joewp wrote:The cornies here(AD and OF2) can only win a Pyrrhic victory in this, you know. The only reason gasoline usage is down is because we're in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. What they won't say is that in order for gasoline usage to have peaked in the US, that means we'll be sinking into a worse and worse economic malaise that will throw 99% of Americans into poverty.
They post things like this as if they are celebrating something. Like I asked AD above, is the Greatest Depression what you're rooting for?
Because that's what you're going to get, my friend.
Figure 1 — The always helpful Calculated Risk graphed the turnover rate of the American vehicle fleet back in March. He said “currently this ratio is at 26.8 years, the highest ever. This is an unsustainable level (I doubt most vehicles will last 27 years!), and the ratio will probably decline over the next few years. This could happen with vehicles being removed from the fleet, but more likely because of a sales increase.”
TheAntiDoomer wrote:joewp wrote:The cornies here(AD and OF2) can only win a Pyrrhic victory in this, you know. The only reason gasoline usage is down is because we're in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. What they won't say is that in order for gasoline usage to have peaked in the US, that means we'll be sinking into a worse and worse economic malaise that will throw 99% of Americans into poverty.
They post things like this as if they are celebrating something. Like I asked AD above, is the Greatest Depression what you're rooting for?
Because that's what you're going to get, my friend.
Quit changing the subject, first admit your "buillshit" was wrong, and your statement that the bp guy was already wrong was wrong.
joewp wrote:
Actually, he is wrong, since we could very well buy more gasoline this year. You don't know and neither does he.
Over the last four weeks, motor gasoline demand has averaged nearly 9.3
million barrels per day, up by 1.1 percent from the same period last year.
joewp wrote:joewp wrote:
Actually, he is wrong, since we could very well buy more gasoline this year. You don't know and neither does he.
He's getting more wrong every week...
From this week's PSROver the last four weeks, motor gasoline demand has averaged nearly 9.3
million barrels per day, up by 1.1 percent from the same period last year.
OilFinder2 wrote:joewp wrote:joewp wrote:
Actually, he is wrong, since we could very well buy more gasoline this year. You don't know and neither does he.
He's getting more wrong every week...
From this week's PSROver the last four weeks, motor gasoline demand has averaged nearly 9.3
million barrels per day, up by 1.1 percent from the same period last year.
And this time last year gasoline consumption was down -1.8% from 2007. So we're still down -0.7% from 2007.
OilFinder2 wrote:If BP and Exxon are correct in their assertions about a secular decline in American gasoline consumption, you aren't going to see dramatic, 5% drops in demand in one year. You will probably see 0.5% and 1% declines year after year, and maybe a year here and there where demand remains flat or goes up a bit. But after a while those 0.5% and 1% declines will start to add up.
joewp wrote:If they are correct, that means they've been reading here and are convinced that the US is going into a permanent recession/depression cycle.
The reasons include changes in the way Americans live and the transportation they choose, along with a growing emphasis on alternative fuels.
BP shuts alternative energy HQ
• 'Beyond Petroleum' boast in doubt as clean energy boss quits
• Renewables budget will be reduced by up to £550m this year
BP has shut down its alternative energy headquarters in London, accepted the resignation of its clean energy boss and imposed budget cuts in moves likely to be seen by environmental critics as further signs of the oil group moving "back to petroleum". snip
In April the company closed a range of solar power manufacturing plants in Spain and the US with the loss of 620 jobs snip
Hayward has also moved BP into more controversial oil areas, such as Canada's tar sands, creating an impression that he has given up on the objectives of his predecessor, Lord Browne, to take the company "Beyond Petroleum".
Sinopec, the Chinese oil and gas group, said on Monday that it was in talks with BP over potential collaboration in the exploration and development of shale gas. The move underlines growing international interest in China’s shale gas fields.
In a company newsletter, Sinopec said the talks were going “smoothly” and that any deal would help China use foreign technology to speed up the development of its potentially large shale gas reserves.
Alabama Attorney General Troy King said tonight that he has told representatives of BP Plc. that they should stop circulating settlement agreements among coastal Alabamians.
The agreements, King said, essentially require that people give up the right to sue in exchange for payment of up to $5,000. King said BP's efforts were particularly strong in Bayou La Batre.
The attorney general said he is prohibited from giving legal advice to private citizens, but added that "people need to proceed with caution and understand the ramifications before signing something like that."They should seek appropriate counsel to make sure their rights are protected," King said.
By the end of Sunday, BP aimed to sign up 500 fishing boats in Alabama, Mississippi and Florida to deploy boom. BP had distributed a contract to fishermen it was hiring that waived their right to sue BP and required confidentiality and other items, sparking protests in Louisiana and elsewhere.
I think I can be a little more certain. You can't make that argument yet. If BP can't shut off the flow of oil within the next month the amount of oil released into the Gulf will be larger than any spill in human history. We're talking about oil slicks stretching from New Orleans to the East Coast of Florida. For Florida's economy, that puts at risk $57 billion, not counting the effect on real estate and fishing.
If, in a true worst-case scenario, oil lingers near an urban area like Mobile or New Orleans for weeks it will make the experience of living in those places unbearable. Residents in New Orleans are already complaining of respiratory problems related to a slick that is still more than 70 miles from the city.
In addition, we've never been confronted with a situation where gallons and gallons of chemical dispersants are dumped into the ocean for weeks and weeks. These chemicals create what are called PAHs, which are consumed by fish and marine life. These chemicals, which were not widely used in Prince William Sound, were found to be a grave risk to human health if you consume seafood that has ingested them. For BP's containment efforts to be successful at this scale, the entire world's existing supply of dispersant will have to be used in the Gulf.
The real comparison is something like Chernobyl. There will be deaths related to this disaster over the long run. You can't place chemicals that are so toxic next to human habitation for such an extended period of time without endangering human health. Is there any industrial activity that can be sustained if the risks to human health and other economic endeavors is so large? Does the oil industry have the right to unilaterally endanger the profits of every other industry on the Gulf Coast?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests