Wednesday, July 30, 2008
I filled up the Ranger today at $3.44.9 for unleaded.
On my weekly consolidated trip to the "burbs". That's down fifty cents in three weeks.
Letter I sent to a reporter who will remain unnamed.
With prices falling I have been drawing my gas tank down to now a bit under half. Yesterday, on a lark I checked the credit card on line statement (nice tree saver!) and found I last topped off the tank on July 09. The trip odometer read 145 after a trip to the grocery so figure 50 miles per week. My Ranger four stick gets a very solid 20MPG so that two and a half gallons a week or $10 per week at $4 per gallon. I retired last fall but if I had a day job downtown, the airport or such I would use the Light rail. I measured it with GPS the other day and I'm under one mile to the 38th Street station. I'd use a "beater bike" to get there and back. With a ride under one mile a crummy bike works fine. Thinking of the last three weeks I could have saved twenty-five miles of driving, fifty miles would have been "pushing it". I use bicycles mostly for exercise but but for things like DVD rentals I tend to use the bike. The other day I needed a few small plumbing supplies. I bicycled. Again it's mostly for exercise.I tend to be politically conservative and think that "Global Warming" is total BS, especially in terms of CO2. I was pleased when I found out that my 2005 Ford Ranger had a California emissions engine. That said, if I am going to the store to get milk or eggs I'll take the Ranger. That said a lot of the automotive energy conservation is "strategic". Before light rail and when gas was cheap I recall wanting to watch the odometer roll over $100K on my old Toyota 4 stick pickup. I was going for a flu vaccination (forgot and odometer was 100002 when I got there). A year later when I went for a shot the odometer was 106K. My parents were alive then so visiting them put on 2K miles. Work commuting took a solid $1K miles. That's 3K total eliminated. If we extrapolate the current rate I and driving 2.5K per year. An annualized savings of maybe 500 miles. Not much!My low miles driven is mostly "strategic", basically living where I live and driving what I drive. We have the zealots in my neighborhood but to me it seems like "preaching to the choir". If I really sacrifice I might save half a gallon of gas a week.I find it easy to compose via email. I'll post the above on my http://fourfiftygas.com without citing who I sent it to.
I just checked my odmeter and credit card record.
145 miles driven in the last 20 day or 50 miles per week. I don't use the Ranger for work commuting and average one or two trips out to the "burbs" a week. I try to consolidate these longer trips. I will still use the Ranger for something like a grocery store run but for something like DVD rental I tend to bicycle. When I last topped the tank on July 09 I think I paid $3.93.9. It's a bit under half a tank. Gas seems to be going down so I'll probably wait a while before filling up.
Below is a story about a huge oil trading (speculating) company going bankrupt. I wonder if the futures market is worried about speculators being able to cover their positions. Not even the government would bail them out.
http://in.us.biz.yahoo.com/rb/080722/semgroup.html?.v=2
Huge oil trading loss sinks energy trader SemGroupTuesday July 22, 5:00 pm ET By Robert Campbell
NEW YORK (Reuters) - SemGroup LP declared bankruptcy on Tuesday after $3.2 billion in oil trading losses torpedoed the formerly 12th-largest private U.S. company.
The Tulsa-based company racked up the massive losses as oil prices ran up record gains, undercutting short crude futures positions SemGroup bought to hedge against its 500,000 barrel-per-day trading business.
To meet obligations, SemGroup plans to sell off oil and natural gas gathering, transportation, and storage assets worth an estimated $6.14 billion that were purchased in a whirlwind of acquisitions since it was founded in 2000.
"We have determined that the best way to maximize value for our creditors is to undertake a sales process that will transition our valuable businesses to well-established companies," Terry Ronan, SemGroup's acting chief executive, said in a statement.
SemGroup took a $2.4 billion loss on July 16 after it transferred its New York Mercantile Exchange oil futures trading account to Barclays Plc, converting what they called "loss contingencies" into an actual loss.
Included in the NYMEX loss was $290 million owed to SemGroup by a trading company owned by co-founder and former chief executive Thomas Kivisto, who was placed on administrative leave on July 17.
Securities legislation limits publicly traded company executives from extensive dealings with their firms, but experts said privately held companies have more flexibility.
