Countdown to 100$ oil (20) - Meteor Blades is Da Man in 2005

Following on my call last August for predictions for oil prices at the end of the year (on dKos and on eurotrib - Countdown to 100$ oil (9) - I am taking bets), it would seem that Meteor Blades, with a bet at 61.05$/bl WTI, was extraordinarily prescient, or lucky, as the final end year WTI price was 61.02$/bl.

Less than 0.05% error - that's DailyKos in action, and it's nice that it's one of the community's most eminent members, and one of the first that raised energy issues on the site, that made the best prediction. I'll be sending him the champagne and whiskey he deserves!

As this is the New Year - already past a few hours in my case, and in a few hours for most of you guys as I write, let me once again salute the kossack community for an amazing year on the energy front, with a wealth of diaries leading to a group of us (led by Metoer Blades, devilstower and myself) actively preparing a Democratic policy on that topic. 2005 was the year when energy issues gained a real following on Dailykos - I can only hope that 2006 will be the year when serious consideration is given to grassroots-driven policy proposals in that sector, and that our Energize America effort (Energize America - A Blueprint for U.S. Energy Security (Fourth Draft) being the latest version) will catch everybody's attention and will show the way in bottom-up driven policy proposals.

In the meantime, allow me to wish a happy new year to everybody, and especially to all of you that contributed to the energy diaries, and to send especially warm wishes to Meteor Blades, who had to face several serious personal crises in the past year, and nevertheless remained an extraordinary contributor to the site and to the energy diaries - and won the price contest.

May 2006 be a year of renewal, peace and decency.

Earlier "Countdown Diaries":
Countdown to 100$ oil (19) - Your bets for 2006
Countdown to 100$ oil (18) - OPEC happy with oil above 50$
Countdown to 100$ oil (17) - Does it matter politically? A naked appeal for your support
Countdown to 100$ oil (16) - We'll know on Monday
Countdown to 100$ oil (15) - the impact on your electricity bill
Countdown to 100$ oil (14) - Greenspan acknoweldges peak oil
Countdown to 100$ oil (13) - Katrina strikes / refinery crisis
Countdown to 100$ oil (12) - Al-Qaeda, oil and Asian financial centers
Countdown to 100$ oil (11) - it's Greenspan's fault!
Countdown to 100$ oil (10) - Simmons says 300$ soon - and more
Countdown to 100$ oil (9) - I am taking bets
Countdown to 100$ oil (8) - just raw data
Countdown to 100$ oil (7) - a smart solution: the bike
Countdown to 100$ oil (6) - and the loser is ... Africa
Countdown to 100$ oil (5) - OPEC inexorably raises floor price
Countdown to 100$ oil (4) - WSJ wingnuts vs China
Countdown to 100$ oil (3) - industry is beginning to suffer
Countdown to 100$ oil (2) - the views of the elites on peak oil
Countdown to 100$ oil (1)

•  Tip Jar - Dec. 31

  Was I unreasonable in betting on 100$/bl oil this year? Am I unreasonable in betting on even higher prices in 2006 (Countdown to 100$ oil (19) - Your bets for 2006)?

  Who cares? Tonight is a time for celebration:

  

  Happy New Year!

  by Jerome a Paris on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 06:38:45 PM PDT

  •  End of year prices

    NYMEX Light Sweet Crude     $61.02
    IPE Brent $58.98
    NYMEX Natural Gas    $11.223

    by Jerome a Paris on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 06:43:39 PM PDT

    •  I don't know...

      ...what the end-of-year price will be for 2006 - but I've got a hunch the price on November 15th will be 20-30% less.

      Call it an election forecast...

      JF

      by Jaime Frontero on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 07:16:17 PM PDT

      •  If you are right....

        it hopefully won't be Bush who is celebrating.  A price of $48/bl suggests a significant worldwide economic slowdown.  If the Dems are so pathetic that they can't make gains in off-year elections under those circumstances then we are way more fucked than if oil were to be $100/bl.

        by mstein on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 06:44:18 AM PDT

        •  Yes. But my suspicion is...

          ...that people generally don't see the world - they only see the dollars they pump into their tanks.

          For corroboration of this theory, please see DarkSyde's Diary on the Golden Gould Awards...

          JF

          by Jaime Frontero on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 07:13:18 AM PDT

          •  The rest of the world is tied to the US

            Global economies are too intertwined.  If a global recession has happened, it means we're in recession.  People aren't going to care that gas prices are down if they have lost their jobs.  

            by Asak on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 08:14:36 AM PDT

  •  Celebrating tonight...

    with a lovely Brut cider brought back from our travels in France. A toast to you and your lovely contry.

    by SME in Seattle on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 07:19:41 PM PDT

  •  The blue screen of death

    The intrinsic value of a commodity remains fairly constant. The cost of bringing that commodity to market changes, due to inflationary pressures, monetary legerdemain, etc. When the cost of something is less than the cost of operating, or using that thing, that thing loses value, quickly. Your family car now costs more to operate than to lease. GM is heading for bankruptcy. The cost of bringing a barrel of crude oil to market, and changing a barrel of crude oil into a gallon of gasoline is about to go through the roof. The oil itself is like your family car. Are the refiners going to profit, the drillers? Probably not much, they have to pay inflated labor costs, transportation costs, etc.
    Inflation is a monetary phenomona. Should the money supply contract, sharply, in a deflationary crash, all commodities will fall in sympathy. Deflationary crashes always result after a long period of monetary expansion, and credit indebtedness. Most of the money in circulation doesn't really exist, in the form of hard cold cash. It can disappear just like your data when your computer crashes and you get the blue screen of death. How much real money do you have? What are you worth?
    At this juncture you're thinking, aha, I'll buy gold, and in theory that seems okay, but that evil cabal of central bankers represented by the Federal Reserve may have something to say about that.

    by agent double o soul on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 08:40:08 PM PDT

    •  Ominous New Year

      Ever since the Collapse of the USSR the US has been looking to
      defenestrate Russia.

      Taking it's satellites and putting them in NATO or some other Colonial
      framework.

      The US overreached with the Ukraine.  The US taxpayer will now have to
      foot the World Market gas bill for the Ukraine or the Ukraine will slowly, but
      Surely, move back into Russia's orbit.

