Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Tango on July 08, 2008, 08:16:19 PM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378241,00.html
Seems mighty funny to me that she proposes this since Newt Gringrich has been saying it for a few months now.
I guess after gas hits $5.00 a gallon shes gonna propose drilling in Alaska as though its never been suggested.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378241,00.html
Seems mighty funny to me that she proposes this since Newt Gringrich has been saying it for a few months now.
I guess after gas hits $5.00 a gallon shes gonna propose drilling in Alaska as though its never been suggested.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Single digit congress approval....record....need I say more?
-
Well considering we only contain about 2% of the worlds oil supply yet consume 25% of it on the one hand drilling offsore or even in alaska would probably to little to nothing to ease gase prices in the immediate future if at all.
On the other hand we arent allowed to drill for oil off our own coast yet China is drilling for oil 50 miles off our own coast.
I see no reason why. If other countries are doing it anyway. Why we cant. or why we shouldnt drill for oil off our own coast.
Envoronmental concerns? Hogwash.
When we think of environmantal disasters due to oil what is it we think about? Exxon valdez.
not oil rigs.
When katrina hit it damaged some rigs.
Was there an environmental disaster due to oil? No.
We base all our fears on E V. and that happened in large part because of a drunk captain.
Drill for the damn oil rather then let other countries grab it
-
.
-
The SPR has 700 million barrels and we use about 20 million a day, right?
Do the math Nancy. Maybe we better save it in case the shirt really hits the fan.
-
It is just a symptom of how Congress (BOTH parties, but liberals mostly) wants to do things. The solution to a budget shortfall is "borrow" from the Social Security fund. And KEEP borrowing. And KEEP borrowing. Now, there's nothing left to borrow, and Social Security is in danger of default.
So the solution to the "oil crisis" is to "borrow" from the strategic reserve. The problem is, soon enough, the strategic reserve is empty. THEN where do you "borrow"? And what happens when the NEXT crisis in the Middle East occurs?
And this is their "energy plan" for the future. :rolleyes:
-
It is just a symptom of how Congress (BOTH parties, but liberals mostly) wants to do things. The solution to a budget shortfall is "borrow" from the Social Security fund. And KEEP borrowing. And KEEP borrowing. Now, there's nothing left to borrow, and Social Security is in danger of default.
So the solution to the "oil crisis" is to "borrow" from the strategic reserve. The problem is, soon enough, the strategic reserve is empty. THEN where do you "borrow"? And what happens when the NEXT crisis in the Middle East occurs?
And this is their "energy plan" for the future. :rolleyes:
Sounds like the mortgage crisis!
-
The woman....is a loon. :frown:
-
Sounds like the mortgage crisis!
Nope. The mortgage crisis was brought on by cheap money (low interest loans) and banks being practically required to make sub prime loans to poor loan risks.
Of course, the mortgage crisis is helping to kill the value of the dollar, which only makes the cost of oil go up.
-
Lets not drill any of our oil until we have used up all of Iraq and Saudi Arabia's oil. Then we can let those heat stroked sand crawlers rot on the backside of the planet while we drill and use our own oil to our advantage.
Maybe they suspect thats what we are doing and thats why they are jacking us while they still can. Just a thought.....
-
It is just a symptom of how Congress (BOTH parties, but liberals mostly) wants to do things. The solution to a budget shortfall is "borrow" from the Social Security fund. And KEEP borrowing. And KEEP borrowing. Now, there's nothing left to borrow, and Social Security is in danger of default.
So the solution to the "oil crisis" is to "borrow" from the strategic reserve. The problem is, soon enough, the strategic reserve is empty. THEN where do you "borrow"? And what happens when the NEXT crisis in the Middle East occurs?
And this is their "energy plan" for the future. :rolleyes:
Perhaps selling from the strategic reserve would increase supply and help the bubble speculation has incurred. The profits from such selling could be used to fund alternative energy and help prop up the economy. The vast majority of that reserve was purchased at less than half what it going for now. If OPEC thought they could not get away with screwing the world they would not be so inclined to try. Not a solution within itself but a plausible portion of a real energy policy which we still completely lack.
