<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Oil Prices: Free Market Economics at Work?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ensight.org/2004/05/oil-prices-free-market-economics-at-work/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ensight.org/2004/05/oil-prices-free-market-economics-at-work/</link>
	<description>A Personal Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 May 2012 18:40:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Doolittle</title>
		<link>http://www.ensight.org/2004/05/oil-prices-free-market-economics-at-work/#comment-2294</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Doolittle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=1090#comment-2294</guid>
		<description>There is a missing component in most discussions regarding oil prices per barrel and gasoline prices per gallon: Refineries.  Discussion has been bubbling up for the past decade about the production capacity of oil refineries (example: &quot;Refineries Turning Oil Into Gold&quot; at http://www.fool.com/news/2001/vlo010604.htm).  If we don&#039;t have an adequate refinery capacity, then an abundance of cheap oil won&#039;t have much effect on the price of gasoline.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is a missing component in most discussions regarding oil prices per barrel and gasoline prices per gallon: Refineries.  Discussion has been bubbling up for the past decade about the production capacity of oil refineries (example: &#8220;Refineries Turning Oil Into Gold&#8221; at <a href="http://www.fool.com/news/2001/vlo010604.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.fool.com/news/2001/vlo010604.htm</a>).  If we don&#8217;t have an adequate refinery capacity, then an abundance of cheap oil won&#8217;t have much effect on the price of gasoline.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim Scarfe</title>
		<link>http://www.ensight.org/2004/05/oil-prices-free-market-economics-at-work/#comment-2295</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Scarfe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=1090#comment-2295</guid>
		<description>I thought Bush used to have a very senior role in an Oil Company and still maintains links. I think the last thing he would do is start looking at alternative fuels.

I&#039;m probably speaking out of my backside, so there is some pretty good info here: http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/george-w-bush/

&quot;People like to assume that George got rich from oil speculation. It&#039;s a simpler and more inspiring explanation than the truth. He did launch an oil business, Arbusto Energy, in 1978. But it was a financial disaster from the very beginning and never turned a profit. Fortuitously, it got swallowed up in a 1982 merger with another energy company named Spectrum 7. The merger was engineered by a couple of Bush family friends. For some reason they opted to rescue the son of the Vice President of the United States from his own financial catastrophe and make him the CEO of the merged entity.
Four years later, Spectrum 7 was itself floundering underneath $3 million in debt. Which is when Harken Energy, yet another company run by a family friend, came in and bailed out Bush&#039;s enterprise a second time. George was given a fat wad of stock options and a $120,000 annual salary, but no actual work to do.

Technically, Bush&#039;s official capacity was as a member of the company&#039;s audit committee, charged with overseeing the major deals and transactions to ensure that everything was on the up-and-up. But as the son of the U.S. President, Bush&#039;s true function was to act as a lure for investment money. His task was schmoozing business contacts and outside investors, interested in converting cash into a friendly acquaintanceship with the President&#039;s offspring. And he was good at it. Hi, my name is George Jr. My Daddy lives in the White House. Let me show you around.

This investment capital really helped prop up Harken as it was secretly bleeding money out of every orifice. As a matter of fact, Harken was hiding massive debts through shell companies and byzantine practices masterminded by the now-infamous accounting firm of Arthur Anderson. One such deal was the putative &quot;sale&quot; of Aloha Petroleum to Intercontinental Mining and Resources Ltd in 1989. In actuality, IMR Ltd was just another company owned by three members of Harken&#039;s board. And the terms of the sale were extremely sketchy: although IMR agreed to pay an exorbitant $12 million for Aloha Petroleum, they wouldn&#039;t be required to make any payments for three years. Nevertheless, Harken immediately booked an $8 million profit.

The technical term for that is fraud. But you can&#039;t really blame George for that, can you? It wasn&#039;t like he was serving on the corporation&#039;s audit committee or anything... oh wait, he was. In fact, Bush signed off on the Aloha Petroleum deal. This deception helped maintain the illusion that Harken was -- what&#039;s the word? -- solvent for several months after it had actually run out of money.

