Pulp Economics:
Oil Quiz
Enjoy.
Published 4/19/2006 08:18:00 PM
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Pulp Economics:
Enjoy.
==↑Return to the top of the blog↑==
new visitors to The Dark Wraith Forums
<< 56 Comments Total
Good evening, Dark Wraith.
The dog ate my homework. I was studying for this quiz, when a tornado took my study notes.
I'm thinking 40% is pretty darned good. I've learned, over the past few years that, "Up is Down" and, "Bad is Good". Obviously, I scored very high on this quiz.
Good evening, Trailer Trash.
I think you're at the wrong Website. The applications for Scott McClellan's job are at www.spin_it_like_a_top.com.
The Dark Wraith will, however, provide you with a letter of recommendation.
What's worse Dark Wraith, and I know you know this but I figure what the heck...if you will indulge me.
Here in California we get 0 of our oil from the Middle East.
We even have pretty good domestic production. Some of the oil producers here in CA produce oil for a cost of $12 a barrel...
And yet they turn around and sell it for the going market price...which last I checked was above $72 per barrell...
Needless to say record oil profits, wind fall retirmenets and salaries for CEO's etc.
Same thing happened during the oil embargo in the 70's and the U.S. imposed a tax on excess profits.
Also just 40%.
My, my!
- oddjob (who appreciates learning the information I obviously did not know!)
Missed #2 and #3. Back in 1972 I was buying lawn mower gas for $0.3 something, but had not one idea of the price per barrel.
Good evening.
Progress at 20%. I'm getting better at these...
60%. I wasn't alive in 1972 so I was all chance on that one, and I guessed 1/2 on the last one. Close but no cigar!
Good morning, Dark Wraith.
I scored 40% on the quiz. I thought that was pretty good for guessing.
I was a kid in the '70s, and I honestly had no idea that the price of oil had been so low. It looked really expensive to me.
good morning dw
nice history/econ lesson. 40%. dang. no excuses. i was alive back then. sort of.
Good Morning Dark Wraith,
On one of your pop quizes, I think 40% is quite a satisfactory score.
I think you're at the wrong Website. The applications for Scott McClellan's job are at www.spin_it_like_a_top.com.
* snorffle *
Hunh! I got 40% too.
I got questions 1 and 5 correct.
On #2 and 4 I overthought it and figured that the answers would be counterintuitive, so I lowballed question 2 and figured that Saudi Arabia was too obvious.
Oh man, If I had guessed $12 a barrel for question 3 I could argue it, because that's what it's close to in inflation adjusted dollars. (But I guessed $15....
Good afternoon, Dark Wraith.
Thanks! My application has been completed. I just need that letter of recommendation:)
Your quote:
Of course gas prices will come down: the elections are in November.
Yeah, but until November, it will continue to rise. I noticed that it's gone up about $.30 within the last week!
Good afternoon, Trailer Trash.
Right now, the oil futures markets are so spooked that, if someone whispered, "Boom," a whole lot of traders would leave to be with Jesus.
Rumors are part of the broad flow of information used by markets to assess values from moment to moment; but sometimes the rumors just about dominate the thinking. War is on a lot of people's minds, and it's taking on a life of its own.
All I can do is hope that the speculation about it doesn't cause the reality of it; and I hope to God no one in the Bush Administration or in a foreign government tries by nefarious means to push us over the edge into the abyss of a war with Iran.
I wouldn't be able to afford to drive to where I teach with gas at $5.00 a gallon.
The Dark Wraith would have to set up his pup tent on the school grounds.
And forgive me, all, for my relative silence during the quiz. I didn't want to disturb those who were still taking it.
I really shouldn't do these quizzes. I feel almost evil when I start laughing at the comments.
Texas Shiva's declaration that her 20% was evidence that she's improving at taking my quizzes is almost verbatim what students who take my real quizzes say sometimes.