-
Of course, the mortgage crisis is helping to kill the value of the dollar, which only makes the cost of oil go up.
You almost got it right there but not quite. Look at the record of Federal Reserve prime interest rate cuts over the last 8 years and you will see who created the USD devaluation and how the USD got devalued against foreign currency...particularly the Euro. When the Fed under Alan Greenspan and the followers on the board continued to push it down in order to create that cheap money for people to borrow they didn't look past the nose on their proverbial face to the time a few years down the road when foreign investment money would not want to purchase items like T-bills in order to take advantage of the typically higher interest rates that the USD got against other foreign currencies.
At any rate with the alleged mortgage crisis it just compounds on top of things such as a perception amongst the commodities market futures traders and the money buyers that things aren't going to get better and you know what. They will not get better for at least another 18 - 24 months.
-
I'm confused here... after Katrina when we had a price spike it was because we didn't have the refining capacity and couldn't keep up with the demand... to my knowledge that hasn't changed. Yet now we need more crude? How are we going to refine it?
-
It is just a symptom of how Congress (BOTH parties, but liberals mostly) wants to do things. The solution to a budget shortfall is "borrow" from the Social Security fund. And KEEP borrowing. And KEEP borrowing. Now, there's nothing left to borrow, and Social Security is in danger of default.
Not to worry.
If we get a national health care system similar to the way Hillary wanted to do it.
Congress will have a new fund to borrow from
-
Lets not drill any of our oil until we have used up all of Iraq and Saudi Arabia's oil. Then we can let those heat stroked sand crawlers rot on the backside of the planet while we drill and use our own oil to our advantage.
Maybe they suspect thats what we are doing and thats why they are jacking us while they still can. Just a thought.....
I'd tend to agree for ON SHORE drilling for the same reasons.
But for off shore drilling there is no excuse.
Other countries are already drilling into what should be "our oil"
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Single digit congress approval....record....need I say more?
Yeah, a lot more. Like maybe how we got into this situation in the first place?
I agree this congress has squandered their possibilities. Pelosi may go down as one of the worst Speakers ever, but she has good company with sitting POTUS'.
-
Lets not drill any of our oil until we have used up all of Iraq and Saudi Arabia's oil. Then we can let those heat stroked sand crawlers rot on the backside of the planet while we drill and use our own oil to our advantage.
Maybe they suspect thats what we are doing and thats why they are jacking us while they still can. Just a thought.....
Good plan.
Our government is considering not opening up new fields too. Its worth even more sitting on the bottom until it reaches 200-250 USD a barrel than pumped even with the fairly high prices we have now.
Our petrolium fund already owns 1% of all traded european companies and 0,5% of all traded stocks on the planet. About 40% the petrolium fund is used on those stocks and the rest are borrowed by other nations, sitting in banks or invested in government bonds.
-
you are making norway sound kinda opecish there nilson.
norway could always sell it's $250 a barrel oil to the filthy rich chinese cos if oil hits that price level the wasted western economies will be struggling to afford it. with that in mind, it might be a good idea to convert some of those stocks and bonds in to something of more tangible value like gold and oxen
-
Not a member of opec and the government can't decide how much to pump from excisting fields because that is up to the companies drilling there that has leased the rights to do so. They might however reduce or stop giving new drilling rights.
Good point about the economies. They will however adapt like they always do when they have to but its going to be a painful couple of years for sure for those who react too slow or not at all. Its been done several times and finding alternatives for oil wont remove the demand, only reduce it or perhaps leave it at current levels as new economies continue to demand more whatever happens.
Hehe funny to see one of my neighbours who just bought a suv yet he complaints about the gas prices. :lol tool
-
Lets not drill any of our oil until we have used up all of Iraq and Saudi Arabia's oil. Then we can let those heat stroked sand crawlers rot on the backside of the planet while we drill and use our own oil to our advantage.
Maybe they suspect thats what we are doing and thats why they are jacking us while they still can. Just a thought.....
we have a winner
-
you guys basing your oil theories on the world running out of oil are being shortsighted.
I believe that there is more oil left than we have used.. vast undiscovered fields. I also believe that more is being made all the time and the possibility of the arabs running out is tiny at best.
