Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 68valu on April 06, 2008, 05:31:34 PM
-
Apparently, now that we have financed and built up the middle east from our purchasing of oil and development of the oil fields, which the rest of the world is now benefiting from, our money is no good any longer!
It's time we tap our strategic reserves and let the middle east revert back to life without our help or money.
see how long it takes for them to start crying.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080406/iran_opec.html
-
gee, what a news.................
do you think what about was this war in Iraq?
-
gee, what a news.................
do you think what about was this war in Iraq?
:huh :huh
-
Apparently, now that we have financed and built up the middle east from our purchasing of oil and development of the oil fields, which the rest of the world is now benefiting from, our money is no good any longer!
It's time we tap our strategic reserves and let the middle east revert back to life without our help or money.
see how long it takes for them to start crying.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080406/iran_opec.html
Someone on here posted something that said that OPEC and other oil nations' were gonna start selling on the Euro.
-
gee, what a news.................
do you think what about was this war in Iraq?
Thats exactly why we need to tap our own oil reserves. If only long enough to break the oil cartel.(OPEC)
right now the oil market is a monopoly. the only way to break a monopoly is to bring other suppliers into the market. once we have the ability to purchase from other sources, OPEC will have to compete with that source. Right now they have no competition.
-
If you think our dropping out of the oil market in the ME would do that you really need to do more global marketing study. There is something called China that would happily buy up our share at reduiced prices without our competition. There are other countries also happy to do so as well.
-
If you think our dropping out of the oil market in the ME would do that you really need to do more global marketing study. There is something called China that would happily buy up our share at reduiced prices without our competition. There are other countries also happy to do so as well.
You offer a weak rebuttal with no substance and no alternative solution. That implies you feel that no changes should be made to the current system and we should continue along the path we are on.
If you know so much about macro economics then what should we do, if not continue along the current path?
The only point you made was "happily buy up our share at reduiced prices" which has no basis but does indicate my point of forcing the price down.
I don't care what China and these other countries you claim do. I care about our future. China has the manpower and economic resources to purchase oil at the current prices but is now only beginning to reach an equal plane with us on an industrial level. That is part of the problem with the world economy. what we used to have almost exclusive use of, we are now having to compete on a more global scale now because of the modernization of formerly 3rd world contries.
Tapping our oil reserves is unavoidable, short of reducing our use of fossil fuels. We need to do it before we bankrupt ourselves, while at the same time building up our enemies coffers.
If you have a better solution, lets hear it. I'm willing to listen. Or do you think the "Status Quo" is OK. Lets keep bankrolling our enemy while bankrupting ourselves.
Or should we just hope it all just goes away!!
Maybe we should all just pray!!
-
just buy less gas, gas consumption in the US has been dropping for the last 10 weeks.
-
You're talking about nationalizing our oil industry. Which would be great if it really worked (historic inefficiency and lack of competitiveness) or if it were even workable in the first place in the US.
Well, lets see. We're the No.1 consumer of oil -- with a bullet -- so to speak. About four times more than anyone else (Millions of barrels per day):
United States: 19.993 (actually 21 now)
Japan: 5.423
China: 4.854
Germany: 2.814
Russia: 2.531
But we are ranked 16th from the standpoint of reserves.
1 World 1,025,000,000,000
2 Saudi Arabia 261,700,000,000
3 Canada 178,900,000,000
4 Iran 130,800,000,000
5 Iraq 112,500,000,000
6 United Arab Emirates 97,800,000,000
7 Kuwait 96,500,000,000
8 Venezuela 78,000,000,000
9 Russia 69,000,000,000
10 Libya 38,000,000,000
11 Nigeria 34,000,000,000
12 European Union 28,210,000,000
13 Kazakhstan 26,000,000,000
14 United Kingdom 25,410,000,000
15 Angola 22,880,000,000
16 United States 22,450,000,000
Now, I don't believe this takes into account tar sands and deep gulf and the difficult fields under the great plains that are viable at $40+ per bbl oil. But, since it costs the Saudi's about $5 per bbl to produce their crude you had better really hope we don't enter another oil glut at any point in the near future if you are an investor, or if you are a taxpayer and we have nationalized the industry. ANWR, is literally a drop in the bucket whether it is included in the above figure or not.
We are currently producing oil at a rate second only to the Saudi's (millions of barrels per day):
Saudi Arabia: 8.528
United States: 8.091
Russia: 7.014
Iran: 3.775
Mexico: 3.560
Norway: 3.408
China: 3.297
Venezuela: 3.137
And yet we can only meet about 45 percent of our demand. If we more than doubled our production (probably take 10-20 years) our reserves which are scheduled to last 12 years will only last 3-4, but it wouldn't matter since we couldn't increase that production by the time they will run out at current rates. Saudi will have cheap oil for 81 years by comparison.
