Ual 4th Quarter Results

[Busdrvr]

Bus,
I don't have a problem with developing Nuke power at all, or any other alternative sources for that matter. I'm sure our lame duck president is doing 'all he can' to minimize the record oil prices that we now enjoy. Uh, maybe the reason consumption increased during the Willie Clinton years, was due to the fact that oil was cheap, and consumers made purchase decisions based upon that. In the short term sense, however; please tell me how a war in the Persian Gulf is making oil any less expensive? Nothing like the deep thoughts of Gomer Pyle.

[post="257158"][/post]​

Yes it was cheap due to the collapse of the Asian economy and clinton allowing Sadam to sell his oil to build more palaces. So what happened? Oil exploration virtually stopped. That's when prices started to spiral out of control. the price of crude nearly tripled during the last 2-3 years of clintons term. As to the war in the Gulf, specifically, how much has world wide oil stocks been affected? The latest 'surges" haven't been from a "terrorsim" threat, but from oil stocks decreasing, and projections of massive growth in oil demand (as the world economy grows). as to nukes, I think it was Clinton that shut down the Experimental Breeder Reactor program up in Idaho.

you want chep oil? raise supply and lower demand.

how do you raise supply? You allow/encourage drilling
reduce demand? two ways, the idiotic liberal way of inducing pain on the populace while ignoring the rules yourself (see Shoreham), or the RIGHT way, by encouraging the SMART use of alternatives.

Current Fuel Price per million BTU's
Oil (crude) $9.78
Fuel oil (wholesale) $11.50
Gasoline (retail @ $2.10) $16.94
Natural Gas $7.50
Coal $2.00
Nuclear Fuel Under $1.00

 

[ual777fan]

Nuke power would be a smart way to go, but I don't see the administration pushing for it. And yes a train carring 10 people would use more fuel per capita than your SUV, but a train carring 50 or a 100 would use dramatically less fuel per capita than your SUV.

Why did fuel usage dramitically increase under Clinton? Well the economy was rapidly expanding, and many more SUV/Trucks were sold, as a percentage of the total car market. Since SUV's don't have to obide by any real fuel standard, Detroit made very little effort to make them fuel efficient. Since, they make up an increasing amount of the fleet on the road today, they to should be subjected to fuel standards.

The point is that drilling in AnWr, won't solve or even reduce the problem. By the time it comes on line, in about 10-15 years, the increase in the US oil supply, which there won't be much since most of it is going to go to Japan just like North Slope oil goes mostly to Japan, will have already been consumed by growing US demand.

I wouldn't be so opposed to the measure, if there were some strict but sensible conservation measures to to cut demand. But, there aren't any.
----------
As to cost cutting at United they should role hubs and increase utilization. By doing that you cut delays, increase usage of airport assests, and allow for more fleet utilization since you aren't flying in banks. If it could be implemented by United at O'Hare and SFO, it would probably do wonders for some of the conjestion problems at those airports and should help improve UA's bottom line.

 

[Busdrvr]

The point is that drilling in AnWr, won't solve or even reduce the problem. By the time it comes on line, in about 10-15 years, the increase in the US oil supply, which there won't be much since most of it is going to go to Japan just like North Slope oil goes mostly to Japan, will have already been consumed by growing US demand.

So increasing supply will have no effect on the price....

Does it REALLY matter where it goes? by your logic, we really shouldn't be affected much by OPEC. Most of our imported oil comes from Canada. If Japan gets MORE oil from alaska, they need LESS from somewhere else. Do you get it?

Now back to "stupid liberal tricks"

Is ALL oil up by hte same amount? the answer is NO. in the past, the differance between light (low sulpher) crudes has been fairly small. now the differance has increased substantially. So a $20 increase in WTI does not equate to a $20 increase in the OPEC basket. Why? The U.S. is one of the few countries that has the type refineries that efficiently refines the low quality oils. Our refineries are tapped out. We need more. more refineries in the U.S. means higher prices for the heavy oils (of which Canada and Venezuala have huge supplies), and lower prices for the 'benchmarks'). It also means lower prices for refined products. when was the last time the enviro's allowed a new refinery in the U.S.? I'll give you a hint, we had a guy with big teeth as president.

Since SUV's don't have to obide by any real fuel standard, Detroit made very little effort to make them fuel efficient. Since, they make up an increasing amount of the fleet on the road today, they to should be subjected to fuel standards.

No incentive to make them fuel efficient? how about market forces? People bought them because the wanted them over a government regulation induced unsafe econo box.

I wouldn't be so opposed to the measure, if there were some strict but sensible conservation measures to to cut demand. But, there aren't any.

you mean like tax incentives for the purchase of hybrids? Alt fuel vehicle tax breaks? Oh wait, i think I know what you mean. you mean the government hasn't forced enough people to by the car YOU think they should buy. should they eat the meals YOU think they should eat? live in the government issued house YOU think they should live in? but at least you're honest, it isn't about choice or opening a place that will provide oil for the U.S. consumer, it's about forcing your granola view on others.

 

[UnitedChicago]

Bus - I usually love your posts cause you don't take any crap on all things United.

Please change the subject so you don't lose favor in my eyes with your political views!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Busdrvr]

Bus - I usually love your posts cause you don't take any crap on all things United.

Please change the subject so you don't lose favor in my eyes with your political views!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[post="257211"][/post]​

Please rephrase to say "cause you don't take any crap on all things"

In truth, i know a little about energy and economics. the problem in the U.S. is an informational one. people don't get the whole story. who among us has actually read the Bush energy plan? I have. who among us cared enough about energy during the campaign to actually read Kerry's? I did. It would have, IMO, INCREASED our reliance on foriegn oil. A few points to ponder.

1. Is it possible to "run out" of oil?

2. If the average price of Wind generated electricity is equal to the average price of Coal, Nat gas or Nuke electricity, does that mean it's just as cheap to use Wind energy?

3. If, as you say, it takes 10 years to get oil out of ANWR (I dispute that number, It will take that long to get to peak production), then why didn't we do something 10 years ago while prices were still cheap?

4. What world do you want to live in, one that MAXIMIZES utility, or MINIMIZES cost? I'm for Utility. the Cost argument put's us back in caves.

5. Do you support sustainability or sustainable growth? They aren't the same.

6. How bad is nuclear waste, and how long does it last? Why?

7. How many people have died due to the peaceful use of nuclear power? How many people died because of TMI? How many died as a result of Chenobyl? What releases more radiation into the atmosphere, Coal powered plants or Nuclear power plants? Which one would you perfer 20 miles from your home?

I'll quote a former Saudi Oil minister. to paraphrase his words: The stone age didn't end for lack of stones, and the oil age will not end for lack of oil.

 

[ual777fan]

I don't know about you but my gov regulated, unsafe Ford Taurus which gets close to 30MPG, got 5 stars on the safety tests. And last time I checked, sedan's don't have the propensity for tipping that the SUV's do, since they are so top heavy.

Here are some facts...1, we are going to run out of recoverable oil before the end of the century if consumption continues at current rates...2, oil is a finite resouce, if you want it to go further, you have to reduce the amount being consumed...3, most Japanese refineries can't handle the Asian or even many of the middle eastern crudes so they have to import from Alaska, as their demand increases, it will reduce availability for the US...4) On the heavy crude, yes there is a lot in Canada. There is also a lot in Venezuala, but do you really want to be dependant on some idiot by the name of Chavez running the country, or you can get it from the Middle East, but I thought the whole exercise in drilling in AnWar was to reduce the amount of oil we get from the Middle East.

Those are many justifications for limiting consumption, or conserving use of finite resources.

 

[ual777fan]

Your talking to a person who is in favor of expanding nuclear power and rebuilding old coal power plants to convert them to clean coal. I just happen to think you can make the problems much less severe by addressing both ends of the equation, the supply problems and the demand problems. If you reduce demand, you reduce or maybe even solve your supply problems.

 

[Winglet]

There is zero political courage in Washington DC to do ANYTHING about the oil. Too many of Bush's friends in the oil industry (making record profits) and other elected officials sucking the teat of the oil CEOs.

Bush does, however, want to transfer lots of social security dollars to his fat cat friends in the securities industry in the form of fees and commissions from "private" accounts.

 

[casual rat]

Bus,

 

[casual rat]

Bus, I'm not arguing the fact that supply needs to be increased for prices to fall--I agree with you! I'm also not arguing the fact that Clinton did little with respect to developing alternative energy sources--I agree! This is a yes or no answer: Are oil prices currently at record levels? I think they are--yes. Is George Bush our President? Yes he is. Are we in a War in an oil rich theatre? Yes we are. Is the dollar weak? Yes it is.
During the start of the 90's, was oil at record levels (for that time frame)? I think they were--yes. Did the Airline Industry suffer heavy losses in the early 90's? Yes it did. Were we in a War in an oil rich theatre during the early 90's? Yes we were. Was George Bush Sr. our President? Yes he was. When we left the Persian Gulf theatre, did oil prices fall? Yes they did--to the point where it was unprofitable to drill in the USA.
The point that I'm trying to make is: War in an oil rich theatre is going to boost prices regardless of supply, due to 'jitters' on the part of suppliers. A major conflict is simply going to make it more difficult (thus costlier) to distribute supply. An interruption in flow costs oil distributers billions of dollars. Are middle men going to capitalize in such an environment? Yes, it's their job to do so. Are oil companies making record profits? Yes they are. Do oil companies contribute to BOTH political parties? Yes they do. Until someone develops nuclear powered aircraft, Airlines are going to be dependent on the cost of fuel. You would think that the cost would be absorbed by the consumer, but currently, in our case, it's being absorbed by the employees in the form of pay/benefit cuts. I'm not making a political argument here at all. I'm making an argument that's based on the current world environment/situation. Until there is peace/stability in the Gulf, Venezuela, etc. prices are going to be 'propped' up artificially due to the threat of instability.

 

[Busdrvr]

There is zero political courage in Washington DC to do ANYTHING about the oil. Too many of Bush's friends in the oil industry (making record profits) and other elected officials sucking the teat of the oil CEOs.

Bush does, however, want to transfer lots of social security dollars to his fat cat friends in the securities industry in the form of fees and commissions from "private" accounts.

[post="257228"][/post]​

You mean his buddies like John Corzine and Bobby Rubin? Hmmm, I'll take 'fees' and a 10% return over Al Gore and a 1% return any day. but then the government loses control over your security. they can't have that happen. a bunch of self sufficient Senior Citizens? who would vote for the dems then? In all likelyhood, personal accounts would shine the light on Wall Street and make high fee's a thing of the past.

 

[Busdrvr]

Your talking to a person who is in favor of expanding nuclear power and rebuilding old coal power plants to convert them to clean coal. I just happen to think you can make the problems much less severe by addressing both ends of the equation, the supply problems and the demand problems. If you reduce demand, you reduce or maybe even solve your supply problems.

How about this plan?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20050309-4.html

I don't know about you but my gov regulated, unsafe Ford Taurus which gets close to 30MPG,

how many pass. does the Taurus hold? Can it pull a boat? BTW, 30 MPG's ain't that great.

1, we are going to run out of recoverable oil before the end of the century if consumption continues at current rates...

Circular liberal logic. I'll let you in on the truth, WE WILL NEVER RUN OUT OF OIL. No maybe's, no if's no buts. WE WILL NEVER RUN OUT OF OIL. If you don't understand that simple concept, go to the nearest Community College (outside of Berkeley) and take an economics course. One more time WE WILL NEVER RUN OUT OF OIL.

2, oil is a finite resouce, if you want it to go further, you have to reduce the amount being consumed

Really? what kind of oil? Tar sands oil? Olive oil? Corn oil? Oil from shale? Oil produced from coal? What kind of oil is a "finite" resource?


3, most Japanese refineries can't handle the Asian or even many of the middle eastern crudes so they have to import from Alaska, as their demand increases, it will reduce availability for the US...

What?! :huh: So instead of importing light oils from other markets (Nigeria), they'll import more from Alaska. So that will reduce our supply of oil how?

4) On the heavy crude, yes there is a lot in Canada. There is also a lot in Venezuala, but do you really want to be dependant on some idiot by the name of Chavez running the country, or you can get it from the Middle East, but I thought the whole exercise in drilling in AnWar was to reduce the amount of oil we get from the Middle East.

Well canada has as much oil as all of Saudi Arabia if all the tar sands are counted. US refineries specialized in the heavy oils because more PROFIT could be made cracking the cheap oils. but now you're saying that higher quality oil from alaska will not reduce our dependance on foreign oil? :huh: . I'll try this more slowly. We export some of the "easy' to refine oils to other countries. we then import some heavier oils. this way our refineries make more money. Let's say Chavez says "no soup for you" and cuts off oil exports. AFTER the total collapse of his economy (what's left) and his hanging during the coup, assuming "heavy oil' becames scarcer, guess what, we'll refine the EASY stuff instead. It's a WORLD market. If we EXPORT the expensive stuff and IMPORT the cheap stuff, we BENEFIT EVEN MORE

I've seen ANWR, I've flown over it. It ain't Eden.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I'll not wade too far into this argument but I will say that it is really unsustainable that the US should be using a disproportionate amount of oil compared w/ our size - just as we do w/ most of the world's resources. It was possible to do that when the US controlled most of the wealth in the world but now that we have promoted free trade, there are many other countries vying to use those same resources. Americans' real wealth is falling as we find it harder to compete with much lower paid workers - in every field - around the world.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of Americans receive no benefit from high oil prices. If oil prices remain this high into the next election season, it will affect the outcome. Americans are highly sensitive to economic shocks and the current oil price crisis is exactly that to many Americans. Whether democrats can do anything differently, Americans will try something different in the hopes of making their life more comfortable - which as we all know is the ultimate reason for existence for most Americans.

 

[Cfm56]

>>> I will say that it is really unsustainable that the US should be using a disproportionate amount of oil compared w/ our size - just as we do w/ most of the world's resources. <<<

Maybe if other government's and societies had the freedoms, less corruption, and less socialistic policies (let alone the repressive governments), educated more, and didn't have incredible tax rates, all which slowed developmental progress and forging a vibrant economy then they might be using a larger proportion too. If some countries want to exist in the stone age while we continue to prosper and produce goods and drive cars instead of donkey carts, etc to make our lives better...so be it and therefore we should be using more of the world's resources because many of the other countries of the world are led be idiots and are structured poorly for improving business, technology, and the general advancement of society. Too bad for them and good for the United States.

 

[Busdrvr]

that the US should be using a disproportionate amount of oil compared w/ our size - just as we do w/ most of the world's resources.



It'n it great!!!

Americans' real wealth is falling as we find it harder to compete with much lower paid workers - in every field - around the world.

Really, By what measure?

Americans are highly sensitive to economic shocks and the current oil price crisis is exactly that to many Americans

i'd hardly call it a "crisis"

But in any case, kudo's for noticing the dollar. But the current adminsitration isn't "allowing the dollar to slide", they just aren't intervening to prop up the over valued currency. The dollar is still worth more on a trade weighted basis than when Bobby Rubin started manipulating the currency market to create short term political bliss. we're now paying the piper, and it will take some time for the jobs that were lost as a result of Rubinomics to come bask (see "J-curve"). In any case, the 'weak" (I'd say more fairly valued) currency should allow the legacy carriers to better compete with our overseas friends.