A few weeks before the house of cards finally came tumbling down, Bush engaged in a little insider trading and sold off $848,560 in Harken stock. Then he waited eight months to notify the SEC of his sale.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought Bush used to have a very senior role in an Oil Company and still maintains links. I think the last thing he would do is start looking at alternative fuels.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m probably speaking out of my backside, so there is some pretty good info here: <a href="http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/george-w-bush/" rel="nofollow">http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/george-w-bush/</a></p>
<p>&#8220;People like to assume that George got rich from oil speculation. It&#8217;s a simpler and more inspiring explanation than the truth. He did launch an oil business, Arbusto Energy, in 1978. But it was a financial disaster from the very beginning and never turned a profit. Fortuitously, it got swallowed up in a 1982 merger with another energy company named Spectrum 7. The merger was engineered by a couple of Bush family friends. For some reason they opted to rescue the son of the Vice President of the United States from his own financial catastrophe and make him the CEO of the merged entity.<br />
Four years later, Spectrum 7 was itself floundering underneath $3 million in debt. Which is when Harken Energy, yet another company run by a family friend, came in and bailed out Bush&#8217;s enterprise a second time. George was given a fat wad of stock options and a $120,000 annual salary, but no actual work to do.</p>
<p>Technically, Bush&#8217;s official capacity was as a member of the company&#8217;s audit committee, charged with overseeing the major deals and transactions to ensure that everything was on the up-and-up. But as the son of the U.S. President, Bush&#8217;s true function was to act as a lure for investment money. His task was schmoozing business contacts and outside investors, interested in converting cash into a friendly acquaintanceship with the President&#8217;s offspring. And he was good at it. Hi, my name is George Jr. My Daddy lives in the White House. Let me show you around.</p>
<p>This investment capital really helped prop up Harken as it was secretly bleeding money out of every orifice. As a matter of fact, Harken was hiding massive debts through shell companies and byzantine practices masterminded by the now-infamous accounting firm of Arthur Anderson. One such deal was the putative &#8220;sale&#8221; of Aloha Petroleum to Intercontinental Mining and Resources Ltd in 1989. In actuality, IMR Ltd was just another company owned by three members of Harken&#8217;s board. And the terms of the sale were extremely sketchy: although IMR agreed to pay an exorbitant $12 million for Aloha Petroleum, they wouldn&#8217;t be required to make any payments for three years. Nevertheless, Harken immediately booked an $8 million profit.</p>
<p>The technical term for that is fraud. But you can&#8217;t really blame George for that, can you? It wasn&#8217;t like he was serving on the corporation&#8217;s audit committee or anything&#8230; oh wait, he was. In fact, Bush signed off on the Aloha Petroleum deal. This deception helped maintain the illusion that Harken was &#8212; what&#8217;s the word? &#8212; solvent for several months after it had actually run out of money.</p>
<p>A few weeks before the house of cards finally came tumbling down, Bush engaged in a little insider trading and sold off $848,560 in Harken stock. Then he waited eight months to notify the SEC of his sale.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Calico Cat</title>
		<link>http://www.ensight.org/2004/05/oil-prices-free-market-economics-at-work/#comment-2296</link>
		<dc:creator>The Calico Cat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=1090#comment-2296</guid>
		<description>Regarding Bush&#039;s role in oil companies, it seems that a lot of people want to make him out to be a failure in every aspect of his life because they don&#039;t like his politics.  If his role at the company was to get people to invest, and he successfully got people to invest, then he did a good job! Good rainmakers are very hard to find.  Yes, he took advantage of his Washington connections, but doesn&#039;t everyone who has any connections try to take advantage of them?

Now, regarding alternatives to gasoline powered cars, in Europe they allegedly pay a lot more for gas (I&#039;ve heard $5, $7 a gallon, not sure right now) but they still drive around in regular gasoline or diesel powered cars just like here.  The only difference is that the typical car in Europe is a lot smaller than the typical car in America (where huge SUVs are quite popular).  People just don&#039;t appreciate what a great and inexpensive technology the gasoline powered combustion engine is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding Bush&#8217;s role in oil companies, it seems that a lot of people want to make him out to be a failure in every aspect of his life because they don&#8217;t like his politics.  If his role at the company was to get people to invest, and he successfully got people to invest, then he did a good job! Good rainmakers are very hard to find.  Yes, he took advantage of his Washington connections, but doesn&#8217;t everyone who has any connections try to take advantage of them?</p>
<p>Now, regarding alternatives to gasoline powered cars, in Europe they allegedly pay a lot more for gas (I&#8217;ve heard $5, $7 a gallon, not sure right now) but they still drive around in regular gasoline or diesel powered cars just like here.  The only difference is that the typical car in Europe is a lot smaller than the typical car in America (where huge SUVs are quite popular).  People just don&#8217;t appreciate what a great and inexpensive technology the gasoline powered combustion engine is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Foster</title>
		<link>http://www.ensight.org/2004/05/oil-prices-free-market-economics-at-work/#comment-2297</link>
		<dc:creator>David Foster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=1090#comment-2297</guid>
		<description>Hydrogen should not be thought of as a &#039;fuel&#039; but rather as a temporary storage medium. It does not occur in useable form in nature, so you need some other source of energy to make liberate it from water or from natural gas. Those who advocate the &#039;hydrogen economy&#039; should specify where they are planning to get the energy to produce the hydrogen. Coal? Nuclear power? Wind?....Just building &quot;infrastructure&quot; (gas stations, pipelines, etc) doesn&#039;t solve this problem.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hydrogen should not be thought of as a &#8216;fuel&#8217; but rather as a temporary storage medium. It does not occur in useable form in nature, so you need some other source of energy to make liberate it from water or from natural gas. Those who advocate the &#8216;hydrogen economy&#8217; should specify where they are planning to get the energy to produce the hydrogen. Coal? Nuclear power? Wind?&#8230;.Just building &#8220;infrastructure&#8221; (gas stations, pipelines, etc) doesn&#8217;t solve this problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy C. Wright</title>
		<link>http://www.ensight.org/2004/05/oil-prices-free-market-economics-at-work/#comment-2298</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy C. Wright</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=1090#comment-2298</guid>
		<description>The larger the hydrogen economy becomes, the less power is needed to produce hydrogen. Right now it&#039;s rather high (1Watt/Litre). But, exacting hydrogen from water is a very, very scaleable process. The same amount of power (roughly) is required to convert 1 Litre as to convert a million litres.