Now, this is based on economic (cheap) oil. We can easily produce oil at 8 times the cost to produce it in the areas with the greatest reserves. So, we can easily have more expensive oil than the rest of the world by a huge margin from many decades. Remember, current $100 bbl oil is based on a subtle shift in supply and demand, market speculation and some 30 percent the devaluation of the US dollar. It is not only possible, but highly likely that we will shortly see oil well below current prices unless OPEC really hauls down production.
But, if they did so they would be endangering their position by encouraging additional supply that will ultimately chip away at their dominance. Perhaps just slightly but it doesn't take much -- only a few percent relative to supply and demand not even counting "uneconomic" oil. And of course, there are other players beyond OPEC who will undersell (increase production) them at some point, and usually things collaspe like a house of cards at that point. We can produce $40 or $50 or $60 per bbl oil if we have to all day long. But, they can just as easily maintain $20-$30 a bbl oil with healthy profits and make our investment in tar sands etc,. non viable. It's all a balancing act.
There is a reason why things are the way they are.
Charon
-
i was pretty sure we had 118.15 years of resources according too my calc. but yes, they will not want us to produce anymore than we do now, so as to keep there income and power! what we must do is show them we are willing to produce, so that they will make it harder for us to do so ,I.E. cut the price of there oil to keep us from wanting to pump more of our own!
also if we keep trying to find new ways to transport goods, and each other, in 118 years we may not be very dependant on oil whatsoever!
-
just buy less gas, gas consumption in the US has been dropping for the last 10 weeks.
$4.20 per gallon gas might have something to do with that
-
i was pretty sure we had 118.15 years of resources according too my calc. but yes, they will not want us to produce anymore than we do now, so as to keep there income and power! what we must do is show them we are willing to produce, so that they will make it harder for us to do so ,I.E. cut the price of there oil to keep us from wanting to pump more of our own!
also if we keep trying to find new ways to transport goods, and each other, in 118 years we may not be very dependant on oil whatsoever!
Well said.
That was my point. Force opec to lower prices through increased domestic production, even if it means nationalizing our domestic resources. Nationalizing would work if it was structured and managed properly, much like our railroad system. If the price drops down to a nonfeasible extraction level, then we have accomplished what we set out to do. If the price remains high, then at least our dollars are staying in the USA instead of in our enemies bank accounts. We also increase jobs in OUR country.
It is not just OPEC, but our greedy US oil companies contributing to this problem. We cannot allow private oil companies (record profits every year) to dictate our oil prices, as this is a matter of national security, not capitalism.
What if this has ANY credence:
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/local/story.html?id=5f07f6b9-815f-4058-9e25-17fb0c61cd61
And most importantly we need to reduce our fossil fuel dependence.
-
I think we have plenty of oil in the world to last us a hundred years or more. However, much of the oil we (the US, The West, etc.) have access to comes in at a much higher price point fom a production standpoint than the Middle East.
Much of our current price hinges on a few percentage points shift in production and market reactions. China and India are driving that and their demand will increase, but so will production (though it has lagged natrurally and perhaps now artificially). And, as noted the devalued dollar is about 30 percent of the current cost.
But,
The cost to produce a barrel of Saudi crude is $5.
I've seen an "average" figure for world crude in general at $10.
So, any solution from a reserves standpoint has to come in at, say, under $20 in cost to be attractive and the closer to $10 the better.
Take the oil glut of the 1990s. While we were paying $1 and change for gasoline we could have easily been paying $2 and change per gallon if we had a nationalized oil industry using our full resources which come in at over $40 per bbl to produce.
That makes altrernative energy an interesting investment now. A lot of excitement, a lot of interest... Like riding the dot com bubble. Just know when to jump off.
I used to be of a mind that we would see at least $50 per bble oil for some time but that opinion has changed.
I interviewed an analyst, Peter Beutel, who said some convincing things that lead me to believe we will see a 1990s style glut hit within 4-8 years. Of course, a number of years later we will likely seee another shock. If you look at the numbers -- reserves, cost and demand it makes sense too. I can't imagine, though it still might be the case, that the Middle East will not have/or soon will catch up to Chinese and Indian demand. Then we are back to the OPEC games, and as recently as 2000 OPEC was happy to try and set a price basket of, as I remember, $22-$24 per bbl.
Will they work to set that figure in the future? I don't know. They have had a hard time staying honest as a group at such efforts. And, on the other side, they have new data on the price impact on demand that may push for a higher basket goal. But, one imagines they will work to keep prices below $40 once demand drops relative to supply.
FWIW Beutel though OPEC might have severly screwed themselves with this run up, long term.