"They can't do anything illegal. But there is no particular disclosure to anyone apart from any contractual agreements that they may have with investors," said Kenneth Froewiss, a professor of finance at New York University.
SemGroup had engaged in regular hedging transactions with BOK Financial Corp, where Kivisto had been a board member since 2006 before resigning on July 16. As of the end of 2007, SemGroup had hedged 21 million barrels of crude oil with BOK, which had a fair value of negative $130 million.
As of the end of March, this position was worth negative $88 million, said BOK spokesman Jesse Boudiette, who declined to comment on BOK's current exposure to SemGroup saying the bank would not speak publicly about individual clients.
Since going public just over a year ago, SemGroup Energy's stock has lost 72 percent of its value, most of that in the past five trading days. The stock closed at $22.69 on July 16, the day before Semgroup Energy disclosed SemGroup LP was having liquidity issues, and ended Tuesday at $8.28.
BIG LOSSES
SemGroup, ranked the No. 12 private U.S. company by Forbes.com in a 2007 article, also took $850 million in losses on July 17 when its over-the-counter hedging program was marked to market. It listed liabilities of $7.53 billion in its bankruptcy filing, including $3.1 billion of total debt $2 billion of secured debt and $594 million in unsecured notes.
SemGroup's financial difficulties were disclosed by its publicly traded affiliate SemGroup Energy Partners LP last week, when it warned that a liquidity crisis at its parent could lead to bankruptcy.
SemGroup Energy Partners management said it was confident the partnership could survive despite SemGroup's bankruptcy and would seek new business from third parties. The company's board has also authorized management to consider a sale or merger.
SemGroup Energy Partners also warned it was not ready to say if it would make a cash distribution to unitholders in the second quarter, though its management believes parent SemGroup will continue to use its fee-based assets to maintain operations while in bankruptcy.
(Additional reporting by Michael Erman and Matthew Robinson; writing by Matthew Robinson and Robert Campbell; Editing by Gary Hill)
Below is a story about a huge oil trading (speculating) company going bankrupt. I wonder if the futures market is worried about speculators being able to cover their positions. Not even the government would bail them out.
http://in.us.biz.yahoo.com/rb/080722/semgroup.html?.v=2
Huge oil trading loss sinks energy trader SemGroupTuesday July 22, 5:00 pm ET By Robert Campbell
NEW YORK (Reuters) - SemGroup LP declared bankruptcy on Tuesday after $3.2 billion in oil trading losses torpedoed the formerly 12th-largest private U.S. company.
The Tulsa-based company racked up the massive losses as oil prices ran up record gains, undercutting short crude futures positions SemGroup bought to hedge against its 500,000 barrel-per-day trading business.
To meet obligations, SemGroup plans to sell off oil and natural gas gathering, transportation, and storage assets worth an estimated $6.14 billion that were purchased in a whirlwind of acquisitions since it was founded in 2000.
"We have determined that the best way to maximize value for our creditors is to undertake a sales process that will transition our valuable businesses to well-established companies," Terry Ronan, SemGroup's acting chief executive, said in a statement.
SemGroup took a $2.4 billion loss on July 16 after it transferred its New York Mercantile Exchange oil futures trading account to Barclays Plc, converting what they called "loss contingencies" into an actual loss.
Included in the NYMEX loss was $290 million owed to SemGroup by a trading company owned by co-founder and former chief executive Thomas Kivisto, who was placed on administrative leave on July 17.
Securities legislation limits publicly traded company executives from extensive dealings with their firms, but experts said privately held companies have more flexibility.
"They can't do anything illegal. But there is no particular disclosure to anyone apart from any contractual agreements that they may have with investors," said Kenneth Froewiss, a professor of finance at New York University.
SemGroup had engaged in regular hedging transactions with BOK Financial Corp, where Kivisto had been a board member since 2006 before resigning on July 16. As of the end of 2007, SemGroup had hedged 21 million barrels of crude oil with BOK, which had a fair value of negative $130 million.
As of the end of March, this position was worth negative $88 million, said BOK spokesman Jesse Boudiette, who declined to comment on BOK's current exposure to SemGroup saying the bank would not speak publicly about individual clients.