      You can thank Condi and her stupid Stanford colleagues, Bechtel,
      Brezinzski, Khodorkovsky,  and PNAC for our dillema.

      James

      BTW-The Ukraine rejects Russian gas price hike: Gazprom
      By: AFP

      "We have received the official response: The Ukrainian side has rejected
      our offer," said company spokesman Sergei Kuprianov.

      01 January 2006

      MOSCOW : Ukraine has rejected a Russian offer to maintain gas
      supplies at current prices until April on condition Kiev then agreed to a
      four-fold price hike, Russia's state-owned gas giant Gazprom said
      Sunday, according to the Interfax news agency.

      http://www.channelnewsasia.com/...
      30/1/.html

      Oh, and Exxon no longer operates in Venezuela-

      Venezuela takes control of oil fields

      Business Briefcase

      CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - Venezuela's state oil company said yesterday it
      has successfully signed agreements to bring all 32 privately operated oil
      fields under government control after reaching a deal with
      Spanish-Argentine oil company Repsol YPF.

      http://canadaeast.com/...
      512310510/-1/MONEY

      How important is this?  Notice you will find Nothing about this in the US
      MSM.

      Or that 40% of oil/gas GOM production is still shutin and offline.

      The Thugs in DC set up the playing field with the Zero Sum rules. They
      have now been surrounded.  And must give way or magnify the Violence.

      by jmmcgowanjm on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 07:06:24 AM PDT

      •  And It Begins

        Flash Traffic

        Russia Cuts Off Gas Supply to Ukraine, Europe at Risk

        Christian Lowe

        http://www.swisspolitics.org/... _inhalt&news_id=6355317

        All the gas now being pumped to Ukraine is meant to be shipped on to Europe, which gets 25 percent of its gas from Russia.

        Gazprom said gas deliveries to western Europe would not be disrupted, unless Ukraine covered its own shortfall by siphoning off transit supplies being piped westward across its territory.

        Russia flexes it's power. The US must react.

        by jmmcgowanjm on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 07:24:04 AM PDT

      •  See my diary yesterday

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        on why this Russian-Ukrainian dispute is a lot of noise that will end up with nothing changed.

        by Jerome a Paris on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 08:08:43 AM PDT

        •  Goodbye dearest Nicky

          my best love to Alix and to you, with wishes for a quiet summer and a nice little boy to come believe me dear Nicky

          Ever your most affectionate friend and cousin
          Willy

          "When they start to decline, they do so fairly rapidly. All these big fields came on stream roughly at the same time so they have all tended to reach their maximum at the same time, then combining to decline."

          No turning back

          The UK produced an average of 2.72 million barrels a day (mbpd) in 1999, hitting a high of 3.1 mbpd in August.

          But by June 2005 this had fallen to 1.7 mbpd, a drop of 34%.

          Heathrow is rationing.

          Europe is cold and snowy, oui?

          The UK is at the end of the supply train.

          You argue that the Ukraine and Russia are family.

          In the US, the last place police want is to be in the middle of a family dispute.

          Khodorkovsky thought he knew Putin.  Khodorkovsky was the richest man in Russia. Khodorkovsky is doing hard labor today.

          Russia flexes it's muscle. B(V)RIC becomes better organized.  The US must come to the Ukraine's side.

          The Reason: We have passed PeakOil.

          Russia commands the Heights

          http://www.hubbertpeak.com/...

          James

          by jmmcgowanjm on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 09:58:51 AM PDT

  •  Happy New Year Jerome

    What a lovely photo of the Eiffel Tower.  Makes me wish I were there.  :>)

    Looking forward to this new year and more of your energy diaries.  You and Devilstower and Meteor are all "da man."

    Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

    by bronte17 on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 09:07:36 PM PDT

  •  The bubble will burst; which one?

    Will the strain on the ecology, or oil prices, create the new reality. Continuing 'cheap' oil practices equals more use, more strain. As we saw this year after the Three Category Five Hurricanes when the price goes up conservation kicks in and use decreases. Imagine if this was part of a plan!

    The question for 06, which wakes the world up first $100 oil, or More Eco-Disasters.

    Remember NOLA

    We've already lost one city to poor planning.

    by buhdydharma on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 09:17:39 PM PDT

  •  Happy New Year, to you, Jerome

    And thank you for writing about energy news that I would probably know nothing about were it not for you.

    by nyceve on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 05:36:16 AM PDT

  •  Happy New Year, Jerome!!!

    If you send that Champagne at twice the speed of light, will it get here last night so I can drink it at the first stroke of 2006?

    Cheers. And cheers to all Kossacks who consider energy one of the most important issues of our era.

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 08:36:39 PM PDT

•  do you know anything about commercial

  vehicles in europe that use WVO or any other alternative? What are the alternative fuel taxis there using? Thanks for all of your work.

  by bebacker on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 06:46:33 PM PDT

  •  what's WVO? n/t

    by Jerome a Paris on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 07:03:26 PM PDT

    •  sorry

      waste veggie oil

      by bebacker on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 07:09:34 PM PDT

      •  There are plans

        to push ethanol and biodiesel (the goal is 10% of gasoline, vs less than 1% today, by 2015), but I don't think there are specific plans for WVO.

        I heard on the radio that biofuels/ethanol would be competitive without subsidies at around 75$/bl oil.

        by Jerome a Paris on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 07:23:02 PM PDT

        •  Scalability...

          
          I still see scalability problems with biofuels.  Yes, I even use biodiesel myself, but current methods cannot scale up to the point where we could replace all of oil with biofuels...

          There are people working on things which might solve the problem.  These remind me of announcements in the news about promising research in the fight against various diseases - many of these things just don't pan out, so it is usually unwise to get your hopes up too far on these announcements.

          by ericy on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 07:39:18 PM PDT

          •  Plant freeways with hemp

            medians and sides and harvest that for biofuels.  It would go a long way toward replacing oil.  Not enough by itself, but......

            by maybeeso in michigan on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 08:18:35 PM PDT

          •  You

            are simply wrong. There is literally active resistance to this technology not only on the right but on the left. On the left it seems mostly based on ignorance. There is no reason whatsoever we cant produce enough biofuel. And god forbid.. doing so would be a tremendous boon to american small farmers. But then.. we cant have that can we... any solution must be corporate in nature.. and very tech/chemical based.. and non agrarian.. and nonrural.... Ugh

            by cdreid on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 10:08:49 AM PDT

            •  Really???