Now, I hope you all know that a quiz like this isn't an assessment instrument. It's merely an entirely pleasant way to gather some knowledge. Those who take these quizzes have already demonstrated intelligence beyond the ordinary: we leave to the fundamentalists the choice of life that declines new information and re-alignments of previous beliefs.
And 40% is actually pretty decent. Most normal people don't spend their lives voraciously absorbing information about petroleum markets and prices.
They do, however, become much more aware of the industry during times of great stress as we are now enduring. They also become much more interested in understanding the industry, its history, and facts about the commodity upon which we all depend so greatly. In education, such times of heightened interest in learning the a particular subject are called "teachable moments."
Unfortunately, this Administration offers to all of us nearly unrelenting opportunities for one teachable moment right after another.
Sometimes, the Dark Wraith longs for the luxury of guiltlessly vegging out in front of an old movie.
Not an old movie, but as this is a static medium perhaps a comic will suffice?
Not his best, but today's Zippy the Pinhead.
Or, if you prefer something a bit more acerbic (bitter even), today's Non Sequitur.
- oddjob
And 40% is actually pretty decent.
Heh heh, the George "Special Ed" Bush hoe handles on Faux News are going to be quoting you for sure as his polls slide to 33%.
Good evening, Mr. Goat.
The grading scale is as such:
20% and above: Pass
If you're George W. Bush: Fail
The Dark Wraith knows how to set a fair curve.
WOW! I passed! I got 20 percent!
It was an interesting little pop quiz, considering I didn't know anything about the oil market. A couple of questions are total curveballs--Canada being the top supplier of crude oil to the U.S. was one I never expected. But reflecting on the answer, I can see that happening now, considering the price of crude has gone over $70 a barrel, making it economically feasable to extract the crude oil from Canada's tar sands. I should have realized that OPEC has a number of members ouside of the Middle Eastern countries, and I took a guess on $7 a barrel for the 1972 price. The question that surprised me was the the 2/3 percentage of all oil is used by transportation in the U.S. That is a lot of oil being wasted by gas guzzling SUVs! If there is one area that we need to improve our energy efficiency, it has got to be in the transportation sector--especially with CAFE standards. Unfortunately, I don't see the Bush White House pushing for improved energy efficiency. As a former oilman himself, President Bush would rather give in to Big Oil's expressed interest in more drilling and more production. That's not going to help us much as long as Americans keep driving the big Hummers.
Hi Dark Wraith,
If you are grading on a curve then judging by the repsonses I got an A++
This is OT, but I thought it was a column worth sharing. (Hat tip, RawStory.)
- oddjob
Funny that you should post that link; I just read it and was going to post it here also. The comparison of the Wraith's Special Analysis: A Tactical Decision before the End Game (and reader comments) with Dean's article (especially the What We Can Expect From Bush in the Future) is almost too eerie.
i aced it, but i worry about stuff like that and totally guessed twice. like on number one producer. i remembered from somewhere that the soviet union was #1 exporter, but there's no there there anymore. . .what is your professional evaluation of "the great wave, price fluctuations in history" by david hackett fisher. i've been besieging it a few pages at a time for over a month now. do you think it's worth the slog?
Good afternoon, Stephen.
You aced it?!
Sheesh. I must be slipping.
I can see aggregate results, but I don't set these up so I could match a name or IP address to a taker. I do see that I've had two 100% scores so far, so apparently you aren't the only one who's nailed this test to the wall. (So far, by the way, over 200 quiz takers, and the median is holding firm at 40%.)
I won't be changing the curve I noted in a previous comment, but I will be beefing up my next quiz, I'll tell you that right now.
Moving on, I wish I could dismiss Hackett's book, Great Wave: Price Revolutions and the Rhythm of History, as unworthy, but I cannot quite do that. I actually like the book because it offers a relatively popular accounting of historical price cycles that motivates people to think about large-scale, secular trends in history.