We need to drill offshore and start looking for more oil. we need to stop using oil to make electricity.
lazs
-
People belive in many things.
-
we don't need oil. once obama is elected...our cars..... and our economy..... will run on smiles, sprinkles, rainbows and sushine.
-
we need to stop using oil to make electricity.
I agree. We also need to stop using natural gas to make electricity.
-
Yeah, a lot more. Like maybe how we got into this situation in the first place?
I agree this congress has squandered their possibilities. Pelosi may go down as one of the worst Speakers ever, but she has good company with sitting POTUS'.
For those playing BBB, the number is 16.
-
you guys basing your oil theories on the world running out of oil are being shortsighted.
I believe that there is more oil left than we have used.. vast undiscovered fields. I also believe that more is being made all the time and the possibility of the arabs running out is tiny at best.
We need to drill offshore and start looking for more oil. we need to stop using oil to make electricity.
lazs
I agree, we need to start drilling off shore, in Alaska, and in the Dakota's. It may not give immediate relief but will be long term. In the mean time other energy options like solar and wind power should be used. Just like in manufacturing we need to depend on ourselves and not be held prisoner by other countries.
-
I'm gong to convert my car to wind power, just think, the faster you go the more power you generate. :lol
-
I'm gong to convert my car to wind power, just think, the faster you go the more power you generate. :lol
One could make millions if they could just harness the hot air generated from the o club!
-
The major impact such a move might have would be to throw some doubt in the overheated markets and start driving down the artificial "fear" that is driving prices higher. Start getting some downward trending knee jerk and herd behavior.
Charon
-
It is amazing to me the "morphing" ability of the republican media machine. Somehow they morphed John Kerry's war service into some kind of pathetic cowardess. They morphed Saddam Hussein into Osama Bin Laden. And now they are morphing the fuel cost crunch into a liberal problem due to lack of production when it is well known that the real issue is speculation and the unwillingness of the former republican congress to pass laws restricting the speculation on oil (see the ENRON loophole).
Mighty morphing republirangers
-
Hey, Charon, what do you think of T. Boone's wind plan?
Think it will actually start anything rolling? Are his pockets deep enough?
-
It is amazing to me the "morphing" ability of the republican media machine
if you were anywhere near as wise as you most likely think you are then you would not have engineered such a moronic tabloid'esque statement as the one quoted above.
The entire media machine exists to "influence" your opinion to their respective benifit, not just some right wing conspiritorial media machine that you fabricate to justify your own sense of vicitmization. Also, feel free to replace "influence" with "tool" because they are one and the same.
I guess, or something like that.
-
if you were anywhere near as wise as you most likely think you are then you would not have engineered such a moronic tabloid'esque statement as the one quoted above.
The entire media machine exists to "influence" your opinion to their respective benifit, not just some right wing conspiritorial media machine that you fabricate to justify your own sense of vicitmization. Also, feel free to replace "influence" with "tool" because they are one and the same.
I guess, or something like that.
Actually I'm way wiser.
-
And now they are morphing the fuel cost crunch into a liberal problem due to lack of production when it is well known that the real issue is speculation and the unwillingness of the former republican congress to pass laws restricting the speculation on oil (see the ENRON loophole).
Mighty morphing republirangers
Can you site authoriies that show with any certainty at all that X amount of the cost of a barrell of crude is due to speculators, or can you just site those who speculate about the speculators?
-
For those playing BBB, the number is 16.
Would that be "A" 16, or "B" 16? If it's not one of those, it doesn't help me.
-
Can you site authoriies that show with any certainty at all that X amount of the cost of a barrell of crude is due to speculators, or can you just site those who speculate about the speculators?
'Speculation' causing oil price hike
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/17/2191035.htm
A report the U.S. Congress released Monday showed that, in January 2000, 37 percent of the NYMEX crude futures contracts were held by speculative traders; but in April 2008, the number has soared to 71 percent. Meanwhile, the proportion of contracts held by commercial traders greatly declined.