              
              What feedstock did you have in mind then?  None of the methods currently in use would be able to satisfy more than a small fraction of world demand.  Just divide the number of gallons required by the yield per acre to see how much land you need..

              by ericy on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 04:56:32 PM PDT

              •  Um ya,

                Really. When you drove to work this morning (or wherever) you drove a sunlight powered vehicle.
                It may seem hard to accept but most of this country isnt populated. (In fact with the exception of NY and LA what we call "big cities" really arent (take this from a guy who sees the entire east coast up close every week). Opponents and doomsdayers repeatedly shout about the impossibility of production, even making ridiculous comments about agriculturally produced fuels being impossible (based solely upon a petroleum industry backed 'study') when its flat untrue. People want to see some huge expensive high tech solution. They want to have to bite the bullet and live on nuclear (for the thirty years it will last). They want to mine drill holes every twenty feet to produce geothermal. They want to coat the face of the planet with solar panels, kill the oceans with tidal plants. When the solution was pointed out to us millions of years ago by single and multicellular organisms.

                Organic matter (nearly all) absorbs energy from sunlight. It then uses large amounts of h20 and trace amounts of other chemicals to give itself a form that allows it to absorb more solar energy. It uses that energy to reform those chemicals in ways that will allow us to recycle some of that energy. That is the process that powers your car. It is the process that powers your grill. It is the process that powers the computer you're reading this on. No its not high tech. Doesnt require a huge scientific breakthrough or multitrillion dollar government programs. It doesnt involve monumental building projects or reams of scientists paid astonishing amounts of money to produce studies. It requires farmers and land. Both of which we have a huge surplus of.

                by cdreid on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 11:43:52 PM PDT

                •  Please run some numbers...

                  
                  Yes we have lots of land.  We use huge amounts of fuel too.  Currently the U.S. uses about 20 million barrels/day, and that is just oil and not natural gas or coal.  Of this, the U.S. uses about 60 billion gallons of diesel fuel/year which would eventually need to be replaced with biodiesel, and  about 120 billion gallons of gasoline per year which would be replaced with what - ethanol?

                  I just ran some rough numbers myself.  If you try and replace diesel and gasoline with biodiesel and ethanol from soybeans and corn respectively, you would require 76% of the US area for biodiesel and 41% of the US area for ethanol.  Total would be 117% of the US area.  Not all of which is suitable for agriculture.  You think this is doable??

                  And you didn't answer my question about feedstock - it is a critical question as oil yield per acre (for biodiesel) depends a lot on that number.  Currently they use soybeans in this country, but it is far from ideal.  Both from the standpoint of yield and also from the standpoint of the cold weather properties.  If you use rapeseed for biodiesel, you cut the land requirements by more than half, but the total for biodiesel+ethanol becomes something like 70% instead of 117%.

                  Those of us who already use biodiesel keep asking the question "When are they going to start using a better feedstock"?  Ideally we would like to see algae come online, but that won't be for a few years.  They talk about cellulosic ethanol as a possible advance, but that isn't here yet either.  My feeling is that without advances in these areas, that biofuels will end up being more of a bridge fuel - something to tide us over, but not what we would ultimately use in the long-term.
                  

                  by ericy on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 07:29:59 AM PDT

                  •  im sorry

                    I didnt see your post. I usually only check KOS on weekends when im home or when im stuck at a shipper.

                    In response to the land area problem. First is the idea that we must use biodiesel. Biodiesel is a good thing, but it isnt the be-all and end-all just because the politicians and oil companies acknowledge it. Here's something to consider on a Macro level. How much can you buy a vegetable oil for in bulk? Those costs, according to the laws of economics, factor in the energy cost. And that is at  current production levels, food grade oils and farming practices etc. I agree with you that ideally we'd move farther down the food chain for our fuel needs. (Lets just hope some wingnut idiot doesnt suddenly decide we should rape the oceans for plankton!). It is as you obvously know infinitely more efficient. The fuels we need will be developed by amateurs and experts much more intelligent than i. And they will (it would be insane to think otherwise) be used in engines specifically designed for them. Would we run a 2005 Mustang on the gasoline of the 1940's? No.. the car wouldnt last long, if it ran at all. Instead we made a change. And at a point switched to unleaded fuels. We can do the same with new power sources.

                    As to diesel/gasoline. It would be a better idea to simply abandon the gasoline engine in favor of diesel. Diesel engines are responsible for most of what makes america work, with gasoline mostly responsible for individual transportation. As we both know though.. that has long been unneccesary.  Diesel engines can handle near unmodified biofuels. Gasoline engines cant. (And we must remember we have gaseous fuels as well. We can turn the byproducts of biofuel production into methane).

                    Algae might be a good solution. Or perhaps even a genetically engineered single cell organism.

                    The point is we must have Renewable fuels. Conservation wont solve our problems. Improvements in efficiency wont. Switching to other non-renewables is just a stop gap. And with nations like China, India, Pakistan, etc etc etc moving into and past the industrial age those fuels would be used up quickly. That doesnt leave us many options. Until we can really move into space (where even raw materials will no longer be a problem) our choices are limited. Solar. Tidal. Geothermal. Biological. I simply cant see any of those choices other than biological providing a longterm and nearly permanent solution.

                    by cdreid on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 07:05:46 PM PDT

          •  Re: Scalability

            Already, the rainforests in Southeast Asia are seriously depleted for palm oil groves. Biofuels will destroy wild lands in tropical Africa, Asia and South America. Demand for them will cause the price of food crops to skyrocket, which will starve out those making $2 per day or less.

            Peak oil means starvation for billions of the least of us.

            by GW Chimpzilla on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 10:54:14 AM PDT

            •  Er

              To produce the amounts we need raping a mountainside or rainforest would be laughably uneconomic. Theres a reason we were called the "breadbasket of the world". The reason is that we have stunning amounts of flat, fertile land with good rainfall. So its' doubtful you'll see south american wannabe farmer barons clearing hundreds of miles of rainforest to plant (insert fuel source here) or to build giant industrial bioculture plants. More likely the farmers of the world will, once again, become the backbone of economies around the world. And we'll learn, in an ironic twist, to truely understand our relationship to nature, how much energy we use, our environment. Imagine every year reading the crop reports and reading political and economic blogs pontificating about what that years production means to energy supplies and costs and how that affects the economy...

