Why is oil below $50 right now?

[Clandestino]

I thought it was supposed to hit 80-100 bucks and gas to $4 a gallon by now. According to nbadan that is!

[Extra Stout]

It's below $50 a barrel because speculators overestimated summer demand and refineries stocked up.

Gasoline inventory is really high right now.

Gas prices might go back up to $2.15/gal or so once summer vacation hits.

$80-$100 a barrel won't happen for a few more years.

Keep in mind that $45-$50 a barrel isn't exactly low anyway.

[SWC Bonfire]

Oil at a steady $40/bbl will do wonders for the Texas economy... wherever it goes, it needs to stabilize. Most people don't realize that it would be disasterous for the price to plummet right now, because oil companies are investing a lot of money in going after old zones that are now profitable and exploring for new ones. The X factor is China and their Buick-loving selves, no one seems to know how to predict demand there.

[Clandestino]

great answers, but it was supposed to be a joke bc dan was saying we'd be there by the summer, and the sky was falling, etc...

[Extra Stout]

Well, Dan has fantasies about the sky falling in because that would validate his ideology.

[Nbadan]

Well, Dan has fantasies about the sky falling in because that would validate his ideology.

:rolleyes

Oh please, the 'sky is falling' routine to try and marginalize Democrats is as old as Extra Stout's seething hate for anything progressive apparently. Fact is, any scare in production, be it a attack on Saudi oil facilities, a hurricane, earthquake, any other natural disaster, or even just unanticipated demand from China and India could send oil prices climbing again.

The world is running out of cheap oil. This is why oil companies need to make more money off the supply all ready in the lines. It costs more to get at the oil still left in the ground.

[Extra Stout]

The world is running out of cheap oil. This is why oil companies need to make more money off the supply all ready in the lines. It costs more to get at the oil still left in the ground.If you define cheap as "less than $80/bbl," and if you define running out as "still a lot around, just not enough to keep up with burgeoning demand anymore," then you are right.

But understand that around $80, a whole lot of doors come open.

[Nbadan]

If you define cheap as "less than $80/bbl," and if you define running out as "still a lot around, just not enough to keep up with burgeoning demand anymore," then you are right.

But understand that around $80, a whole lot of doors come open.

Eh, trouble is, all the doors that 'could' come open require large amounts of petroleum to happen. Fuel Cells use a trememdous amount of petroleum to produce. Modern wind mills require petroleum to keep lubricated. Hybrid cars aren't nearly as efficient without light-weight body parts made of petroleum.

There is no real alternative to cheap fuel, and that is the harsh reality we are all going to accept in the next few decades.

[Extra Stout]

Eh, trouble is, all the doors that 'could' come open require large amounts of petroleum to happen. Fuel Cells use a trememdous amount of petroleum to produce. Modern wind mills require petroleum to keep lubricated. Hybrid cars aren't nearly as efficient without light-weight body parts made of petroleum.

That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to things like shale extraction and coal liquefaction that start to become economical at that price point.

We have a LOT of coal, BTW.

[JoeChalupa]

I don't know but I like the fact that I filled up yesterday for $1.86 a gallon!!

Good job Dubya!!

[scott]

Why is oil below $50 right now?

The answer isn't as simple as "stocks are building" or "we have plenty of supply". There are a lot of different variables pulling on the oil market right now, and the signal that $46 oil sends to Average Joe isn't necessarily the right one.


It's below $50 a barrel because speculators overestimated summer demand and refineries stocked up.

Maybe a little too much oversimplification, but generally accurate. WTI is in a steep contango, which encourages refineries with available storage capacity (this is a finite amount too) to purchase prompt while it is cheap. This is why we see stocks building. If you look at inventory optimization models, you basically need to factor the cost of holding excess inventory versus the cost of running out of crude versus the cost of maintaining a JIT inventory strategy. In a contango market (prompt prices lower than forward prices), you would want to hold inventory whereas in a backwardated market you would want to move to more of a JIT strategy.

Another critical reason for lower prompt WTI prices right now, and possibily more important, is that we are coming out of refinery maintenance season. A lot of hydroskimming and cracking refineries (as opposed to coking refineries) were under turnaround turning the first two quarters, especially in Asia. The result has been a relative decline in the demand for light sweet (which is the same thing as a relative increase in demand for medium to heavy sours).

In many ways, crude is NOT cheaper right now for some refineries. Because of the relative decrease in demand for light sweet, the relative price for medium to heavy sours has INCREASED. This can be most seen by the Maya discount to WTI over the last two months, which has risen from 18 under to around 10 under. PEMEX prices Maya off a formula which incorporates Fuel Oil, WTS, Brent, and LLS. Fuel Oil has really strenghtened as it has had a major demand pull from Asia as some of their energy facilities have switched to Fuel Oil in the short term while they are in turnarond season.

As these facilities that typically run light sweet come back on line, you should expect to see a moderate rise in prompt WTI prices (forward WTI is still above $50, btw). I say moderate, because the inventory builds we have seen recently should provide an offset to the increase in demand.


The world is running out of cheap oil. This is why oil companies need to make more money off the supply all ready in the lines. It costs more to get at the oil still left in the ground.

This is an interesting statement, because when you really think about it, it is the "cheap" oil that is coming into more of an abundance. It is just that we are not currently prepared to do anything about it.

Now, I know you were meaning that the days of cheap WTI are over, which I agree with save for the occassional cyclical recessions in the oil market. However, the incremental supply is widely accepted to be medium to heavy sour, despite the Saudi's claim they can come up with more light sweet. One thing is for certain, there will not be a great deal of light sweet coming online domestically.

So, the "cheap" medium to heavy sour will be available in the near to medium term for anyone who wants it, but right now... who does? This is the reason for record Maya and Mars spreads this year. You can pump a trillion barrels of Maya out of the ground, but without the upgrading and coking capacity at the refineries, it doesn't do anyone any good. More on this later.


That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to things like shale extraction and coal liquefaction that start to become economical at that price point.

Tar sands (shale) extraction is a good alternative of sorts, and I think it is a technology that will continue to grow at $40 oil just as it will at $80. I'd have to check some assays, but I believe SynCrude is a heavy sour and has an upper price limit independent of WTI prices. As WTI gets more expensive, the SynCrude discount just gets wider. We will see SynCrude and other Tar Sand crude demand increase just because it is a good product. The problem now is logistics. There is no easy way to get the stuff down to the major refining centers and for now it will remain a Group3 feedstock.

Coal to Liquids and Gas to Liquids are also two emerging areas, but the problem now is that it takes so much coal to produce so little product. Regardless of oil prices, my opinion is we are still a long way away from seeing real breakthroughs here. However, remember these alternative technologies are MORE economical at $40 oil with a $15 gas crack than they are at $50 oil with $3 gas crack. Watching product prices will give a better indicator than watching crude as to the velocity at which R&D moves.


But understand that around $80, a whole lot of doors come open.

As I've tried to hammer for a while now, the bottleneck continues to be refining capacity, and $80 oil doesn't really do anything to open that bottleneck. For refiners, the cost of oil is an expense and high oil is not good for refineries, all else held equal.

Right now, so much of refiner's relative capital budgets are tied into having to meet regulatory specs, that it leaves less to use for building upgrading capacity or expanding refineries. We are moving to 15 ppm sulfur diesel and gasoline, and building those sulfur plants, GDUs, and HCUs costs a lot of money. Also, it will see what happens with Ethanol. Lobbyists are doing a great job at getting into the ears of their politicians, and if the push for Ethanol continues, it will pull on gasoline supply. Using Ethanol as opposed to other oxygenates requires the use of MORE gasoline.

So, we are building a lot of desulfurization capacity on the product side, but the feedstock supply side isn't getting the necessary upgrades because funds are diverted to meet regulatory spec. This just further increases the demand for light sweet... pushing prices up (and sour discounts up as well).

Also, it is important to remember that oil is a highly cyclical business and all the oil companies have seen spikes like this before. They are cautious to run into multi billion projects when they aren't sure this isn't just a normal part of the historical 9 year cycle (4 up, 5 down). They don't want to get stuck in a project that the economics don't end up supporting 3 years down the road. There is a bit of a Keynesian price stickiness in that regard. I'd expect prices to stick in the $50s for a few more years, before settling around the new standard of $35-45 WTI.

[scott]

ps: once I get all the technology together, my plan to make oil out of carbohydrate rich people will solve all of the world's energy needs.

If you know any one in Venture Capital... pm me... I'm on the verge of something big!!!

[Nbadan]

Making fuel out of fat people - hummm....there is great potential for this in Fat Antonio.

[MannyIsGod]

That post is much too long for Clandestino to handle, but thank you Scott.

[Clandestino]

That post is much too long for Clandestino to handle, but thank you Scott.

go suck your girlfriend's dick manny...

when i started this thread it was meant for nbadan bc he said oil would hit $80 by now.

[scott]

Making fuel out of fat people - hummm....there is great potential for this in Fat Antonio.

America in general would be perfect for such an endevor. A carbohydrate rich diet is essential, and no doubt America leads the world in the that. Carbohydrates are CH30... Methane is CH4... I'll let you make the connection. :eyebrows

The problem of course is getting politicians to buy into it, especially under the current administration. Despite Republicans love of oil, they have this whole moral values thing working for them, and as evidenced by some of their feelings towards stem cell research, they REALLY hate science.

However... Republicans DO love capital punishment... so I propose using prisoners. Clones would be ideal, but aren't viable at this time due to the aformentioned reasons.

I know I can get environmental wackos on my side... the idea of killing people to save animals and nature is a winning ticket with them.

I think I'll call it Soilent Black.

[Mark in Austin]

I'm not sure about all oil companies, but I know that ExxonMobil has more money (cash) on hand than they know what to do with. Around 27 Billion and growing. Saying they can't afford to add refining capacity with the current environmental controls is complete and utter horseshit. This is a perferct storm for big oil...

Prices are so high that they're making so much money they literally can't spend it fast enough. They decide to play the "restrictions keep us from expanding" card, and wait. If nothing happens, they continue to make a shitload of money. If restrictions are relaxed, the get to add capacity without having to comply with newer air qualtiy regulations.

It would be one thing if prices were going up but oil company profits are stable or decreasing. But to be paying so much more at the pump at the same time that record profits are rolling for companies like ExxonMoblie in just doesn't seem right.

[scott]

Well Mark, I can't speak for Exxon, but having cash around doesn't necessarily allow you to toss money at every project you can think of. Obviously the capital budgeting decision is more complex than having available funds.

Just for kicks, here is a highly simplified example.

For comparison sake, let's use the Valero Acquisition of Premcor. Valero has agreed to purchase Premcor for an effective $8bn. This gets VLO 4 refineries and about ~800 mbpd crude throughput. However, the biggest part of the deal is centered around 2 refineries, the Port Arthur and Delware City facilities, with combined throughput of ~430mbpd.

For simplicities sake, we are going to value that 430 mbpd at 75% of the acquisition cost times the replacement value factor of this deal (it's estimated we are paying roughly 80% of replacement value).

That gets us to $7.5bn replacement value on 430 mbpd, or roughly $1.75 bn for every 100 mbpd of capacity.

So let's say we want to try to build a 250 mbpd refinery comparable to these two. You would probably end up building something more complex, which would pump the cost up - but let's just be conservative and say it's going ot be $4.4 bn to build this refinery (my guess it that it would really be more like $6).

Let's assume that the refinery runs 90% full (this is high) and prices stay at historically high levels. The refinery will gross ~$1.2bn a year based on a gross per barrel margin of $15. Let's say that our OPEX factor is 50%. That gives us net profit margin of ~$616MM/yr. However, this only gets us a 13% IRR on a 20 year project life, which would not be enough to justify such a huge project with so many risks.

Now, let's say that margins only stay at their historically high levels for 3 more years. Drop down to a $7 gross per barrel margin and annual net income drops down to ~$287MM/yr, and you only get a 5% IRR on a 20 year project life. No way you can justify building this refinery.

Now, on the other hand, it is far less difficult to justify expansions to existing refineries, and such expansions are taking place among just about every refiner you can think of.


But to be paying so much more at the pump at the same time that record profits are rolling for companies like ExxonMoblie in just doesn't seem right.

But that's the way free markets work. The high price level is obviously what keeps supply and demand in balance. And high profit levels are what give companies the incentive to invest. It is just a slow process, for the reasons I mentioned above. No one in their right mind can forcast these margins forever, so it is still tough to justify some projects. Not to mention it takes time for investments to be implemented.

[scott]

And oh yeah, prompt month WTI is back above $50.

[Guru of Nothing]

Save the fat people, invest our money in bike trails.

[Nbadan]

Hey Scoot, why is it that the US, especially states along our Southern borders like Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, don't try to import fuel that can be processed in refineries built in Mexico for much cheaper than it could probably be built in the U.S., given our tight enviromental regulations, higher land costs,..etc? I know nobody refines like U.S. companies, but given our willingness to already 'help' with oil extraction there, it seems like the next logical step. Is there some sort of federal regulation that we have to process oil domestically?

[scott]

Sorry for the delay, Dan, I was out of town.

We import refined product in the event of a shortfall of domestic supply, most from Europe (and a bit from our Aruba refinery). We export a lot of product to Mexico as it is, however, because they don't have the refining capacity to meet their needs.

As for why not build refineries there, I can't really answer that. Inland refineries are not preferred, so Arizona and New Mexico border options are essnetially ruled out. Maybe there is room for a new refinery there, but I am not up to speed on the politics of it.

Sorry I'm not more help on that question.

[Mark in Austin]

Scott, I understand the historical reasons why adding refining capacity was tricky when oil was so much cheaper. The point I was trying to make is that in this case, the return on investment concern is substantially mitigated by the fact that they have $27 Billion profit on hand right now, with a ton more on the way in the next six months if these prices stabilize around 50.

As far as the laws of a free market economy, we aren't a true free market, as you undoubtedly know. (Similarly, we aren't a pure Democracy, although we value many democratic principles.) Therefore talking in absolutes doesn't get you anywhere beyond the most remedial explanations of how the system works. There are plenty of cases (war profiteering, anti-trust, etc) where the federal government steps in and says "you can't charge that amount of money for your product."

I know at this point there are probably a few posters lining up to stamp socialist all over my forehead, but hear me out on this:

When President Bush talks about shared sacrifice should that not apply to the companies that stand to benefit the most from the US activity in Iraq? Does it not smack of profiteering if during a time of war, a valueable resource's (gas/oil) price is going up, but production company profits are going up at a much higher rate?

[The Ressurrected One]

Tell me, scott. Are you that in love with Bill Gates? I mean, really, your signature evokes many thoughts...all containing the phrase, "ad naseum."

[scott]

Well Mark, I would point to the times in our history where the government has tried to regulate prices and/or profits (for whatever reason) and the failures that followed (Airlines, Oil and Gas in the 70s, Savings & Loans in the 80s).

At least in the Refining and Marketing segment of the Oil Industry, I don't see any connection between their profitability and the war in Iraq. Oil prices are up due to fundementals, not because of the war in Iraq (sure, there may be speculation and a "terror" premium at work, but its still the fundementals driving prices). I would generally make the same statement for Exploration and Production companies as well, with some exceptions/qualifiers.

War Profiteering is an interesting indictment. Howard Hughes was accused of such for his attempts to produce the Hercules and a spy plane. Personally, I find it to be insulting. Companies are not gouging the consumers, they are simply following the dynamics of supply and demand. People complain about high prices, but I don't see a mass shift towards public transport, car pooling, cutting down on summer vacations, or changing driving habits. All companies are doing is providing the market with what it demands. The profits therein are just a byproduct of the supply/demand dynamic. Even in a psuedo-capitalist environment, this is the case. By limiting prices and/or profits, all that would happen is you would create long lines at the gas pump.

[Nbadan]

There is another force driving up gas prices. With the U.S. in record deficit territory, OPEC countries that deal in oil-for-dollars don't feel that they are getting equal value if they sold their oil for what used to be the optimal cost per barrel - about $28-$30. Since the dollar is worth less, prices go up, but you did get that nice tax cut.

[RandomGuy]

That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to things like shale extraction and coal liquefaction that start to become economical at that price point.

We have a LOT of coal, BTW.

Coal production follows the same production curve that oil does, and is still a finite resource that puts out MUCH more pollutants than oil.

The thing about shale extraction and all this other happy crap is that it takes a LOT of energy to get anything out of it, making it very inefficient. Renewables like wind are already close to being competative with coal in terms of cost per MW.

The best way to imagine the return on energy (ROE) is with this example:

You are on a deserted island and the only source of food is fruit that falls out of a group of trees in the middle of the island. Each fruit gives you 500 calories and it takes 10 calories to walk over there, pick it up, eat, and digest it. You need to eat 4 fruits not to starve to death and you use 40 calories to survive, leaving you a lot of time to work on a raft or build your house or whatever.

