerstown. The district includes Hagerstown and sprawls all the way westward to the border with West Virginia. It is the most conservative of Maryland's congressional districts and only one of 2 out of 8 whose representative is Republican.
The current Representative is 80-year-old Roscoe Bartlett, who is well-known in peak oil circles as the only US Senator or Representative that knows aobut the peak oil situation coming up and is willing to talk about it, to the extent of having conferences about it. For this reason, if I were living in Maryland Sixth, I would vote for Roscoe Bartlett, even though he was Republican and despite some of the stands that he has taken.
But I wanted to see what the Democrats would say. So far, the Democrats have been puny about Peak Oil. They criticize the Republicans, especially President Bush, for the high gasoline prices we have been having, even though those are the result of supply and demand. But they don't come up with substantive proposals for dealing with the problem. I found out that there are two Democratic possible challengers to Repr. Bartlett: Barry Kissin and Andrew Duck. So I tried seeing what these two people would say about Peak Oil.
I looked at Andrew Duck first. He wants to bring the price of oil back to $30! His site recommends this portfolio of actions: Conservation, Increasing the fuel mileage targets for vehicles, Research and infrastructure support for biofuels, Clean coal gasification [sic], Increased support for wind power, and Increased use of natural gas. This sounds a lot what I would recommend: a full court press. I would add plugin hybrid cars to the lis and railroads to the list. How come people in government won't recommend a return to the railroads? But his wanting to bring back oil to an unrealistic level and his not mentioning peak oil at all had me favoring Roscoe Bartlett for election.
I emailed Duck about the 30% and he surprised me with his reply. It turns out that Roscoe Bartlett may not be all the peak oil champion that the peak oil people make him out to be. According to Duck, Roscoe Bartlett voted no on Tokyo accords, no on increased CAFE standards, and at first no, then yes, to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Duck says he votes the Bush and Republican line repeatedly. This makes me wonder about Roscoe, since outside of peak oil, his stands are quite dissimilar to mine, because they are all Republican stands. However, Duck does not mention Peak Oil either.
I looked up Barry Kissin and found his site more interesting. He gives a long dissertation on how Roscoe Bartlett is not what he is cracked up to be. Mr. Kissin actually talks about Peak Oil, whereas Andrew Duck does not. I found Mr. Kissin's paper to be interesting, and it makes me wonder which candidate would indeed be the best from Maryland's Sixth. It makes me wish I were in Maryland, so I could make such an important peak oil vote. However, even he does not call for what I think is really needed: a $1-10/gallon fuel (including diesel and gasoline) tax and compensating reductions in other taxes, especially income taxes.
So if I were in Maryland, I would contact all three candidates and point out the flaws in their positions, and see how they react. This would determine who I would favor to go to Washington representing Maryland's Sixth.
Note my abbreviation for Representative: Repr. I use that instead of Rep., because Rep. is ambiguous and could mean Republican.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Computer Call about the Oil Companies
I received a call from Harris Miller's campaign for US Senator from Virginia at 2006 April 26 19:38. It came on my Caller ID as “Unavailable”, and was a computer call urging me to vote for Miller and help us beat George Allen. I wish these campaigns would not send out computer phone calls? I don’t appreciate them. They bittering my phone and disturb what I am doing. Normally, this would mean the candidate would not get my vote. But there is no way I will vote for George Allen - the worst governor Virginia has had since 1978. I don't like the idea of voting for a third party either - I feel that Sen. Allen must be removed from office. Especially I don’t want George Allen to repeat his term as senator and thereby become a possible Presidential candidate in 2008. But there are ways of sending him back to his home without throwing unsolicited computer calls on my telephone.
I also did not like some of what I heard the message say. The Miller camp said “Stand up to Big Oil.” Now Big Oil is no saint. But attacking oil companies because of record high profits and high gasoline prices is not the right approach to the problem. The oil companies can’t help it if they have all that money. It is because of supply and demand – increasing demand (especially because of China and India) and limited and tight supply are causing the prices to go up and the profits of the oil companies to go up. The problem is that the world is nearing a peak in oil production, and soon world production will decline despite all the desperate drilling in the world. Instead of attacking the oil companies, the Democrats should encourage conservation of oil – car pools, hybrid, diesel, and plugin hybrid cars, and railroads – and development of wind, solar, and (at least for a while) nuclear energy, as well as high taxes on fuel to curb demand, along with substantially lower income and other taxes. This is a problem that confronts all of us, including the oil companies, and I feel that an approach urging these things as well as cooperating with the oil companies and others concerned with this problem will yield better results in the long run.
I also would like to see talk about peak oil and its consequences. So far I have not heard a single Democrat say that the world is headed for trouble because of the peaking of oil production. However, at least one Republican has, namely Repv. Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland. If he were running instead of George Allen here in Virginia, I would vote for him, and if Mr. Bartlett runs for President, he has my vote, even though he will be 82 years old.