              If only people could learn to at least envision the possibility of change, and alternative futures.

              by cdreid on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 07:16:24 PM PDT

            •  Germany and biodiesel

              German grain farmers were too productive, depressing prices. One measure: have them switch some of their production to rapeseed, which is a very oily seed. Biodiesel is exempt from the very high "mineral oil" tax other fuel oil is hit with. Consequently, it's about 10 eurocents per liter cheaper at the pump. The gap used to be wider, but more consumers are accepting it as a substitute now. You don't need to wear a plastic glove while pumping it - it smells and feels like a light corn oil.

              German farmers didn't clear any more land for this, either.

              Instead of paying US farmers not to plant cotton or grain, encourage them to plant oilseeds by financing biodiesel processing plants.

              by A Texan in Maryland on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 09:14:19 AM PDT

        •  check South America

          Don't have the link but saw article in FT or Economist some time ago about VW producing cars in SA that use etho and get 40 miles to the gallon ..and in Brazil I think is was, etho stations are all over the place..seem to remember that per gallon is was around 34 to 53 cents.

          My numbers may be slightly off but that was the gist of the report. Obviously it can be done and obviously we aren't doing it for "some reason".

          BTW, NC added a additional 12 cent tax per gallon to the price of gas today

          by Cal45 on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 09:33:49 PM PDT

          •  But

            all that ethanol production is destroying the environment, to the point that some feel rather strongly about it

            by Roadbed Guy on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 10:02:11 AM PDT

            •  well

              ..be that as it may....we have plenty of crop land here in the states and you know we are paying farmers taxpayer dollars NOT to grow crops on all that ALREADY cultivated farm land....

              by Cal45 on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 07:19:34 PM PDT

    •  Waste Vegetable Oil.

      
      sEsentially they were asking about a greasecar conversion I guess.  Not the same as biodiesel which is technically methyl esters made from vegetable oil.

      It is possible to make methyl esters from waste vegetable oil as well, so it could be either one really.
      

      by ericy on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 07:10:51 PM PDT

  •  WVO is cool...

    but it's a niche market, not the answer. We don't generate enough waste vegetable (or animal-fat based) oil to completely replace oil imports.

    IMHO, it's a better green solution for disposing of WVO or for that matter, used animal-derived fats.

    by alizard on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 07:33:59 PM PDT

    •  Algae-based

      BioD could replace all the diesel consumption without affecting the food supply, and does not require arable land to grow.

      Units of power are in the order of:

      Soy: 60 units per acre
      Algae: 10,000 units per acre

      by roboton on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 07:51:20 AM PDT

      •  Yet another one of those things...

        
        that is just around the corner.  Maybe this will actually work out - if so, then great.  Not every idea pans out however.

        Some of the energy ideas out there are simply not in use because they aren't economically viable.  They always say that when the price of oil goes up by X$/bbl then the new process becomes viable, but these things have a way of being a moving target, and you end up chasing the price higher and higher and never getting to the point where it pays.  In particular, I am thinking of things like tar sands or oil shale - these things seem to always be just out of reach (probably because the process used to get the stuff takes a lot of energy as inputs).

        My understanding is that the people working on algae are still plugging along at a slow rate.  They don't get much Federal funding - if you were talking about Hydrogen, then there is all kinds of cash floating about though.  There are several schemes for growing algae - some of them are at the point where they can build demonstration plants as a proof of concept.  I never hear anyone talk about the economic aspects of it though, and this concerns me.  When we get to the point that these folks can build a full-sized plant and can quote a reasonable price for the resulting fuel, then I will start to get more exited...

        by ericy on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 08:39:05 AM PDT

        •  Plus the NIMBY and/or environmental folk

          are sure to chime in - for example when you're in New Hampshire it's easy to propose using the Sonoran Desert for Algae & Biodiesel production.

          But those closer at hand consider such schemes to be "Bio-fuelish"

          by Roadbed Guy on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 10:08:20 AM PDT

          •  those who live in the Sonoran desert

            need not be concerned about having it covered with biomass farms to generate the raw material for biodiesel, even the author of the UNH report you're linked to doesn't favor this.

            The use of a desert location was simply a "this is one hypothetically possible way to model the amount of acreage required to replace 100% of oil imports", not a serious proposal.

            One of the major advantages of a sewage-treatment plant based approach for growing biodiesel raw materials is that this inherently decentralizes the production process for biodiesel. If we grew it all in the Sonoran desert as the NREL report from which most of the content of that page sugests, we'd have to ship the product everywhere in the USA. That would be a silly and pointless idea that would only reduce the economic feasibility of doing this.

            I agree with the conclusion of the author of the "bio-fuelish" paper you linked to:
            

            but the use of specialized algae to produce plant oils usable for fuel can be added to the very short list of sensible bio-fuel sources.

            by alizard on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 02:54:00 PM PDT

        •  there's a reason

          There are several schemes for growing algae - some of them are at the point where they can build demonstration plants as a proof of concept.  I never hear anyone talk about the economic aspects of it though, and this concerns me.

          You probably won't hear anyone talk much about the economic aspects of this for a while. This field is in the raw, new stage where everyone who's serious is only discussing the kind of technology or economic issues that can get one an edge over the competition under NDA... because everyone is looking for angel (I don't think anyone's looking for traditional venture capital yet) investors.

          by alizard on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 02:34:21 PM PDT

      •  and that's why

        my comment was specifically addressed to WVO and animal-fat based biodiesel. IMHO, single-cell biomass grown in sewage is the way to go.

        by alizard on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 02:36:34 PM PDT

    •  Heh

      Read up on the history of oil. It was a "niche" market. Gasoline was even more of a niche market. Btw most oil isnt animal fat based. It is vegetable based.

      And once more to clear up the issue.

      Nearly all energy sources used by human beings are Sunlight derived. The energy in the petroleum your automobile uses is Solar derived. Biofuels simply use the same energy source through different processes. And theres no reason they cannot be infinitely more efficient than the way nature does it. When you plant a field full of xxxx and harvest it later to turn into biofuels you are in the end harvesting the solar energy. Just as you are harvesting solar energy when you drive your car.

      by cdreid on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 10:13:20 AM PDT

      •  Population

        In 1900, when petroleum was a nivhe market, there were only 1.7 billion people on this planet. Now there are 6.5 billion.

        by GW Chimpzilla on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 11:05:14 AM PDT

        •  And..