If a hydrogen economy does happy, we&#039;ll see huge reservoirs of water being used to create huge amounts of hydrogen, or we&#039;ll see thousands of smaller tanks being linked so that the power can transfer through them.

When you&#039;re creating hundreds of millions of &quot;litres&quot; (how is hydrogen measured?) at once, using renewable sources of energy like solar and wind all of a sudden becomes quite feasible.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The larger the hydrogen economy becomes, the less power is needed to produce hydrogen. Right now it&#8217;s rather high (1Watt/Litre). But, exacting hydrogen from water is a very, very scaleable process. The same amount of power (roughly) is required to convert 1 Litre as to convert a million litres.</p>
<p>If a hydrogen economy does happy, we&#8217;ll see huge reservoirs of water being used to create huge amounts of hydrogen, or we&#8217;ll see thousands of smaller tanks being linked so that the power can transfer through them.</p>
<p>When you&#8217;re creating hundreds of millions of &#8220;litres&#8221; (how is hydrogen measured?) at once, using renewable sources of energy like solar and wind all of a sudden becomes quite feasible.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.ensight.org/2004/05/oil-prices-free-market-economics-at-work/#comment-2299</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=1090#comment-2299</guid>
		<description>As you refer to peak production, I can only assume you mean producing at current capacity.  Peak production, in Hubbert&#039;s Peak terminology, refers to the maximum level of production that will be achieved, and it is all downhill from there.  The US reached peak production in the early 70&#039;s.  I don&#039;t believe that there is any evidence that most OPEC nations are currently at peak production.  If they were to invest in new capactiy, they could produce more.

I too share your enthusiasm for alternative fuels, but I also would like to see us drill ANWR and open up the eastern Gulf of Mexico.  The more we can do to mitigate the massive wealth transfer of Americans to religious fanatics and dictators, the better.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As you refer to peak production, I can only assume you mean producing at current capacity.  Peak production, in Hubbert&#8217;s Peak terminology, refers to the maximum level of production that will be achieved, and it is all downhill from there.  The US reached peak production in the early 70&#8242;s.  I don&#8217;t believe that there is any evidence that most OPEC nations are currently at peak production.  If they were to invest in new capactiy, they could produce more.</p>
<p>I too share your enthusiasm for alternative fuels, but I also would like to see us drill ANWR and open up the eastern Gulf of Mexico.  The more we can do to mitigate the massive wealth transfer of Americans to religious fanatics and dictators, the better.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Morgan</title>
		<link>http://www.ensight.org/2004/05/oil-prices-free-market-economics-at-work/#comment-2300</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Morgan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=1090#comment-2300</guid>
		<description>&gt;&gt;
The larger the hydrogen economy becomes, the less power is needed to produce hydrogen. Right now it&#039;s rather high (1Watt/Litre). But, exacting hydrogen from water is a very, very scaleable process. The same amount of power (roughly) is required to convert 1 Litre as to convert a million litres.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>>><br />
The larger the hydrogen economy becomes, the less power is needed to produce hydrogen. Right now it&#8217;s rather high (1Watt/Litre). But, exacting hydrogen from water is a very, very scaleable process. The same amount of power (roughly) is required to convert 1 Litre as to convert a million litres.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy C. Wright</title>
		<link>http://www.ensight.org/2004/05/oil-prices-free-market-economics-at-work/#comment-2301</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy C. Wright</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=1090#comment-2301</guid>
		<description>Mark,

There are several ways to get hydrogen out of water, one of which is essentially (really, really simplified) high-powered electric current through the water.