The one thing that hasn't changed really is that since 1970 we have suffered from an increasingly diminished level of control over our energy destiny and that is not going to go away until the cheap oil gets used up.
Charon
-
$4.20 per gallon gas might have something to do with that
I paid 3.06 this morning for 85 octane. They only sell 85, 87, and 91 around here.
-
Well said.
That was my point. Force opec to lower prices through increased domestic production, even if it means nationalizing our domestic resources. Nationalizing would work if it was structured and managed properly, much like our railroad system. If the price drops down to a nonfeasible extraction level, then we have accomplished what we set out to do. If the price remains high, then at least our dollars are staying in the USA instead of in our enemies bank accounts. We also increase jobs in OUR country.
It is not just OPEC, but our greedy US oil companies contributing to this problem. We cannot allow private oil companies (record profits every year) to dictate our oil prices, as this is a matter of national security, not capitalism.
Your point doesn't make economic sense when our resources cost $40+ to produce. As for the railroads, those are private with the one exception -- Amtrack -- being hardly a success story. Let's face it. Communism is a failure.
As for the Greedy Oil<tm> companies -- just why weren't they greedy during the 1990s? Why did they push the price of crude down to $10 bbl? Under your model US drivers would have paid twice as much for
gasoline, if not more, during the 1990s.
Charon
-
Well said.
That was my point. Force opec to lower prices through increased domestic production, even if it means nationalizing our domestic resources. Nationalizing would work if it was structured and managed properly, much like our railroad system. If the price drops down to a nonfeasible extraction level, then we have accomplished what we set out to do. If the price remains high, then at least our dollars are staying in the USA instead of in our enemies bank accounts. We also increase jobs in OUR country.
It is not just OPEC, but our greedy US oil companies contributing to this problem. We cannot allow private oil companies (record profits every year) to dictate our oil prices, as this is a matter of national security, not capitalism.
What if this has ANY credence:
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/local/story.html?id=5f07f6b9-815f-4058-9e25-17fb0c61cd61
And most importantly we need to reduce our fossil fuel dependence.
Communism never works. It has never worked in the history of all mankind. Why do you people keep thinking that this time will be different?
-
I paid 3.06 this morning for 85 octane. They only sell 85, 87, and 91 around here.
In Rhode Island a few station are at $4+. The worst I have heard of was at $4.22 for regular.
-
As for the Bakken formation link posted. We covered that a couple of weeks ago. Of the recoverable oil, the extraction cost is estimated to be $20 -$40. I have yet to see a breakout on how much is at $20 and how much is at $40, and this is using the latest breakthrough technologies.
But, I have no doubt there are investment opportunities available. Get in on the ground floor (just make sure the next stop isn't the basement).
Charon
-
Communism never works. It has never worked in the history of all mankind. Why do you people keep thinking that this time will be different?
i hope that you didnt misunderstand me, i was not talking about nationalizing, i was talking about easing the ristrictions on production and refinery building, to show that we are willing to pump and refine our own fuel,
in order to drive the price down(supply and demand type of thing) i am not for nationalizing anything however if worst comes to worst i do think pulling our crude off the world market might not be a bad thing!
-
Your point doesn't make economic sense when our resources cost $40+ to produce. As for the railroads, those are private with the one exception -- Amtrack -- being hardly a success story. Let's face it. Communism is a failure.
As for the Greedy Oil<tm> companies -- just why weren't they greedy during the 1990s? Why did they push the price of crude down to $10 bbl? Under your model US drivers would have paid twice as much for
gasoline, if not more, during the 1990s.
Charon
but the difference is that the money that it takes to produce it is staying HERE, and is being recirculated HERE, not being used to arm and equip our enemies. (Iran, Libya, Venezuala all major OPEC suppliers) If the global price drops and means it is more economical to purchase it on the free market then that is what will be done. Our current private US oil companies can still offer their products side by side with our national domestic producer if they are competitive.
The railroads in the USA are not strictly private, as you imply but rather are regulated by the US government as to fees they are able to charge in exchange for having no competitors, as it would be counterproductive and not cost efficient to lay duplicate track. This could be done in this scenario as well. I do not consider that communism as you do.
I don't really care what the oil companies did in the 90's because they are more than making up for it now. $123 Billion in PROFITS in 2007 (yes thats with a B). now I understand that is their right as private companies but I also understand collusion and monopoly as well.
http://priceofoil.org/2008/04/02/big-oil%e2%80%99s-biggest-joke/
-
but the difference is that the money that it takes to produce it is staying HERE, and is being recirculated HERE, not being used to arm and equip our enemies. (Iran, Libya, Venezuala all major OPEC suppliers) If the global price drops and means it is more economical to purchase it on the free market then that is what will be done.