          And??

          In 1000 bc candle wicks were a niche market and there were only.. well not many people on the planet. Your point?

          by cdreid on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 11:30:08 PM PDT

      •  my comment

        was addressed to the use of vegetable or animal-based waste oils to generate biodiesel, NOT biodiesel in general.

        I favor sewage single-cell biomass for an oil source (more specifically, PUFA) for biodiesel because we're in no danger of ever running out of sewage, and because sewage is already being continuously collected to central locations, the collection and transportation issues for possible sources of oil for biodiesel in this context are handled by definition.

        I don't favor growing plants using conventional agricultural techniques for that because our only interest is the oil, not growing roots / leaves / stalks / flowers which in this case, generally mean more stuff to dispose of, reducing profit margins.

        by alizard on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 02:42:26 PM PDT

        •  Biodiesel

          is the Petro industries favorite. Not the only game in town. I drive a truck that i could hook to your house, put it in idle and it would happily drag your house down the road.. without wheels. It would run quite happily off WVO with minor modifications.

          And "leaves, stems, etc"... you have to think organically. The "refuse" you're worried about quite happily turns itself into methane gas or can be converted to other fuels. You could literally even dry the mass out and use it for high heat industry fuels (metal industries like steel, copper, al etc and a lot of others). The downside is of course.. you dont get nearly as much pollution. And there is no reason to have huge international conglomerates when.. the local coop can have its very own fuel stations where it sells it in bulk. What a world.. farmers as the backbone of the nation. No multinationals controlling our fuel supply. No excuse to invade nonchristian countries, install right wing tyrants, and continue the millenia long war against the brownskins... no reason to overthrow south american democratically elected brownskins for... more rightward leaning, white , american educated, cia selected "leaders".....

          Your worries are misplaced.

          by cdreid on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 11:56:42 PM PDT

          •  the real problem here

            is that there simply isn't enough farmland in the US to solve our energy problem by collecting solar energy in the form of plants grown via conventional mechanized agriculture, there are too many inefficiencies built into the process. Hmmm... try here for information on how energy-intensive conventional agriculture is.

            Marginal farmland is usually considered marginal for very good reasons, attempting to exploit them for energy crops is a great idea if environmental damage is what you have in mind.

            IMHO, (for example) soy biodiesel as a "solution" is indeed intended as a solution, but to the problem of extracting money from our bank accounts in the form of alternative energy subsidies to agribusinesses like ADM.

            I believe that the best way for farmers to benefit from biodiesel is for them to be guaranteed a stable, low-cost, available energy supply.

            by alizard on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 12:51:25 AM PDT

            •  The article you post

              is laughable.

              First of course, on its face it uses the "peak oil" fallacy. A quasi-religious belief system that mixes economics in with physics to somehow create a new doomsday mythology. But putting that aside, there are the innumerable(sp?) falsehoods.

              Lets go through a few of the them in the order theyre presented. (paraphrased for bravity. THeyre in order so you can check the article)

              1. It would have been absurd to think that we would one day run out of sunshine. No, sunshine was an abundant, renewable resource, and the process of photosynthesis fed all life on this planet. It also set a limit on the amount of food that could be generated at any one time, and therefore placed a limit upon population growth.

              Thats flat out nutty. What limited the population was the populations ability to produce. Period. We arent rabbits and, fortunately, take an astonishingly long time comparatively to reproduce a functioning breeder. As for agricultural production it has been increased not by "desperate expansion seeking farmland".. but by new agricultural practices. Like.. the plow, crop rotaton, fertilisation, controlled hydration etc etc. The whole paragraph is seriously nutty.

              2. The need to expand agricultural production was one of the motive causes behind most of the wars in recorded history, along with expansion of the energy base

              Apparently the author hasnt bothered to read one of those.. you know.. history book thingies. Most of histories recorded wars were caused by greed or religious zealotry. Wars for farmland? Ummm.. no?

              3. Just when agricultural output could expand no more by increasing acreage
              More idiocy in the face of .. silly reality. The world has abundant agricultural land available.  In the US we've turned entire States that were once agricultural into ghostlands. Visit south dakota, oklahoma, north dakota etc etc etc etc. America alone could feed the world as we speak without even putting a dent in the agricultural lands we've abandoned. If you doubt this try seeing the country (i see pretty much everything east of the mississippi every week, literally).

              4. At present, nearly 40% of all land-based photosynthetic capability has been appropriated by human beings.2 In the United States we divert more than half of the energy captured by photosynthesis.3 We have taken over all the prime real estate on this planet. The rest of nature is forced to make due with what is left. Plainly, this is one of the major factors in species extinctions and in ecosystem stress.

              cough A flat out lie. Americans, in total, dont "appropriate" 40% of the photosynthetic capability of even the state i live in. Care to make a wager on that? As for taking over all the prime real estate um. Apparently the writer has never left his inner city apartment. Or been out west. Or to say.. north carolina, south carolina, georgia, New  York, Indiana, Iowa, Colorado, VA, Wva, Il,.. er those are just the first off the top of my head. .
              As for the myth based species extinction hypothesis.. the statement is so ridiculous the writer doesnt even attempt to back it up, even with "factuesque" musings.

              As to the writers proclamations on farming its very apparent he/she is quite simply ignorant of the actual process of farming. You see farming was once what we reality based folks call "labor intensive". We had this thing called the "industrial revolution". Once we had that we stopped using thousands of people to do backbreaking, health destroying work that.. one machine could do. We stopped doing annoying things like watching our crops die to blight or pestilence by using these things we call "chemicals". They are these substances the earth is made up of. Though we made some big mistakes in our rush to this new technology and paid dearly before we learned.

              I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the quasi-intellectual faith based rantings in that article. Its' frankly just too ridiculous on its face.

              If you read my original post you'll note the annoyance at quasi religious faith based zealotry on the left against any solution to our energy dilemmas that wasnt.. well.. corporate.. mainstream.. vastly expensive and that didnt involve some huge punishment for mankind and at least a minor doomsday. Its articles like that idiocy that bring about the aforesaid.

              by cdreid on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 01:23:31 AM PDT

              •  I just dug out your diary on peak oil

                http://cdreid.dailykos.com/...