I have two principal issues with the book. First, the Black Death in Europe did, indeed, cause major shifts in the economies and the cultures of the nations that were affected. As grim as it may sound, these changes were largely for the better: fewer workers meant living standards, which had been eroding for perhaps half-a-century or more in some places, recovered. Also, the awfulness of the decrop of the population led afterward to considerable opening of people's minds and interest in moving on from the dark times. You can see this even in the changes in fashion in Europe: before the Plague, most people's clothing was frockish and altogether dim; afterward, clothes became more form fitting, and styles, fashions, and even traditions of clothing in common rite and ritual began to pop up almost out of nowhere (they actually had much older roots, but people were willing to try things again).
The problem is that the Plague didn't cause changes as much as it accelerated pressures that had been building before it.
I see this problem in a number of historical accounts: a touchstone is used as the proof of a turning point, but the evidence is downplayed or ignored that change was already underway before the crisis ever showed up.
That note of criticism having been stated, I really do like the book, and I thank you for reminding me of it. I just put it in the sidebar as the featured book advertisement.
The Dark Wraith will one of these days find a book people will actually want to buy in that stupid sidebar.
Good morning, Mr. Goat. I went over to that link OddJob provided, and as I was reading the article by John Dean, I actually said aloud, "That's what I wrote!" Your term 'eerie' is rather appropriate.
I wrote a comment to the article at FindLaw, although I don't know whether or not they'll actually put it up on the message board there.
We'll see. Maybe we'll have some new visitors to the blog if they actually print my comment there.
That means we need to straighten this place up and act nice and normal around here. We certainly don't want to scare off any new readers here with some quirkiness about this place that people might not understand.
The Dark Wraith heads out to grab some extra Spam™ sandwich spread for the guests.
Actually, I'm not surprised to see similar educated guessing among well educated political junkies, even if they have no direct ties to each other.
The past events are (basically) well known, and the behaviors of the principals are well known, and as long as one is reasonably insightful regarding human behavior, there are then only a relatively limited number of likely ways in which future events will unfold. The details are of course unpredictable, but the courses in which those details will direct events are not so unpredictable.
For instance, it isn't as though we skeptics knew with any certainty what the exact ways in which the details would unfold regarding the aftermath of invading Iraq, but it's hardly a surprise that Iraq is in the early stages of civil war. In like manner, there are only so many outcomes left for ShrubCo.
- oddjob
The past events are (basically) well known, and the behaviors of the principals are well known, and as long as one is reasonably insightful regarding human behavior, there are then only a relatively limited number of likely ways in which future events will unfold. The details are of course unpredictable, but the courses in which those details will direct events are not so unpredictable.
Interesting thought Oddjob, but I wonder if there really were only a number of limited ways that these future events could have unfolded. I would say that there were a greater number of ways future events could have unfolded early on in either the invasion, or in the early days of the Iraqi reconstruction that could have changed the course of future events. An example here would be the Bush administration's decision to disband the Iraqi regular army. By keeping the regular army intact and under U.S. supervision, we may not have had witness the subsequent looting that occurred after the war--especially the looting of unguarded Iraqi arms depots. This certainly could have changed the outcome of this low-tech insurgency, since the insurgents would not be using the explosives looted from those unguarded depots to attack U.S. convoys with roadside bombs. As the Bush administration made its decisions early on within the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq, those decisions would lead to new consequences and new outcomes--some of which would greatly hamper the Bush administration's control of Iraq.
Anyone know where we could find a used DeLorian Time Machine?
well your deepest darkness, i was afraid that's how you would answer. i will keep slogging. sometimes when a book of that kind is dense and slow going, i can find the "fulla shit" part and dismiss it. a lot of what you cited was making sense. and, it's easy to forgive something like mixing a cause with a dramatic accellerator when the basic point is valid. i like fisher's work in general and will attack this one with the same grim resolve i showed with "albion's seed." thank you for your attention. dean's article was well written, i would not be surprised at all if he lifted it from somebody with morals to be outraged.