-
The two major western energy monitoring organisations, the EIA and the IEA both say the current oil price is caused by fundamental supply and demand issues. For example, the IEA:
In reality, these abnormally high prices are largely explained by fundamentals. Supply growth so far this year has been poor and higher prices are needed to choke off demand to balance the market (and if so, then absolutely the worst response is to subsidise prices more, or in the case of the OECD, to cut taxes).
As the IEA point out, prices higher than those needed to balance supply and demand lead to consumption falling below supply, and an increase in stockpiles. Stockpiles are not increasing, so prices are in balance.
Look at it another way. If the price of oil fell to $70 a barrel, consumption would increase. Unless supply also increased, we'd be using more oil than we were producing.
-
much as I would love to blame the lions share of the cost we are seeing on speculators.... it does not make sense.. what are they doing with it? where are they storing it? in their apartments? The only viable storage is in the ground at the source.
Nope the only solution to the price is to find more oil while using less. Any small amount of increase due to speculation will be gone when we open up more production.
No matter what.. finding more oil and using less by building nuclear plants will drive the cost down.. neither of which the democrats are in favor of. No "morphing" at all.. simply look at their voting record on nuclear power and oil exploration.
lazs
-
Hey, Charon, what do you think of T. Boone's wind plan?
Think it will actually start anything rolling? Are his pockets deep enough?
I haven't really followed it all that much. When you hear wind, or solar or nuclear you are talking electrical generation. Now, unless you combine that with McCain's electric cars I don't see it (or the other solutions) much impacting gasoline or diesel prices. We don't generate much (I'm not sure if we generate any) electricity in the US using oil. It certainly could impact the natural gas price spike though.
Where motor fuels are concerned you have biofuels, coal-to-liquid, tar sands, oil/shale and deepwater. I believe ANWR is the last conventional/cheap oil opportunity of any note in the US -- and it's not all that much. For these alternatives (and the supply is plentiful) you are talking $40+ bbl oil at least to start making them viable. And by that, a fairly guaranteed $40-$60 and consistant floor on oil prices and not just a spike here or there, even if that spike lasts 5 years or so at a pop and comes around once a decade or so.
That's the deal about "peak oil" where the new crop of institutional speculation is concerned. The new financial players outside the industry seem to think these high prices are the norm, and are only going to increase in the future. Those in the industry itself remember oil at $10 to $15 per bbl less than a decade ago, have gone through these swings a number of times and don't seem to be all that sure the high prices are here to stay. If they were, the oil companies would be investing in alternative motor fuel technologies with no reservations and real dollars.
Charon
-
Talking with a few American bretheren I find that they are paying WAY less down south than in Canada where the majority of the US oil comes from. I just filled up in Vancouver at $1.55 per liter for diesel. 1.55 x 3.785=$5.87cdn per us gal... Convert to US dollars (.9891x5.87) = $5.80 US per Gallon :OOUCH :O it hurts to fill up.
-
Yeah, but on average one third of the price of gas in Canada is tax.
-
We have as low as 20% tax on gas to as high as 40% :O in some cities. BC just added our Carbon Tax another .03 per liter. :mad:
-
much as I would love to blame the lions share of the cost we are seeing on speculators.... it does not make sense.. what are they doing with it? where are they storing it? in their apartments? The only viable storage is in the ground at the source.
It's futures trading on the commodities market. People outside the suppliers and end users are making big money paper bets on the future price of oil going ever higher. Like the housing market, you could always find someone to bet your $500,000 purchased/rehabbed $1 million Calif. house would sell for $1.5 million a few years down the road -- until the day you suddenly couldn't.
Here is an explanation I read online at the Washington Post, that explains it fairly well. I use this response post because I have had a bit of a brain lock on how futures work (outside of traditional hedging used by suppliers and end users) and this made sense to me:
Answer: it isn’t going anywhere, it never existed. There is a difference between “deliverable” vs. “non-deliverable” (i.e. fictitious) trading, and it is the fictitious trading that is driving commodity prices.
There need not be a physical surplus of oil for the market price to be above some hypothetical market-clearing equilibrium. This is a fallacy that comes from taking the Marshallian totems and Walrasian metaphors too literally. This is not how commodity prices are actually determined.
I don’t know the oil market, but I know something about another market that also is in a bubble right now (wheat) and I suspect the principles are the same. In the U.S. Hard Red Winter Wheat (the primary wheat for bread production) is centrally traded at the Kansas City Board of Trade. 96% of the trades (which take the form of futures and options contracts) are “non-deliverable”, meaning that neither party intends to trade any actual wheat. What they are instead doing is trading claims to buy or sell wheat in the future, not wheat itself. The price that these claims trade at is driven by the (different) expectations of each party. They are simply speculating on prices of wheat in the future.
So the actual physical trade in wheat for use (”deliverable” trades) is an insignificant part (4%) of this market. My guess would be that the same is true for oil.
But while the actual trade in physical quantities of wheat is most definitely not what drives the trading activity in this commodity market, the price that physical shipments of wheat are bought and sold at is determined in the market for these fictitous wheat trades (the non-deliverables). So the price is determined by trades between people who never intend to touch wheat at all, and there need not be a physical surplus that is being stored somewhere.
As Kindleberger showed long ago, normally sedate markets can become unhinged, and the case of oil or wheat is no different. But what is being traded now is primarily contracts to buy and sell these commodities, the actual commodities are incidental.
Failure to grasp this issue demonstrates a naive faith in what economists teach (and win Bank of Sweden prizes for) and a real ignorance of the way markets actually work.
— Posted by E. Olsen
Charon
-
thing is it isnt ONLY speculators, Or demand, Or the Weak Dollar
Its all three combined
Is a triple headed monster
-
It is amazing to me the "morphing" ability of the republican media machine. Somehow they morphed John Kerry's war service into some kind of pathetic cowardess. They morphed Saddam Hussein into Osama Bin Laden. And now they are morphing the fuel cost crunch into a liberal problem due to lack of production when it is well known that the real issue is speculation and the unwillingness of the former republican congress to pass laws restricting the speculation on oil (see the ENRON loophole).
Mighty morphing republirangers
If there wasn't a supply/demand issue, there would be no point in speculating, as no money could be made.
On another aspect, I read that before the war, Iraq was putting out 6 million barrels a day, and only NOW is it even up to 2.5 million? Their infrastructure has ALWAYS been poor, and it seems like getting Exxon, BP, etc. in there would be about the fastest way to get a few million more barrels a day onto the market--which should end the crunch. (I keep hearing a million or two is all that is needed....) If rampant speculation continues after that, I'll buy MT's argument
-
You have to watch which figures you read on the internet about oil :rolleyes: There are some that are very right or left of center :noid Some only report crude producers and leave bitumen producers out. The tar sands will produce lots of oil but are usually not figured into any reports. :huh
-
If there wasn't a supply/demand issue, there would be no point in speculating, as no money could be made.
There is a philosophy out now that starting in about 2004 it was suddenly realized that supply and demand were tight, and when tied to peak oil theory -- theory -- a new paradigm exists. Now, to me that brings back memories of the "new economy" of the tech bubble since the world has not changed all that dramatically either economically, supply and demand or geopolitical in the past 4 years. Supply and demand are slightly tighter than historical and outputs are down, but it's really hard to see the current prices reflected in the fairly minor current shift. Last time I checked were were not in a full scale shooting conflict with Iran or facing another Katrina or anything that should generate today's prices.
All the conventional oil analysts like Beutel and Kloza who have been around for years and whom I have personally talked to about such issues and heard talk at meetings don't see what the big institutional investors see. Guys like Greenberger (who I have also worked with editorially: http://www.law.umaryland.edu/about/news_details.html?news=353 ) and Masters ( http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/052008Masters.pdf ) offer expert testimony as to how excess speculation is impacting the markets. Doesn't mean that the new future hasn't caught the old dogs off guard, but again, you get all those same tech bubble vibes where conventional economists just didn't "get it" either.
But, even the new worlders grudgingly acknowledge in most cases that the sudden heavy influx of trading dollars into the space are building on these fundamentals along with the fact that these futures contracts are simply being rolled over rather than sold. And the fear and herd mentality by institutional players that were largely uninvolved in the market 2 years ago seems out of control. As Beutel said on the radio recently: "I could change my oil and let it be known I threw out a half quart and the markets would react..."