                There's no reason to take you seriously on the subject of alternative energy.

                by alizard on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 02:04:05 AM PDT

                •  Hmm

                  Personal attacks when you cant win on the facts. Buhbye now.

                  by cdreid on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 01:27:58 PM PDT

•  Just finished Twilight in the Desert:

  You're not crazy.  Matt Simmons is recommended reading for every US citizen.

  by Compound F on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 06:57:37 PM PDT

  •  Senate secrecy

    The revelation at the end about the 70's closed Senate hearings should make everyone concerned about Congressional secrecy as much as presidential.  They saw this coming long ago.

    by Compound F on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 06:59:47 PM PDT

    •  Can you expand on this a little?

      I don't have time to read the book or become well-read in the oil fields.  Thanks.

      by Yellow Canary on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 08:47:09 AM PDT

  •  Yes - I can only recommend reading him

    That diary (Countdown to 100$ oil (10) - Simmons says 300$ soon - and more), which comments a long interview of Simmons, is a good introduction to his theses, which are extremely credible and backed by a lot of serious research.

    by Jerome a Paris on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 07:06:00 PM PDT

    •  I have been reading Deffeyes over Christmas...

      
      He has two books out - the older one is from about 2001, and deals much more in the nitty gritty details of how the oil business works on a technical level.  A lot on geology, he explains current thinking on how it was that the oilfields came to be in the first place, and all of the little tricks of the trade that they use to get the oil out of the ground.

      The newer book is from 2005, and he spends about half talking about oil (which is somewhat redundant if you have read the 1st book), and the other half of it discussing non-oil.  Natural gas, coal, tar sands, oil shale, uranium, and hydrogen.

      I have read Simmon's book too - my problem is that it is obviously harder trying to learn petroleum geology and/or science from an investment banker.  Deffeyes speaks using the language of a scientist that I easily understand.  That being said, you don't need to be a scientist to understand his books.

      I should also add that Simmons's book is still quite worthwhile - I guess I would also recommend one of Deffeyes books as well to get a more complete picture.

      Deffeyeys is witty and the books are both a good read.  He is quite entertaining when speaking in person too.

      In one of his jokes, he was talking about how the seismic method of mapping rock strata works.  He mentioned that the principles are similar to the ultrasound that is used in a doctors office to map internal organs.  He expressed gratitude that the doctor wasn't using dynamite when conducting the ultrasound investigation.

      He had another interesting anecdote about someone who built a new cabin with a fireplace.  Only problem was that he built the fireplace out of oil shale.  He had a housewarming party, and lit the fireplace for the first time and ended up burning the whole house down.

      by ericy on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 07:25:28 PM PDT

    •  $100 a barrel oil

      would blow out the economy and at $300 a barrel only the rich drive while the entire economy comes to a screeching halt.

      Thankfully it's been a mild winter do far. A protracted cold stretch will likely produce reports of people found frozen to death in their unheated homes...and that's at $60 a barrel.

      Heat or eat is a reality today.

      by Gegner on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 10:25:11 PM PDT

      •  Nah

        That's what people were saying about $40 oil, then $50 or $60.
        We are at $60/bl, and demand is still growing strongly, never mind actually going down...

        And don't forget that people in Europe all drive despite 6$/gal gasoline. You just get used to it.

        by Jerome a Paris on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 07:00:30 AM PDT

        •  economic effects of $100/bbl

          Depends, of course, on how abrupt the shift. The best way to make the shift is to have the rate of change more-or-less known in advance. That way, the market can anticipate rather than react after the fact, conservation and changed patterns not supply disruptions, factory closures and no way to get to work.

          If you knew now that the price would be $300/bbl by 2010, what would you do? Move into the center of the town where you work (or just nearer to work and commerce), in a smaller space, and sell the car? Put in a ground source heat pump or wood stove? Get rid of the old light bulbs? All of the above and more?  

          We 'just' need to learn that the market is a wondrous tool, not a god. The price of oil should be negotiated and it is in the interest of both sides to have price stability and to stretch supplies as long as possible.

          by global citizen on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 08:01:21 AM PDT

  •  Yes. Great book. n/t

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 08:53:10 PM PDT

•  Regarding the champagne and whiskey..

  
  my thinking is that there really isn't any benefit to making early predictions early unless I can make revisions later :-).

  Can't complain though - MB certainly deserves it.

  by ericy on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 07:29:40 PM PDT

•  Natural gas is THE STORY

  The prices of natural gas were reaching up to 14 dollars per MM BTU.  I looked it up, it is an equivalent of 1000 cu ft (of pure methane?), and you
  need 5.7 of them to get an equivalent of a barrel of oil.

  This means that the prices of gas were reaching the level of 80 dollars per barrel of oil.  

  During years of apparent plenty a lot of electric power plant were build that use natural gas.  The advantage was the lowest capital cost of all power plants and moderate fuel cost.  The cost of making a kWh was ca. 3c.  Now it is more like 7 cents for fuel alone, and the low capital cost of the plants will not look so low if they will be unused because of the lack of fuel.

  The prices in Europe are roughly the same, in spite of British, Duch and Norvegian production, imports from Algeria and Russia.  We will not get cheap gas anywhere.

  The prices declined, but they are still equivalent ot 70 dollars per barrel.

  by Piotr on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 07:42:35 PM PDT

  •  Fully agree

    that was also my conclusion for the year (see diary 19 of the series, linked at the bottom of the diary).

    Natural gas shortages are still a possibility this year if winter is cold.

    by Jerome a Paris on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 07:01:55 AM PDT

    •  Russia Cuts Off Gas Supply to Ukraine,

      Flash Traffic

       Europe at Risk

      Christian Lowe

      http://www.swisspolitics.org/... _inhalt&news_id=6355317

      All the gas now being pumped to Ukraine is meant to be shipped on to Europe, which gets 25 percent of its gas from Russia.

      Gazprom said gas deliveries to western Europe would not be disrupted, unless Ukraine covered its own shortfall by siphoning off transit supplies being piped westward across its territory.

      Russia flexes it's power. The US must react.

      For your Attention, Jerome

      James

      by jmmcgowanjm on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 07:26:59 AM PDT

      •  Why do we have to do anything?