Now imagine the fruit on the ground is used up or rots. You now have to climb up the tree to get at the fruit. Say for the sake of simplicity that this takes 200 calories per fruit. You know have to eat 6.67 fruits to stay alive, and you have spent 1300+ calories to get your 2000 that you need to live.

It will be the same with the end of the "cheap" oil. Middle east oil gives a return of some 31 barrels of energy for every 1 barrel of energy spent pumping and processing it. One the return ratio starts dropping, as it will sooner than you might think, our energy requirements as a civilization will skyrocket, because we will have to rely on a lot of energy inefficient processes to get it. Fossil fuels will exhaust themselves very quickly.

[RandomGuy]

The other thing is that I saw a bit on Bloomberg that said that 10 year oil futures are $100 per barrel. This is an increase of 6.4% per year until then. That is waaay faster than the growth in demand, meaning that the market "thinks" that supply will not keep up. It won't. World-wide production will peak sometime in the next few years, best guesses that I have seen are in about 5-10 years, and OPEC production figures bear this out.

(begin edit--sorry, I hit the post button too quickly)
World-wide production of oil will be limited and declining while our energy needs increase dramatically.

TIME FOR THE BIG ECONOMICS 101 TEST:

If demand increases and at the same time supply decreases where does the price point go? (hint: not down)

We are nearing the end of oil's ability to meet our civilizations energy needs. It is sad that our short-sighted administration is doing nothing about it.

[RandomGuy]

For more on this coming problem, do a google search under the term "peak oil"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=peak+oil&btnG=Google+Search

Quite a lot of it is a bit alarmist in my opinion, but the underlying problem is quite real.

I personally think that this will be the thing that drives us into space. The sun puts out more energy in 2 seconds than humanity has used in our whole history. It would be rather simple with off-the shelf technology to start cranking out power stations in orbit to supply a LOT of 100% renewable and reliable energy. I can elaborate on this if anybody is interested.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=solar+power+satellites&btnG=Search

[Nbadan]

We are nearing the end of oil's ability to meet our civilizations energy needs. It is sad that our short-sighted administration is doing nothing about it.

Excellent analysis Random Guy. The longer it takes the U.S. to prepare for this inevitability, the more the pain will be in the long run. What gets me is that the Bush's have been in oil for decades, they have to see the coming trend lines. So why does the WH blindly continue persueing its band-aid approach to the problem, like allowing drilling in the most enviromentally sensative areas of ANWAR?

Where are the patriotic speech's from the WH pushing the use of alternative energy, energy conservation and fuel efficiency? Where is the energy plan from this administration that in the long-term reduces our Nation's demand for foreign oil, while at the same time promoting the research into alternative fuel and energy methods with more vigar? When is our society going to treat this inevitable calamity with the urgency it deserves to be treated with?

[Nbadan]

I personally think that this will be the thing that drives us into space. The sun puts out more energy in 2 seconds than humanity has used in our whole history. It would be rather simple with off-the shelf technology to start cranking out power stations in orbit to supply a LOT of 100% renewable and reliable energy. I can elaborate on this if anybody is interested.

Very interesting. I suppose the orbiting solar energy collection and storage problems would be relatively easy obstacles to get around, especially with nanotechnology, but how would we get the energy from orbit to space with maximum efficiency?

[RandomGuy]

Very interesting. I suppose the orbiting solar energy collection and storage problems would be relatively easy obstacles to get around, especially with nanotechnology, but how would we get the energy from orbit to space with maximum efficiency?

Actually there are off-the-shelf methods of doing it now. Very simple, elegant designs with almost no moving parts. They would basically be giant reflective arrays. Imagine a reflector with a surface area of 100 square miles focused on a generator that runs on the heat produced. Remember in space that solar power is 24 hours a day (no day/night cycle) and no clouds.

The most energy efficient way to build them is to use materials from near-earth asteroids. Processing these giang chunks of metal would be the same basic process that generates the power, and could actually be done with the waste heat from the satellites.

Energy would be beamed by microwave to the surface of the Earth. No, not the microwaves that cook food, but rather microwaves with a frequency that renders them harmless.

[RandomGuy]

Very interesting. I suppose the orbiting solar energy collection and storage problems would be relatively easy obstacles to get around, especially with nanotechnology, but how would we get the energy from orbit to space with maximum efficiency?

For more reading on this try this page of links on solar satellites for starters:

http://www.permanent.com/p-sps.htm


Here is another good site for space stuff, but the relevant one is the paper called "Architecture options for space solar power"
http://www.ssi.org/papers.html

[MannyIsGod]

Forget national energy policy, it all starts in your backyard.

CPS wants to build their coal plant when studies have shown that promotion of conservation can save as much power as that plant would prodocue, but the political will to take steps torwards conservation is not in place.

And what about making new office buildings more self sufficent with solar cells as a requirement of the building code?

[JoeChalupa]

I just noticed that Tetco went back up to $2.09 a gallon this morning!!

So I drove down the road and filled up at Diamond for $1.89 a gallon.

[RandomGuy]

Forget national energy policy, it all starts in your backyard.

CPS wants to build their coal plant when studies have shown that promotion of conservation can save as much power as that plant would prodocue, but the political will to take steps torwards conservation is not in place.

And what about making new office buildings more self sufficent with solar cells as a requirement of the building code?

Yuppers. There is a great deal we can do to use energy more efficient, and market forces will drive a big push to do just that.

BUT

Conservation will only get you so far. Solar panels on the surface of the earth will NOT provide all the energy a building needs without a massive increase in efficiency (far beyond current projected technological developments). We still will be faced with spiraling energy costs.

[scott]

Still time to invest in the human crude project.

[mookie2001]

Energy would be beamed by microwave to the surface of the Earth. No, not the microwaves that cook food, but rather microwaves with a frequency that renders them harmless.

like cell phones? all microwaves are harmful

[RandomGuy]

like cell phones? all microwaves are harmful

I'm not saying you want to camp out on the receiving antenna array, but it is possible to set the frequency so that it doesn't resonate with water.

We get most of our electricity from coal (worldwide that is) now. Coal plants are already located far from city centers anyways. This kind of power has the benefit of not producing ANY greenhouse gases, sulfer emmissions, or soot whatsoever.

The ONLY environmental impact would be from the occasional rocket launches needed to service the infrastructure. Most of the real maintenance work and industrial processes would be in orbit, so no air/water pollution on the surface of our planet at all.

Economists like to talk about "hidden costs" of producing things. One of the hidden costs of using coal for energy is pollution. The "hidden cost" of nuclear is the potential for meltdown, or that something bad happens to the waste or fuel used.

The real cost of electricity isn't the price you pay for each kilowatt of coal power, it is that price, plus all the costs in reduced human health down the way. The same goes for just about any good or service provided. It was cheaper money-wise to use lead in gasoline to help lubricate car engines until you looked into the human health costs of increased lead contamination anyplace you have a lot of cars (i.e. all american cities).

If only one out of every hundred american workers had to take ONE extra day off due to illness per year, the cost to our enconomy would be BILLIONS worth of lost productivity.

[Nbadan]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050607/harville.jpg

[Nbadan]

Scott's human crude project is looking pretty good about now...

$100 per barrel in 3 years?


One of the world's leading energy analysts on Monday called for an independent assessment of global oil reserves because he believed that Middle Eastern countries may have far less than officially stated and that oil prices could double to more than US$100 a barrel within three years, triggering economic collapse.

Matthew Simmons, an adviser to US President George W. Bush and chairman of the Wall Street energy investment company Simmons, said that "peak oil" -- when global oil production rises to its highest point before falling irreversibly -- was rapidly approaching even as demand was increasing.

"This is a new era," Simmons told a conference of oil industry analysts, government officials and academics in Edinburgh. "There is a big chance that Saudi Arabia actually peaked production in 1981. We have no reliable data. Our data collection system for oil is rubbish. I suspect that if we had, we would find that we are over-producing in most of our major fields and that we should be throttling back. We may have passed that point."

Simmons told the meeting that it was inevitable that the price of oil would soar above US$100 as supplies failed to meet demand.

more....Web News Wire (http://webnewswire.com/article436054.html)

[Nbadan]

Let's do some math...Since W took office, gas prices have gone from about $1.28 per gallon to about the $2.00 per gallon today, and the price per barrel of oil has gone up from an average of $26 in 2001 to around $50 per barrel today


FINANCIAL INFORMATION
(In thousands, except per share data)


For the Quarter For the Nine Months
Ended September 30, Ended September 30,
2001 2000 2001 2000

<snip>

AVERAGE OIL PRICE PER
BARREL
United States $25.49 $29.15 $26.13 $26.83
Canada 19.92 22.91 20.35 21.88
Australia 24.77 33.32 26.27 29.98
Egypt 24.60 30.17 25.75 27.74
Total 24.15 29.11 25.01 26.86

I don't know how to properly space/format this, but it says average oil price (US) was $26.13 for the nine months ending September 30, 2001. Now it's bouncing around $50. +

note: this is a financial from one company, but I am assuming it is roughly close to industry standards for pricing. So, I could be wrong high or low.

Link (http://investor.apachecorp.com/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=apa&script=412&layout=23&item_id=220475)

If gas prices sour to $100 per barrel...

$4.00 per gallon.

:hat

[RandomGuy]

Scott's human crude project is looking pretty good about now...

$100 per barrel in 3 years?



more....Web News Wire (http://webnewswire.com/article436054.html)

I think some of that is a bit too pessimistic. Libya and Russia still have large reserves that they are just beginning to tap into. After new investment in Libya rejuvinates their production capacity that will help relieve some supply pressure. Libya's oil is of the highest grade as well, so that is a big plus as well.

(edited spelling mistake)
(begin afterthought edit)
This is not to say that I think oil will not get more expensive faster than most would like. I think that depletion is happening a lot faster than OPEC wants to admit.

[scott]

Good shot we hit $60 crude this month.

Just a hunch.

[scott]

Dan, I think $100 is well beyond a sort of glass ceiling on prices that cause global economic collapse and thus a collapse of global demand. I think $65 may be right around the upper bounds of a temporary spike. $55 is probably hovering around the point where it seriously endangers global economic health.

[The Ressurrected One]

Dan, I think $100 is well beyond a sort of glass ceiling on prices that cause global economic collapse and thus a collapse of global demand. I think $65 may be right around the upper bounds of a temporary spike. $55 is probably hovering around the point where it seriously endangers global economic health.
Hey, scott, did you hear the Saudi Prince today?

150 billion barrels of known reserves, 100-200 more under the sand. They can pump 11 million barrels a day max. I did the math...

That's 141 years of oil...just from Saudi Arabia. Or 114, I forget...and my calculator is back at the office. Still, it's a damn long time to perfect an alternative.

He basically agrees with many on this board, it's our refining capability that is the hold up.

[scott]

Your calculator might also be out of batteries.

250 b / 11 mm / 365 = 62 years if you assume a constant 11 mmbpd. Even then, you are leaving out the other half of the equation. Global demand is already around 84 mmbpd. Assuming constant demand (unrealistic), that only leaves 8 years of supply in Saudi. End of Year 2003 Reserve Estimates range from 1,050 to 1,277 billion bbls (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html). At 84 mmbpd, that is only 40 years of supply. Of course, that is stretched out a little bit because we are discovering oil, just not as fast as we are depleting it.

Regardless, you can't assume a constant production either. Oil production curves have an inverted "U" shape with a definite peak. US production peaked in the late 70s. Once non-US production peaks, then you are looking at a real problem.

But obviously, the constraint is refining capacity. Myself and the other posters on this board have been discussing such for quite some time now, at least a year if not longer. Oil has an interesting dynamic because the number that the public watches (prompt WTI price) is for a good that the public has no immediate use for. A barrel of crude oil does Joe Blow absolutely no good, unless he wants to burn it for heat in his furnace (not a very efficient use). The demand for oil has an upper bound, and supply of product has a lower bound - which is refining capacity. To get a real understanding of the supply demand dynamic in the oil industry you have too look at product demand (end use demand, varying from product to product) and feedstock supply (crude oil coming out of the ground) and then be able to understand the transformation process and how the two play off each other. All this, of course, is easier said than done.

[RandomGuy]

Dan, I think $100 is well beyond a sort of glass ceiling on prices that cause global economic collapse and thus a collapse of global demand. I think $65 may be right around the upper bounds of a temporary spike. $55 is probably hovering around the point where it seriously endangers global economic health.

I was watching Bloomberg TV the other day and they had an analyst on that gave his best guess as to the price of oil in two to three years at about $63/bbl, well in line with a price increase of about 6.4% per year.

[RandomGuy]

Hey, scott, did you hear the Saudi Prince today?

150 billion barrels of known reserves, 100-200 more under the sand. They can pump 11 million barrels a day max. I did the math...

That's 141 years of oil...just from Saudi Arabia. Or 114, I forget...and my calculator is back at the office. Still, it's a damn long time to perfect an alternative.

He basically agrees with many on this board, it's our refining capability that is the hold up.

There was indeed a bit of a spike in oil prices recently that the Saudis and Bush were very quick to try and quash a bit of the speculative, panic-y edge to the run-up. Their reassurance was successful in stemming the temporary spike, but will do little for the long term trend.

Refining capacity is indeed a bottleneck, as no new refineries have been built in the US due to the massive environmental cost of such a thing. Last I remember reading somewhere, the US imports about 11% of it's yearly consumption of gasoline.

BUT

The Saudis are building more refineries, so they will either sell us the oil or the refined products.

[Gerryatrics]

So how do we make all these problems disappear? Simple... Nuke China. China is driving up the demand for oil at an insane rate, and supply is having trouble keeping up. Just nuke a few of China's largest cities and bam!, 99 cent a gallon gas. Food for thought.

[RandomGuy]

So how do we make all these problems disappear? Simple... Nuke China. China is driving up the demand for oil at an insane rate, and supply is having trouble keeping up. Just nuke a few of China's largest cities and bam!, 99 cent a gallon gas. Food for thought.

But where else would we buy $600Bn worth of cheap crap per year if we did that?

[Gerryatrics]

Taiwan :)

[The Ressurrected One]

But where else would we buy $600Bn worth of cheap crap per year if we did that?
WalMart?

[scott]

New intraday record yesterday... getting close to $60.

[scott]

Good shot we hit $60 crude this month.

Just a hunch.

Any guesses as to what happened today?

[Vashner]

Look at the dumbasses at wall street. They want it at $100...

General Motors plan to make Chinese Quote "fall in love" the the America Auto is working! Brilliant!

[scott]

ps... all time high close on Friday

[Nbadan]

Producers and refiners strain to meet world demand...


June 27 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil rose to a record in New York on concern that oil producers and refiners will strain to boost output to meet surging demand for fuel.

Iran and other OPEC members are pumping oil at ``the highest possible level'' and can't increase production to meet rising global consumption, Iranian Central Bank Governor Ebrahim Sheibany said yesterday.

....

Crude oil for August delivery rose as much as 63 cents, or 1.1 percent, to $60.47 a barrel in after-hours electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. It traded at $60.40 a barrel at 11:41 a.m. Sydney time.

.....

Oil prices could rise to $100 a barrel in New York if instability continues in producing countries such as Iraq and Nigeria, Algerian Oil Minister Chakib Khelil said, according to the Arabic-language Saudi newspaper Okaz on June 25. Political instability will have an impact on oil output even if OPEC boosts its capacity in the next two to three years, Khelil said.

<</SNIP>>

Bloomberg News (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=a6j2S47RZuw8&refer=homeBloomberg)

[Nbadan]

Some sobering thoughts by Jan Lundberg, author of the Lundberg letter, regarding the Culture Change that is needed in the U.S. to meet the coming world energy crisis...


am a petroleum-industry analyst, although I last saw any money from the oil industry back in 1988 when I told Exxon and Mobil I was terminating my market research business. My office then became an environmental institute, and I proceeded to get a much clearer picture of oil's place in the world than from my previous sixteen years known for publishing "the bible of the oil industry," the Lundberg Letter. My understanding of oil and energy in the economy and culture has brought me to my present analysis about the end of the United States of America.

Here are my limits on my objectivity: I have no investments other than wanting to see family and friends do especially well in terms of health and happiness in the extremely turbulent phase ahead. I am further biased in wanting the Earth to have maximum biodiversity, but either the web of life holds or it will not. I will shed no tears over the disappearance of General Motors, for example, which is teetering already. Such a corporation -- found guilty for destroying dozens of cities' electric rail trolley service -- is an enemy of the planet and of the people.