As for EIA and IEA, well, their economic modeling based almost exclusively on supply and demand didn't see this year's prices either. They still stick to the conventional basis in pricing, but both acknowledge that they lack the mechanism to analyze the impact of the dark exchanges (see Enron Loophole) to even really know what's going on outside the NYMEX.
# The IEA doesn't correctly take into account speculative demand. It only admits that speculation can have a day-to-day impact on price moves. The facts presented by Masters and others in the US Senate hearings are essentially ignored. If, in the magnitude of 150B$ has been "invested" in oil via futures, indexes and other instruments over the past three years – up from close to zero before, that has had more than a day-to-day impact on prices. Such additional demand has lifted cash prices via all kind of arbitrage activities without immediately appearing in official (and only partially known) inventory data. The IEA has, by the way, only an incomplete view about what is going on in global oil inventories, as the agency has acknowledged. Following the Senate testimony of professor Greenberger, financial speculation currently accounts for 80% to 90% of trading volumes. Those who try to prove the contrary avoid looking at the unregulated markets, where the action takes place, and qualify the related activities of investment houses like Goldman Sachs as "commercial". The conclusion, that speculative demand and not consumer demand determines prices and price trends, is obvious. http://seekingalpha.com/article/83546-iea-s-oil-market-outlook-off-the-mark
Supply and demand are tight. IMO, for what little it's worth, $70 bbl or so tight. The rest is perhaps coming from the $250b moving into the commodities markets after the real estate collapse compared to $15b 5 years ago.
-
I have read that we should expect to see in our lives a $250 barrel :furious this maybe quicker than expected with the amount of speculation in the market.
-
If, in the magnitude of 150B$ has been "invested" in oil via futures, indexes and other instruments over the past three years – up from close to zero before, that has had more than a day-to-day impact on prices
I'm not so sure about that. $150 billion might sound like a lot of money, but it's peanuts to the oil trade.
The world consumes about 85 million barrels of oil a day, and has done so for the last 3 years. Say an average price of $100 a barrel over the last year.
That's $8.5 billion a day, $255 billion a month, over $3.1 trillion a year. $150 billion might have been invested in oil markets in the last few years, but in the same period about $7 trillion has flowed from oil consumers, through the market, to oil producers.
Now, to me that brings back memories of the "new economy" of the tech bubble since the world has not changed all that dramatically either economically, supply and demand or geopolitical in the past 4 years. Supply and demand are slightly tighter than historical and outputs are down, but it's really hard to see the current prices reflected in the fairly minor current shift.
Two points about that.
One, if prices are artificially high, then oil stockpiles should be increasing. The higher prices have undoubtedly led to demand reduction in the developed world. That would have fed through in to increased stockpiles unless the demand reduction matched the tightness in supply.
I just don't see how an artificially high supply can't result in higher stockpiles. Put it another way, if oil cost $70 a barrel, how much more would we be using?
Regarding the fundamentals, 2002 - 2007 saw strong world economic growth. Oil production grew very slowly.
Year - GDP - Oil
2003 - 3.7% - 3.4%
2004 - 5.2% - 4.3%
2005 - 4.7% - 1.2%
2006 - 4.7% - 0.5%
2007 - 4.5% - -0.2%
Just a quick glance at those figures suggests oil supply should have risen about 12% over the last 3 years, and has actually risen by less than 1.5%. Oil supply is probably about 10% below what it should be based on demand at 2004 prices.
Put it another way, we could be 8 - 9 million barrels a day short of what we would like.
I know very little about the markets (as you can tell :) ) but the fundamentals seem to support higher prices. I also don't understand how the effect of artificially high oil prices wouldn't be increased stockpiles as price drives demand below supply.
-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/17/2191035.htm
'Speculation' causing oil price hike
A report the U.S. Congress released Monday showed that, in January 2000, 37 percent of the NYMEX crude futures contracts were held by speculative traders; but in April 2008, the number has soared to 71 percent. Meanwhile, the proportion of contracts held by commercial traders greatly declined.