I got 20% Haven't done that poorly since Eisenhower's recession. Guess I'll wait for Leno's jaywalking auditions. Oh the Humility!
Interesting thought Oddjob, but I wonder if there really were only a number of limited ways that these future events could have unfolded. I would say that there were a greater number of ways future events could have unfolded early on in either the invasion, or in the early days of the Iraqi reconstruction that could have changed the course of future events.
Agreed, but there still would have been an insurgency and it still would have procured weapons. Given that the Iraqi Army was involved to one extent or another in Saddam's atrocities against the citizens, keeping the army intact would have lessened some problems, and created others. I can easily imagine such a scenario still creating the impression among the Iraqis that we were primarily there not to liberate them but to opress them.
That still leads to a growing insurgency effort to drive us out, and then you're still left with an artificial country deliberately fashioned by the English and the French out of three different homelands with three different and atagonistic ethnicities vying with each other for the best result at the end of whatever it is that happens, only now the Sunnis have a much stronger hand since the army would be largely one that Saddam had created and Saddam relied upon the Sunnis.
Surely the outcome would have been different in the particulars, but I'm not so sure the overall outline would have been all that different.
- oddjob
(I should clarify that I didn't mean to suggest that the insurgency under your scenario would have procured the weapons in the manner they did in reality, but rather to suggest that as long as there are insurgents, they will certainly get weapons somehow or other.)
- oddojb
"The Asian Development Bank warns of threatening monetary turmoil"
Signs-of-the-Times article at
http://tinyurl.com/eelf2
Hey, Father Tyme, welcome to The Dark Wraith Forums.
Don't worry about the quiz score. You can always take it again and ace it. Besides, it's good to know petroleum industry facts: you never know when you're going to be at a gas station where someone's going to ask you, for example, what percentage of our petroleum consumption is for transportation. Now you'll be able to answer the question and impress all the other drivers there.
I was talking today with someone at school, and she said she had heard that the United States actually exports oil. She asked me if that was true. I told her that it was, indeed, true that we are an oil exporting nation (not a net exporter, mind you; but we are most definitely an exporter). So here's the question:
As a percentage of total U.S. oil consumption, how much oil extracted in the U.S. is exported?
◊ less than 1%
◊ about 2%
◊ around 5%
◊ close to 10%
The Dark Wraith awaits an answer.
268 million barrels sounds like a whole bunch doesn't it Mr. Wraith?
Good evening, Eric.
The DeLorean Time Machine might not do much good. From what I understand, the DeLorean wasn't all that great on gas mileage.
I will tell you that I firmly believe that events could have proceeded far more favorably in Iraq, and therefore in resulting global oil markets, had we not made so many unbelievably bad mistakes early in the war.
From what I understand, our military commanders negotiated a considerable stand-down of the Iraqi army (thereby making our march to Baghdad considerably less bloody than it otherwise could have been), which means we had essentially established a settlement with the heavy guns that would have ensured the continued integrity of the Iraqi oil production machinery, which could then have been brought up to pre-embargo production levels within a year.
Instead, we screwed the Iraqi army, sent the Sunnis into continuing, doggéd insurgency, and sent the Iraqi oil production infrastructure into long-term torpor.
There are a lot of other issues, too; but right now, I'm in the mood to blame President Forrest Gump and his crew for leaving us hanging out to dry with a looming economic crisis.
All of that rant having thus been vented, some oil traders want $100 a barrel, but they're not going to get it, not on this run-up. They'll get it on the next one, I think, but we'll have some relief here eventually.
But so help me God, if I hear one more media hoehandle say there are "spot shortages" showing up in parts of the country, or if I hear one more oil industry flack say "supply disruptions" are merely the result of normal transistions from Winter gas blends to Summer blends, I'm going to launch into a head-ripping Econ 101 post here, wherein I shall spare little in the way of vitriol about ignoramuses who misuse economics and its terminology to justify the insufferable.