Because water is nearly totally conducive, roughly the same amount is required for 1 litre as any amount above that.

Strictly speaking that isn&#039;t true (more harvesting of the hydrogen does require more power), however the ratio isn&#039;t 1:1 (power required per litre). It&#039;s much more like 1:20 with current technology.

Some of the hydrogen guys I know say this could easily be 1:1000 with proper investment and proper scaling.

I&#039;m not sure if this helps, though I&#039;d be quite happy to put you in touch with some industry insiders and resources you could poke at specifically :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark,</p>
<p>There are several ways to get hydrogen out of water, one of which is essentially (really, really simplified) high-powered electric current through the water.</p>
<p>Because water is nearly totally conducive, roughly the same amount is required for 1 litre as any amount above that.</p>
<p>Strictly speaking that isn&#8217;t true (more harvesting of the hydrogen does require more power), however the ratio isn&#8217;t 1:1 (power required per litre). It&#8217;s much more like 1:20 with current technology.</p>
<p>Some of the hydrogen guys I know say this could easily be 1:1000 with proper investment and proper scaling.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not sure if this helps, though I&#8217;d be quite happy to put you in touch with some industry insiders and resources you could poke at specifically :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Howard Owens</title>
		<link>http://www.ensight.org/2004/05/oil-prices-free-market-economics-at-work/#comment-2302</link>
		<dc:creator>Howard Owens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=1090#comment-2302</guid>
		<description>We read a commenter above who says that Bush has no incentive to pursue alternative engery sources because of his tie to an oil company, or to the industry.

This is pure bunk. It&#039;s bullshit of the hightest order.

First, there are no major oil companies that see themselves as &quot;oil companies.&quot; They are ENERGY companies. They make their money off of producing energy.  And when it makes economic sense to produce energy from sources other than oil, they will do so.  It&#039;s either that, or go out of business, because once alternatives make economic sense (which so far, is not the case), then the fuel producers either get on the bandwagon or go out of business.

The only mitigating circumstance here to this assertion is that sustainers often to not recognize disruptive opportunities soon enough (see Clayton Christensen).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We read a commenter above who says that Bush has no incentive to pursue alternative engery sources because of his tie to an oil company, or to the industry.</p>
<p>This is pure bunk. It&#8217;s bullshit of the hightest order.</p>
<p>First, there are no major oil companies that see themselves as &#8220;oil companies.&#8221; They are ENERGY companies. They make their money off of producing energy.  And when it makes economic sense to produce energy from sources other than oil, they will do so.  It&#8217;s either that, or go out of business, because once alternatives make economic sense (which so far, is not the case), then the fuel producers either get on the bandwagon or go out of business.</p>
<p>The only mitigating circumstance here to this assertion is that sustainers often to not recognize disruptive opportunities soon enough (see Clayton Christensen).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Evonne</title>
		<link>http://www.ensight.org/2004/05/oil-prices-free-market-economics-at-work/#comment-2303</link>
		<dc:creator>Evonne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=1090#comment-2303</guid>
		<description>Hydrogen gas requires fossil fuels to produce. Consider that most of the fossil fuel at a refinery is spent in the refinement process. Next, you have the air-sep industry who produces the hydrogen. Consider that the air-sep industry is probably the second largest consumer of energy, after the petroleum refinement industry, and you can see the costs adding up. Hydrogen is also difficult to contain because the atom is so small, and leaks plus heat can result in explosions. I truly don&#039;t see this as a viable source of power but I do see it as a diversion to mislead people to believe we are missing the boat by not utilizing hydrogen power. If someone knows more about this, please convince me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hydrogen gas requires fossil fuels to produce. Consider that most of the fossil fuel at a refinery is spent in the refinement process. Next, you have the air-sep industry who produces the hydrogen. Consider that the air-sep industry is probably the second largest consumer of energy, after the petroleum refinement industry, and you can see the costs adding up. Hydrogen is also difficult to contain because the atom is so small, and leaks plus heat can result in explosions. I truly don&#8217;t see this as a viable source of power but I do see it as a diversion to mislead people to believe we are missing the boat by not utilizing hydrogen power. If someone knows more about this, please convince me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