The fall of the U.S. may be the swiftest empire collapse in world history. It is obvious that the U.S. population and the nation's infrastructure is heavily petroleum dependent. The U.S. peaked in oil production (extraction) in 1971. The world may be peaking now, as some evidence indicates, or in a few short years. As a severe energy shortage is on tap as soon as the gap between supply and demand is felt by the market, and the Earth gives noticeably less oil than just recently, there will be a cascade of impacts on the economy and people's lives.

So it will not matter how much oil is still in the ground, or if other ways of obtaining and using energy are more renewable and greener: A massive shut down of petroleum supply brought about by market panic and economic collapse will terminate corporate globalism and the political landscape as well. [As discussed in this essay and in links at the end, production of other forms of energy cannot substitute for petroleum and will not be maximized for readiness anyway.] Many aspects of modern society are at a breaking point already, whether one looks at the Iraq war over oil, the housing market bubble, U.S. debt and deficits, or the prospects of damaging weather from the fast distorting of the planet's climate.

Not only will the sudden oil shortage ahead mean the Final Energy Crisis, the present economy only works on growth: so even a plateau of global petroleum extraction -- what seems to be happening now, although it is being called "insufficient refining capacity for poor quality crude oil" -- would mean the house of economic cards collapses on its own. Recovery from such an event, even if not from oil shortage, would appear impossible because supplies of oil would be among the commodities suddenly scarce, and this would have a terminal effect on much economic activity and people's lives.

With so much local business and self-sufficiency destroyed by Walmartization, costs of urban sprawl, medical costs and the drain of militarism, impacts from oil collapse will be brutally thorough in the U.S. and almost as thorough in all other industrialized societies. Security, leadership and individual self-responsibility we have almost none: "We have met the terrorist and the terrorist is us," to paraphrase Walt Kelly's Pogo.

I decided to outline my scenario of the end of the United States after co-hosting a talk show on San Francisco radio with Martin Matthews. We got a call in on the air from a lady wanting to know if there were any relevant politicians to deal with peak oil. I came close to suggesting Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, who quoted me on the effects of peak oil before Congress on C-SPAN television. But the Congressman's office had told me he would not be seeking higher office. Martin and I continued our conversation over some Arab food and I outlined my end-of-the-USA outlook. Later that same day, June 16, 2005, I conferred with Lonnie Maxfield of Jivan Institute in Olympia, Washington by telephone. He asked me if I thought the U.S.A. would survive long beyond this time in history. We agree the U.S. will not last.

The social fabric has been unraveling for several decades, and the lack of solidarity or social cohesion is one of the reasons there must be a collapse in the U.S. -- after all, do you see community-spirit on the rise and an actual transition underway to a sustainable and ecologocial society? As this series of essays has explored, people are driven apart by materialism and trying to separate themselves from nature.

Susan Meeker-Lowry, author and editorial contributor to Culture Change, points out that people are noticing climate change and the prospect of tighter energy supplies, and are seriously worried about the implications such as heating their homes and paying their taxes. "But we need to be dealing with these issues as a community, not as individual family units. We need to be creating safety nets for ourselves, preparing for the day when the bills won't get paid because there's no more money and we need to defend our homes from the wealthy who will try and take them away for nonpayment of mortgage or taxes," she says.

more...


The problem with renewable energy is that it's not so renewable. The energy production ratio of non-oil energy extraction is comparatively poor. Additionally, the present infrastructure is entirely geared toward petroleum which allows for our vast, consuming population size. Renewable energy will have its niche in local applications, but it will never power a global economy. Renewable energy will not replace a fleet of vehicles, just for the reason that not enough rubber trees can meet the demand of the necessary tires. The existence and claims of renewable energy have mainly served to obscure the urgent need to simply slash consumption of energy -- whatever the production mode. It may be too late to remake the U.S. infrastructure to run commerce and transportation on, say, renewable-energy powered trains, even if they were very energy efficient and were ready to manufacture on a huge scale.

There are short-term signs and indicators that the U.S. has worn out its already slim welcome the world over. That has not stopped the U.S. rapacious military industrial complex and its financial and political juggernaut, as depicted in John Perkins' book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Another "intelligence" caper and bloody coup or invasion is always in the bag of tricks of the U.S., whether or not the rest of the world wants an end to the interference and rip-offs. The prestige of the U.S. may not be of much concern to the zealot U.S. neo-conservatives or greedy marketeers, but the game is certainly all too clear -- as the Downing Street Memo and other evidence reveals. Climate change is more blood on the U.S.'s hands, as the nation is the biggest greenhouse gas emitter and will not even cut back on the easy waste in energy consumption.

Yet, world opinion and a social movement much stronger than the weak anti-war movement in the U.S. do not comprise a significant opposition to the U.S. There is not even clarity on who the enemies of the U.S. really are, when Osama bin Laden and his group had been U.S. operatives and not seriously targeted by the long arm of the (U.S.) law. So, absent a huge military/terroristic attack on the U.S. that would really bring it to its knees, which may involve nuclear weapons, I examine more certain factors and outcomes: the effects of oil collapse.

Culture Change (http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6&Itemid=2.html#cont)

I hope she is wrong, but...

[MannyIsGod]

Well, interesting times we live in. But it's not like a world war has ever started over oil. Right?

[Nbadan]

But it's not like a world war has ever started over oil. Right?

World Wars have been lost because of a lack of oil. Some contend that Vietnam was about oil. You could say that we are currently in a World War of economies, and the big prize is oil - or the continued ability of countries to power their machines for global economic dominance. Everywhere there are untapped reserves of oil not already directly controlled by Western oil companies - Sudan, Venezuela, the Middle East, the Caspian Sea region, and so on..there seems to be political instability.

No, World Wars have never started directly because of oil, but the U.S.'s dependence on oil may be the undoing of our own making.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

Dude, I was being sarcastic. WWII was definetly oil related. Japan anyone?

[scott]

huh?

[Nbadan]

Dude, I was being sarcastic. WWII was definetly oil related. Japan anyone?

Well, I guess you could say that the war in the Pacific was oil related, but Germany was mostly about spreading fascism.

[Nbadan]

$4 per gallon gas by this winter?


Oil 'will hit $100 by winter'

Worst-ever crisis looms, says analyst · Surging demand to keep prices high

Heather Stewart, economics correspondent
Sunday July 3, 2005
The Observer

Oil prices could rocket to $100 within six months, plunging the world into an unprecedented fuel crisis, controversial Texan oil analyst Matt Simmons has warned. After crude surged through $60 a barrel last week, nervous investors were pinning their hopes on a build-up in US oil-stocks to depress prices in the coming months.

But Simmons believes surging demand will keep prices bubbling well above $50. 'We could be at $100 by this winter. We have the biggest risk we have ever had of demand exceeding supply. We are now just about to face up to the biggest crisis we have ever had,' he said.

--snip--

The looming oil crisis is not high up the agenda at this week's G8 meeting, although the heads of state are expected to repeat their finance ministers' call for greater transparency from Opec and other oil-producing nations about their reserves.

--snip--

Simmons believes such moves will be too little, too late. He will publish a hard-hitting book this week in which he argues that Saudi Arabia, the world's largest producer, is running out of oil, and further price rises are inevitable as supplies decline. He warns that the scramble for resources could eventually descend into war.

Obsever Guardian (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1519745,00.html)

[RandomGuy]

I think such doom and gloom economic implosion predictions are a bit overblown, but there will be a good amount of economic pain during the transition to a less oil dependant economy.

There is some "speculative" factor adding to recent oil price surges, but the most analysts are quite in agreement that the underlying supply/demand that is supporting the current higher price levels will not be going away.

I think this stuff will change the face of American cities as the "sprawl" that has characterized their development for the last few decades will have to reverse itself. People simply will not be able to afford to live very far from where they live.

I am something of an optimist about America and our ability to innovate and change. It is something we are good at, and as much as the coming decade or two will be unpleasant, I think we will end up getting through this.

I say this as no big fan of the present administration, and the fact that they are ignoring a lot of this with an "energy policy" written by their big business buddies pisses me off to no end. They get more political donations, we get f***ed. Thanks, GW.

[RandomGuy]

As for the gaurdian article, I think that is a bit much. Supplies are very tight, but there is still a little bit of "give" left. I believe oil will get to $100 per barrel within 10 years, tho', and this is a very steep climb percentage-wise per year.

I agree with many of the sentiments outlined by the article that nbadan posted though. Our materialism will be our downfall. We are in too much debt and that is unsustainable in the long run. The "wealthy" will not be forclosing on our houses for non-payment of mortgages, we will simply have lost our bet that many of us have made with our mortgages, i.e. that interest rates will always stay low, and our house values will keep going up as fast as they have been in recent years.

[Nbadan]

Crude Oil Prices Hit New Record of $62.69 a Barrel on Supply, Geopolitical Worries
By Gillian Wong Associated Press Writer
Published: Aug 7, 2005

SINGAPORE (AP) - Crude futures rose to a new high of $62.69 in Asian trading Monday as the U.S. government announced the closure of its embassy and consulates in Saudi Arabia due to security threats and on continued concerns that earlier shutdowns of U.S. oil refineries would reduce supply.

Midmorning in Singapore, light, sweet crude for September delivery on the New York Mercantile Exchange rose as high as $62.69 in Asian electronic trading before slipping back to $62.51. On Friday, crude settled at U$62.31 a barrel, a record close for crude since Nymex trading began in 1983.

That's 42 percent higher than a year ago, though crude prices would have to surpass $90 to reach the inflation-adjusted high set in 1980.

Gasoline edged up slightly to $1.8415 a gallon while heating oil rose marginally to $1.7390 a gallon.

more:AP (http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBMJIB64CE.html)

Tick..Tick...Tick

[mookie2001]

sad
i cant drive anymore

[Trainwreck2100]

sad
i cant drive anymore


At least you don't live in Califonia.

[Extra Stout]

more:AP (http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBMJIB64CE.html)

Tick..Tick...Tick

We will be getting a brief reprieve through about 2010 as more production capacity comes online.

But... it will be brief. Our lifestyles will have to change to adjust to the new realities.

[jochhejaam]

Regular gas going for $2.50 here today. Ten cents higher than the previous high. :td

[JohnnyMarzetti]

http://www.bartcop.com/georgesays-milk.jpg

It'll go up to around $3 a gallon so when it drops to an average of $2.85 Americans will rejoice and accept it.

[scott]

You ain't seen nothing yet.

[Bandit2981]

Too bad years ago some boneheads in SA voted down the lightrail system that would have been a blessing during these times.

[LittleGeneral]

Hey scott...I know you understand the oil market pretty well. It's something I wish I had a clearer understanding of. Do you know of any helpful links that give explanations for the different factors that affect supply and demand and determine the price of oil?

Thanks.

[whottt]

The main factor that determines Oil prices is it's projected availability...if there is projected to be more demand than supply...the price goes up.


The main reason the Oil price is going up is because the demand is going up...China is approaching US levels of Oil consumption rapidly...just in the past 5 years there has been an explosion.

Secondly is with Iraq...not only have the insurgents destroyed Iraq's ability to produce as much Oil as it did prior to the War...but Saddam was using destructive means to boost Oil production in Iraq. Iraq's Oil reserves were damaged by the process...meaning Iraq doesn't have as much Oil as it should have. I believe they were projected to have the World's 3rd largest Oil reserves...they don't. And it's going to be a decade before Iraq is producing Oil at it's prewar levels...so much for Oil theft right? It's not going to hurt the US as much as it is the rest of the World...we don't get that much Oil from the Middle East except for Saudi Arabia, the price will go up of course...but we have conserved our Oil for a long time(for what we had, we used to be the World Largest Producer of Oil) and have advanced processes to produce Oil from shale, that many other countries lack...not to mention a huge untapped reserve up in the Artic Wildlife Preserve.

The other major reason is that the World is running out of Oil...for now...but Russia is sitting on a potentially unlimited supply of it...they just can't really get to it yet.

And political unrest in Venezuela that was preceeded by a strike of their Oil workers is a final and smaller reason.

But the main reason is China's growing demand for Oil...that's it...you have the sudden emergence of another US level Oil consumer.

Look on the bright side...that desire to be less dependent on Oil someday? The future is now...Our new Energy plan gives you a good break if you by a hybrid car...and they the manufacturers a good deal as well...up to 60 thousand cars per manufacturer...so get yours now...because it'll be a while before some of the smaller manufacturers get into that market...but the new plan gives all the manufacuters incentive to do so, which should produce a mini economic boom in the Auto industry, a change in our automoble consumption levels..just like we had in the 70's. This from a big Oil President...maybe it's not as much about the Oil as you guys think.

[LittleGeneral]

Interesting perspective whottt....I actually drive a hybrid by the way...

[boutons]

In time of record deficits due to tax breaks to rich and corps,
in an multi-$100B ongoing war-for-oil,
with Big-Oil drowing in many $Bs of windfall profits PER QUARTER from $60 oil,
the Big-Oil shrub gives $15B (MORE) in tax breaks to
... Big Oil.

GMAFB

[MannyIsGod]

The main factor that determines Oil prices is it's projected availability...if there is projected to be more demand than supply...the price goes up.


The main reason the Oil price is going up is because the demand is going up...China is approaching US levels of Oil consumption rapidly...just in the past 5 years there has been an explosion.

Secondly is with Iraq...not only have the insurgents destroyed Iraq's ability to produce as much Oil as it did prior to the War...but Saddam was using destructive means to boost Oil production in Iraq. Iraq's Oil reserves were damaged by the process...meaning Iraq doesn't have as much Oil as it should have. I believe they were projected to have the World's 3rd largest Oil reserves...they don't. And it's going to be a decade before Iraq is producing Oil at it's prewar levels...so much for Oil theft right? It's not going to hurt the US as much as it is the rest of the World...we don't get that much Oil from the Middle East except for Saudi Arabia, the price will go up of course...but we have conserved our Oil for a long time(for what we had, we used to be the World Largest Producer of Oil) and have advanced processes to produce Oil from shale, that many other countries lack...not to mention a huge untapped reserve up in the Artic Wildlife Preserve.

The other major reason is that the World is running out of Oil...for now...but Russia is sitting on a potentially unlimited supply of it...they just can't really get to it yet.

And political unrest in Venezuela that was preceeded by a strike of their Oil workers is a final and smaller reason.

But the main reason is China's growing demand for Oil...that's it...you have the sudden emergence of another US level Oil consumer.

Look on the bright side...that desire to be less dependent on Oil someday? The future is now...Our new Energy plan gives you a good break if you by a hybrid car...and they the manufacturers a good deal as well...up to 60 thousand cars per manufacturer...so get yours now...because it'll be a while before some of the smaller manufacturers get into that market...but the new plan gives all the manufacuters incentive to do so, which should produce a mini economic boom in the Auto industry, a change in our automoble consumption levels..just like we had in the 70's. This from a big Oil President...maybe it's not as much about the Oil as you guys think.
Oh, such a parrot, but a stupid one at that. I wonder, if I go out and buy a parrot will he only repeat what stupid people say and completely ignore what informed people say even when they say things right in his pressence? I wonder.

2 words.

Refining capability.

[MannyIsGod]

Yean, and the so called tax breaks for a hybrid car are a fucking joke. Especially when that bill is loaded with far more subsidies for drilling and oil exploration. The cap on the amount of cars for the tax break is going to hurt companies such as Toyota, Honda, and Ford because they've already been producing Hybrids and it is going to help those slow to the game like GM.

But GM and Damier Chrysler are American companies, and we gotta protect them, right?

[whottt]

Oh, such a parrot, but a stupid one at that. I wonder, if I go out and buy a parrot will he only repeat what stupid people say and completely ignore what informed people say even when they say things right in his pressence? I wonder.

2 words.

Refining capability.

I actually have a parrot as a pet and I find your derogatory coments about them offensive. Parrots, the talkative ones, will say what they hear every day...but they tend to pick up words that are said in anger or with excitement much more quickly. Like if he bites you and you drop an FBomb on him...not only does it make him more likely to bite you...but he pretty much picks that word up right away. Of course the talkative parrots also make a lot of noise period...much of it unintelligible.

As for repeating what stupid people say....I am not the one that goes around posting articles from propaganda sites ad nauseum and parroting political keywords or firestarters that are largely incorrect propagandized statements....like, war for Oil, Haliburton, vacation during a war...that kind of stuff.

[MannyIsGod]

I actually have a parrot as a pet and I find your derogatory coments about them offensive. Parrots, the talkative ones, will say what they hear every day...but they tend to pick up words that are said in anger or with excitement much more quickly. Like if he bites you and you drop an FBomb on him...not only does it make him more likely to bite you...but he pretty much picks that word up right away. Of course the talkative parrots also make a lot of noise period...much of it unintelligible.