Guess what. That's the way it already works. Under your plan, when it is cheaper -- much cheaper for a decade or so -- we are stuck paying for $40-$50 bbl oil. Now, frankly, that's the same way the socialist govts. in Europe use taxes to curb demand. Sell $4 gallon gas, 85 percent being taxes and you cut demand and less money flows overseas and you use the money to support social programs. Everone drives a Smart car. Frankly that's a better model than yours since the extra money would be eaten up by the more expensive production costs.
You assume $100 bbl oil, or even $60 is going to be the way moving forward. If that were so there would be plenty of investment in the free market in these opportunities. But that is not the history of how the markets work. You may choose not to remember the past, and be free with our tax dollars and potentially harm our long term energy costs -- but that's your choice. You can feel free to take every penny you own and invest in any of these alternative energy schemes.
The railroads in the USA are not strictly private, as you imply but rather are regulated by the US government as to fees they are able to charge in exchange for having no competitors, as it would be counterproductive and not cost efficient to lay duplicate track. This could be done in this scenario as well. I do not consider that communism as you do.
So as you point out, they are not run by the Govt. but face some Govt. regulation just like most heavy industries and have to actually earn a profit independent of the other haulers and have to answer to investors. However, your scheme would imply a Venezuelan-style nationalized oil system that works best (with many burdens) when: a. you have enough reserves to cover domestic needs comfortably. b. Those reserves come at an extraction cost comparable to the world market. Ours fails both of those tests. Of course the Venezuelan experience is going to be a long term disaster, but much of that will be related to Chavez’s broader Marxist agenda. However, the rest of the world has moved rapidly away from national oil companies (except for countries like the Saudi’s where the advantages are overwhelming)
In fact, if we nationalized our oil production using these non-competitive resources we would lock ourselves into $2 plus gas while the rest of the world would be trying to give gasoline away during the same time (given the removal of US demand from the global demand pool). Wouldn't it be great to be paying $2.50 per gallon while the rest of the world paid $0.75??
but I also understand collusion and monopoly as well.
You must understand it better than the FTC. There have taken a close look at the oil industry (several I believe) in recent years, and no smoke or fire. Just simple economic forces at work. BTW, for the second time, why did these all powerful colluders "decide" to barely turn a profit for much of the 1990s? Since they have the magic power to manipulate the global commodities markets, why just wait until demand jumped in China and India, 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq with threats against Iran, Katrina with devastating impact on us off shore terminaling and refining and at the same time production lagged to secretly manipulate the markets into driving up the price of oil?
-
i hope that you didnt misunderstand me, i was not talking about nationalizing, i was talking about easing the ristrictions on production and refinery building, to show that we are willing to pump and refine our own fuel,
in order to drive the price down(supply and demand type of thing) i am not for nationalizing anything however if worst comes to worst i do think pulling our crude off the world market might not be a bad thing!
I was quoting and insulting Valu. I think all restrictions should be razed.
-
Guess what. That's the way it already works. Under your plan, when it is cheaper -- much cheaper for a decade or so -- we are stuck paying for $40-$50 bbl oil. Now, frankly, that's the same way the socialist govts. in Europe use taxes to curb demand. Sell $4 gallon gas, 85 percent being taxes and you cut demand and less money flows overseas and you use the money to support social programs. Everone drives a Smart car. Frankly that's a better model than yours since the extra money would be eaten up by the more expensive production costs.
You assume $100 bbl oil, or even $60 is going to be the way moving forward. If that were so there would be plenty of investment in the free market in these opportunities. But that is not the history of how the markets work. You may choose not to remember the past, and be free with our tax dollars and potentially harm our long term energy costs -- but that's your choice. You can feel free to take every penny you own and invest in any of these alternative energy schemes.
So as you point out, they are not run by the Govt. but face some Govt. regulation just like most heavy industries and have to actually earn a profit independent of the other haulers and have to answer to investors. However, your scheme would imply a Venezuelan-style nationalized oil system that works best (with many burdens) when: a. you have enough reserves to cover domestic needs comfortably. b. Those reserves come at an extraction cost comparable to the world market. Ours fails both of those tests. Of course the Venezuelan experience is going to be a long term disaster, but much of that will be related to Chavez’s broader Marxist agenda. However, the rest of the world has moved rapidly away from national oil companies (except for countries like the Saudi’s where the advantages are overwhelming)
In fact, if we nationalized our oil production using these non-competitive resources we would lock ourselves into $2 plus gas while the rest of the world would be trying to give gasoline away during the same time (given the removal of US demand from the global demand pool). Wouldn't it be great to be paying $2.50 per gallon while the rest of the world paid $0.75??