The Dark Wraith is once again starting to feel that pain radiating through his left arm.
Good evening, Mr. Goat.
The Strategic Reserve is less than three times that amount.
Yet another fun statistic.
The Dark Wraith dearly loves the numbers game.
[Until it comes to that $3.019 number at the gas pump yesterday.]
Dark Wraith,
I'm guessing we export around 5%. If I remember my sordid U.S. history, most, if not all of our export comes solely from the Alaska Pipeline to Japan and I think that was around 5 or 6% by act of congress but it may have been changed by the last few congresses. I seem to remember a joke during the 70s gas shortage that Kissinger 'saved' us from the A-Rabs with a secret deal. The guess was that he offered them Rhode Island. Can't wait to see what this congress offers them!
P.S. I THINK that we have to sell them the oil at a ridiculously low price forever; I may be wrong.
I will be beefing up my next quiz
Thanks a lot, Stephen! Me and the other 20%ers will be stealing your lunch money.
Oh Knowledgeable One, I have a question for you: What would the price of a gallon of gasoline be if it had to incorporate the costs of security expenditures in the Middle East?
(My back-of-the-envelope estimate based on some quick web research suggests it's less than I would have thought.)
Hi DW,
Ok, did this the other day at work (shh don't tell anyone), and you can count me in at a solid 40%. This after remembering being in line for gas on whatever odd or even day I was allowed to buy some in the early 70's!
You would think I had a clue!
At least we had sense enough soon after to dump the GM Jeep and get a Honda. Yesterday put a little less than 7 gal. in my Toyota Matrix and I was really taken aback at the $23 it cost me.
So the DNC called this morning asking if I would contribute...bwahahaha I told him ain't no way until they get some fukin balls..well, no I did not say that but did make mention of a Spineless Democratic Party.
He brought up Pelosi, Clark and Dean. I expressed surprise that the DNC is even recognizing Dean's magnificent contribution and chuckled at Pelosi, but wanted to know why the hell he can't even mention the name of the only true Patriot of the bunch Feingold.
Soon after he attempted to bring the conversation to a close, I told him I was not yelling AT him, just at the Party in general and until they start fighting back I will only contribute to the ACLU and specific candidates of MY choice!
My husband laughingly felt sorry for the guy but quickly found some yard work to do as by then I was on a roll!!
Guess I'm still teed off!!
good afternoon dark wraith:
like i said, i totally lucked out at least twice with guesses on the quiz. i've done well in school situations guessing like that. on the export of u.s. oil i guess 5% along the same lines of it coming directly out of the pipeline and straight to japan by treaty or fiat of congress. i never apologised for wrecking curves in school. to protect my lunch money i started goju ryu karate lessons at the age of 8.
Good afternoon, elf.
I am not without sympathy for your husband's decision to quietly depart during your dressing down of that hapless fellow from the Democratic National Committee. Sometimes it is best to allow a downed beast the dignity of being eaten without spectators grimacing at his death throes.
I do, however, wish I had a transcript of your conversation with the DNC fundraiser. I would have gladly and gleefully published it. I have the draft news copy of the article all ready to go:
-------------
DNC Rep Gets Ass Chewed Off
April 22, 2006 — In what was supposed to be a routine call to whip up some dough for more spineless, mainstream Democratic candidates, an unnamed teleflunky got a hold of Mrs. Elf, who was in no mood to mince words.
Investigators trying to reconstruct the scene at Democratic National Committee headquarters say that, because of blast patterns on the walls that were still standing, the destruction definitely originated in the teleflunky's earpiece, which was found embedded in his duodenum, along with fire and brimstone. Others in the room said they heard the victim say, "But... but... we're on your side against the Republicans." He then attempted to move on to his script about new surgical implants of spinal tissue in Congressional Democrats, and he cited a well-known Democrat who recently said to the Republicans, "Oh, YEAH?!"