As for repeating what stupid people say....I am not the one that goes around posting articles from propaganda sites ad nauseum and throwing incorrect keywords...like, war for Oil, vacation during a war...that kind of stuff.
:lmao

Nice.

I guess NBADan is a bigger parrot than you, because I know you'll be hard pressed to find any post of mine in that manner.

[mookie2001]

thats me

vacation during a war

[whottt]

Yean, and the so called tax breaks for a hybrid car are a fucking joke. Especially when that bill is loaded with far more subsidies for drilling and oil exploration. The cap on the amount of cars for the tax break is going to hurt companies such as Toyota, Honda, and Ford because they've already been producing Hybrids and it is going to help those slow to the game like GM.

But GM and Damier Chrysler are American companies, and we gotta protect them, right?


Actually it's more to give the companies slow to do it some incentive to do it..and yes it is somewhat protective of American Companies...that is what the President is supposed to do. That's his primary responsibility. And if he doesn't do that then everyone bitches about him selling out America to foreign companies.

Besides...you can't just rip out a 50 year infrastructure immediately without causing a total economic collapse, it has to be done gradually.


If you really want a hybrid car, or a hydrogen car, go and get yours converted at a place that does conversions, or do it yourself. No one is stopping you.

My Dad has had a truck that runs on Propane since about 1984, and he's a total and absolute redneck. But I guess he was way ahead of the treehuggers.

[MannyIsGod]

Actually it's more to give the companies slow to do it some incentive to do it..and yes it is somewhat protective of American Companies...that is what the President is supposed to do. That's his primary responsibility. And if he doesn't do that then everyone bitches about him selling out America to foreign companies.

Besides...you can't just rip out a 50 year infrastructure immediately without causing a total economic collapse, it has to be done gradually.


If you really want a hybrid car, or a hydrogen car, go and get yours converted at a place that does conversions, or do it yourself. No one is stopping you.

My Dad has had a truck that runs on Propane since about 1984, and he's a total and absolute redneck. But I guess he was way ahead of the treehuggers.
The incentive for the companies slow to do it would have been there without the limit.

And the president who loves free trade is there to impose protective measures of American companies? Well, he's a bit late.

I would rather there be no tax incentives for hybrid cars as long as there were no tax breaks for oil companies. The subsidies they are getting in this bill far outweigh the shitty tax credit people get for hybrid cars.

[Extra Stout]

thats me

vacation during a war

Yeah. FDR was a horrible President who neglected his duty, too. After all he kept going to Warm Springs, GA on vacation during WWII.

[Nbadan]

As for repeating what stupid people say....I am not the one that goes around posting articles from propaganda sites ad nauseum and throwing incorrect keywords...like, war for Oil, vacation during a war...that kind of stuff.

Yeah, I get tired too of consistently disproving the propaganda put out by FAUXNews.com, CNN, The Drudgereport, The Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, WorldNewsDaily, and The Economist.

[Spam]

http://www.bradmesser.com/cartoons2005b/fuel_wallet.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

[SWC Bonfire]

except bush doesn't have polio

Well, if you wish to get technical, FDR didn't have polio when he went to Warm Springs, either. A minor point.

Abraham Lincon established a summer home outside of Washington in 1862. He went into Washington only when he pretty much felt like it.

Wow, he managed to work outside of the oval office in 1862. In wartime. Amazing.

[Extra Stout]

Well, if you wish to get technical, FDR didn't have polio when he went to Warm Springs, either. A minor point.

Abraham Lincon established a summer home outside of Washington in 1862. He went into Washington only when he pretty much felt like it.

Wow, he managed to work outside of the oval office in 1862. In wartime. Amazing.LBJ sucked too. He kept going to his ranch near Stonewall while we had troops in Vietnam!

Gee, it almost sounds like this is a longtime precedent, and only those ignorant of history are making a big deal out of it.

But mookie I think had a fundamental moral qualm with the concept of the vacation. He believes only greedy selfish Republicans take them. Democrats worry about things that might go wrong somewhere in the world in their spare time.

[Jekka]

Well, there is a certain female Texas senator who is currently in Bermuda while the chair in Austin where her fat ass should be is empty during a special session.

So, no, it is not just republicans.

And if I was president? You bet your ass I'd have to get away every so often. That job is crazy. There is no real vacation from the president. It isn't as though he has a voice mail his secretary (of state) transfers the calls to when he's gone.

[MannyIsGod]

That last post is mine, I didn't realize Jess was logged in.

[Vashner]

The top Wall Street shops are still asking for 100 dollar per price....

That's what they estimate the value at...

[RandomGuy]

$4 per gallon gas by this winter?
I think that is a bit too much too soon, but honestly it wouldn't surprise me.

[RandomGuy]

Too bad years ago some boneheads in SA voted down the lightrail system that would have been a blessing during these times.

It is 3 times more energy efficient to move a pound of matter over a rail than it is to ship it by a semi truck.

The number is probably a bit more more passenger cars.

Mass transit is going to become more and more cost effective as oil gets more expensive.

Rising fuel costs will also make cities more dense, a blessing in disguise, as a larger tax base gets squeezed into smaller areas. Translation: government gets cheaper per capita.

[RandomGuy]

Oh, such a parrot, but a stupid one at that. I wonder, if I go out and buy a parrot will he only repeat what stupid people say and completely ignore what informed people say even when they say things right in his pressence? I wonder.

2 words.

Refining capability.

Only part of the equation. I think there is still a huge pressure on supply. Refining capacity is easier than finding new cheap to exploit oil fields.

[scott]

Hey LG, I'm not ignoring you - I've just been busy and I'm about to go on vacation. I'll try to give you an answer when I return.

[Nbadan]

Quote:Originally Posted by Nbadan


$4 per gallon gas by this winter?
I think that is a bit too much too soon, but honestly it wouldn't surprise me.

:hat

Gas hits $3.39!!

Bridgeport Mo-Mart, 453 Main St @ Twin Lakes Rd Bridgeport, CA 93517, $3.39 (14h 34m ago) (unleaded and premium prices for this station have not been updated in the last 48 hours).

Bridgeport Gas & Go, 377 Main St @ Twin Lakes Rd Bridgeport, CA 93517

$3.09 regular, $3.09 unleaded, $3.19 premium (prices for this station habe not been updated in the last 72 hours).

Texaco, 400 Main St @ Twin Lakes Rd Bridgeport, CA 93517

$2.99 regular, $3.09 unleaded, $3.19 premium (prices for this station have not been updated in the last 72 hours).

Gas Price Watch (http://www.gaspricewatch.com/new)

Thank you, thank you very much!

:hat

[Clandestino]

3.39 is not the average by any means. 8 years ago in some places in california it was 2.29. the average was way below that... there will always be exceptions.

[jochhejaam]

Through Monday, the average price of a gallon of regular unleaded had risen nearly 26 percent in 12 months, according to the Federal Energy Information Administration, with 17 percent of that coming in the last two months.

The price continued to rise this week, reaching $2.41 on Friday, a record, according to the American Automobile Association's daily survey. In the San Jose area, the average price for a gallon of regular unleaded reached a record $2.72.

People who study consumer behavior say the next threshold to watch for in how Americans react to rising prices is $3 a gallon.

[Clandestino]

americans have to drive... gas prices aren't going to stop us...

[MannyIsGod]

American's don't have to drive as much as they do. No fucking way.

[Clandestino]

but we do.. most of our cities aren't designed for easy public transportation.

[clubalien]

the reason we MUST not use public transportation is because that is where the terrorests attack

[jochhejaam]

American's don't have to drive as much as they do. No fucking way.



I'll have to think about this one...I'm gonna go for a drive, I think better when I drive.

[MannyIsGod]

but we do.. most of our cities aren't designed for easy public transportation.
Carpooling and most large cities do have effective mass transit. Is it as easy as driving yourself all the time, but it is far from impossible.

Eventually gas is going to become too expensive and people will start to drive less. I LOVE the rising gas prices.

[clubalien]

you want food prices to go up because people eat to much
You want housing prices to go up because people coudl be living in card board boxes and our houses are to big
You thinkelectricity is to low, people don't need electricity hell we survied years without it.
The people don't deserve cars they can walk to work.
People don't need clothes, why they shoudl be wearing rags.
Shoes are a luxury undeservant of your average joe.


You sound like some rich person that has all these "luxuries" followed by your chauffer, your maid, your chief, a person to dress you because dressing yourself would be so beneath you. You probaly drink fancy expansive wine too. My good those poor people are just wasted resources that you should have more control over.

Hey who needs health care that is a needless expanse those people should just die and get it over with. Ofcourse you still want to keep enough field hands alive so they can work for you,but we don't need to many.

You sir and your views disgust me. Trying to screw the people just because you can.

[mookie2001]

this is an old thread

[mookie2001]

you idiot this is an old thread!
oil is more now

[The Ressurrected One]

the oil executives want what is best for the american public
Ever tried to be a capitalist in a totalitarian or butt-ass broke country? Hell yeah, they want what is best for Americans...they need consumers.

[RandomGuy]

Speaking of resurecting this.

I would point out that this is one bit where the doom and gloomers seem to have made a good prediction...

[CharlieMac]

You should have bumped this thread a few weeks ago. Repeatedly. You know, when prices weren't as high.

[RandomGuy]

You should have bumped this thread a few weeks ago. Repeatedly. You know, when prices weren't as high.


Heh, I get to it when I can.

[clubalien]

this is an old thread
you can say that AGAIN!

[RandomGuy]

you can say that AGAIN!
this is an old thread

[scott]

I'd expect prices to stick in the $50s for a few more years, before settling around the new standard of $35-45 WTI.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Scott I can't read anything you post with that sig.
My eyes won't focus on the message, they just wont.

[scott]

Scott I can't read anything you post with that sig.
My eyes won't focus on the message, they just wont.

http://homepage.mac.com/brianflemming/iblog/images/bush_aircraft_carrier_photo.jpg

[Cant_Be_Faded]

LOL

gas is 2.49 here...up from 2.09 2 weeks ago.

How are things in the dirty south?

[RandomGuy]

LOL

gas is 2.49 here...up from 2.09 2 weeks ago.

How are things in the dirty south?

The same. I am glad my commute to work is re-imbursed. (I have an unusual job), I actually can make a "profit" on my commute as long as gas stays below $8.00 per gallon. Gotta love my old 98 crown vic. :) Not great for gas mileage, but awesome on reliability.

[gtownspur]

American's don't have to drive as much as they do. No fucking way.

And you don't have to cock ride the high horse to feel superior to most americans you hypocritical "walmart shopper" :lol .

[scott]

And you don't have to cock ride the high horse to feel superior to most americans you hypocritical "walmart shopper" :lol .

Seriously... you bring up "cock" a lot in this form. What's the deal with that?

[scott]

In light of today's record high close, this thread deserves a bump!

[DarkReign]

LOL

pwnt

[RandomGuy]

$74+ dollars per barrel.

In light of the Bush Administrations withdrawal of its tacit support of a strong dollar, expect this to keep going up.

(note) Since we buy so much more than we seel(oil and other imports) if the value of the dollar drops, even though the underlying supply and demand haven't changed, you still get rises in prices, ceteribus paribus.

[Nbadan]

Some experts are predicting that gas will hit $4 per gallon by next week...


http://www.oilnergy.com/hpix/4usagaso.gif

Already parts of the NE are averaging 3.24 per gallon.

[scott]

Some experts are predicting that gas will hit $4 per gallon by next week...

Don't know what "experts" those are - especially coming off a large inventory build last week. However, many REAL experts are saying $80-85 crude oil this October.

[boutons_]

"NE are averaging 3.24 per gallon."

I paid over $3.30/gal in CA in May between Chula Vista and Napa/Sonoma

[Cant_Be_Faded]

clandestino is a stupid stupid mexican ginger

[Clandestino]

cbf, go smoke some more weed...

[Nbadan]

Nationwide gas prices average just shy of $3 a gallon
Associated Press
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/s...


CAMARILLO, Calif. - U.S. gas prices jumped nearly 11 cents per gallon in the past two weeks with the national average for self-serve regular just shy of $3 a gallon, according to a survey released Sunday.

The average price for the grade was $2.995 per gallon Friday, up 10.73 cents in two weeks, according to the Lundberg Survey of 7,000 gas stations across the country. The price was less than 2 cents below the all-time high of $3.01 set Sept. 9, analyst Trilby Lundberg said.

The average mid-grade price was $3.10 a gallon while premium ran $3.20.

The lowest price for gas was $2.70 a gallon in Charleston, S.C., while the highest - $3.27 a gallon - was in Honolulu.

Among California cities surveyed, the highest average price for self-serve regular was $3.26 a gallon in San Diego. The lowest, $3.08 a gallon, was in Sacramento.

Lundberg Survey (http://www.lundbergsurvey.com/)

Parts of the country are already paying an average of between $3.20 and $3.60 a gallon.

[RandomGuy]

Don't know what "experts" those are - especially coming off a large inventory build last week. However, many REAL experts are saying $80-85 crude oil this October.

THAT I can believe.

I had figured on $100 per barrel crude by about 2012. What are your thoughts on that particular milestone?

[scott]

THAT I can believe.

I had figured on $100 per barrel crude by about 2012. What are your thoughts on that particular milestone?

Well, you never know... we are steady at $75 and haven't had any external factors like hurricanes coming into play yet. The fundementals will slowly start to change over the next few years as new capacity comes online, but I think it will only be enough to maintain the status quo (as opposed to lowering prices). Despite high prices, demand keeps rising.

As far as the milestone itself... I think once we cross the threshold, it may be the new "sticking" point for price, with the occassional fluctuation down. Each time the price has gone up to the next level, demand has pretty much failed to respond accordingly.

The auto industry as well as their consumers also continue to fail to take any steps to rectify the situation. SUV sales are up, and majors like Ford have decided Hybrid isn't the way to go (like I've said though, if Ford believes one thing, you should do the opposite... kind of like exstatic, boutons, and Aggie Hoopsfan).

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I thought it was supposed to hit 80-100 bucks and gas to $4 a gallon by now. According to nbadan that is!


destino strikes again

[Yonivore]

Well, you never know... we are steady at $75 and haven't had any external factors like hurricanes coming into play yet. The fundementals will slowly start to change over the next few years as new capacity comes online, but I think it will only be enough to maintain the status quo (as opposed to lowering prices). Despite high prices, demand keeps rising.

As far as the milestone itself... I think once we cross the threshold, it may be the new "sticking" point for price, with the occassional fluctuation down. Each time the price has gone up to the next level, demand has pretty much failed to respond accordingly.

The auto industry as well as their consumers also continue to fail to take any steps to rectify the situation. SUV sales are up, and majors like Ford have decided Hybrid isn't the way to go (like I've said though, if Ford believes one thing, you should do the opposite... kind of like exstatic, boutons, and Aggie Hoopsfan).
Doesn't that all add up to another revelation? We can afford to pay $3.00 a gallon? After all, if it isn't affecting demand or behavior, it's apparently okay with the public.

I know, I'm still filling my gas tank and have yet to curb my vmt's.

[scott]

Doesn't that all add up to another revelation? We can afford to pay $3.00 a gallon? After all, if it isn't affecting demand or behavior, it's apparently okay with the public.

That would be the inference.

[RandomGuy]

Well, you never know... we are steady at $75 and haven't had any external factors like hurricanes coming into play yet. The fundementals will slowly start to change over the next few years as new capacity comes online, but I think it will only be enough to maintain the status quo (as opposed to lowering prices). Despite high prices, demand keeps rising.

As far as the milestone itself... I think once we cross the threshold, it may be the new "sticking" point for price, with the occassional fluctuation down. Each time the price has gone up to the next level, demand has pretty much failed to respond accordingly.

The auto industry as well as their consumers also continue to fail to take any steps to rectify the situation. SUV sales are up, and majors like Ford have decided Hybrid isn't the way to go (like I've said though, if Ford believes one thing, you should do the opposite... kind of like exstatic, boutons, and Aggie Hoopsfan).


That was pretty much my thoughts. I hadn't expected the run-up to 70+ quite so soon.

Holding those factors in play, what about adding the complexity of a very real (I would say probable) slide in the value of the dollar over the next 5-10 years?

Wouldn't that imply a lot more upside potential? Meaning that prices will continue to rise at a good clip for US consumers even with the increasing capacity?

[Clandestino]

destino strikes again

dumbass, this thread was started a looooong time ago... so, there really is no relevance now..

[Cant_Be_Faded]

i realized that, but its still funny cuz this thread has been bumped shitloads of times since you created it just to show how accurate your predictions are.

[Allan Rowe vs Wade]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (3 members and 0 guests)
Allan Rowe vs Wade, gtownspur, RandomGuy

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

In light of the Bush Administrations withdrawal of its tacit support of a strong dollar, expect this to keep going up.