From you source:
Crude futures have jumped about 15 per cent this year in part due to a steep decline in the US dollar, which has helped push up the nominal value of all commodities prices in the currency.
And from your quote, "37 percent of the NYMEX crude futures contracts were held by speculative traders; but in April 2008, the number has soared to 71 percent.", while 100% (not just 71%) of the crude was pumped from the earth. Perhaps it is pumping and the earth itself which caused the price rize... it is 29% more possible... no?
What somebody guesses is not necesarily the truth. If somebody truely understood the stock volitility of just a single corporation, he could make some serious cash.
-
yep.. there may be a component of speculation to the price but it would not even be happening if supply was greater. you sit on your phony stocks of non oil forever and no one would care if we had a glut of oil.
There is plenty of oil.. at some point in price it will be worthwhile and unquestionably necessary to get it.
I say we do it now. If we had done it ten years ago we would not be in this fix.. if we don't do it now.. we will be in real trouble ten years from now.
No matter how you slice it.. the democrats are to blame.
lazs
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378241,00.html
Didnt read thread. Operating under the assumption that someone has already indicated why this is a plan more worthless than our currency (thanks Ben!).
-
I know very little about the markets (as you can tell ) but the fundamentals seem to support higher prices. I also don't understand how the effect of artificially high oil prices wouldn't be increased stockpiles as price drives demand below supply.
Supply is still ahead of demand (and the Saudi oil minister said there is plenty of supply back in May), surplus production capacity still exists and while all of these have tightened what we are seeing today has been trending since 2000 at least. There is nothing I am aware of now that is all that different from 2005 or 2004 that would be in line with what we have seen in the past year -- aside from the tremendous move of major institutional dollars into the commodities futures markets. We are seeing the same thing in a range of commodities during the same period and inventories in many cases are building in those areas. Inventories of gasoline and distillates are building now and inventories of crude are in the average range. Low average, but that is apparently by choice according to this e-mail I received from OPIS:
Crude oil stocks fell by a much larger-than-expected 5.9 million bbl last week, putting them at 293.9 million bbl or nearly 59 million bbl below year-ago levels. That's about 18.8 days' supply of crude, compared with about 22.6 days a year ago, and sources would not be surprised to see the year-on-year deficit widen. The cash flow requirements for some independent refiners, and the risk inherent in holding inventory at $135-$145/bbl should both counteract any thoughts about building inventory.
Consider the challenge facing refiners from this standpoint. The 293.9 million bbl of crude surveyed on Friday could be valued at about $42.6 billion, if one plugged in WTI quotes at the time. The 352.6 million bbl of crude held in storage one year ago had a value (based on WTI quotes at the time) of $25 billion. Matching last year's inventory would be incredibly costly for refiners.
I'll probably try to talk to some of the analysts next week to create some editorial on the subject to get a more refined position on just what is fundamental and what is speculation and how much of a role each play.
Charon
-
Does anyone remember back in 2003 when Awhack-ama-job in Iran predicted $150 per barrel ?
-
other than uncle sam's worthless paper nickel... you have banksters and hedgies gaming the futures market for a mere 8 bucks per barrel buying on margin... since the real estate market has crashed they need to make their money back from the sub prime fiasco.
-
Well considering we only contain about 2% of the worlds oil supply yet consume 25% of it on the one hand drilling offsore or even in alaska would probably to little to nothing to ease gase prices in the immediate future if at all.
On the other hand we arent allowed to drill for oil off our own coast yet China is drilling for oil 50 miles off our own coast.
I see no reason why. If other countries are doing it anyway. Why we cant. or why we shouldnt drill for oil off our own coast.
Envoronmental concerns? Hogwash.
When we think of environmantal disasters due to oil what is it we think about? Exxon valdez.
not oil rigs.
When katrina hit it damaged some rigs.
Was there an environmental disaster due to oil? No.
We base all our fears on E V. and that happened in large part because of a drunk captain.
Drill for the damn oil rather then let other countries grab it
From what I've read, there's an estimated 30 Billion barrels of Crude Oil in Alaska.
-
I noticed gas went down today by $0.06.