You must understand it better than the FTC. There have taken a close look at the oil industry (several I believe) in recent years, and no smoke or fire. Just simple economic forces at work. BTW, for the second time, why did these all powerful colluders "decide" to barely turn a profit for much of the 1990s? Since they have the magic power to manipulate the global commodities markets, why just wait until demand jumped in China and India, 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq with threats against Iran, Katrina with devastating impact on us off shore terminaling and refining and at the same time production lagged to secretly manipulate the markets into driving up the price of oil?
The railroads are unique in how the government regulates them. The fees they can charge are within strict guidelines and their emloyees are in a totally different and unique retirement system. They are not eligible for SSI. Does that make them communists? Or the system a COMMUNIST REGIME?
I am still not as comfortable as you are with financing our enemies war against us.
Calling me a communist is a cheap shot and designed to gain favor from fellow o'club members. I am a US Army veteran and would die to defend our way of life. Nothing I have stated is communist in any way, but using the "C" word would certainly get less
educated people on your side. (lasersailer184)
I think you are suffering from McCarthyism
You are still missing the point that the increased production costs would remain here. Do you think that dollars are just poured in the wells until the oil rises to the top under the money. No, the increased costs are WAGES kept here and respent here, equipment manufactured and paid for HERE, and a constant stream of suppliers working HERE. Not going to our enemies and non allies.
unlike you, if given the choice, I would choose not to pay our KNOWN enemies regardless of the cost as the cost in the future may be FAR greater than any monetary amount.
-
i was pretty sure we had 118.15 years of resources according too my calc. but yes, they will not want us to produce anymore than we do now, so as to keep there income and power! what we must do is show them we are willing to produce, so that they will make it harder for us to do so ,I.E. cut the price of there oil to keep us from wanting to pump more of our own!
also if we keep trying to find new ways to transport goods, and each other, in 118 years we may not be very dependant on oil whatsoever!
LMFAO!!!!!! Keep thinking that. Within 30-35 years, you'll be in tears. 118? ROTFLMMFAO!!!!!
-
The railroads are unique in how the government regulates them. The fees they can charge are within strict guidelines and their emloyees are in a totally different and unique retirement system. They are not eligible for SSI. Does that make them communists? Or the system a COMMUNIST REGIME?
I think you overestimate the level of regulation by a considerable degree. Amtrack is the only nationalized rail operation it has and it suffers from the curse of subsidized operations and inefficiency just like the centrally operated business under the former Soviet Union.
By the mid-1990s, the ICC retained only limited regulatory authority. Under the ICC Termination Act of 1995, the commission was abolished at the end of the year. Some of its remaining responsibilities, including the power to set minimum rates and to pass on discontinuance of passenger train service, were eliminated entirely. Others, including the right to regulate rail mergers and rate discrimination, were assigned to the newly established Surface Transportation Board of the DOT.
I am still not as comfortable as you are with financing our enemies war against us.
Calling me a communist is a cheap shot and designed to gain favor from fellow o'club members. I am a US Army veteran and would die to defend our way of life. Nothing I have stated is communist in any way, but using the "C" word would certainly get less
educated people on your side. (lasersailer184)
I think you are suffering from McCarthyism
I'm not comfortable either with financing our enemies. But, the global oil market is what it is. And it operates the way it does, and OPEC has the power that it has (with definite free market limits) because it is cheaper for the American driver to take part in this market. We mainly have expensive oil left. They don't. We consume more oil than the next 4 countries below us combined. We can have the biggest bang for the buck by reducing demand. But, that would mean major changes to the American lifestyle. Most don't want to make those changes or you wouldn't see an SUV on the road, we would be dramatically expanding public transportation and encouraging telecommuting and doing a lot of fairly fundamental life changing things.
And, the last time I checked there was no MOS for economist in the Army. Your patriotism has nothing to do with economic realities. Your proposals are at best socialist, at worst communist and in either case are detrimental to our long term energy security and economy. In fact, pulling out of the world oil market and subsidizing unprofitable oil reserves are a lot closer to communism than socialism at this point in time. When the Saudis do it it makes sense. It's not communism or socialism for them since they hold such an abundant surplus of raw materials and have virtually nothing else to base their economy on. The countries that have had nationalized oil industries with more limited reserves have moved away from them ASAP in the 1990s except for those, like Saudi Arabia, where it makes a lot of sense (abundant cheap oil far beyond local demand).
If most of the difference between $5 bbl oil and $40 a bbl oil was labor, then you would be promoting a make work subsidy at the expense of American drivers (kinda socialist and in fact a cornerstone of many communist work programs in the USSR). If most of the cost involves things like energy (tar sands, for example) then in fact, you are spending a lot of money with nothing added in return. I was at a conference a few months back where a team from Imperial Oil in Canada provided an update on their efforts with Tar sands. The energy costs are so high they are considering local nuclear power to aid in processing (but, a lot of up front capital costs for that). Tar sands make sense at $50 or so.