So please, Mr. Miller, if you want to be serious about beating both the oil crisis and George Allen, start talking to us about the possible consequences of big oil.
And when you call, have a human call. OK? Thanks.
I also did not like some of what I heard the message say. The Miller camp said “Stand up to Big Oil.” Now Big Oil is no saint. But attacking oil companies because of record high profits and high gasoline prices is not the right approach to the problem. The oil companies can’t help it if they have all that money. It is because of supply and demand – increasing demand (especially because of China and India) and limited and tight supply are causing the prices to go up and the profits of the oil companies to go up. The problem is that the world is nearing a peak in oil production, and soon world production will decline despite all the desperate drilling in the world. Instead of attacking the oil companies, the Democrats should encourage conservation of oil – car pools, hybrid, diesel, and plugin hybrid cars, and railroads – and development of wind, solar, and (at least for a while) nuclear energy, as well as high taxes on fuel to curb demand, along with substantially lower income and other taxes. This is a problem that confronts all of us, including the oil companies, and I feel that an approach urging these things as well as cooperating with the oil companies and others concerned with this problem will yield better results in the long run.
I also would like to see talk about peak oil and its consequences. So far I have not heard a single Democrat say that the world is headed for trouble because of the peaking of oil production. However, at least one Republican has, namely Repv. Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland. If he were running instead of George Allen here in Virginia, I would vote for him, and if Mr. Bartlett runs for President, he has my vote, even though he will be 82 years old.
So please, Mr. Miller, if you want to be serious about beating both the oil crisis and George Allen, start talking to us about the possible consequences of big oil.
And when you call, have a human call. OK? Thanks.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Oil Price Correction?
I am now hearing reports that oil's price will drop 20% this year to something like $55 a barrel. I find this in http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/060419/b041964.html, but don't go there after a few days; you probably will get "not found". Instead I quote some of it here:
The recent runup in commodity prices is due to speculative activity that sets the stage for crude-oil and base-metal prices to drop by 20 per cent by year-end, a TD Economics report (TSX:TD) warned Wednesday.
This comes from CBC, the Canadian network. The article says that a correction in both energy and "base metals" (including gold) will occur sometime this year.
Do these people know that peak oil is coming?
Now I do think that retractions in oil and gold prices do occur. A major correction occurred last year when Hurricane Katrina hit, taking refineries off line and preventing crude from being refined, decreasing its value. I lost thousands (which I have gotten back this year) during this time. Most of these are small contractions and they are followed by big increases, which are happening now.
This is because oil may be nearing the peak where no matter how hard the suppliers pump and pump, they still can't meet world demand. The world market is tight as a snare drum, and any disturbance in it causes immediate reactions. Oil and gasoline will continue to increase in price in the next few years as demand rises, and supply stays the same for a while, then declines.
I am not sure I want to keep shuffling money in and out of energy shares every time Ahmadinejad goes nucleuckoo in Iran or hurricanes smash rigs and refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. The long term trend is up, then up, then way up. I am just hoping supply and demand will help us find alternatives before some really drastic things happen. It's going to be nip and tuck. (that's why I call this blog Cliffhanger). But a change once or twice a year might be advisable.
So what do I predict? I think oil and gold will keep rising through the middle of the summer, to $3.10/gal and $75 a barrel by the end of April, $3.30/gal and $85 a barrel by the end of May, and up to a peak of $3.45/gallon and $95/barrel by the middle of summer. It then will decline to about $2.40/gallon in December and maybe $75 a barrel, and then rise again in 2007, to even greater heights. If a hurricane strikes in the Gulf, oil will hit $90/barrel and then decline moderately, maybe to $65 a barrel by October, while gasoline will hit $4.70/gallon and there may be shortages.
So what to do about stocks and other investments? I say hold on to those energy and gold shares, because they are not ready for a correction. They will continue to head upward for a while. Sooner or later, probably late summer, the US and world economies will be hit by these prices and a downturn will occur. This has not happened yet. People are still driving all over the place as before. When the downturn occurs, oil and gold prices will go down. So if there are strong signals that this is happening, pull out of oil and gold shares. In fact, pull out of all stocks and put everything in money market funds. When oil and gasoline start rising again, then put the money back into oil and gold. If a hurricane threatens the Gulf, pull everything out, including oil, gold, tech, medical, and everything else, immediately. Being able to access weather models such as the Global Forecasting System (GFS) can help you decide this will occur before the media starts harping all over the place about it, so you can pull out and retain all of your gains.
But even if you pull back, eventually get back into oil and gold, for the money of the future is in these, with oil in ever increasingly scarce supply.
The recent runup in commodity prices is due to speculative activity that sets the stage for crude-oil and base-metal prices to drop by 20 per cent by year-end, a TD Economics report (TSX:TD) warned Wednesday.
This comes from CBC, the Canadian network. The article says that a correction in both energy and "base metals" (including gold) will occur sometime this year.
Do these people know that peak oil is coming?