Actually I'm going to go with the fact we're fixing to be watching another Middle East War breakout in the next day or two between Israel and whatever dumbasses line up to get their asses kicked.

[RandomGuy]

How do you say....ppp---izz-------------when-----three-------DEEEE????/?


??????????

[Clandestino]

In light of today's record high close, this thread deserves a bump!

I agree!

[Clandestino]

chirping crickets! haha...

[Clandestino]

Some experts are predicting that gas will hit $4 per gallon by next week...


i realized that, but its still funny cuz this thread has been bumped shitloads of times since you created it just to show how accurate your predictions are.


that original post on this site was dumb it light of the fact that the bush adminstration is going to make big money for big oil..........period.

and our resident "expert"

we are steady at $75 and haven't had any external factors like hurricanes coming into play yet. The fundementals will slowly start to change over the next few years as new capacity comes online, but I think it will only be enough to maintain the status quo (as opposed to lowering prices). Despite high prices, demand keeps rising.

As far as the milestone itself... I think once we cross the threshold, it may be the new "sticking" point for price, with the occassional fluctuation down. Each time the price has gone up to the next level, demand has pretty much failed to respond accordingly.

main reason we're near 50 is because OPEC has allowed it. you people think it is all the factors you banter about, but really and truly it is what OPEC wants they get.

i am not suprised by you quiet posters though... when things are good, you stay hiding and waiting for something negative to happen so you can blame the republicans...

[jochhejaam]

main reason we're near 50 is because OPEC has allowed it. you people think it is all the factors you banter about, but really and truly it is what OPEC wants they get.
OPEC controls the price and they prefer $50 per barrel over $70 per barrel?

[scott]

and our resident "expert"


main reason we're near 50 is because OPEC has allowed it. you people think it is all the factors you banter about, but really and truly it is what OPEC wants they get.

i am not suprised by you quiet posters though... when things are good, you stay hiding and waiting for something negative to happen so you can blame the republicans...

You greatly overestimate OPEC's ability to move the market. Yes, they are still a powerful force, but they aren't sitting at their PC's playing "Oil Tycoon".

[boutons_]

"OPEC has allowed it."

All that carbon dioxide pumped in the atmosphere by the the eneryco's and their products has resulted in a very mild winter, significantly lessening the demand for heating oil (and for coal to fire generators) in the biggest consuming (northern temperate zone) countries.

If the price of oil stays this low for months because of depressed demand, then it will be hard, impossible?, to say the OPEC and non-OPEC products really have the power, and will, to restrict supply to force oil back up to $70+.

I still blame the Repugs for not defining an urgent, dramatic, unflinching program to reduce US oil consumption and US oil imports. If the current warm weather is and remains really the main cause of depressed oil prices, then reducing demand reduces the price.

The Repugs/oilmen in the WH, would rather waste US military lives in bogus wars to protect and increase US oilco profits.

http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif

"When things are good?"

Oil is still 2x the price it was on 9/11,
there is a bogus, unending, lost war.
there is NO oil conservation or green house gas reduction programs,

What's good?

[TDMVPDPOY]

prices arent goin down when its holiday season.....

[boutons_]

January 13, 2007

OPEC Consulting on Emergency Meeting - Algeria

By REUTERS

Filed at 12:08 p.m. ET

ALGIERS ( Reuters) - OPEC members are consulting one another on whether to hold an emergency meeting to discuss a 15 percent price drop since the start of the year, Algerian Energy and Mines Minister Chakib Khelil said on Saturday.

``There are consultations, but no consensus for the moment (on whether to hold one),'' he said in brief remarks to reporters.

Asked whether OPEC was planning to cut output again, he replied: ``We have already decided to cut production by 500,000 barrels per day (bpd) from February. If there is another decision to cut output, I would completely support the consensus decision.''

On Friday, the Dow Jones news service quoted a senior OPEC delegate as saying the producer group was discussing whether to hold an emergency meeting around January 20-21.

OPEC President Mohammed al-Hamli, also UAE oil minister, said on Thursday OPEC was deeply concerned by the price drop and stood ready if necessary to bolster the world market.

Mild weather so far this winter has curbed oil demand and pressured prices, blunting the impact of OPEC's planned 500,000 barrels per day cut in supply from February 1 that added to a 1.2 million bpd reduction last year.

==================

OPEC knows now that the market can pay $70/barrel like it has in the past year without killing demand (demand is inelastic) and tipping the world into recession and reduced demand.

I can't see why OPEC wouldn't reduce supply to put price back up to $70.

If they let it hang around at $50 or less, one has to ask why?

Do they really have the power and balls and co-operation (not all oil comes from OPEC) to keep the price as high as they want?

[TDMVPDPOY]

if opec keeps on playin around with the prices

i can see in the future, ppl will start to buy hybrid cars, and fuck these countries who supply oil,

[PixelPusher]

http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif

Couldn't help but notice that rather prominet spike on the graph is labelled "Iran/Iraq War"...we may be adding an "/Iran" to our Iraq war pretty soon.

[Clandestino]

market conditions caused the price of oil to drop. so, now OPEC will just cut production to keep its price per barrel at a range they want. so, yes, opec controls the cost of oil. they can artificially keep it high when the market would otherwise have the price low.

[boutons_]

"opec controls the cost of oil. "

so why is it at $50, when $70 has been recently proven not to destroy the world's economy?

[Clandestino]

did you not read the article you posted? they(opec) are holding an emergency meeting to get the price back up i'm sure.

[smeagol]

market conditions caused the price of oil to drop. so, now OPEC will just cut production to keep its price per barrel at a range they want. so, yes, opec controls the cost of oil. they can artificially keep it high when the market would otherwise have the price low.

Funny, this sounds exactly what rich nations do with commodities they produce, such as agri-stuff (manipulate the market with intervention, that is).

At the end of the day, the reality is that the mayoriy of the oil is owned by the Third World and they can do with it whatever they want.

Oil prices hurts others but helps those countries with oil reserves (sometimes it doesn't even help the people leaving in those countries, it simply helps their administrations: see Chevez or the Saudis as onvious examples).

Bottom line: countries, rich and poor, do what is best for them. And they care very little about the rest.

[Clandestino]

are you saying the bush does not control oil prices for american companies?

[smeagol]

are you saying the bush does not control oil prices for american companies?
What?

[Clandestino]

oil is at 50.85 right now..

[TDMVPDPOY]

oil prices per litre/gallon should be down atm around the prices b4 the afghan war, that should be the market price atm, but so far the oil companies are not passing on the savings to petrolheads but only reducing supply. The reason they are not going to decrease the price cose they know the market can pay for it, which is a load of bullshit and the fact that they are coming out claiming that they dont make that much profit is a load of horse shit.

The government is also to blame, they dont give the regularators enough authorighty over oil companies punishing them for price fixing etc, and the fact that govt doesnt give a horseshit and is always blaming the whichever foreign currency they use to measure the oil price per barrol aka US.DOLLARS OR SINGAPORE DOLLARS is another indicator of horse shit. Reason? fuel excise tax is the reason, as long they get there fuckn share, they dont give a shit about prices.

[jochhejaam]

oil is at 50.85 right now..
In my area (NW Ohio) that means $1.75 a gallon.

After the $3.00+ last year I never expected to see it that low again.

[Clandestino]

i just love all the bitches who piled on are nowhere to be found...

[boutons_]

nowhere to be found? who's gone?

The Dems + a bloc of Repugs are voting to cut $15B in Repug subisidies, gifts, and tax cuts for the oilcos, aka, nullifying dickhead's secret National Energy Policy.

[Pistons < Spurs]

In my area (NW Ohio) that means $1.75 a gallon.




Ann Arbor Mi -- $1.89

[boutons_]

January 28, 2007

Saudi Officials Seek to Temper the Price of Oil

BY JAD MOUAWAD

Saudi Arabia, which benefited immensely from record oil prices last year, has sent signals in the past two weeks that it is committed to keeping oil at around $50 a barrel — down $27 a barrel from the summer peak that shook consumers across the developed world.

The indications came in typically cryptic fashion for the oil-rich kingdom. In Tokyo last week, Ali al-Naimi, the Saudi oil minister, said Saudi Arabia’s policy was to maintain “moderate prices.” The previous week, on a stop in New Delhi, he effectively put his veto on an emergency meeting of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to prop up prices after oil briefly dropped below $50 a barrel, the lowest level in nearly two years.

The events that propelled oil prices above $77 a barrel last July, then dragged them down again, were beyond the control of any single producer. Still, Saudi Arabia, which is by far the largest oil producer within OPEC and sets the cartel’s agenda, is seeking to avoid a repeat of the dramatic rise in prices while trying to put a floor beneath them.

Nowhere was last summer’s spike in oil prices felt more profoundly than in the United States. As gasoline rose above $3 a gallon, consumers cut their spending elsewhere, tamping down profits in retail, travel and other industries. United States automakers were devastated as consumers fled from large vehicles to smaller ones, which have historically been the specialty of the Japanese; on Thursday, Ford said that 2006 had been the worst year in its history.

The recent slide back to $50 a barrel for oil — which translates to about $2 for a gallon of gasoline — has eased the pressure on the domestic economy, quieting talk that oil prices and the declining housing market would lead to a recession.

The Saudis appear to be rediscovering that painfully high energy prices take a profound toll on the global economy, which in turn reduces demand for their oil.

( but dubya refuses to do anything to reduce US demand for oil, to encourage consumption, to keep US demand for oil down, as that would hurt his budddies' $Bs of oilco profits. Imported oil should be tarifed so that the landed price has floor of $70/barrel, with the tarif revenues earmarked for energy conservation and not for $Bs more in oilco subsidies and tax breaks )

But other motives seem to be at work, too, including the Saudis’ desire to restrain Iran’s ambitions in the region.

How much influence the United States has exerted is an open question. Vice President Dick Cheney met with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in Riyadh in November, but his office would not say if oil was discussed. The White House has been supportive of Saudi energy policy, and President Bush and his father are close with Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national security minister and former ambassador to Washington.

Although Saudi officials say their oil policy is based on market considerations and not political ones, the meeting in November led to renewed speculation that the kingdom might be tempted to dry out Iran’s ambitions by pushing oil prices down. Prices have already been falling because of mild weather and slowing demand.

Prices at $50 to $55 a barrel are just about right for the Saudis, according to Saudi energy officials — not too high to hurt the global economy, not too low to hurt their own economy. Last year’s record highs meant that the growth in global oil demand slowed to 1 percent in 2006, compared with a 4 percent increase at its peak in 2004.

But 2006 was not the first reminder for the Saudis that too-high prices can backfire. The oil shocks of the 1970s and 1980s also set off a scramble for gas-sipping cars and a brief push to wean the West from its oil dependency. In recent months, the higher prices have rekindled America’s quest for alternatives and propelled energy security to the top of the agenda in the United States and Europe.

( the US govt should use a tariff on imported oil to create another "scramble" in the US for oil conservation and alternative energy )

Even President Bush, who began his presidency emphasizing the need to increase domestic oil production rather than cutting consumption, called for a reduction in gasoline use over the next decade in last week’s State of the Union address.

( "next decade" is dubya doing oilco bidding and using a code word for "never", just like all of his and dickhead's energy policies which are nothingb but policies to protect and enrich energyco's. )

High prices have also emboldened rivals within OPEC, among them Iran and Venezuela, which have used their oil revenue to prop up their governments and export their more radical agendas. Saudi Arabia has worked cooperatively with Iran since the late 1990s, when oil producers were panicked by the decline of prices to around $10 a barrel. More recently, Iran has favored rising prices over the moderation that Saudi Arabia seeks. Venezuela also tends to favor higher prices but wields less political influence in the cartel.

“High prices are not in the interest of Saudi Arabia,” said Sadek Boussena, a former OPEC president from Algeria. “We’ve all seen what $70 does: it attracts alternatives, it reduces demand. On the other hand, I don’t think the Saudis want oil below $50. They need the revenue.”

( IOW, the Saudis have the US's testicles in Saudi hands. Real Macho Men would refuse their balls to be held by anybody, but fake Macho Men like dubya and dickhead like their balls in Saudi hands since the oilcos pay them so well )

The Bush administration has repeatedly acknowledged Saudi Arabia’s efforts in trying to moderate prices. “Buyers and sellers have a common interest in maintaining reasonable prices for oil,” Samuel Bodman, the energy secretary, said in October.

( Wow, if you had ANY doubt about what I say is going going, then note that "buyers' and sellers' " interestes of course excludes the interest of we consumers who finance the buyers' and sellers' insane wealth. The buyers (oilicos) and sellers (oil producers) are in collusion to fuck the consumers. and of course, suck the US into bullshit oil wars like Iraq. You people understand one of the SECRET motivations for the dubya and dickhead's Iraq war was the sweetheart oil deals a US-friendly/grateful Iraqi puppet govt (oops!) was supposed to give US oilcos for extracting high-quality, shallow-depth, very high margin Iraqi oil)

There is no set formula for setting oil prices. In the 1980s, the market settled on around $18 a barrel as a fair price. In the 1990s, it was ratcheted up to $22 to $25 a barrel. Recently, oil producers have realized they can charge twice that amount, although consuming nations complain that the price is too high.

Mr. Naimi, the Saudi oil minister, borrowing the manner of a careful central banker, is rarely explicit about his plans. His every word is dissected by legions of analysts for the slightest hint of an inflection in policy.

( ... analysts whose balls are in Naimi's hands )

Sometimes, the uncertainty gives rise to more conspiratorial theories. Oil traders have been buzzing in recent weeks about whether Saudi Arabia was seeking to depress oil markets in hopes of crippling Iran’s economy, as a Saudi analyst — albeit not one from the government — suggested late last year in an opinion article in The Washington Post. The Saudis quickly dismissed the claim, but given the tensions in the Middle East, oil and politics remain closely linked.

( no shit! The Repugs are exclusively the party, the whores of Big Oil )

“It is difficult to work out what the Saudis really want, since they never say things explicitly,” said Leo Drollas, the chief economist at the Center for Global Energy Studies, a London-based research group founded by Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani, a former Saudi oil minister. Sometimes, he said, “you have to read between the lines.”

The Saudi government does not disclose what oil price it uses when it builds its budget, but analysts at Samba Financial Group, a bank in Saudi Arabia, say they believe the price is $42 a barrel for 2007, with oil production at about 9 million barrels a day.

With oil averaging $66 a barrel last year, the kingdom recorded a budget surplus of nearly $71 billion, Samba said, five times more than in 2005.

( and of course, we know the oilco 2006 profits were similary egregious )

Saudi officials repeatedly point out that they do not set the price of oil on international commodity markets — they point the finger at hedge funds and other speculative traders for the heightened volatility in recent years. Nor, they say, do they run their oil industry with political considerations in mind.

( ... the Saudis are lying, like Saddam was lying about WMD. But the naive American babes-in-the-wood, taking a hint from the Bible-thumpers' "literal" interpreation of the Bible, interpreted Saddam's words as "gospel truth". )

Mr. Naimi has led the ascent of oil prices since 2000 and managed his various partners within OPEC toward better discipline within the cartel. Last fall, under Saudi stewardship, OPEC members twice agreed to cut their output to prevent prices from falling too steeply.

More than any specific target, the Saudis have always sought stability in oil prices. But stability may prove just as elusive this year as it did last year, given how vulnerable global oil supplies remain to the vagaries of the weather as well as political turmoil in the Middle East and Africa.

Although OPEC’s 12 members decide by unanimous votes whether to increase oil production — which lowers prices by making supply more plentiful — consumer pressures ultimately hold sway, and an extremely cold winter followed by a very hot summer could override whatever price goals the Saudis have set.

( so an aggressive US plan to reduce CONSUMption would hold sway in forcing oil prices down, even to the late 90's $10/barrel, but that would be disastrous for oilco profits.)

Not everyone is reading the Saudis’ recent public signals — scant as they are — in the same way. “The Saudi policy has not changed,” said Roger Diwan, an energy analyst at PFC Energy. The Saudis, he said, have “led the way in managing the market. They showed leadership in OPEC.”

But Amy Myers Jaffe, the associate director of Rice University’s energy program, said she thought that Saudi policy had shifted, backing away from a defense of higher prices.

“The debate in Saudi Arabia is about what is the right strategy, where demand is headed, and what is the right amount of investments,” she said. “And that’s a very tough question.”

Jim Rutenberg contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/business/28oil.html?hp&ex=1170046800&en=a9df40eee09a5dff&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[smeagol]

Prices in Manhattan are still at $2.30 per gallon

[clambake]

Are you serious? That's "f"ing cheap!!!!!!!!

[01Snake]

Paid $2.05 this last night here in SA.