This might have actually set off what appears on security cameras as the flash of a low-yield nuclear weapon, as Mrs. Elf's voice removed the representative's right ear, passing it straight through his left mastoid bone in a progressive, sideways mushroom cloud of strong language bordering on ancient incantations known to summon demons.
A spokesperson for local police said no charges will be filed because causing injury to invertebrates is not unlawful when the creatures are asking for donations.
More news later here on The Dark Wraith Forums News Network.
###
Good afternoon, Father Tyme.
You got the percentage right: about five percent of our total oil consumption; and you are correct about why, too. The oil extracted on the North Slope is cheaper to ship out than pipe down.
Not bad, Father Tyme.
The Dark Wraith ought to think about putting together a petroleum consulting firm with the readers here.
Good afternoon, Stephen.
Well, I suppose the Goju Ryu might also be a fine way to hone and develop certain quantitative and geometric skills, too. Although I'm not entirely convinced that one has to be into such theories as chronosynclasticinfindibulum to acquire mastery of Goju, it does make for a nice symmetry between the martial art and certain aspects of more modern, Western physics. I never did take much stock in the deeper meanings of the techniques, and I suppose that was greatly to my detriment. At the time, especially with Goju Ryu, the whole cat thing struck me as odd, and I do regret not being more open to the metaphors and allegories behind the breathing, movements, and mindset. The ryu is probably more important than the specifics of the tradition one chooses to learn.
Ah, well. Now, that I'm older, perhaps my patience can allow me a bit more willingness to learn such things.
The Dark Wraith always grunts at the thought of physical exercise, though.
yes, the exercise part can be tough. but when you're a runty, sarcastic, curve wrecker it provides a way to survive the educational system. as an adult i became more entranced with akido. pure defense and all that, to say nothing of easier on the knees. i was brought through that whole mens sana, mens corpus school where a life of action and a life of contemplation were not considered separable. i was drawn to your blog through your incisive comments at shake's and the last duchess. it's a pleasure in today's world of ruling room temperature iq's to be stimulated through ideas and other viewpoints. i especially liked your comment about turning out something more dangerous than facists or communists through your teaching. i do agree, that informed, educated citizens are very dangerous indeed. the highly literate armies of washington and sherman (to say nothing of zenophon and epaminandous) proved that to previous tyrants.
FWIW: My calculations suggest that incorporating Middle Eastern security expenditures into the cost of gasoline would raise prices by something like a dollar or two.
This site says the U.S. consumed 320 million gallons of gas daily as of a year ago. This article by Linda Bilmes (Harvard) and Joseph Stiglitz (Columbia) puts our current monthly expenditures for the Iraq war at $7.1 billion. Assuming the Iraq war represents 70%-85% of our Middle Eastern security expenditures (wild guess on my part), that works out to something like $1 to $1.50 per gallon if my math is right ... which is hardly chump change but less than the doubling of the price of gasoline I might have expected.
Of course, Bilmes and Stiglitz point out that the true economic costs of the war go far beyond our current monthly expenditure on Iraqi military operations, and put a conservative price tag at over $1 trillion, with a moderate estimate at double that, so -- depending on your timeframe -- doubling the price of gasoline might be a more accurate assessment of its true cost after all.
Good morning, Ballgame.
I had been thinking about your original post on this matter, and I was of several minds on how to address a cost estimate of securing the oil extraction and transport infrastucture in Iraq. The problem has a handful of vexing dimensions.
First, a substantial amount of the physical Iraqi oil production machinery is in a state of disrepair. This is the direct result of the years under which the regime of Saddam Hussein was subject to sanctions after the first Gulf War. Oil extraction equipment, transport conduits, and the myriad of associated and support facilities that aren't used cannot simply be turned back on. Believe me when I tell you that something as simple as a pumpjack that hasn't been cranking for 15 years isn't in any shape to start going up and down as soon as it's needed again.
