5 Comments

  1. I’m a strong advocate of the idea that we should be using less natural gas by using more efficient furnaces and tankless water heaters. Now, we all know the pitfalls of efficiency, however this kind of efficiency – using less natural gas – is the right kind of efficiency. Preserving this resource for a longer term should be the primary objective, not inventing new ways to burn it.

  2. I thought those agitating for war with Iran were motivated almost exclusively by a desire to protect Israel.

  3. “The world would be a better place if more people thoroughly understood how the balance between supply of a commodity and demand for that commodity worked to establish market prices”

    Indeed, but do you claim to understand it yourself? The word “speculators” appears only once in the entire post, yet I believe most readers are aware that speculation controls the price more than anything else.

    The real cost of oil is estimated to be about $40, but the current spot price is just over $100 ($120 for Brent). It is widely believed that 60% of that price is speculation:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8878

    To bring this a little closer to home, the contract price of nuclear fuel has dropped by about 30% in the last three months, in spite of supply remaining flat and rising demand (for the future):

    http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_Prices.aspx

    Actually, if there’s any fair market to be found, it’s the gas stations in your town. They follow the age-old maxim of “charging what the market will bear”. If their neighbour can charge $4, so can they.

  4. Maury, I think you underestimate just how tight the global oil supply and demand balance is.

    If that high a percentage of the price of crude was mere speculation, wouldn’t the price spike to ~$140/bbl back in 2008 have prompted a much bigger crude oil production increase rather than acting as the match triggering a world-wide recession?

  5. Also Maury, considering that globalresearch link you provided is from May of 2008, I would have to consider it to be of very close to zero value today considering the historical price, consumption, and production data that is now available from the past almost 4 years.

Comments are closed.

Similar Posts

  • More non-nuclear prescriptions from Shell

    Shell, one of the world’s largest natural gas and oil companies, is spending large sums of money creating and distributing beautifully produced propaganda aimed at convincing us all that natural gas can provide increasing supplies of clean electricity, clean heat, and clean transportation fuel. While I have nothing against natural gas as a fuel source…

  • How important has oil money been to antinuclear movement?

    A couple of days ago, I wrote about my discovery that Robert O. Anderson, a long time leader in the global petroleum business, had provided the seed money that David Brower used to fund Friends of the Earth, an organization that has been fighting against nuclear energy for more than 40 years. I pointed out…

  • Gazprom profiting mightily from German nuclear exit

    The European Energy Review (available with a free registration) has published a detailed article titled Gazprom: back in the game – and ready to take on Brussels that paints a picture of Gazprom’s continued pattern of aggressive market actions aimed at locking European customers into long term contracts at prices that must make many US…

  • European Climate Foundation Has a Dangerous Blind Spot Regarding Nuclear Energy

    The European Energy Review (free subscription required) recently published an interview with Arne Mogren, Director of the Power Programme of the European Climate Foundation (ECF) titled Everyone agrees on where we need to be in 2050, but not on how to get there. The ECF is billed as one of the more influential climate lobby…

  • Proud – but often frustrated – nuclear professional

    Kevan Crawford has published well-written op-ed titled Nuclear power answer to clean energy. He described some nuclear energy’s impressive benefits and compared them to the available alternative power sources, which were exposed as being vastly inferior based on an objective evaluation of their characteristics and limitations. Here is the disclaimer associated with Kevan’s opinion piece….

  • Building a powerful pro-nuclear coalition

    The nuclear energy enterprise is not healthy in North America and Europe, the places that discovered the science and invented the technologies. That situation needs to change with due haste into sustainable progress that is not artificially restricted by annoying, delaying, costly opposition from people who either do not understand or do not value the…