        We don't have to do shit, and we shouldn't.  If Russia doesn't want to sell below market rate, then they don't have to.  It's none of our business.  

        by Asak on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 08:23:21 AM PDT

•  Who is going to yearlykos??

  
  I am starting to warm up to the idea of a trip to Vegas to yearlykos.  I am wondering who else who writes on energy is planning on being there.

  There are so many subtopics in there.  In part I am inclined to think that it would be worthwhile trying to reach out and try and get more people to understand that this isn't just obscure geek talk - that these issues can affect peoples lives in fundamental ways.
  

  by ericy on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 07:44:48 PM PDT

  •  I intend to come

    No guarantees yet, and no specifc program either, but I hope to come and I certainly hope to be able to talk about energy and/or the economy.

    by Jerome a Paris on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 06:55:10 AM PDT

•  $100 Oil

  Never say never, but it won't happen for five years, at least.

  by davybaby on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 08:01:38 PM PDT

  •  Inflation? Hurricanes? Speculators? Iraq?

    Lot of money is being pumped into the economy right now.  Just inflation alone will bump up the cost close to 15% over the next 5 years.  I think there is a much better chance it will at least get to 90 over the next 5 years.  100 may be to high and curb demand so much that it will hold at a certain price below that. Just look at housing, if someone said houses would be worth 50% more 5 years ago you would have been laughed at.  But are houses really worth as much as they are?  Speculation is running rampant right now and all that excess cash must go somewhere.  People that tout 100+ oil are thinking that oil will be the next bubble.....and decline rates might have a bit to do with it too.  Decline rates are the key to any peak-oil argument, and no one really knows them, we can just look at the past.

    by OregonCoast on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 08:12:44 PM PDT

    •  If USA bombs Iran this spring . . .

      then $100 oil is a sure thing.

      by LondonYank on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 10:17:03 PM PDT

      •  or Israel

        by aztec on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 06:56:52 AM PDT

        •  Why would we bomb Israel? :)

          by John West on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 07:58:48 AM PDT

          •  I meant

            Israel, rather than the US, might bomb Iran.

            by aztec on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 11:01:26 AM PDT

    •  Maybe you're right

      but I wouldn't bet on it. Feel free to put your money where your mouth is. If you're right, you can make megabucks on oil futures.

      by davybaby on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 06:23:39 AM PDT

•  $ to oil, gold, etc.

  The issue isn't so much the price of a commodity in dollars as much as what the dollar is worth in terms of real goods and real estate. A good example is the question above whether houses are suddenly worth 50 % more. The obvious answer is that they aren't unless inflation accounts for this or the cost of building them has significantly increased, either due to cost of materials, the cost of labor, or else land is going for more dollars than previously. Nominal (wage-push) inflation has not increased and we know that labor costs have not increased at that rate in the previous five years. The cost of building materials has increased somewhat because the dollar is being discounted relative to necessary commodities. However, land in areas where there are zoning or space limitations is being valued at many more dollars than previously by investors, leading to asset bubbles in these areas. The conclusion is that the dollar is being perceived as less valuable per unit of x, which is a form of inflation different from wage-push. It is difficult to see what the real value of dollars is vis-a-vis oil in particular, since oil trading is denominated exclusively in dollars as the world's reserve currency -- at least until the Iranian bourse opens trading in Euros.

  It could be argued that dollars fluctuate relative to other currencies so this is a non-issue. However, since oil has to be paid for in dollars, governments are willing to take large amounts of dollars directly instead of buying them on the market, meaning that they are more willing than otherwise to underwrite huge US debits by buying bonds thereby supporting not only the dollar as the world's reserve currency but also the current fiscal profligacy of this administration. Were it not for dollar hegemony, the current imbalances could not easily occur or persist so long.

  But if we think of oil as the "gold standard" against which the dollar is measured instead of the price of oil in dollars as the measure of the intrinsic worth of oil, then the game changes and one sees why the US is not likely to permit Iran to institute oil trading in another currency.

  In the era of the Reagan administration we saw the introduction of a huge amount of hidden inflation in the governmental form, for example, of deferred maintenance. Business piled on by not increasing prices but decreasing the amount provided for the same price. Similarly today, we are seeing a huge rearrangement of valuation based on the dollar situation but as yet it is not obvious to most people.

  A good read on dollar hegemony and related issues involving dollar hegemony is the series by Henry C. K. Liu, "The Coming Trade Wars," Asia Time, available at www.atimes.com

  by tjfxh on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 09:24:20 PM PDT

  •  Iraq

    Wasn't Iraq talking about pricing oil in Euros before the invasion?

    I wonder if Chavez in Venezuela is thinking about pricing oil in a basket of currencies or Euros?

    by aztec on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 07:03:22 AM PDT

•  Iran

  There's been some great diaries over the past few days here about Irans new Oil Exchange that is apparently opening up in March, using the Euro. Does this bode well for any type of betting in Dollars?  Or are we going to see some quick news blurb on CNN some time in March, about suicide bombers taking out a couple of buildings in the heart of Tehran?

  It really would be unfortunate, F'kin Blackwater, Iran would probably blame it on colledge students.

  by ruralMB on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 11:07:26 PM PDT

  •  It won"t happen

    See my detailed comment in soj's recent diary:
    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    by Jerome a Paris on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 06:58:14 AM PDT

•  Just ordered a Prius

  hopefully it's as good a car as people say it is.  I kinda wanted a hybrid accord for the horsepower, but I couldn't do it.

  I just read a sobering article about the introduction of biodiesel leading to deforestation as the market for the raw materials becomes hotter.

  We need to conserve.  Where's Jimmy Carter when you need him?

  by unterhausen on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 11:21:53 PM PDT

  •  Wouldn't that defeat the purpose..

    ..if you had gotten the Accord instead? The mileage is about half that of the Prius.

       1. Honda Insight -- 60/66
       2. Toyota Prius -- 60/51*
       3. Honda Civic Hybrid -- 49/51*
       4. Volkswagen Golf TDI -- 37/44
          Volkswagen New Beetle TDI -- 37/44
       5. Volkswagen Jetta TDI -- 36/41
       6. Toyota Corolla -- 32/41
       7. Scion xA -- 32/37
       8. Hyundai Accent -- 32/35
          Kia Rio -- 32/35
       9. Honda Civic -- 30/40*
      10. Pontiac Vibe -- 30/36
          Toyota Matrix -- 30/36

    Honda Accord Hybrid 29/37*

    (all models manual transmission except w an asterisk)
    

    by Scarce on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 10:38:17 AM PDT

    •  I thought it was better than that

      oh, well, good thing I didn't do it then, isn't it?

      I was looking seriously at the Volkswagon TDI, but for my purposes I think the Prius is far superior.  Most of my driving is short trips with a lot of stops.  If I drove a lot of highway miles, the TDI would be very competitive, and the fact that you can use biodiesel is attractive.

      by unterhausen on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 05:29:13 PM PDT

•  Happy New Year Jerome.

  Wishing the best for you and your family in 2006.

  kd

  by kd texan on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 03:16:46 AM PDT

•  The Coming US-Israeli

  strike on the Iranian nuke facilities will probably bring us $100 oil pretty soon.

  by BobNJ on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 04:45:29 AM PDT

•  no war until after election

  we will not be attacking anyone until  after the 06 midterms.the american people would not put up with  another pre-emptive war.short of iran actually attacking us, bush can`t do a thing because the people  have had enough of war plus we don`t have the troops anyway.

  by JOEL1954 on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 05:43:26 AM PDT

  •  Iran

    I am not sure about timing in relation to November, but I do think that there is a good chance that there will be a U.S. air attack on Iran's nuclear facilities between now and 2008 accompanied by a threat to preclude Iranian retaliation on the ground (or some kind of secret agreement with Iran which must be quietly happy about events in Iraq). The Iraq war makes no sense at all from a Bush/oil company/strategic perspective if Iran cannot be constrained in some way and having nukes removes most the credibility of most threats that could be made against them.

    I agree that any strike on Iran would spike oil prices. This then is an argument for any possible attack will be delayed until after November. If Rove says we need a war before November, I'd bet on a coup attempt in Syria.

    by global citizen on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 08:49:36 AM PDT

•  Coal

  China and the US have an abundance of coal.  The Chinese are building at least one facility to convert coal into diesel or gasoline.  I know the Germans converted coal into diesel during World War II.

  Does anybody have an idea on what the price of oil has to be to make this conversion economical?  Can the process still limited to diesel or can gasoline or other refined oil  products now be produced by the process?

  My bet is $70 plus for oil by mid-2006?

  by aztec on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 07:12:21 AM PDT

  •  Cynical answer:

    In the current unregulated, oil monopoly dominated energy market and political system we have in the US, Fisher-Tropsch (FT)  coal gasification/synfuels production will always be slightly more expensive than oil-derived hydrocarbon distillates, no matter what the price of petroleum is, imo.  

    When oil was selling for $15-20/bbl, coal (or Canadian tar sand) derived synfuels equivalants were estimated to be profitable at a price of ~$30-35 /bbl. Now with oil selling for $60+, my guess is current  synfuel estimate price will come in at $70-$80. $100 Oil -> $120 synfuel.  Such is the nature of the unregulated profit-driven human beast in any endeavor (including energy business) when they they dominate a market.

    With respect to your second question (is coal gasification/FT only good for making diesel?),IIRC, the current 'Sasol' and 'Shell' commercial  processes   are optimized for making long (> 25 carbon atom long straight chain ("normal") hydrocarbon molcules called paraffin waxes, which are then split into   shorter snipets of 12-18 carbon atom (diesel) and/or 6-10 atom long (low octane gasoline) straight chain  a second "cracking" step.

    Diesel engines run great on these straight chain 12-18 carbon long hydrocarbons, but gasoline engines run best on branched chain (high octane)hydrocarbon isomers in the 7-10 carbon atom size range. So the normal  (6-10 atom long straight chain) hydrocarbons easily produced through FT coal derived synfuels, are too sensitive, ie: they ignite prematurely and too explosively in the gasoline engine and cause engine knocking, unless "octane enhancing" compounds, are added to the synfuel intended for gas engines.

    by shumard on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 08:16:50 AM PDT

•  Bonne année, Jérôme n/t

  by lecsmith on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 07:14:22 AM PDT

•  It's so true, Meteor Blades is da man...

  I've been doing some options analysis of NYMEX and ICE data in TradeStation, my tool of choice.  It's difficult, admitting to being a gnome, but I wonder if Meteor Blades isn't also doing much the same thing I am.  I seldom trade on predictive work, but Meteor's guess is amazingly prescient.

  Looks like Russia's Gazprom is playing hardball with Ukraine.  I have no idea how this will play out in the long haul, it's interesting to see the Russians play this game on a day the markets are largely dormant.

  by BlaiseP on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 07:43:46 AM PDT

  •  See my diary yesterday

    on Gazprom: http://www.dailykos.com/...

    by Jerome a Paris on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 08:11:34 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, I'd already read it.

      Your diary is staple fare in my hotlist.

      by BlaiseP on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 08:39:43 AM PDT

•  A Year of the Great Transition

  
  ---Or not..

  I predict that this is the year that Americans start to see and understand consequences and it will not be a happy year for many in leadership positions from Bush to the Democrats...

  A number of revelations and outcomes related to Iraq and corruption here at home will render the US largely impotent to initiate much though it will swagger and threaten more and more.  I don't foresee another US inspired war -- who will fight it? I do foresee unstable and rising oil and gas but also a new entrant in the resource discussion -- water.  Record droughts and changes in the water balance due to weather and rapid melting of polar and northern ice packs will add a cute spin to the economy and to the speculation on how we use our gas and oil...we use water to generate energy and to generate electricity.... Its going to really f** with the economy but as usual, it will be working class and poor people who suffer most.  

  I foresee an awakening America that will be unhappy and at war with itself. I foresee a rough period for the Christian led Republican party and a starting anti religion backlash...but a lot of turmoil and little resolution..

  I am uncertain about the prospects of the Democrats in 06.  Without courage and a cohesive message and vision on the war,energy and the economy, the Congressional races will be driven by a lot of weird idiosyncratic events. It will be a miracle if Democrats take either house and I donot predict it-- fostering a much needed revolt and house cleaning in the Democratic rank and file.

  As they say-- we will have the curse this year -- living in interesting times.

  by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Sun Jan 01, 2006 at 10:08:55 AM PDT