Securing a supply of $40 to $50 or $50 bbl oil NOW only makes sense if we are never going back to cheaper prices. I'm not calling you a communist, or looking to insult you, but what you are proposing is in fact at best socialist. It is what it is. And, we already go there with Biofuels for much the same purpose and much the same "benefit." One thing to note is that investment is still soft in alternative energy even at $100 a bbl oil. Why? Because a lot of others are still wary we are here to stay at prices above $40. I though we might have crossed that threshold, but I have changed my mind. No one knows for sure, but a production cost of $10 is a real counter point to how far above that it can be sustained.
What type of car do you drive? If you really want to stick it to the man (at home or abroad) that's where to start. If you just want cheap gas for your full sized truck then nobody can help you there for 4-8 years.
Charon
-
Charon,
I do appreciate your input and comments and your numbers seem accurate, but I am not comfortable with financing the enemy, when it will definately come back to haunt us. (IT ALREADY IS) That is from my military training. I never said I was an economist. 91B1S - you figure it out if you like.
All I seem to get for alternatives to what I suggest are:
1. DO NOTHING opec and the oil companies will take care of us.BURY OUR HEADS IN THE SAND
2. reduce consumption. At least that is possible, but I fear that the prices will not reflect the lower demand and will be based on how much can be extracted from us instead of fair market value, as they just reduce output to keep prices inflated. Thats what happens in a "NO COMPITITION" environment. Thats whats going on now.
Do you have an alternative to the status quo, or are you content with our situation?
ANYONE?
I drive a tiny 4 cylinder pickup. Dont have off road vehicles or a boat, and commute
when possible.
-
Do you have an alternative to the status quo, or are you content with our situation?
The problem is there is no real option. No simple answers, no easy solutions.
Biofuels using current technology are not that viable without subsidies, and even with the hoped for breakthroughs will only make a small percentage reduction long term. Perhaps 3 percent of liquid fuel globally and maybe 10 percent or so with US motor fuels (but again supported by our tax dollars to some extent that grows as oil prices drop and that also impacts our food prices (likely to a greater extend because of speculation than true impact).
Oil sands and the Bakken formation etc. are good long term reserves, but only once the cheap oil starts to dry up. We even shut down wells domestically that are in production (but relatively expensive) when the price drops like it did in the 1990s with hydrologic issues that make it difficult to restart them. In fact, one counter to ANWR is that if we did develop it it might offset, to some extent, more expensive domestic production that would be brought off line.
Consumption is about all we can do, and a little bit will go a long way where the market speculation is concerned. But, we actually have to go far beyond even driving more efficient vehicles to get a real impact. Real cultural changing types of things.
Unfortunately, we have to give our money to people who are potentially our enemies. IMO I see the same thing with our relationship with China. Fortunately China still is a communist country with state controlled business and industry that cannot take full advantage of the boost. We (or at least Taiwan) has to hope they are as dependent on us as we have become on them. In the Middle East the Saudi's are manageable unless they get an Ayatollah one of these days. The Iranians are a PITA but they have their own worries as well. Iraq is a flip of the coin Kuwait etc. are fine. The oil princes need us as long as we don't encourage the religious fundamentalists. The silver lining is that we should see an oil glut and prices drop. If we have a real recession then it may be an ugly way to get back to $2 a gallon gas or maybe less. Also, the peak oil theory is a bit weak. So, it's just one of those things. Many countries have something sticking it to them. China has energy and water to deal with.
-
Charon, there are times that I really enjoy reading your thoughts.
-
LMFAO!!!!!! Keep thinking that. Within 30-35 years, you'll be in tears. 118? ROTFLMMFAO!!!!!
yea thats what they said 50 years ago,, o and we would all be flying around in personal aircraft instead of driving!
and none of us would have too work anymore cause the robots would do it all! take you'r doomsday crap somewhere else! there is more than 500billion barrels of oil that has been discovered on this continent since those estimates were made, as well as alternative oil reclamation that will take atleast that long to perfect, at which time we will start to press mine for oil (bet you never heard of that )
-
LMFAO!!!!!! Keep thinking that. Within 30-35 years, you'll be in tears. 118? ROTFLMMFAO!!!!!
I ran the numbers in a statitistics program. If oil consumption remained at its current level we would use all known oil sources up in 71.4 years, However oil consumption does not remain level. As resources become lower, prices go up, and consequently consumption goes down. Inserting a basic function of that into the model we have about 800 years left, but in 80-100 years from now the only viable uses for oil will be for making critical plastics, like those used in medical supplies.
-
1 World 1,025,000,000,000
2 Saudi Arabia 261,700,000,000
3 Canada 178,900,000,000 <-----------------------------------
4 Iran 130,800,000,000
5 Iraq 112,500,000,000
6 United Arab Emirates 97,800,000,000
7 Kuwait 96,500,000,000
8 Venezuela 78,000,000,000
9 Russia 69,000,000,000
10 Libya 38,000,000,000
11 Nigeria 34,000,000,000
12 European Union 28,210,000,000
13 Kazakhstan 26,000,000,000
14 United Kingdom 25,410,000,000
15 Angola 22,880,000,000
16 United States 22,450,000,000
Stupid Bush, he didnt have to invade Iraq to get oil, we could have just taken over Canada. It would have been over in a week or so. But then we would have had to put up with all the Canadains.
-
Stupid Bush, he didnt have to invade Iraq to get oil, we could have just taken over Canada. It would have been over in a week or so. But then we would have had to put up with all the Canadains.
But what if Canada went on strike :lol
-
We DO put up with the Canadians, they're freaking snow birds eh! :mad: :mad:
:devil
-
The problem is there is no real option. No simple answers, no easy solutions.
Biofuels using current technology are not that viable without subsidies, and even with the hoped for breakthroughs will only make a small percentage reduction long term. Perhaps 3 percent of liquid fuel globally and maybe 10 percent or so with US motor fuels (but again supported by our tax dollars to some extent that grows as oil prices drop and that also impacts our food prices (likely to a greater extend because of speculation than true impact).
Oil sands and the Bakken formation etc. are good long term reserves, but only once the cheap oil starts to dry up. We even shut down wells domestically that are in production (but relatively expensive) when the price drops like it did in the 1990s with hydrologic issues that make it difficult to restart them. In fact, one counter to ANWR is that if we did develop it it might offset, to some extent, more expensive domestic production that would be brought off line.
Consumption is about all we can do, and a little bit will go a long way where the market speculation is concerned. But, we actually have to go far beyond even driving more efficient vehicles to get a real impact. Real cultural changing types of things.
Unfortunately, we have to give our money to people who are potentially our enemies. IMO I see the same thing with our relationship with China. Fortunately China still is a communist country with state controlled business and industry that cannot take full advantage of the boost. We (or at least Taiwan) has to hope they are as dependent on us as we have become on them. In the Middle East the Saudi's are manageable unless they get an Ayatollah one of these days. The Iranians are a PITA but they have their own worries as well. Iraq is a flip of the coin Kuwait etc. are fine. The oil princes need us as long as we don't encourage the religious fundamentalists. The silver lining is that we should see an oil glut and prices drop. If we have a real recession then it may be an ugly way to get back to $2 a gallon gas or maybe less. Also, the peak oil theory is a bit weak. So, it's just one of those things. Many countries have something sticking it to them. China has energy and water to deal with.
I guess we are forever under the thumb of opec and are powerless to do anything about it. It's very comforting knowing we are eternally screwed.
Charon for president
-
I guess we are forever under the thumb of opec and are powerless to do anything about it. It's very comforting knowing we are eternally screwed.
Charon for president
I'm sorry reality sucks. Maybe if we get enough people together and sit on the lawn in front of the Lincoln Memorial, and hold hands and all wish REAL hard, we can levitate the White House and make the bad men give us our free oil.
Charon
-
The problem is there is no real option. No simple answers, no easy solutions.
Unfortunately, we have to give our money to people who are potentially our enemies. IMO I see the same thing with our relationship with China. Fortunately China still is a communist country with state controlled business and industry that cannot take full advantage of the boost. We (or at least Taiwan) has to hope they are as dependent on us as we have become on them. In the Middle East the Saudi's are manageable unless they get an Ayatollah one of these days. The Iranians are a PITA but they have their own worries as well. Iraq is a flip of the coin Kuwait etc. are fine. The oil princes need us as long as we don't encourage the religious fundamentalists. The silver lining is that we should see an oil glut and prices drop. If we have a real recession then it may be an ugly way to get back to $2 a gallon gas or maybe less. Also, the peak oil theory is a bit weak. So, it's just one of those things. Many countries have something sticking it to them. China has energy and water to deal with.
I also see china in a similar way. As they continue to develop, they will demand more and more of the global resources. They have somewhat of an advantage on us now, economically as they can produce substandard (by our manufacturing standards) products and sell on the global marketplace to 3rd world countries. We are unable to do that, and thus are losing global marketing abilities.
-
I'm sorry reality sucks. Maybe if we get enough people together and sit on the lawn in front of the Lincoln Memorial, and hold hands and all wish REAL hard, we can levitate the White House and make the bad men give us our free oil.
Charon
I think you are somewhat narrow minded to think that collusion does not exist just because the government says it isn't happening. Isn't it possible that they are part of it?
OPEC produces it and big oil is basically the distribution network.
Too many US dollars invested in foreign oil for the US government not to covertly work with the entities involved.
-
I think you are somewhat narrow minded to think that collusion does not exist just because the government says it isn't happening. Isn't it possible that they are part of it?
OPEC produces it and big oil is basically the distribution network.
Too many US dollars invested in foreign oil for the US government not to covertly work with the entities involved.
There certainly is collusion among OPEC countries. In fact these countries may be manipulating some of the newer foreign energy exchanges where there is less transparency. [edit: and this is an area to look into with the oil companies as well] And, the US govt. tries to influence OPEC from time to time and has foreign policy where Oil and OPEC are clearly factors in that policy. But, ultimately high energy prices hurt the US economy and a good US economy trumps any specific special interest the oil industry may enjoy.
There are plenty of enemies to big oil in the US political process -- people who can gain much mileage sticking it to the oil industry. It is also abundantly obvious that the Oil companies cannot, to any significant degree, control low price periods (which can run the better parts of a decade) and to some extent neither can OPEC, since it is not all powerful among oil suppliers or even within itself.
I am very open minded on the issue actually. I have spent a lot of time over the past 7 years or so seeing if what appeared to be smoke really was smoke, and if there was any fire beyond that. That includes talking to some of the nationally recognized consumer advocates who testify in front of Congress on the issue. I still review new findings and theories. But over that time, most of what I’ve seen have been emotional reactions among consumers who usually have no understanding at all about how such a commodity works in the markets, politicians grandstanding to play on those emotional reactions, and the FTC confirming what logic would dictate. You see knee jerk political actions like price controls being promoted by ignorant legislators (one of whom said “I can’t understand how a hurricane in the gulf can impact the price of gasoline here in the Northwest!) that not even the consumer advocates would consider to be a good idea.
If you look at how refiners operate, and how the major integrated oil companies operate, you see decisions that do not really reflect a “happy days are here forever” attitude. They know the markets will swing, and when that happens they will take it in the shorts and nobody will be holding show trial committee hearings in Washington on how to improve the industry’s comparatively dismal profits.
The reality I have come to see is that Oil prices are driven by basic supply and demand issues, and that your typical commodity investment forces react and over react to the fundamentals just like any other commodity. The added complication to this is international politics – and that’s a big one. What do you bet the markets are nervous about Iran’s decision to put online 5000 new centrifuges to process uranium? Whether we respond or not militarily the market will likely adjust to that.
Could I be misguided? Absolutely. I know more about the industry than most people in the US, but that's not saying much. And there are plenty of people who know a lot more about it than I do. And, I have been wrong (very wrong in some cases) about a lot of things over the years. My ignorance is boundless. But, I'm pretty easy to convince I'm wrong if facts and logic dictate that. So far I haven't seen anything that would suggest any major power among the oil industry itself to do more than make money when the markets dictate, and make far less money (compared to many other industrial sectors) when the markets dictate otherwise.
Charon
-
Once upon a time, there was a an obnoxious kid at school. He was rather small in stature, but seemed to enjoy egging on the far bigger kids who were stronger and had a history of defending themselves.
The bigger kids seemed to laugh at first, then tried to ignore the pest...not wanting to be known for smacking around smaller kids just because they could.
The obnoxious kid even threatened kids smaller than him...the "Napoleon Complex" growing bigger every day.
The obnoxious kid kept up the tirades, eventually to a point of doing everything possible to draw a fight from one of the bigger kids.
Finally, the day came that one of the bigger kids--sick and tired of the little obnoxious runt's tauntings-- and having obnoxious kid up in his face everyday--that he reached out with one punch and knocked the obnoxious kid to the ground, bloody nosed, the obnoxious kid got up and ran away, crying.
The obnoxious kid turned into a pretty good kid after that.
Khaddaffy learned his lesson after he found out that US forces could bloody his nose at will, and we didn't use stealth technology on Lybia.
Iran's Ahmattionpotato might sing a different tune if he got his nose bloodied.
ROX
-
I ran the numbers in a statitistics program. If oil consumption remained at its current level we would use all known oil sources up in 71.4 years, However oil consumption does not remain level. As resources become lower, prices go up, and consequently consumption goes down. Inserting a basic function of that into the model we have about 800 years left, but in 80-100 years from now the only viable uses for oil will be for making critical plastics, like those used in medical supplies.
But also keep in mind that even as prices rise and current users cut down, other markets consume more even with a rise in price. India, Pakistan, Russia China etc etc. Total consumption will continue to go up.