Since going public just over a year ago, SemGroup Energy's stock has lost 72 percent of its value, most of that in the past five trading days. The stock closed at $22.69 on July 16, the day before Semgroup Energy disclosed SemGroup LP was having liquidity issues, and ended Tuesday at $8.28.
BIG LOSSES
SemGroup, ranked the No. 12 private U.S. company by Forbes.com in a 2007 article, also took $850 million in losses on July 17 when its over-the-counter hedging program was marked to market. It listed liabilities of $7.53 billion in its bankruptcy filing, including $3.1 billion of total debt $2 billion of secured debt and $594 million in unsecured notes.
SemGroup's financial difficulties were disclosed by its publicly traded affiliate SemGroup Energy Partners LP last week, when it warned that a liquidity crisis at its parent could lead to bankruptcy.
SemGroup Energy Partners management said it was confident the partnership could survive despite SemGroup's bankruptcy and would seek new business from third parties. The company's board has also authorized management to consider a sale or merger.
SemGroup Energy Partners also warned it was not ready to say if it would make a cash distribution to unitholders in the second quarter, though its management believes parent SemGroup will continue to use its fee-based assets to maintain operations while in bankruptcy.
(Additional reporting by Michael Erman and Matthew Robinson; writing by Matthew Robinson and Robert Campbell; Editing by Gary Hill)
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Local unleaded below $3.50
Before President Bush signed the executive order ending the ban on coastal drilling it was above $4 per gallon. I saw $4.09 at the Super America by my house. The local natural gas distributors are starting to warn of a thiry to fouty percent increase in residential retail gas costs this upcoming winter.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Meet the Press transcript of Al Gore interview.
Redrant: No one bothered to challenge Al Gore on weather carbon dioxide is really a threat.
'Meet the Press' transcript for July 20, 2008
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25761899/
NetcastJuly 20: Exclusive! Former Vice President and 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore goes one-on-one with Tom Brokaw. Plus, a political roundtable with NBC's David Gregory & Chuck Todd.
Gore backs new energy policy
Gore: We must listen to scientists
Gore sees role outside White House
Gore: Drilling won’t cure oil price ‘hangover’
Trip ‘important’ for Obama’s image
getCSS("3053751")
getCSS("3053751")
Most Popular
MR. TOM BROKAW: Our issues this Sunday: He served as Bill Clinton's vice president for eight years, then lost the presidential election to George W. Bush in 2000. He has since focused on his environmental crusade, winning an Oscar for his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," as well as the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. On Thursday he proposed a bold new plan to address global warming and the energy crisis.
FMR. VICE PRES. AL GORE: Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources within 10 years.
MR. BROKAW: With us, our exclusive guest Al Gore. Then, the 2008 presidential candidates turn their attention overseas, as Barack Obama makes his first trip to Afghanistan and arrives this week in Iraq; while John McCain goes on the attack with his first negative television ad.
Narrator: (From McCain political ad) Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan. He hasn't been to Iraq in years. He voted against funding our troops.
(End videotape)
MR. BROKAW: Insights and analysis from NBC News White House correspondent and host of MSNBC's "Race for the White House" David Gregory and NBC News political director Chuck Todd.
But first, the former Vice President Al Gore.
Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS, Mr. Gore.
VICE PRES. GORE: Thank you very much, Tom.
MR. BROKAW: We were just checking the records. It was eight years ago this week that you last appeared here. Now, the old Vaudeville line would be, "What have you been doing in the meantime?" but we all know. Nobel Laureate, Oscar winner and crusader for conservation of energy and attacking the climate change that we're all experiencing in this country. Made a major speech this week. We want to begin with that. I think that probably our audience understands that there is a growing consensus that climate change is real, but the debate is really, internally, how real is it, what are the effects of it going to be, and how serious will it affect us?
This is how The Boston Globe described your audacious plan to change the way that we get electricity in this country: "Gore challenged Americans to switch all of the nation's electricity production to wind, solar, and other carbon-free sources within 10 years, a goal that he said would solve global warming as well as economic and natural security crises caused by dependence on fossil fuels."