-
I noticed gas went down today by $0.06.
It'll go back up, immediately. Iran is rattling their little saber again.
-
It'll go back up, immediately. Iran is rattling their little saber again.
Is it Iran that is the problem or are we lead to believe that Iran is the problem. :O
-
the world running out of oil soon, peak oil been and gone, i think its bollocks.. oil is just over priced through speculation and regulation. the tail wagging the dog like iran for example doesn't help either.
in just one little corner of the world that's had minimal attention up to now, exxon/mobil is doing exploratory work in new zealand's great south basin which combined with the taranaki field have estimated potential reserves of 60 billion barrels of crude oil. actual yields from drilling might only be a third of that figure using current technology, but it's like lazs says.. there's still plenty of the stuff out there, it just has to be recovered.
-
From what I read, there's another estimated 30-50 billion barrels of oil in America, an estimated 30 billion MORE in Alaska.... We got enough for the US to last a LONG time.
-
Is it Iran that is the problem or are we lead to believe that Iran is the problem. :O
Well, Iran is shooting missiles and making threats, I don't know, YOU figure it out.
-
From what I read, there's another estimated 30-50 billion barrels of oil in America, an estimated 30 billion MORE in Alaska.... We got enough for the US to last a LONG time.
The US uses just over 20,000,000 barrels per day that = 7,300,000,000 barrels per year :O . It is staggering but look around in a big city and try and calculate every drop of fuel burnt. We also use it in industry for plastics and so on :uhoh
At 7.3 billion per year using up the 80 billion in reserve isn't going to take long.
-
U.S. oil reserves in 2003 were estimated to be 143 billion barrels. These reserves are distributed as follows: Texas, 24 percent; Alaska, 22 percent; California, 17 percent; and the Gulf of Mexico, 14 percent.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/
Baitman is correct. At the consumption rate of 7.3 billion barrels a year, it will not last long.
-
U.S. oil reserves in 2003 were estimated to be 143 billion barrels. These reserves are distributed as follows: Texas, 24 percent; Alaska, 22 percent; California, 17 percent; and the Gulf of Mexico, 14 percent.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/
Really starts to scare me when I look at the big picture. 7.3 billion per year for US alone start doing the math on the world stats adn it will scare you even more. Our dependancy on crude is going to have to change soon. :O
-
This might be totally left field and I'm not saying I believe it al but:
about a year ago I was listening to a late night radio talk show, and the guest who was a geologist with a major oil company <shell I think> was talking about how they have found that some oil fields in the gulf that had been pretty much pumped dry of the light sweet crude had somehow managed to REFILL with light sweet crude.
He went on to talk about how there is a growing movement among geologists/scientists that oil "might" be a naturally acuring substance from deep in the planet. He made the argument that with all the staggering amounts of oil we have already pumped and whats still in the ground, "do you think it ALL came from dead dino's and plants?"
Just think, if it was ever PROVEN that it is a natural resource from deep in the earth that continually bubbles up....well you could kiss off the middle east
-
Did a search on oil producing microbes and found alot of links to sites explaining how microbes are used to aid in recovering oil, but nothing so far about microbes creating oil with the exception of the following two links.
Methane producing bacteria found in oil fields
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002743.html (http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002743.html)
Rebuilding bacteria to produce oil
http://www.gizmag.com/go/7723/ (http://www.gizmag.com/go/7723/)
-
about a year ago I was listening to a late night radio talk show, and the guest who was a geologist with a major oil company <shell I think> was talking about how they have found that some oil fields in the gulf that had been pretty much pumped dry of the light sweet crude had somehow managed to REFILL with light sweet crude.
He went on to talk about how there is a growing movement among geologists/scientists that oil "might" be a naturally acuring substance from deep in the planet. He made the argument that with all the staggering amounts of oil we have already pumped and whats still in the ground, "do you think it ALL came from dead dino's and plants?"
Reservoirs are never pumped dry. They are only pumped so low that it becomes unprofitable to try any longer. The way that they might fill again would be from very small reserves flowing into a larger know reserves over time it becomes profitable again to draw oil out. Don't know about oil actually bubbelling up.