Which party will support this effort?

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Effect of Present Value tables.

Post by Helius »

TallDave wrote:Sigh. No, it isn't. There's a very important concept in business called TVM, time value of money, which essentially means a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow.
Exactly, Present Values of $$$ would tend to motivate oil companies to push development forward in time, yet they supposedly have undeveloped lease reserves of relatively light sweet crude. So what's the hold up?

I don't buy cynical conspiracy theories. The only thing I can figure is that increases in development would necessitate large new investment in refining and product capacities that would also be pushed forward in time to handle any new production capacity. I think they recognize investments in refining more light sweet crude is not the best option and will invest in more sour low quality oil, shales and tar sands. They're at the top of the curve for light sweet crude, and will not tend to invest in new refining capacity for that refinery feedstock. They're sitting on the light sweet crude for now, which tick's quite a few people off.

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

Why do you guys keep calling it a conspiracy? I'm not claiming some sort of conspiracy.

Oil shale according to the BLM is supposed to be competitive at $30 a barrel. Why then aren't they doing it? Because it's in fact *not competitive* at $30 a barrel and the technology doesn't exist? I'm completely confused here.

Let's pretend the technology existed (other than the fact that we know that it does). Let's pretend that they started pumping oil out within the year.

What would happen to oil prices per barrel? If you had an oil business would you rather sell 100 barrels of oil at $100 or 200 barrels at $50? Do you guys think that they don't consider future profits in their land holdings? Otherwise why else would they hold the land? It makes no sense. You guys say they have a right to hold land but then cry foul (TVM) when I give a reasonable explaination as to why they continue holding the land. If you have a better explaination I'd like to hear it. And if anyone dares complain that it's *not* competitive at $30 a barrel I would like them to take it up with the BLM and DOE, because I'm not the one saying it.

Give us a Secretary of the Interior who would kick them out for not exploring and I'd betcha that they'd explore. Then you guys could at least not call me a conspiracy theorist when I try to give a reasonable explaination as to why they hold land that has reserves of oil under it.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

djolds1 wrote: A society has more interests then simply optimal economic function.

Duane
An important point. Doing cool stuff might be of value. Stuff that might not be profitable enough to shareholders, but never the less should be done.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Re: Effect of Present Value tables.

Post by Roger »

Helius wrote: They're sitting on the light sweet crude for now, which tick's quite a few people off.
That is a conspiracy theory for sure. Boy oh boy. A large conspiracy theory too, for every oil producing nation, every oil company on the planet is acting in concert in order to accomplish this goal.

Bar keep, get me a shot....make that 2 shots.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

Josh Cryer wrote: Oil shale according to the BLM is supposed to be competitive at $30 a barrel.
In Alberta ? Oil companies lack the energy & large volumes of water to do the job. What we need is a nat gas pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Alberta. Either that or build a 1/2 dozen fission nukes to power the project.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

Roger, nah, in Colorado/Utah/Wyoming (ie the Green River Basin). The BLM recently put a paper up on their website talking about it, in fact, the last few dozen BLM papers are almost all about oil shale (because oil has truly been tapped in the USA, drilling for crude is pretty much not happening, it's the shale where the deposits are). Here in Colorado the rough necks are quite excited about the possibilities. But there are few out there actively looking to explore it.

Colorado has a ton of water resources to spare which makes it ideal for oil shale exploration. Ironically McCain, while stumping for AZ, has stated on several ocassions that he wants to divert more water from Colorado to those states (AZ, NV, CA). This is an incredibly big no-no. McCain will not win Colorado unless he changes this position. Bank on it.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Roger wrote:
Josh Cryer wrote: Oil shale according to the BLM is supposed to be competitive at $30 a barrel.
In Alberta ? Oil companies lack the energy & large volumes of water to do the job. What we need is a nat gas pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Alberta. Either that or build a 1/2 dozen fission nukes to power the project.
A certain Alaskan Governor has already gotten the pipeline going through competitive bidding and negotiations with a foreign country.