The reaction was pretty quick and not all of it was favorable, even from those who are aligned with you in thinking that we have to do something about climate change. This is what Philip Sharp, president of Resources for the Future, a Washington think tank, had to say. "At this point I don't think there's anyone in the industry who thinks that goal, as a practical matter, could be met. This is not yet a plan for action; this is a superstretch goal." Your friends at MIT, the Energy Initiative Group up there, and they have some radical ideas as well. They said, "Can we do it this quickly? It would be very, very tough." What you have outlined, in fact, is a goal that may not be achievable.
VICE PRES. GORE: I think it is achievable, and I think it's important that we achieve it, Tom. There were also many other reactions from people who said this is the right goal because we need to reset the bar and change the debate. Our current course is completely unsustainable. We are being told by scientists around the world, particularly the international group that is charged with studying this and reporting to world leaders, that we may have less than 10 years in order to make dramatic changes lest we lose the chance to, to avoid catastrophic results from the climate crisis. We're building up CO2 so rapidly that we're seeing the consequences scientists have long predicted. And the only way to take responsible action is to get at the heart of the problem, which is the burning of fossil fuels. And the quickest and easiest way to back out the coal, which is the worst of the problem, and oil, is to look at electricity generation. And there, there have been two important changes. Number one, the cost of the new solar electricity options, wind power and geothermal power, not to mention efficiency gains, have come down and they're coming down as the demand increases the attention paid to innovation. The other change is that oil prices and coal prices have been skyrocketing and because China and other emerging economies are demanding so much of it, and new discoveries of oil have fallen off dramatically, no matter the debate over drilling, the new discoveries have been declining and the new demand has been completely swamping it, and over the long term, those prices, everyone agrees, are going to continue to go up. So now it is competitive to switch over. At the same time we're seeing our national security experts saying we're highly vulnerable with 70 percent of our oil coming from foreign countries, the largest reserves being in the most unstable region of the world, the Persian Gulf; and our economy is being really hurt badly by rising gasoline prices, rising coal prices. So we need to make a big strategic shift to a new energy infrastructure that relies on renewables.
MR. BROKAW: I don't think anyone doubts that we have to make some profound changes in this country and make some tough decisions and maybe even suffer some pain, but let's talk about the cost. This is your own group in terms of describing what this may cost. The numbers are from $1 1/2 trillion to $3 trillion as an estimate. Where does that money come from for a new president who is facing a $400 billion deficit, has two wars going on, needs an economic stimulus if it's a Democrat, as Obama has outlined--we have a housing crisis in this country--and probably diminished tax revenues?
VICE PRES. GORE: Well, those, those are not all public funds. That's the total private and public investment, which is comparable to what we would spend over that same period of time if we continued to rely on coal and oil, which is rising so rapidly in price. It's less than the cost of the Iraq war, according to Joe Stiglitz and some other economists, and it is an investment.
MR. BROKAW: We haven't spent that much on the Iraq war, but we've spent a lot of money.
VICE PRES. GORE: Well, if you--well, Joe Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, estimates the all-in cost of the Iraq war as more than that total. But, but, in any case, when you talk about a large strategic initiative of this kind, whichever direction we take, it's going to cost a lot of money. But, in this case, the investment would be paid back many times over and we could get the equivalent of dollar a gallon gasoline for cars as we switch toward an electric fleet.
MR. BROKAW: What would electricity cost in terms of the transition while it's under way? Most estimates are that it would cost a lot more money, and that would have a devastating effect on Main Street and especially on rural America.
VICE PRES. GORE: Well, I, I don't agree with that, and I think that the devastating effect on Main Street and the rest of the country is coming from the present rising costs for electricity. And the reason why is China and the other emerging economies again are bidding up the price of every lump of coal and every drop of oil, and the new discoveries have been declining, so the estimates are now that these price increases are likely to continue until we stop just taking baby steps and offering gimmicks and, instead, have a strategic initiative.
Now, Tom, among other things, you are the biographer of the, of the greatest generation, and, at the beginning of that period when they rose to that challenge, there were a lot of people who said that couldn't be done. We couldn't make these hundreds of thousands of airplanes, we couldn't mobilize to win that struggle. And yet we did. The only limiting factor here is political will. This climate crisis is threatening our country, threatening all of human civilization. I know that sounds shrill, and I know people don't like to, to hear phrases like that, but it is the reality. We have to awaken to it, and we have to mobilize to confront it.
Click for more from 'Meet the Press'
Video: Schwarzenegger on his two-party home Video: Can Obama win in the WestSurrogates outline campaign strategies
MR. BROKAW: But what do we have to give up to reach the cost of a trillion and a half to three trillion dollars? There's going to have to be some pain, some sacrifice on the part of the American taxpayer, isn't there?
VICE PRES. GORE: Well, I, I think we should have a shift in our tax system, and I think we should tax what we burn and not what we earn, and I think we should take account of the incredibly expensive environmental costs that go into burning coal and oil. I also think that the coal and oil industries can play a big role in this if they will make good on the promise that carbon capture and sequestration will be real. Right now, there's no demonstration project, there's nothing real about it. The, the phrase clean coal is a contradiction in terms. There's no such thing as clean coal now. But the industry knows that with an all-out push toward capturing the CO2 and burying it safely, that can be done.
'Meet the Press' transcript for July 20, 2008
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25761899/
NetcastJuly 20: Exclusive! Former Vice President and 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore goes one-on-one with Tom Brokaw. Plus, a political roundtable with NBC's David Gregory & Chuck Todd.
Gore backs new energy policy
Gore: We must listen to scientists
Gore sees role outside White House
Gore: Drilling won’t cure oil price ‘hangover’
Trip ‘important’ for Obama’s image
getCSS("3053751")
getCSS("3053751")
Most Popular
MR. TOM BROKAW: Our issues this Sunday: He served as Bill Clinton's vice president for eight years, then lost the presidential election to George W. Bush in 2000. He has since focused on his environmental crusade, winning an Oscar for his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," as well as the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. On Thursday he proposed a bold new plan to address global warming and the energy crisis.
FMR. VICE PRES. AL GORE: Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources within 10 years.
MR. BROKAW: With us, our exclusive guest Al Gore. Then, the 2008 presidential candidates turn their attention overseas, as Barack Obama makes his first trip to Afghanistan and arrives this week in Iraq; while John McCain goes on the attack with his first negative television ad.
Narrator: (From McCain political ad) Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan. He hasn't been to Iraq in years. He voted against funding our troops.
(End videotape)
MR. BROKAW: Insights and analysis from NBC News White House correspondent and host of MSNBC's "Race for the White House" David Gregory and NBC News political director Chuck Todd.
But first, the former Vice President Al Gore.
Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS, Mr. Gore.
VICE PRES. GORE: Thank you very much, Tom.
MR. BROKAW: We were just checking the records. It was eight years ago this week that you last appeared here. Now, the old Vaudeville line would be, "What have you been doing in the meantime?" but we all know. Nobel Laureate, Oscar winner and crusader for conservation of energy and attacking the climate change that we're all experiencing in this country. Made a major speech this week. We want to begin with that. I think that probably our audience understands that there is a growing consensus that climate change is real, but the debate is really, internally, how real is it, what are the effects of it going to be, and how serious will it affect us?
This is how The Boston Globe described your audacious plan to change the way that we get electricity in this country: "Gore challenged Americans to switch all of the nation's electricity production to wind, solar, and other carbon-free sources within 10 years, a goal that he said would solve global warming as well as economic and natural security crises caused by dependence on fossil fuels."
The reaction was pretty quick and not all of it was favorable, even from those who are aligned with you in thinking that we have to do something about climate change. This is what Philip Sharp, president of Resources for the Future, a Washington think tank, had to say. "At this point I don't think there's anyone in the industry who thinks that goal, as a practical matter, could be met. This is not yet a plan for action; this is a superstretch goal." Your friends at MIT, the Energy Initiative Group up there, and they have some radical ideas as well. They said, "Can we do it this quickly? It would be very, very tough." What you have outlined, in fact, is a goal that may not be achievable.