Now I do think that retractions in oil and gold prices do occur. A major correction occurred last year when Hurricane Katrina hit, taking refineries off line and preventing crude from being refined, decreasing its value. I lost thousands (which I have gotten back this year) during this time. Most of these are small contractions and they are followed by big increases, which are happening now.
This is because oil may be nearing the peak where no matter how hard the suppliers pump and pump, they still can't meet world demand. The world market is tight as a snare drum, and any disturbance in it causes immediate reactions. Oil and gasoline will continue to increase in price in the next few years as demand rises, and supply stays the same for a while, then declines.
I am not sure I want to keep shuffling money in and out of energy shares every time Ahmadinejad goes nucleuckoo in Iran or hurricanes smash rigs and refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. The long term trend is up, then up, then way up. I am just hoping supply and demand will help us find alternatives before some really drastic things happen. It's going to be nip and tuck. (that's why I call this blog Cliffhanger). But a change once or twice a year might be advisable.
So what do I predict? I think oil and gold will keep rising through the middle of the summer, to $3.10/gal and $75 a barrel by the end of April, $3.30/gal and $85 a barrel by the end of May, and up to a peak of $3.45/gallon and $95/barrel by the middle of summer. It then will decline to about $2.40/gallon in December and maybe $75 a barrel, and then rise again in 2007, to even greater heights. If a hurricane strikes in the Gulf, oil will hit $90/barrel and then decline moderately, maybe to $65 a barrel by October, while gasoline will hit $4.70/gallon and there may be shortages.
So what to do about stocks and other investments? I say hold on to those energy and gold shares, because they are not ready for a correction. They will continue to head upward for a while. Sooner or later, probably late summer, the US and world economies will be hit by these prices and a downturn will occur. This has not happened yet. People are still driving all over the place as before. When the downturn occurs, oil and gold prices will go down. So if there are strong signals that this is happening, pull out of oil and gold shares. In fact, pull out of all stocks and put everything in money market funds. When oil and gasoline start rising again, then put the money back into oil and gold. If a hurricane threatens the Gulf, pull everything out, including oil, gold, tech, medical, and everything else, immediately. Being able to access weather models such as the Global Forecasting System (GFS) can help you decide this will occur before the media starts harping all over the place about it, so you can pull out and retain all of your gains.
But even if you pull back, eventually get back into oil and gold, for the money of the future is in these, with oil in ever increasingly scarce supply.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
That's Right, Blame the Oil Companies Again
The price of oil and gasoline is going steadily up again, as I had expected. Earlier, I predicted that some time this summer, the price of oil would peak at about $95 a barrel and the price of gasoline at about $3.40. This is because we are somewhere near peak oil production, although it is hard to tell just how near, due to the damage by Hurricane Katrian. In general, prices are going to go up, because demand is up and supply is either going up slightly or staying steady. The only way to get them down is through lower demand.
Nevertheless, people are blaming the oil companies again. New York Senator Charles Schumer is calling for an investigation to see whether oil companies are deliberately holding back production to raise prices. He says they are running at 85% capacity, when they should be running at 90%. Apparently he does not know or does not want to admit that there is a supply problem with oil that is driving up the prices.
If the oil companies are running at 85% when they could be running at 90%, they are really doing us a favor. They are using less oil. That will delay the day that shortages and other undesirable effects come because of the dwindling supply of cheap oil. Why does Sen. Schumer want us to go full tilt with the oil production? Why does he want to gobble up the stuff faster and run out faster?
Prices are going up because supply can't meet demand or can just barely meet demand. Now that may bring in huge profits to the oil companies. If so, they should use the money to sponsor looking for new sources of energy or for conservation. Paying their executives hundreds of millions of dollars per year certainly is not going to help their reputation. But the oil companies can’t be blamed for gouging the public, regardless of what it does for their profits.
Stop blaming the oil companies and do something that will help. If prices are higher, curtail consumption, and encourage development of renewable energy.
Nevertheless, people are blaming the oil companies again. New York Senator Charles Schumer is calling for an investigation to see whether oil companies are deliberately holding back production to raise prices. He says they are running at 85% capacity, when they should be running at 90%. Apparently he does not know or does not want to admit that there is a supply problem with oil that is driving up the prices.
If the oil companies are running at 85% when they could be running at 90%, they are really doing us a favor. They are using less oil. That will delay the day that shortages and other undesirable effects come because of the dwindling supply of cheap oil. Why does Sen. Schumer want us to go full tilt with the oil production? Why does he want to gobble up the stuff faster and run out faster?
Prices are going up because supply can't meet demand or can just barely meet demand. Now that may bring in huge profits to the oil companies. If so, they should use the money to sponsor looking for new sources of energy or for conservation. Paying their executives hundreds of millions of dollars per year certainly is not going to help their reputation. But the oil companies can’t be blamed for gouging the public, regardless of what it does for their profits.
Stop blaming the oil companies and do something that will help. If prices are higher, curtail consumption, and encourage development of renewable energy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)