<Sable Island Gas - the Ten Year Wonder The Oil Drum Confidence in Russian deliveries of energy>
<DrumBeat: November 7, 2006 DrumBeat DrumBeat: November 9, 2006>

313 comments on DrumBeat: November 8, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Robert Rapier on November 8, 2006 - 9:23am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
I am just about to leave town for a few days, but I wrote up a few thoughts on the defeat of California's Prop 87:

Prop 87 Post Mortem

I had consistently predicted that it would pass. Ultimately, I think the uncertainty of a price hike caused voters to turn against it. But I also think that Vinod Khosla was a terrible choice for their spokesman. This was a guy with a vested financial interest, who was also guilty of incredible hubris and hypocrisy. I think he thought he could just make people so angry at the oil companies, they would vote against them. He should have spent more time arguing the case for Prop 87 instead of telling people that oil companies are baby killers. I was ambivalent about passage of the proposition right until the end, but I do have some satisfaction in seeing that Khosla's dirty politics were not rewarded.

I will be back next week, but first I have an appointment with a big buck on the Powder River. :-)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on November 8, 2006 - 9:26am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Cynic that I am, I suspect Prop 87 was done in at least partly by lower gas prices.  Gas is below $3!  Where's the problem?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on November 8, 2006 - 9:45am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yeah, that's exactly when support started to slide. Fickle voters. I think if the price had stayed high, it would have been a much closer vote. But I still think fear of the unknown (how much will it affect gas prices?) ultimately caused people to vote no.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Keithster100 on November 8, 2006 - 11:00am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The ads on TV did a good job of portraying the backers as shady backroom profiteers.

I voted no too. Ethanol has enough money and support right now, it doesn't need anymore.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Todd on November 8, 2006 - 11:21am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
RR,

I have to disagree with your assessment.  As I noted a few days ago, I voted against it (absentee ballot) because it is/was a poorly written proposition that was a neubulous pit of verbiage.  I would have voted for it had it been directed toward conservation and buy-downs for AE systems.  I wouldn't have cared if the price of gas went up.

Todd

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MillMan on November 8, 2006 - 2:26pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Khosla and his ethanol connections are the reason I voted against it. Normally this is the kind of measure I would be desperate to vote yes on. It was simply a poor proposition, and that is too bad, especially in light of the the road infrastructure measures that did pass. Ugh.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
brutus on November 8, 2006 - 2:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I ended up voting for 87, just so it wouldnt lose so bad. But you're right CA voted down a badly drawn proposition on alternative fuels for 4 billion and approved spending, after the costs of the bonds, another 60 billion for roads, an even bigger waste of money. Not a good day, but our politics isnt being honest, but its not honest about much these days.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
elwoodelmore on November 8, 2006 - 7:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
deer or antelope ?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

313 comments on DrumBeat: November 8, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version