[TDMVPDPOY]

when oil prices were below $50, they didnt pass on the savings at the barrel, they always say its the lagging effect like how interest rates will hurt you 6months down the road, but in this case they always blame it on the lagging effect, and when the day they have the savings, they raise it back up the next day....how fuckn lame when prices per barrel goes up there is no lag effect but to shoot it up as compared to down spiral prices :(

[RandomGuy]

I thought it was supposed to hit 80-100 bucks and gas to $4 a gallon by now. According to nbadan that is!

It is now trading at about $75.

I have said before, and I will restate it here:

Oil will continue to get more expensive at a rate faster than inflation for the rest of your lives.

Plan accordingly.

[RandomGuy]

January 13, 2007

OPEC Consulting on Emergency Meeting - Algeria

By REUTERS

Filed at 12:08 p.m. ET

ALGIERS ( Reuters) - OPEC members are consulting one another on whether to hold an emergency meeting to discuss a 15 percent price drop since the start of the year, Algerian Energy and Mines Minister Chakib Khelil said on Saturday.

``There are consultations, but no consensus for the moment (on whether to hold one),'' he said in brief remarks to reporters.

Asked whether OPEC was planning to cut output again, he replied: ``We have already decided to cut production by 500,000 barrels per day (bpd) from February. If there is another decision to cut output, I would completely support the consensus decision.''

On Friday, the Dow Jones news service quoted a senior OPEC delegate as saying the producer group was discussing whether to hold an emergency meeting around January 20-21.

OPEC President Mohammed al-Hamli, also UAE oil minister, said on Thursday OPEC was deeply concerned by the price drop and stood ready if necessary to bolster the world market.

Mild weather so far this winter has curbed oil demand and pressured prices, blunting the impact of OPEC's planned 500,000 barrels per day cut in supply from February 1 that added to a 1.2 million bpd reduction last year.

==================

OPEC knows now that the market can pay $70/barrel like it has in the past year without killing demand (demand is inelastic) and tipping the world into recession and reduced demand.

I can't see why OPEC wouldn't reduce supply to put price back up to $70.

If they let it hang around at $50 or less, one has to ask why?

Do they really have the power and balls and co-operation (not all oil comes from OPEC) to keep the price as high as they want?


It is now well above $70. Don't see a world recession in the offing...

[RandomGuy]

i just love all the bitches who piled on are nowhere to be found...

I have other things to do, biyatch, heh.

[RandomGuy]

It is now well above $70. Don't see a world recession in the offing...

85 with 100 in sight.

DUN DUN DUN!!

[Wild Cobra]

85 with 100 in sight.

DUN DUN DUN!!

Even if supply and demand remains constant for oil on the world market, we can see $100 soon just because the way out dollar is dropping vs. other currencies!

I think $100 will happen realtively soon, and possibley stay there.

[RandomGuy]

Even if supply and demand remains constant for oil on the world market, we can see $100 soon just because the way out dollar is dropping vs. other currencies!

I think $100 will happen realtively soon, and possibley stay there.

Try probably stay there.

The phenomenon is easy to grasp with a couple of easy analogies.

Imagine someone in a hot air balloon dumps a bag of $100 bills over your house and you get to keep all that money.

You would pick up the bills that are nearest to you on the ground as they would require the least amount of effort to get, and then you would work your way around to the stuff on top of your car, then get up on a ladder and get up on the roof and up in any trees. The stuff that takes the least amount of effort gets picked up first, then you will gather the stuff that is harder to reach after you can't find any easy stuff.

The same is true for oil exploration and exploitation on the part of our oil-using civilization. We picked up the cheap, easy to get stuff and it is running out.

Now imagine that you are a person trapped on a deserted island. You need 2000 calories to live and the only food on the island is in the form of some fruit trees in the middle of the island that drop fruit regularly on the ground. You can walk over, pick up and eat a fruit at a cost of say, 10 calories, and get 500 calories from each fruit.

You will need 4 fruits (plus a very small fraction) to survive per day.

Now imagine that the easy fruit on the ground is gone, and you have to climb up the tree, go out onto a branch and laboriously saw the fruit off the tree. This takes 200 calories for EACH fruit.

You will now need 6.67 fruits per day to survive and your total caloric intake has gone from 2040 calories to over 3300. Your body still only needs 2000 calories, but you had to spen 1300 calories to get that.

The same is true for oil energy. The "return" on each new barrel of oil gets slimmer, so even if the world's economy/energy needs weren't growing our energy consumption would.

BUT

The world economy IS growing. For each 1 percent of GDP growth, we need 1 percent PLUS X percent with the X percent being determined by the efficiency of our energy sources, i.e 1% GDP growth = 1.1% energy requirement growth

SOOOO....

If supply is constant or shrinking, and overall demand is going up, where does the "price point" go?

You guessed it, UP.

High enough that competing energy sources will eventually become more cost-efficient. I think faster than the oil companies expect, but they seem to be aware of the problem.

[RandomGuy]

Yikes. Break time is over. Back to work.

[xrayzebra]

Yikes. Break time is over. Back to work.

RG, we import I believe only about 20 percent of our oil.
And most of it is from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. One
reason that the OILCO's are reaping such profits is that
the oil they have from their domestic wells was drilled
when it was easy to find. And of course they are charging
it off and charging us at the current market rate. But
there is oil to be found in our coastal waters off of
CA and in the Gulf that would be easily obtained, especially, with today's technology. If our politicians had
any backbone and stood up to the environmentalist.
I know everyone says we must have an alternative fuel,
yeah right, there is none on the horizon that I can see.
And any we do find must be cheap and abundant to
sustain our economy. People are always pointing to
Europe, I wished you could see their cost of living. It
is unreal. Like a ticket on the subway in London will cost
you about $20.00 bucks round trip. And gasoline, you
really don't want to know what it cost them. And it
is by the liter not gallon.

[RandomGuy]

RG, we import I believe only about 20 percent of our oil.
And most of it is from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. One
reason that the OILCO's are reaping such profits is that
the oil they have from their domestic wells was drilled
when it was easy to find. And of course they are charging
it off and charging us at the current market rate. But
there is oil to be found in our coastal waters off of
CA and in the Gulf that would be easily obtained, especially, with today's technology. If our politicians had
any backbone and stood up to the environmentalist.
I know everyone says we must have an alternative fuel,
yeah right, there is none on the horizon that I can see.
And any we do find must be cheap and abundant to
sustain our economy. People are always pointing to
Europe, I wished you could see their cost of living. It
is unreal. Like a ticket on the subway in London will cost
you about $20.00 bucks round trip. And gasoline, you
really don't want to know what it cost them. And it
is by the liter not gallon.

Bla bla bla... it's the environmentalists' fault.

Bullpuckey. Worse than that, it is a useless genralization, because it is TOO simple to accurately reflect reality.

Answer this one question:
Which costs less, a $100,000 land based pump, or a $1,000,000,000 oil platform?

Argh. I did it again. Back to work, have to wait for lunch.

[xrayzebra]

Bla bla bla... it's the environmentalists' fault.

Bullpuckey. Worse than that, it is a useless genralization, because it is TOO simple to accurately reflect reality.

Answer this one question:
Which costs less, a $100,000 land based pump, or a $1,000,000,000 oil platform?

Argh. I did it again. Back to work, have to wait for lunch.

Okay, what you are saying is that it isn't the environmentalists' fault? You consider that a
generalization. How so? If it isn't the environmentalists
fault, who's fault is it that the coastal waters off
CA and FL remain closed to drilling or in Alaska?

And your question, how does that fit into the picture.
I don't think it cost any $1,000.000.000 to build a
platform in the coastal shelf. Deep water drilling, yes.
And they are doing it.

[RandomGuy]

Okay, what you are saying is that it isn't the environmentalists' fault? You consider that a
generalization. How so? If it isn't the environmentalists
fault, who's fault is it that the coastal waters off
CA and FL remain closed to drilling or in Alaska?

And your question, how does that fit into the picture.
I don't think it cost any $1,000.000.000 to build a
platform in the coastal shelf. Deep water drilling, yes.
And they are doing it.

Try the billion-dollar fishing industries, the multibillion dollar coastal real estate industries, the tourism industries, and everybody else with a stake in the effects of oil spills. All of these stakeholders have a great deal to lose in the event of a large oil spill. They are STILL cleaning up after the Exxon Valdez spill, two decades later.

Costs for a platform range from 100 million to around 500 million per platform from what I could easily research. Newer, advanced ones needed for deep sea drilling will probably cost more than the 500 million, as that figure was in 1998 dollars. Simple costs have been the prohibiting factor for over a decade, as I am sure Scott can attest to.

Close in deposits of oil will likely not be the solution, and oil companies have pretty free reign in deeper waters, if my understanding is correct.

It is not "environmentalists" but accountants, fishermen, and millionaires that are really keeping a lot of drilling from happening.

(shrugs)

I would simply say, from an economic standpoint, that good, sound environmental policies have a profoundly positive net economic effect.

It might benefit a particular company to dump their lead and mercury by-products in your local resevior/aquafer, but the economy as a whole loses when you and your neighbors get million dollar cancers.

I have always been puzzled by your and others' knee-jerk dislike of environmentalists. To be sure there are a share of nuts in any poltical movement, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

We CAN balance resource extraction with sound environmental policy. It WILL cost the companies that do the extraction more, but if one steps back and looks, those costs are simply where they belong, instead of being passed on to others in the form of lost health and jobs.

[Oh, Gee!!]

85 with 100 in sight.

DUN DUN DUN!!

it hit $88, but settled down at $86 and some change

[xrayzebra]

Close in deposits of oil will likely not be the solution, and oil companies have pretty free reign in deeper waters, if my understanding is correct.

It is not "environmentalists" but accountants, fishermen, and millionaires that are really keeping a lot of drilling from happening.



(shrugs)

I would simply say, from an economic standpoint, that good, sound environmental policies have a profoundly positive net economic effect.

It might benefit a particular company to dump their lead and mercury by-products in your local resevior/aquafer, but the economy as a whole loses when you and your neighbors get million dollar cancers.

[/COLOR]I don't think anyone with common sense wants any company or person to dump lead and mercury by-products into any waterway, wether it be resevior/aquafer or whatever. The argument that the economy as a whole loses is a different argument altogether when someone gets cancer.




I have always been puzzled by your and others' knee-jerk dislike of environmentalists. To be sure there are a share of nuts in any poltical movement, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

[/COLOR]I do not have a knee-jerk dislike for environmentalists. I do have a dislike to the militiant environmentalists who spike trees and care more for snail darters and beatles than human life. Environmental issues have caused much pain and suffering among the poor. Why you ask. Look at what they have cause just here in San Antonio and the Edwards Aquafer. Water prices have gone up and will continue to rise because they made an abundant water supply into a rationed water supply.




We CAN balance resource extraction with sound environmental policy. It WILL cost the companies that do the extraction more, but if one steps back and looks, those costs are simply where they belong, instead of being passed on to others in the form of lost health and jobs.
What do you call balance? Not being able to drill where the oil is. The OILCO's have paid the price and will continue to pay the price to drill and extract oil. Look at what the environmentalist said about the Alaskan Pipeline. It would upset the whole eco-system. Guess what, it didn't. Wildlife has flourished. You speak of lost health and jobs. Oil companies are noted for their high wages and jobs they create. I know of no jobs they have caused to be lost. Some claim to have been harmed by bad health and court cases have gone for and against OILCO.

[RandomGuy]

What do you call balance? Not being able to drill where the oil is. The OILCO's have paid the price and will continue to pay the price to drill and extract oil. Look at what the environmentalist said about the Alaskan Pipeline. It would upset the whole eco-system. Guess what, it didn't. Wildlife has flourished. You speak of lost health and jobs. Oil companies are noted for their high wages and jobs they create. I know of no jobs they have caused to be lost. Some claim to have been harmed by bad health and court cases have gone for and against OILCO.

Here is an article of people who lost livlihoods as a result of the Valdez oil spill (http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9903/22/valdez.fishermen/)

Here are about 20 million people that have had farms and fishing that they depend on for a living effected. (http://www.polarisinstitute.org/nigeria_niger_delta_impacted_by_1_5_million_tons_o f_oil_spill_among_five_most_polluted_spots_on_eart h)

Here is a guy who died a "horrible and painful death" from colon cancer after working in a refinery in the US (http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/197960-suit-claims-asbestos-caused-refinery-workers-colon-cancer-death)

Here is another bit:

Brain Cancer in a Residential Area Bordering on an Oil Refinery (http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowFulltext&ProduktNr=224263&Ausgabe=228804&ArtikelNr=67106)

I personally knew a guy who lived near an oil refinery growing up near huston, who had to, for his entire life, take seizure medication, and knew that almost all of his high school class had similar brain-related ailments, if not outright brain cancer.

My point is that oil production and refining all have rather nasty, and costly side effects.

Yes, oil companies have good jobs, and employ people and I am with you on the snails. Fuck snails. There is such a thing as being too militant.


BUT

You can't just look at the company itself. If you want to formulate decent public policy, you HAVE to look at a wider society.

In essence industries that pollute are stealing from others to make the money that they make.

Going back to our semi-hypothetical mining company, the company might make an extra $5M per year, but if the health costs, lost wages and so forth of the surrounding community add up to $10M per year, the economy as a whole is $5 WORSE off than it was if the company had not polluted.

[Nbadan]

World oil production has already peaked and will fall by half as soon as 2030, according to a report which also warns that extreme shortages of fossil fuels will lead to wars and social breakdown.

The German-based Energy Watch Group will release its study in London today saying that global oil production peaked in 2006 - much earlier than most experts had expected. The report, which predicts that production will now fall by 7% a year, comes after oil prices set new records almost every day last week, on Friday hitting more than $90 (£44) a barrel.
...
The results are in contrast to projections from the International Energy Agency, which says there is little reason to worry about oil supplies at the moment.

However, the EWG study relies more on actual oil production data which, it says, are more reliable than estimates of reserves still in the ground. The group says official industry estimates put global reserves at about 1.255 gigabarrels - equivalent to 42 years' supply at current consumption rates. But it thinks the figure is only about two thirds of that.

Guardain (http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,2196435,00.html)

[RandomGuy]

Bump. For the sheer irony, mutha fuckas.

[PixelPusher]

"Oil at $200 a barrel" is the new benchmark thrown around internets now.

[Clandestino]

Bump. For the sheer irony, mutha fuckas.

ironic that the price of shit goes up??? not really.

[Nbadan]

Going up...

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/news_images/20080229/p11b.jpg

Gas economics for Republicans:

Start needless war for oil...pay for war by printing billions of dollars and putting the rest on the world's credit card, including our own kids....
Value of dollars go way down because too many dollars...price of barrel of oil go way up because greedy Arabs want return for useless investment in US securities to finance war.....so, price of barrel of oil go way up...price of gas go way, way up...

[PixelPusher]

Going up...

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/news_images/20080229/p11b.jpg

Gas economics for Republicans:

Start needless war for oil...pay for war by printing billions of dollars and putting the rest on the world's credit card, including our own kids....
Value of dollars go way down because too many dollars...price of barrel of oil go way up because greedy Arabs want return for useless investment in US securities to finance war.....so, price of barrel of oil go way up...price of gas go way, way up...
...and Americans have an ever increasing incentive to get serious about changing our energy policy. Works for me.

[Nbadan]

...and Americans have an ever increasing incentive to get serious about changing our energy policy. Works for me.

Where do you think you live? Socialist Europe? This is suburban America..cities designed for cheap gas...not cost-efficient transportation....

[AFBlue]

Where do you think you live? Socialist Europe? This is suburban America..cities designed for cheap gas...not cost-efficient transportation....

The first step to getting real energy policy reform is for the American people to get involved and get behind it.

If the American people are engaged and are willing to change their habits, I suspect they would vote for increased government spending to build more accessible and efficient mass transit.

Until then, Americans will have to adjust incrementally by making their next automotive purchase a hybrid, or taking advantage of solar energy in their homes...stuff like that.

Bottom Line: It may take a while, but if the cost of oil continues to balloon eventually there will be a requirement levied by the American people to change our energy policy for the better.

[boutons_]

"If the American people are engaged and are willing to change their habits"

Socialism, even Communism. Will be slimed as such by the right winger and Repugs.

The American Dream is Total Freedom with No Responsibility.

Barring some kind of shock that forces adjustments, even pain, it will take a once-in-a-century leader to lead the Americans where they must go.

I don't see any such leader, unless Obama is hiding his light, for now, under a bushel basket.

[xrayzebra]

"If the American people are engaged and are willing to change their habits"

Socialism, even Communism. Will be slimed as such by the right winger and Repugs.

The American Dream is Total Freedom with No Responsibility.