VICE PRES. GORE: I think it is achievable, and I think it's important that we achieve it, Tom. There were also many other reactions from people who said this is the right goal because we need to reset the bar and change the debate. Our current course is completely unsustainable. We are being told by scientists around the world, particularly the international group that is charged with studying this and reporting to world leaders, that we may have less than 10 years in order to make dramatic changes lest we lose the chance to, to avoid catastrophic results from the climate crisis. We're building up CO2 so rapidly that we're seeing the consequences scientists have long predicted. And the only way to take responsible action is to get at the heart of the problem, which is the burning of fossil fuels. And the quickest and easiest way to back out the coal, which is the worst of the problem, and oil, is to look at electricity generation. And there, there have been two important changes. Number one, the cost of the new solar electricity options, wind power and geothermal power, not to mention efficiency gains, have come down and they're coming down as the demand increases the attention paid to innovation. The other change is that oil prices and coal prices have been skyrocketing and because China and other emerging economies are demanding so much of it, and new discoveries of oil have fallen off dramatically, no matter the debate over drilling, the new discoveries have been declining and the new demand has been completely swamping it, and over the long term, those prices, everyone agrees, are going to continue to go up. So now it is competitive to switch over. At the same time we're seeing our national security experts saying we're highly vulnerable with 70 percent of our oil coming from foreign countries, the largest reserves being in the most unstable region of the world, the Persian Gulf; and our economy is being really hurt badly by rising gasoline prices, rising coal prices. So we need to make a big strategic shift to a new energy infrastructure that relies on renewables.
MR. BROKAW: I don't think anyone doubts that we have to make some profound changes in this country and make some tough decisions and maybe even suffer some pain, but let's talk about the cost. This is your own group in terms of describing what this may cost. The numbers are from $1 1/2 trillion to $3 trillion as an estimate. Where does that money come from for a new president who is facing a $400 billion deficit, has two wars going on, needs an economic stimulus if it's a Democrat, as Obama has outlined--we have a housing crisis in this country--and probably diminished tax revenues?
VICE PRES. GORE: Well, those, those are not all public funds. That's the total private and public investment, which is comparable to what we would spend over that same period of time if we continued to rely on coal and oil, which is rising so rapidly in price. It's less than the cost of the Iraq war, according to Joe Stiglitz and some other economists, and it is an investment.
MR. BROKAW: We haven't spent that much on the Iraq war, but we've spent a lot of money.
VICE PRES. GORE: Well, if you--well, Joe Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, estimates the all-in cost of the Iraq war as more than that total. But, but, in any case, when you talk about a large strategic initiative of this kind, whichever direction we take, it's going to cost a lot of money. But, in this case, the investment would be paid back many times over and we could get the equivalent of dollar a gallon gasoline for cars as we switch toward an electric fleet.
MR. BROKAW: What would electricity cost in terms of the transition while it's under way? Most estimates are that it would cost a lot more money, and that would have a devastating effect on Main Street and especially on rural America.
VICE PRES. GORE: Well, I, I don't agree with that, and I think that the devastating effect on Main Street and the rest of the country is coming from the present rising costs for electricity. And the reason why is China and the other emerging economies again are bidding up the price of every lump of coal and every drop of oil, and the new discoveries have been declining, so the estimates are now that these price increases are likely to continue until we stop just taking baby steps and offering gimmicks and, instead, have a strategic initiative.
Now, Tom, among other things, you are the biographer of the, of the greatest generation, and, at the beginning of that period when they rose to that challenge, there were a lot of people who said that couldn't be done. We couldn't make these hundreds of thousands of airplanes, we couldn't mobilize to win that struggle. And yet we did. The only limiting factor here is political will. This climate crisis is threatening our country, threatening all of human civilization. I know that sounds shrill, and I know people don't like to, to hear phrases like that, but it is the reality. We have to awaken to it, and we have to mobilize to confront it.
Click for more from 'Meet the Press'
Video: Schwarzenegger on his two-party home Video: Can Obama win in the WestSurrogates outline campaign strategies
MR. BROKAW: But what do we have to give up to reach the cost of a trillion and a half to three trillion dollars? There's going to have to be some pain, some sacrifice on the part of the American taxpayer, isn't there?