Due to the political season I will name no names but I can give you a hint. The person who did it is a woman with 5 children. She appears in the news occasionally. I hope that helps. :-)

I believe the oil cos are looking into packaged nukes for tar sands and oil shale.

It would be perfect for a D-D BFR.

Roger - could you do a KOS diary about the logistics problem or would that get you kicked off the board since it contradicts a certain candidate's position? Although I heard he has modified his position recently.

Simon
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

MSimon wrote:

Roger - could you do a KOS diary about the logistics problem or would that get you kicked off the board since it contradicts a certain candidate's position? Although I heard he has modified his position recently.

Simon
Its already been done multiple times.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

MSimon wrote:
I think you make my point. It seems that above a certain tax rate revenues flatten. .
So you cannot reconcile that as a % of GDP, there is no correlation to revenues. AS population grows revenue grows...

It would be gracious of you simon to have some facts to back up your fantasy.

Image

Chart from MSN.COM


Image

This chart shows that revenues are consistent regardless of having a 91% tax rate, or a 28% income tax rate.


Again tax rates have no effect on revenues. A tax policy based on the opposite cannot be reality based, and those who advocate such a policy are not living in the real world.


Please reconcile the facts to what you are saying Simon.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

Image

Somewhat consistent economic growth, regardless of Income tax rates.

EDIT:

Next up is showing that revenues rise & drop as the GDP rises, or drops. I just dont have that handy on my hard drive at this time. I wont bother if we can agree that this is so....

So what say everyone ? Do we agree that revenues rise & drop as the GDP rises, or drops?
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Why do you guys keep calling it a conspiracy? I'm not claiming some sort of conspiracy.
Yes you are! You explicitly said they were ignoring exploitable fields to raise prices by restricting supply. That's an OPEC-style price-fixing conspiracy, which would be illegal under U.S. antitrust law. It's certainly not their public position, which would make it a secret conspiracy.

Now, secret price-fixing conspiracies do happen from time to time; the antitrust folks at the DOJ wouldn't have much to do if they didn't. But U.S. oil companies don't control the open price-fixing conspiracy known as OPEC or, therefore, oil prices. Thus, their best move is to maximize production.
yet they supposedly have undeveloped lease reserves of relatively light sweet crude. So what's the hold up?
That's the point: there isn't any hold up. Generally, any field that can be profitably exploited is being exploited.
Last edited by TallDave on Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

This chart shows that revenues are consistent regardless of having a 91% tax rate, or a 28% income tax rate.
The obvious conclusion is that under higher tax regimes, people are more likely to hide income or not bother to produce it. Thus, lower tax rates are desirable.

Russia has quite a lot of experience with this. For 70 years, they operated at 100% tax rates. That didn't work out very well. After the Soviet Union collapsed, they operated at very high tax rates, which also didn't work very well. Finally, they slashed rates and now compliance and revenues are both way up and the economy is growing very well, even aside from the oil sector.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Oil shale according to the BLM is supposed to be competitive at $30 a barrel. Why then aren't they doing it?
As I've already pointed out, environmental laws make it illegal in many places. You can thank Roger's friends for that.
Last edited by TallDave on Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

TallDave wrote:
The obvious conclusion is that under higher tax regimes, people are more likely to hide income or not bother to produce it. Thus, lower tax rates are desirable.
I'm sorry, I was laffin so hard I didnt hear you..... what did you say ?
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Roger wrote:
TallDave wrote:
The obvious conclusion is that under higher tax regimes, people are more likely to hide income or not bother to produce it. Thus, lower tax rates are desirable.
I'm sorry, I was laffin so hard I didnt hear you..... what did you say ?
Well then, you're an idiot on economic matters. Go take an Econ 101 class if you don't understand the basic idea of rational actors maximizing their wealth.

If I'm going to have to put in 100 hrs a week to start a business, if the government is going to take 90% of the profit do I have a reduced incentive to put in all that work?

Sheesh. Economics to Democrats is like sunlight to vampires.
Last edited by TallDave on Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Post Reply