Barring some kind of shock that forces adjustments, even pain, it will take a once-in-a-century leader to lead the Americans where they must go.

I don't see any such leader, unless Obama is hiding his light, for now, under a bushel basket.


You are something else. Responsibility! You wouldn't
know responsibility if it hit you in the face.

We have the oil and resources to go after the oil and
what do we have, the global warming hoax and
all the environmentalist worried wanting to go back
to the dark ages.

God help all you young folks. Learn and live. Obviously
you are getting what you wished for.

Quit crying about prices, queue like the folks in Europe
to pay through the nose for transportation and learn to
love nature in all its beautiful splendor.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

i wish we had the "oil crisis" during carter's watch right now. wasn't oil something like $25 a barrell?

[PixelPusher]

Where do you think you live? Socialist Europe? This is suburban America..cities designed for cheap gas...not cost-efficient transportation....
Supply and Demand isn't just a catch-all Republican euphemism for whoring our polity to corporations, it's an observation of human behavior. Gas is more expensive, consumer seeks out alternative. It's already happening.

U.S. Use of Public Transportation Highest in 50 years (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/us-use-of-publi.html)

And I wouldn't worry about our cheap gas/car centric infrastructure impeding progress; it wasn't built to last anyway, and we haven't exactly been doing our damndest to keep it up.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol @ the title of this thread now.

[E20]

Gas is nearly 4 dollars a gallon here.

[smeagol]

Oil closed at $111

[Wild Cobra]

Besides China buying more and more crude each year, the value of the dollar keeps dropping. These two factors raise the oil price for us dramatically.
Our cost of the Euro:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/5yUStoEuro.png (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=EURUSD=X&t=5y)

Now add seasonal usages, seasonal refinery mix changes, and world wide supply and demand economics.

It all makes sense when you see the whole picture. And no, Cheney and Exxon have nothing to do with the prices, but then simpleton's believe whatever their liberal masters tell them.

[Wild Cobra]

What is it with you people?

Did I kill this thread with some facts or something?

[boutons_]

I read where the at least $35 in the rise of price of oil since dubya took office (it was about $25/barrel on 9/11) has been due to Iraq, removing Iraq's oil from market plus oil speculators playing games with the instabilities in the M/E.

The US will keep shipping its wealth to oil countries as long as the US does nothing to suppress the demand for oil. Taxing the price of gasoline/diesel up to European levels, and guaranteeing that the price will stay there, indexed to inflation, permitting alternatives to become viable, is my recommendation.

[Wild Cobra]

I read where the at least $35 in the rise of price of oil since dubya took office (it was about $25/barrel on 9/11) has been due to Iraq, removing Iraq's oil from market plus oil speculators playing games with the instabilities in the M/E.

The US will keep shipping its wealth to oil countries as long as the US does nothing to suppress the demand for oil. Taxing the price of gasoline/diesel up to European levels, and guaranteeing that the price will stay there, indexed to inflation, permitting alternatives to become viable, is my recommendation.
When president Bush took office, oil was just under $30 per barrel. Not $25. On 9/11, it can be said that president Bush helped reduce the prices. On 9/11, oil was about $25. It dropped down to $20 by the beginning of 2002. It rose to about $32 just before we invaded Iraq, then back down to $30. The beginning of 2004 is when China's demand for oil started rising dramatically. Oil took a steady increase to $72 in mid 2006, then a correction to $60 in the beginning of 2007, and is on a steady rise again since.

Consider the facts within this article:

China crude oil consumption to reach 500 mln tons by 2020 - CNPC (http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2006/05/26/afx2775116.html). One paragraph:


By 2020, imports will increase to 300 mln tons, or 60 pct of China's total consumption, Zhu said.

Also consider this:

Crude, refined oil consumption hits record in 1st half (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2007-07/25/content_6002071.htm). One paragraph:


The net imports of crude oil over the same period hit 79.72 million tons, up 18.4 percent, while that for refined oil reached 10.14 million tons, down 15.7 percent, customs figures show.

Also see this site:

[Light Crude Oil (CL, NYMEX)
Monthly Price Chart] (http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CO/M)

[Nbadan]

pfffff........the real truth is that the Saudi oil fields are drying up, that why OPEC won't increase production - they have none left to spare....in fact, the U.S. has been secretly selling Iraqi oil on the markets since over-throwing Saddam to try and disguise the fact that the Saudi oil fields are in decline - a fact that would change global oil economics and throw the leading industrial countries into panic....

[Clandestino]

pfffff........the real truth is that the Saudi oil fields are drying up, that why OPEC won't increase production - they have none left to spare....in fact, the U.S. has been secretly selling Iraqi oil on the markets since over-throwing Saddam to try and disguise the fact that the Saudi oil fields are in decline - a fact that would change global oil economics and throw the leading industrial countries into panic....

i'm in awe of how nbasham finds out so much secret information from his mothers basement

[Wild Cobra]

Yep, he's connect real good...

Sure, the media undercovers a black market for black gold from the region. Then all of a sudden, like everything else, it's our fault.

Evidence anyone?

Dan. I'm sick and tired of your propaganda. Fess up a valid source, or I will continue to call you a propagandist!

Why are you working for the enemies of the USA?

[Purple & Gold]

Don't repubs like a weak dollar??

[Wild Cobra]

Don't repubs like a weak dollar??
I think there is a split among them. Personally, I see it as a good thing. I'm not sure where I would call the optimum point, but we may be close now.

Yes, I know. Gas prices will rise and so will other imported goods. This will bring good paying jobs back to the states. That is why I see it as a good thing.

Many don't like it because they are invested elsewhere. Now their manufactured products are selling for less profit shipping them here.

Many don't like it because the BMW's Ferrari's, overseas vacation homes, etc. are costing them more.

Many don't like it because a strong dollar is a sign of national strength.

Because of "favored nation" status in trade, we have exported so much of our industries. This is why the dollar has weakened.

Want to blame someone... blame those who favor all the enacted free trade agreements.

[word]

I read where the at least $35 in the rise of price of oil since dubya took office (it was about $25/barrel on 9/11) has been due to Iraq, removing Iraq's oil from market plus oil speculators playing games with the instabilities in the M/E.

The US will keep shipping its wealth to oil countries as long as the US does nothing to suppress the demand for oil. Taxing the price of gasoline/diesel up to European levels, and guaranteeing that the price will stay there, indexed to inflation, permitting alternatives to become viable, is my recommendation.

Iraq was under sanctions. Started with Clinton. Oil for food. Remember ?

[boutons_]

"Iraq was under sanctions."

and?

[smeagol]

Price of oil, the most widely traded commodity, is manipulated by a few players. Obviously, Bush has something to do with it, because he wants to help his rich Texan friends.

Market demand and supply have nothing to do with its price.

[xrayzebra]

Price of oil, the most widely traded commodity, is manipulated by a few players. Obviously, Bush has something to do with it, because he wants to help his rich Texan friends.

Market demand and supply have nothing to do with its price.

Really, want to expand on that statement and talk to the
Texas Railroad commission about that. They could
maybe just be called the first OPEC, Texas style. As
a matter of fact oil used to be priced on the basis of
West Texas Sweet Crude.

I will give you the benefit of doubt in one regard, the
futures market of late has been playing a big part in
the run up of oil, but OPEC and Market do play their
part also.

[smeagol]

Really, want to expand on that statement and talk to the
Texas Railroad commission about that. They could
maybe just be called the first OPEC, Texas style. As
a matter of fact oil used to be priced on the basis of
West Texas Sweet Crude.

I will give you the benefit of doubt in one regard, the
futures market of late has been playing a big part in
the run up of oil, but OPEC and Market do play their
part also.


Psssttt . . . ray!

I was being sarcastic . . .

[word]

"Iraq was under sanctions."

and?

Iraq's oil production, by month, since 1973.

http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/doeme/paprpiq

[word]

Market demand and supply have nothing to do with its price.


Can't believe I wasted all those years and money going to college only to find out it was all bullshit.

[JoeChalupa]

All I know is the times of cheap gas are over. Once oil companies know they can get $3 a gal. why would they want to lower the price?

[RandomGuy]

:lol @ the title of this thread now.

You're welcome.

I have this thread "saved" and will keep resurrecting it. Until I die or the servers die.

As I said before, the market has moved on and we will never see another $50 barrel of oil in our lifetime.

It seems that some of the recent run up has been speculative, and you can expect that to fall back at some point, but the basic "floor" for oil is, if memory serves, about $80 bucks or so, so don't expect any real relief if that happens.

Oil will go up and down, but I think the price of a barrel will double within about 8 to 10 years, and more quickly after that, as the price increases accelerate.

Remember that for every barrel of oil, there are increasing amounts of consumers in the West and Asia that are demanding it.

China adds something like new 10,000 drivers EVERY DAY, and their demand for chemicals and plastics, both made from oil, is going up just as fast.

Demand is going up fast, and supply is not keeping pace. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure where the price will go.

The only real question is:
How fast?

Remember doubling in 9 years is just 8% price growth, and that seems to be sustainable, given current supply/demand trends.

If price growth accelarates from there, as most seem to think it will, you could see $21+ gallon of gas within 20 years. (figure price growth of 8% for 9 years, 11% for 7 years, 15% for 4 years)

I am not trying to be alarmist, merely realistic.

We WILL change our transportation habits, one way or another.

My bet is on mass transit, as that is the most energy-efficient way to go. That will also make for MUCH denser cities. I wouldn't buy real estate in the burbs...

[xrayzebra]

Until all the defenders of the earth are beaten be prepared to
pay through the nose for all energy. I don't care if it is oil, gas,
electricity and even water. Control my friends is the name of
the game and they, the environmentalist, are in the drivers seat.
I have said it before and will keep repeating it. Whenever
you hear someone say "conserve" or "we must protect the
environment" hang on to your pocketbook,
cause it is going to cost you bigtime. That is a fact, like it or
not.

[JoeChalupa]

Until all the defenders of the earth are beaten be prepared to
pay through the nose for all energy. I don't care if it is oil, gas,
electricity and even water. Control my friends is the name of
the game and they, the environmentalist, are in the drivers seat.
I have said it before and will keep repeating it. Whenever
you hear someone say "conserve" or "we must protect the
environment" hang on to your pocketbook,
cause it is going to cost you bigtime. That is a fact, like it or
not.

While I agree some of that is true it is not the only reason gas prices are going up. I'm no economic expert but I've been watching the economic shows and networks and most say it is NOT because of a shortage of oil that the prices are so high. The weak dollar has a lot to do with it.
I have to watch more Erin Burnett.

[xrayzebra]

While I agree some of that is true it is not the only reason gas prices are going up. I'm no economic expert but I've been watching the economic shows and networks and most say it is NOT because of a shortage of oil that the prices are so high. The weak dollar has a lot to do with it.
I have to watch more Erin Burnett.

The weaker dollar has a lot to do with it. But that was not
what started the ball rolling. It is what caused much of
the weaker dollar. Environmental wackos have distorted the
market so much it is unreal. And you always have those
that will take advantage of a skewed market.

Until the market is allowed to correct itself, in a normal
manner, just as in the housing markets or any markets,
you are going to have some outrages outcomes.
Look at how ethanol has skewed food prices.

[RandomGuy]

Until all the defenders of the earth are beaten be prepared to
pay through the nose for all energy. I don't care if it is oil, gas,
electricity and even water. Control my friends is the name of
the game and they, the environmentalist, are in the drivers seat.
I have said it before and will keep repeating it. Whenever
you hear someone say "conserve" or "we must protect the
environment" hang on to your pocketbook,
cause it is going to cost you bigtime. That is a fact, like it or
not.

What will you start thinking when the Evengelical movement really starts taking up the environmentalist cause?

Blaming the "environmentalists" for all the run up in energy prices is simply not accurate. Ask any freakin' CEO of an oil company, and they will tell you as much.

But I guess Rush Limbaugh knows more about those things than the CEO of Exxon, right?

Pfft.

There is a growing movement among many ferverent Evangelicals to view taking care of the environment as something of a duty from God.

I think if that trend continues, you will become something of a minority in conservative circles.

As I have said before, bearing in mind the consequences of industry and pollution of various sorts make huge economic and ETHICAL sense.

Quite honestly, I find your total disregard for the environment rather unethical.

That it seems to be a sentiment echoed by many on the right is simply another aspect of what I feel is the moral bankruptcy of the modern conservative movement.

[RandomGuy]

The weaker dollar has a lot to do with it. But that was not
what started the ball rolling. It is what caused much of
the weaker dollar. Environmental wackos have distorted the
market so much it is unreal. And you always have those
that will take advantage of a skewed market.

Until the market is allowed to correct itself, in a normal
manner, just as in the housing markets or any markets,
you are going to have some outrages outcomes.
Look at how ethanol has skewed food prices.

Corn-based ethanol is much less effecient than many other kinds of ethanol.

Ask any environmentalist, and they will agree.

The US Government subsidizes corn for ethanol, and puts protective tariffs on Brazilian ethanol, making it far more expensive than it needs to be.

Most environmentalists would much rather something like switchgrass or similar be used.

Further,

There is some evidence to suggest that ethanol production actually produces more carbon emissions that it prevents.

You will probably see many environmentalists rethink their support for it.

[Extra Stout]

If price growth accelarates from there, as most seem to think it will, you could see $21+ gallon of gas within 20 years.
Is that all? By then, a loaf of bread will cost $2,000,000, so gas will be super cheap!

[RandomGuy]

Is that all? By then, a loaf of bread will cost $2,000,000, so gas will be super cheap!

Greenspan seems to think interest rates will have to be higher than they have been historically to hold inflation in check, and I tend to agree.

In the same time period, if everything else rises at the historic average of about 3% or so, a dollar loaf of bread will cost $1.81 in 20 years, and 81% gain, whereas a gallon of gas in the preceding scenario would end up having something like a 700% overall increase.

This is just a "back of the envelope" calculation, but I think the underlying pricnciple will hold.

[boutons_]

"$21+ gallon of gas within 20 years."

Inflation adjusted? Europeans have been paying $6+/gallon for years. They are somewhat cushioned now because they take their Euros to buy oil in US$.

Transport fuel price is an easy and obvious number to wach. But oil products have been engineered into everything. Fertlizer from oil is required by industrial agriculture.

Food prices are going up significantly. You pay a lot more for food per year than for gasoline.

[smeagol]

Can't believe I wasted all those years and money going to college only to find out it was all bullshit.


Psssttt word . . . !

I was being sarcastic . . .

[smeagol]

:lol @ blaming environmentalists for the increase in oil prices.

Talk about being fucking clueless.

[xrayzebra]

Quite honestly, I find your total disregard for the environment rather unethical.


I fail to understand your conclusion that I have a total
disregard for the environment. I don't. I have no desire
to see the earth "raped" or the air and water polluted.
But I do not understand why just because we harvest
what is available to us we are raping and polluting. We
have every means in the world to have sufficient energy
at reasonable prices without the raping and pollution,
as has been proven time and time again. Accidents
occur which harm nature and people. And events
occur which do the same over which we have no control.
So should be hold God or the environment in
contempt of mankind for these events. Like we do
people attempting to deliver energy at reasonable
cost? Only we have can prove people did it intentionally.
Over God and the environment, we have no control.
Much as some would like to argue that point.

[xrayzebra]

:lol @ blaming environmentalists for the increase in oil prices.

Talk about being fucking clueless.

I cant help your state of mind. Life is what it is. And
unfortunately you are part of life.......
:toast

[JoeChalupa]

And Life is a smorgasborg!!

[xrayzebra]

And Life is a smorgasborg!!

Just step up to the table and help yourself. But remember
the story about the lady who wanted to be buried with a
spoon in her hand. The best is yet to come. Dessert!

[RandomGuy]

I fail to understand your conclusion that I have a total
disregard for the environment. I don't. I have no desire
to see the earth "raped" or the air and water polluted.
But I do not understand why just because we harvest
what is available to us we are raping and polluting. We
have every means in the world to have sufficient energy
at reasonable prices without the raping and pollution,
as has been proven time and time again. Accidents
occur which harm nature and people. And events
occur which do the same over which we have no control.
So should be hold God or the environment in
contempt of mankind for these events. Like we do
people attempting to deliver energy at reasonable
cost? Only we have can prove people did it intentionally.
Over God and the environment, we have no control.
Much as some would like to argue that point.

I have no problem with resource extraction per se.

We don't have control over accidents, but we do get to choose our risks.

I can't control whether I get into an accident in my car driving to work, but I can avoid dangerous roads, and drive at reasonable speeds.

Environmentalism isn't to blame for higher oil prices. Economics is.

I almost wish we would simply go off and drill ANWAR just to prove how little difference it would make in the long run.