Worse is that oil wells, themselves, don't just sit ready and waiting for a pump to start in again on them. In fact, the term "workout" would take on a whole new meaning with respect to the existing wells in Iraq. Your initial comment got me to thinking about that: the very task of getting all those moribund wells to start being productive again, much less to get them up to their pre-embargo pulls, would be an unimaginably expensive undertaking. It would require not just money, but a hard-core, years-long, sustained commitment by somebody. And it gets even more complicated when you consider that, at least in some cases, it might be better to simply drill new rather than try to recover production from existing holes. Sometimes, an oil reservoir itself is affected by extraction, and once high-pull extraction ceases, a lot about the reservoir itself can change, especially over a number of years.
Securing the wells, then, is only a small part of the entire cost of turning Iraq into a serious oil exporting nation once again.
Think about this, Ballgame: who is going to foot the cost of just getting capacity back up to speed? The Iraqis, themselves, don't have the money for a crash program; and even if they did, they've got a whole lot of other issues on their plate that just aren't going to wait. That means those big, nasty, giant, global oil companies are going to have to do most of the investment, if it is to be done at all; but that means those behemoths are going to want the lion's share of returns from such a program because doing such a job would mean diverting a whole lot of physical, financial, and intellectual resources away from other projects all over the world, all to the end of doing what would arguably be the biggest workout in the history of the oil industry for a nation that no one really believes is going to be a nation after the smoke clears.
Consider what a financial debacle it would be if a deal were made between a consortium of oil companies and "Iraq": so if that state of Iraq collapses into three mini-states, the Shi'ites are going to control most of the oil fields, but it might very well be that the rump Iraq—the sovereign state consigned and committed to previous obligations—is the province of the Sunnis, who will end up sucking hind teat, getting Baghdad and the miserable surrounds if they're lucky.
So any deal with "Iraq" as it exists right now is phenomenally risky for any corporate entity thinking at this time about committing several billion dollars.
Now, about security. That's a sovereign matter. To the extent that we've been farming our own security services out, especially with regard to protecting oil pipelines in Iraq, we have failed in our duty to concern ourselves with high-quality defense of the continuous productivity of those lines. This should not—and realistically, cannot—be a private cost. The last thing I would want to see is a further development of the private armies and militias oil companies are already using all over the world. Unfortunately, it might come down to that, but we're talking in Iraq about one unbelievably large and expensive force, a force that would include well-armed soldiers as well as surveillance equipment on the ground, continuous overflight monitoring, and at least some near-Earth satellite support for recon, telecommunications, and global positioning system services.
A billion dollars? That's not the way to do the calculation. Try maybe a hundred million a month, right off the bat, as a fixed cost, which means that, when production is low in the first couple of years, that's going to be a huge component of the total cost per barrel of the Iraqi oil. Only as production levels increase will that fixed cost get spread over a lot of barrels of oil, which means the total cost of extracting the oil from Iraq would actually fall over time, provided production really can be increased significantly, smoothly, and for the foreseeable future.
Although major oil companies are swirling around Iraq right now, and although there really is more than slight interest in getting things going again there, the risks are substantial, and no one's going to put massive dollars on the plate right now; and more importantly, no one really will until the political situation there becomes much clearer than what it is now.
The insurgency as it threatens oil facilities in Iraq is not the cause of low production, it's merely one more symptom of the deep, abiding, and show-stopping problem of dealing with a country that is no longer a country expect in the minds of those who have yet to the howling hints that, without a dictator, some countries just aren't nations because it was the iron fist of dictatorial rule that ensured sovereignty took precedence over the natural dynamics of disparate peoples with incompatible interests.
This is how the Dark Wraith sees it, anyway.
Hi Dark Wraith,
I took a shot at this and got 40% which I didn't think was bad for a potato. Actually many of the questions need a guess on my part and I bet I'm not alone.
Good Afternoon, Dark Wraith. No - I didn't fall off the ends of the earth; though I must say the thought is tempting. I missed #2 and #5. My experience with the 70's oil crises was through teen-age eyes; and they tend to operate as though partially blind - so I would judge my memory faulty. Regarding price - my best friend's fiancé manages a gas station. He was told by his supplier to expect prices to rise above $4 per gallon this summer. And that's a stone bitch as far as I'm concerned.
Good evening, Fat Lady Sings.
I simply must form that Blogger Search and Rescue Brigade I've been contemplating. That way, when a blogger goes missing, we might have a shot at recovering said blogger before he or she ends up on milk cartons.
Yes, I think $4.00 a gallon will start to cause some measure of social unrest. It seems to me that, at least for the time being, people are willing to suffer this with sufficient satisfaction found in complaining to everyone from the gas station attendant to friends and co-workers; but if we hit four bucks, I think there will be small but noticeable signs of something a little more troublesome.
The mainstream Democratic politicians will be right there to do nothing but share the outrage and hope everyone votes for them in November.
Maybe that's how it will work out, but we'll still have to endure half-baked little platitudes from Bush like 'hydrogen is the fuel of the future' and other such nonsense.
It will definitely be fun this Summer, though. As for me, I'll be staying in my cave for the most part, listening to the nonsense come from Bush and the oil industry.
The Dark Wraith might have to start telecasting his courses from his home computer.
[Which, of course, means some of you could tune in for the action and excitement.]
And good evening to you, Charlie Potato. You, too, were on my watchlist of Wayward Souls.
Again, 40% is decent on a quiz like this. I wouldn't say you're ready to be the CEO of a major oil company, but there might be a future for you as an oil and gas man who becomes a President of the United States.
Goodness, you couldn't do any worse than our current President when it comes to energy policy.
Gawd. It just occurred to me again that we have more than two-and-a-half years remaining before real solutions to our energy problems will even be put on the table.
The Dark Wraith is going to have to start chopping wood right away for next Winter.
This is wholly OT, but I read it in yesterday's Boston Sunday Globe Magazine and found it worth sharing.
You may have to register to read all of it (not sure), but it turns out Vermont is taking it in the teeth with regards to this war that the state is largely opposed to. I found the article insightful.
- oddjob
This is completely OT, but I read it yesterday and found it worth sharing.
You may have to register to read all of it (not sure), but I found it insightful. It turns out Vermont is losing more men per capita over in Iraq than any other state. The article explains why, and it goes to Rumsfeld's ideas about what the US armed forces should look like.
- oddjob
It appears I've posted the same thing twice. I did that because I couldn't see it coming up on the main screen.
I don't know why that's happening, but feel free to delete either one of the posts, DW.
- oddjob
This post has been removed by the author.
Good Afternoon Dark Wraith,
Try maybe a hundred million a month, right off the bat, as a fixed cost, which means that, when production is low in the first couple of years, that's going to be a huge component of the total cost per barrel of the Iraqi oil.
Which only goes to prove that the whole war thing is unpractical, and was bound to fail.
We can't keep the peace sufficiently for the oilmen to do the job.
We just can't invade a country for the oil, it's too hard to get it to market. Iraq will not loose too much money over the long haul, because the longer it is before their oil comes to market, the more they'll get for a gallon. All they have to do is just keep blowing up the pipes, while we run around like ants, trying to respond to emergencies.
The crying shame is, if we had put all that war money into our economy, developing ways to conserve, to generate clean energy, and to foster peace and prosperity in the world........
Oh yeah, we "elected" an oilman.
Good afternoon, Dark Wraith.
40%. Considering I was born in '72, not too bad.
And my little birdie in the E&P industry tells me $5 this year is not only doable, but very likely.
Time to ditch the Buick and get a horse.
Good morning Dark Wraith,
Time to ditch the suburbs, and buy a little farm, out in the way back of nowhere, up in a mountain valley.