VICE PRES. GORE: Well, I, I think we should have a shift in our tax system, and I think we should tax what we burn and not what we earn, and I think we should take account of the incredibly expensive environmental costs that go into burning coal and oil. I also think that the coal and oil industries can play a big role in this if they will make good on the promise that carbon capture and sequestration will be real. Right now, there's no demonstration project, there's nothing real about it. The, the phrase clean coal is a contradiction in terms. There's no such thing as clean coal now. But the industry knows that with an all-out push toward capturing the CO2 and burying it safely, that can be done.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
McCain Closes the Gap
McCain Closes the Gap
By Dick MorrisFrontPageMagazine.com 7/15/2008 Issues don’t always flow from the top down — from the campaign hierarchy to the voters. Sometimes they flow the other way, from an angered public upward. This is the case with the oil drilling and energy issue. Every time Americans gas up, they are reminded that the Democrats’ refusal to allow oil drilling virtually anyplace has caused the long-term escalation in oil prices in the United States. Democrats don’t say they oppose all drilling, but they do. You can drill, but not in Alaska, not off shore, not in the shale, etc.. McCain is benefiting and Obama suffering because of the drilling issue. It is most likely this issue which is driving the closing of the race. Rasmussen has the race tied for two days in a row in his tracking and Newsweek has the Obama lead collapsing from fifteen points to three. And it may be oil that is driving the difference.
Dick Morris is a former adviser to President Clinton. To get all his columns e-mailed to you, register for free at DickMorris.com.
By Dick MorrisFrontPageMagazine.com 7/15/2008 Issues don’t always flow from the top down — from the campaign hierarchy to the voters. Sometimes they flow the other way, from an angered public upward. This is the case with the oil drilling and energy issue. Every time Americans gas up, they are reminded that the Democrats’ refusal to allow oil drilling virtually anyplace has caused the long-term escalation in oil prices in the United States. Democrats don’t say they oppose all drilling, but they do. You can drill, but not in Alaska, not off shore, not in the shale, etc.. McCain is benefiting and Obama suffering because of the drilling issue. It is most likely this issue which is driving the closing of the race. Rasmussen has the race tied for two days in a row in his tracking and Newsweek has the Obama lead collapsing from fifteen points to three. And it may be oil that is driving the difference.
Dick Morris is a former adviser to President Clinton. To get all his columns e-mailed to you, register for free at DickMorris.com.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
New posting at http://anti-strib.com
Biking didn't fit my work schedule well. I live less than a half mile from the light rail station so when I go downtown I tend to take a bike. It's 3.5 miles to downtown Minneapolis and I can do it low traffic on a bike until the Metrodome. I tend to use the a bike for short trips like to the video stroe or the neighborhood Riverview Theater. Mostly exercise and parking, the distances are short so I don't save a lot of gas. Trip consolidation actually saves more gas than bicycling. Bicycling is mostly for exercise but with the time it takes I don't drive as much and that saves gas.
Off subject but here is an interesting display on natural gas used for generating electricity by state. In the US this has doubled in the last decade so now more natural gas is used for electricity than for residential and smaller business use. Natural gas is expected to increase by more than half this winter so expect heating gas heating costs to increase by at least half. Fortunately Minnesota doesn't yet use much natural gas for electricity. Here is the link. http://www.americaspower.org/The-Facts
Off subject but here is an interesting display on natural gas used for generating electricity by state. In the US this has doubled in the last decade so now more natural gas is used for electricity than for residential and smaller business use. Natural gas is expected to increase by more than half this winter so expect heating gas heating costs to increase by at least half. Fortunately Minnesota doesn't yet use much natural gas for electricity. Here is the link. http://www.americaspower.org/The-Facts
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Natural gas takes a hike. Sticker shock awaits consumers as the price of another fuel quietly rises.
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/19926699.html?location_refer=Lifestyle
By KAREN YOUSO, Star Tribune
Last update: June 15, 2008 - 2:28 PM
If you find gas prices at the pump a worry, get ready to wring your hands over natural gas, too. Like gasoline, its prices are going up -- way up.
Utilities are paying 57 percent more for natural gas than they did last year at this time, said Vincent Chavez with the Minnesota Office of Energy Security.
By KAREN YOUSO, Star Tribune
Last update: June 15, 2008 - 2:28 PM
If you find gas prices at the pump a worry, get ready to wring your hands over natural gas, too. Like gasoline, its prices are going up -- way up.
Utilities are paying 57 percent more for natural gas than they did last year at this time, said Vincent Chavez with the Minnesota Office of Energy Security.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)