[Extra Stout]

We have every means in the world to have sufficient energy
at reasonable prices without the raping and pollution,
as has been proven time and time again.
Ah, yes, an easy answer to a difficult problem. They lied when they said U.S. oil production peaked in 1970! We still have tons of reserves left; the liberals just won't let us drill because they hate economic growth and worship Gaia!

In seriousness, ANWR and all those offshore deposits might help a little. Maybe gas might be $2.90 a gallon instead of $3.15. But that's it.

[Wild Cobra]

Ah, yes, an easy answer to a difficult problem. They lied when they said U.S. oil production peaked in 1970! We still have tons of reserves left; the liberals just won't let us drill because they hate economic growth and worship Gaia!

In seriousness, ANWR and all those offshore deposits might help a little. Maybe gas might be $2.90 a gallon instead of $3.15. But that's it.
This is true. The only way I see it going cheaper would be if we increased production to 100% support our own habbit, and legislation restricted oil companies in the USA to not selling any overseas. Competition would then keep the price down as oil companies competed for market share.

[RandomGuy]

This is true. The only way I see it going cheaper would be if we increased production to 100% support our own habbit, and legislation restricted oil companies in the USA to not selling any overseas. Competition would then keep the price down as oil companies competed for market share.

Um, sure.

Prices would also be kept down if the magic maroon monkeys from mars came down and all pooped oil into our supertankers.

I consider both to be about similar in probability

[Wild Cobra]

Um, sure.

Prices would also be kept down if the magic maroon monkeys from mars came down and all pooped oil into our supertankers.

I consider both to be about similar in probability
I agree.

Seems the only other solution is to blow the other nations into the stone ages so we are the only demand for oil.

Not very many good solutions, are there?

[RandomGuy]

I agree.

Seems the only other solution is to blow the other nations into the stone ages so we are the only demand for oil.

Not very many good solutions, are there?

oooor... we could, say, start investing in renewables and move away from oil consumption...

Nah, that would be like energy independence or something, and that is about a possible as the magic maroon monkeys from mars that poop oil.

When one thinks about the trillions that Iraq will end up costing us, and what we could have done with that. (sigh)

[RandomGuy]

http://www.apolloalliance.org/

One organization dedicated to that.

[RandomGuy]

Oh yeah, one final bit before I have to get to work...

The speculators who have been jumping into commodities for the last few months and driving the price of oil have started dumping their futures positions and buying bonds.

The prices of US treasuries are coming off 50 year lows (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601009&sid=aa_pN96kfSOk&refer=bond) on the bond market from what I heard on NPR on the way to work this morning. (click link to go to Bloomberg.com news article on bond market)

Look for oil to plummet, and inflation fears to subside.

All the money that used to be in stocks looking for returns went to commodities, and now is chasing bonds.

Look for stocks to be bearish for some time, I would guess, and a few rather nasty days to come in the next few months.

Yikes.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh yeah, one final bit before I have to get to work...

The speculators who have been jumping into commodities for the last few months and driving the price of oil have started dumping their futures positions and buying bonds.

---

Look for oil to plummet, and inflation fears to subside.

This is a real factor since oil is traded in the futures market. However, there is real demand for oil too. I can agree with a drop, but nothing that would deserve the term plummeting. Gold is also run up a bit higher than it should be. I hadn't compared the graphs, but heard that an ounce of gold stays within a small range of buying about 100 barrels or oil. This is because the two primary driving forces for their prices are supply and demand along with currency exchange values. They are both world commodities and they both indicate a level of wealth.

If we want to see oil below $50 again, we need to increase production far more than the law makers who suck the green weenies will allow.



All the money that used to be in stocks looking for returns went to commodities, and now is chasing bonds.

I'm sure some are. There is still in my opinion a better return rate investing in foreign ventures that our dollar is slipping against the owning countries.



Look for stocks to be bearish for some time, I would guess, and a few rather nasty days to come in the next few months.

Yikes.

They have been bearish for some time now. I don't see them dropping any lower than maybe 11,000 on the Dow, but I am far from a good predictor on stocks. I long ago stated the reason for the drop in the stock markets wasn't anything indicating a bad economy, but because investors see a better return in following the drop of the dollar. Say for example you got out of the USA stock with $100,000 and invested it in a good company that is in the Euro valued exchange soon after the dollar started dropping. Lets say this was when the Euro cost us $1.20. Once the dollar hits bottom, lets say at maybe when the Euro costs $1.80, you sell back your overseas stocks. Didn't take long to make 50% now, did it.

I firmly believe this is why the US markets are in decline. Only a few industries are having issues, and that always happens. I really think once the dollar stabilizes against other currencies, our market will go back past 14,000, and then some, not taking long to pass 15,000. Now of course, this is assuming that the 2008 elections don't scare investors with how the next congress and president will change laws.

[RandomGuy]

This is a real factor since oil is traded in the futures market. However, there is real demand for oil too. I can agree with a drop, but nothing that would deserve the term plummeting. Gold is also run up a bit higher than it should be. I hadn't compared the graphs, but heard that an ounce of gold stays within a small range of buying about 100 barrels or oil. This is because the two primary driving forces for their prices are supply and demand along with currency exchange values. They are both world commodities and they both indicate a level of wealth.

If we want to see oil below $50 again, we need to increase production far more than the law makers who suck the green weenies will allow.


I'm sure some are. There is still in my opinion a better return rate investing in foreign ventures that our dollar is slipping against the owning countries.


They have been bearish for some time now. I don't see them dropping any lower than maybe 11,000 on the Dow, but I am far from a good predictor on stocks. I long ago stated the reason for the drop in the stock markets wasn't anything indicating a bad economy, but because investors see a better return in following the drop of the dollar. Say for example you got out of the USA stock with $100,000 and invested it in a good company that is in the Euro valued exchange soon after the dollar started dropping. Lets say this was when the Euro cost us $1.20. Once the dollar hits bottom, lets say at maybe when the Euro costs $1.80, you sell back your overseas stocks. Didn't take long to make 50% now, did it.

I firmly believe this is why the US markets are in decline. Only a few industries are having issues, and that always happens. I really think once the dollar stabilizes against other currencies, our market will go back past 14,000, and then some, not taking long to pass 15,000. Now of course, this is assuming that the 2008 elections don't scare investors with how the next congress and president will change laws.

I pretty much agree with everything here.

By "plummet" I meant back off from the record highs. From what I hear the demand "floor" for current supplies is about 80 bucks, and I will defer to that. I know demand for oil is strong, and will likely only go UP.

You are completely mistaken that all it would take is relaxing environmental laws to increase production and get oil below $50. If you have some source to back that up, I would like to see it.

The real factors driving the price of oil aren't "evirnonmental laws restricting supply" it is that proven fields are being tapped out, faster than some would care to admit, and that new fields aren't being found as fast as they are being used up.

Peak oil is either here, coming very soon, or has passed. Technology can extend the life of oil fields somewhat, but ultimately we must figure out how to deal with the reality of oil becoming increasingly more scarce compared to demand.

Don't let your political leanings cloud your analysis.

[Wild Cobra]

You are completely mistaken that all it would take is relaxing environmental laws to increase production and get oil below $50 If you have some source to back that up, I would like to see it.

It might not hit $50 again, but we can at least get close. It would be dependant on how much more production we can provide. We have learned from the past, before the environmental concerns were as strong that when we increase our share of production, OPEC reduces their price to make our own ventures unprofitable, and maintain their share of exports. World demand is now high enough that they cannot produce enough to make our ventures unprofitable. We can now, if we want, produce enough for our own usage. It would also help to do subsidies or low cost loans on a one time to build basis for the smaller oil companies. If only the larger oil companies get to drill for most the oil we need, it doesn't do much for competition.

Our oil is not "sweet crude" which is the preferred oil to refine. It is costly to refine to remove the pollutants as it's done. That is one reason as to why, as we buy from other countries, we sell much of our oil we produce.

As for a source, it is knowledge built over time. We have found huge potential with unknown capacities. Making it happen to drill is a tricky thing.



The real factors driving the price of oil aren't "evirnonmental laws restricting supply" it is that proven fields are being tapped out, faster than some would care to admit, and that new fields aren't being found as fast as they are being used up.

This theory is debatable. First of all, the term fossil fuel related to oil is now known to be incorrect. Oil is produced by different methods than originally thought, and it is believe that this high pressure chemistry under the earth continues to refill the pockets of oil we tap. We simply take it out faster than it is created in most places.



Peak oil is either here, coming very soon, or has passed. Technology can extend the life of oil fields somewhat, but ultimately we must figure out how to deal with the reality of oil becoming increasingly more scarce compared to demand.

That theory, at least for the projected timelines, has already been blown out of the water. Even if oil doesn't get recreated under the earth, we are far away from 'peak oil' still.



Don't let your political leanings cloud your analysis.

They don't. Truth is more a conservative ideal than a liberal one. I strive for the truth. I don't let a political stance on an ideal make me blind to the truth. Because I strive for the truth, I have very little regard for liberals as most of the liberal pundits and politicians are chronic liars. As human as I am, I do make occasion mistakes still.

[Purple & Gold]

This is true. The only way I see it going cheaper would be if we increased production to 100% support our own habbit, and legislation restricted oil companies in the USA to not selling any overseas. Competition would then keep the price down as oil companies competed for market share.

Repubs going against the free market?? WTF is happening here??

[Purple & Gold]

They have been bearish for some time now. I don't see them dropping any lower than maybe 11,000 on the Dow, but I am far from a good predictor on stocks. I long ago stated the reason for the drop in the stock markets wasn't anything indicating a bad economy, but because investors see a better return in following the drop of the dollar. Say for example you got out of the USA stock with $100,000 and invested it in a good company that is in the Euro valued exchange soon after the dollar started dropping. Lets say this was when the Euro cost us $1.20. Once the dollar hits bottom, lets say at maybe when the Euro costs $1.80, you sell back your overseas stocks. Didn't take long to make 50% now, did it.

I firmly believe this is why the US markets are in decline. Only a few industries are having issues, and that always happens. I really think once the dollar stabilizes against other currencies, our market will go back past 14,000, and then some, not taking long to pass 15,000. Now of course, this is assuming that the 2008 elections don't scare investors with how the next congress and president will change laws.

At least you're honest and admit that Repubs like a weak dollar. :toast

[RandomGuy]

[QUOTE=Wild Cobra]It might not hit $50 again, but we can at least get close. It would be dependant on how much more production we can provide. We have learned from the past, before the environmental concerns were as strong that when we increase our share of production, OPEC reduces their price to make our own ventures unprofitable,

Hold it right there. OPEC doesn't set the price to anything. They either increase or decrease production to affect the price. OPEC increasingly does not appear to be able to do that anymore, for reasons I have already stated.



We can now, if we want, produce enough [oil]for our own usage.

Source?



It would also help to do subsidies or low cost loans on a one time to build basis for the smaller oil companies. If only the larger oil companies get to drill for most the oil we need, it doesn't do much for competition.

We need to subsidize companies that are earning record prices for their product? Why not let the efficiencies of the market determine how we allocate our energy dollars?

The problem you are missing is that the free market system is getting the smaller companies into the marginal fields. I read oil company financials and see conference call transcripts to see this happening already. The other problem is that smaller companies simply don't have access to the massive amounts of capital that are required to get at some of the deeper oil off the continental shelves.

That won't change without MASSIVE subsidies, and I would argue that energy money would be waaaay more efficiently spent on encouraging energy efficiency.



Our oil is not "sweet crude" which is the preferred oil to refine. It is costly to refine to remove the pollutants as it's done. That is one reason as to why, as we buy from other countries, we sell much of our oil we produce.

...and then buy it back after it has been refined. It takes more energy to get sour crude to the point where it is a usable product. This reduces its return on invested energy.



As for a source, it is knowledge built over time. We have found huge potential with unknown capacities. Making it happen to drill is a tricky thing.

"huge potential with unknown capacities" = wild ass guess. Hardly the thing to base sound energy policy on.



This theory is debatable. First of all, the term fossil fuel related to oil is now known to be incorrect. Oil is produced by different methods than originally thought, and it is believe that this high pressure chemistry under the earth continues to refill the pockets of oil we tap. We simply take it out faster than it is created in most places.

That refil is simply "seepage" from adjacent areas, not new oil and it does little to recharge the field to any real usable degree.

If you take oil out faster than it is created, and faster than you can find it, you STILL have a peak oil scenario. Whether that peak is passed or not is debateable, but what is not debateable is that it WILL happen. Eventually the costs of extracting the deep water oil will surpass the relative costs of other energy sources. You can either plan for this eventuality or pretend to be surprised when it happens, and scramble to react. I prefer the former.



That theory, at least for the projected timelines, has already been blown out of the water. Even if oil doesn't get recreated under the earth, we are far away from 'peak oil' still.

Source?



Truth is more a conservative ideal than a liberal one.

Then how do you explain the popularity of Ann Coulter?

[smeagol]

Oil prices will come down!

You heard it from smegma first . . .

[Wild Cobra]

Hold it right there. OPEC doesn't set the price to anything. They either increase or decrease production to affect the price. OPEC increasingly does not appear to be able to do that anymore, for reasons I have already stated.

Duh....

Cherry picking are we? I followed that up with:


World supply is now high enough that they cannot produce enough to make our ventures unprofitable.

Now I did misspeak in that I meant to say:


World demand is now high enough that they cannot produce enough to make our ventures unprofitable.

But I still said:


that they cannot produce enough to make our ventures unprofitable.

I thought it would be obvious I was presenting a mindset.



Source?

I'm not going to bother to find a source. I don't remember where I encounter everything I learn. Do you?

It has to do with oil we have found in several places that we do not drill for. Couple that with what we do sell to other countries, and we have quite a bit of oil.



We need to subsidize companies that are earning record prices for their product? Why not let the efficiencies of the market determine how we allocate our energy dollars?

Come on RG. Am I wrong to consider you an intelligent person? I specifically said for the smaller oil companies. There are more than just the large ones we all hear of.



The problem you are missing is that the free market system is getting the smaller companies into the marginal fields. I read oil company financials and see conference call transcripts to see this happening already. The other problem is that smaller companies simply don't have access to the massive amounts of capital that are required to get at some of the deeper oil off the continental shelves.

Now you are saying what I thought I obviously implied!

I suggest you take those colored glasses off and re-read my posting.



That won't change without MASSIVE subsidies, and I would argue that energy money would be waaaay more efficiently spent on encouraging energy efficiency.

I have no problem with encouraging efficiency as long as it doesn't go overboard. It doesn't cost much to do that and it can pay for itself too. You just pass regulations that set standards. Take the "guzzler tax" and expand it. I have no problem with it. It would be difficult to make the right exceptions for commercial vehicles vs. personal use, but I'll bet it could be done.



...and then buy it back after it has been refined. It takes more energy to get sour crude to the point where it is a usable product. This reduces its return on invested energy.

Like I said, it's more costly. Heavy oil takes more energy. Oil that isn't sweet takes more pollution controls. Places like China don't care, so we sell it to them.

Again. Take those colored glasses off please.

Who do we sell oil to and buy back the refined product? That's a new one to me.



"huge potential with unknown capacities" = wild ass guess. Hardly the thing to base sound energy policy on.

We only know the lower capacity of most the places we found. We really don't know the upper capacities. Statistically, they are far greater that currently stated.



That refil is simply "seepage" from adjacent areas, not new oil and it does little to recharge the field to any real usable degree.

Like I said, it's debatable. However, there are theories otherwise that are very promising to be correct that seepage isn't the only method.



If you take oil out faster than it is created, and faster than you can find it, you STILL have a peak oil scenario. Whether that peak is passed or not is debateable, but what is not debateable is that it WILL happen.
Yes, Yes, and No. We cannot make proper educated guesses yet how fast the earth cooks up oil in her deep chemistry labs.


Eventually the costs of extracting the deep water oil will surpass the relative costs of other energy sources. You can either plan for this eventuality or pretend to be surprised when it happens, and scramble to react. I prefer the former.




Source?

Are you saying I must disprove the current projected timeline of peak oil?



Then how do you explain the popularity of Ann Coulter?

LOL... If you know her works, you know when she is being factual, sarcastic, or intentionally lighting fires under liberals. When you check things out, she is rarely wrong in what she presents as facts.

[RandomGuy]

When you check things out, [Ann Coulter] is rarely wrong in what she presents as facts.

Ok, you just lost any respect I had for you right there.

Results 11 - 20 of about 1,600,000 for ann coulter lies. (0.04 seconds)

http://www.google.com/search?q=ann+coulter+lies&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

[clambake]

Ok, you just lost any respect I had for you right there.
busted. if you don't believe ann coulter then you are far too intelligent to be american.

get out, foreigner!