View Full Version : Oil Prices and Global Exports
dr. mabuse
02-12-2010, 16:38
*
This should get you started:
BI-ME (2008, April 13, 2008). King Abdullah stresses the need to keep oil for future generations. Business Intelligence Middle East. from http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?c=3&cg=3&t=1&id=19167. LINK (http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?c=3&cg=3&t=1&id=19167)
Connor, S. (2009, August 3, 2009). Warning: Oil supplies are running out fast. The Independent Retrieved January 7, 2010, from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/warning-oil-supplies-are-running-out-fast-1766585.html LINK (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/warning-oil-supplies-are-running-out-fast-1766585.html)
deAlmeida, P., & Silva, P. D. (2009). The peak of oil production - Timings and market recognition Energy Policy, 37, 1267-1276.
Fournier, D. F., & Westervelt, E. T. (2005). Energy Trends and Their Implications for U.S. Army Installations. from http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA440265. LINK (http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA440265)
Goldstein, H., & Sweet, W. (2007). Joules, BTUs, Quads-Letapos;s Call the Whole Thing Off. Spectrum, IEEE, 44, 16-16.
Hirsch, R. L. (2005). The inevitable peaking of world oil production. The Atlantic Council, 16.
Hirsch, R. L. (2008). Mitigation of maximum world oil production: Shortage scenarios. Energy Policy, 36, 881-889.
Hirsch, R. L., Bezdek, R., & Wendling, R. (2005). Peaking of world oil production: Impacts, mitigation, & risk management. from http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf. LINK (http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf)
Leder, F., & Shapiro, J. N. (2008). This time it’s different: An inevitable decline in world petroleum production will keep oil product prices high, causing military conflicts and shifting wealth and power from democracies to authoritarian regimes. Energy Policy, 36, 2850-2852.
Reynolds, D. B., & Kolodziej, M. (2007). Institutions and the supply of oil: A case study of Russia. Energy Policy, 35, 939-949.
Simmons, M. R. (2008). The peaking of fossil fuels and the transformation of the national security environment. Pentagon.
Simmons, M. R. (2006). Twilight in the desert: The coming Saudi oil shock and the world economy Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Some may require a Google search. Others are available in academic libraries. If you want copies, PM me - I can send them as attachments to e-mail.
The ones in yellow are good introductions to the issue. The last one listed, Simmons Twilight in the desert, is (IMO) a great place to begin.
GratefulCitizen
02-12-2010, 20:51
The commodities bubble just sprung a major leak.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703525704575060813470407750.html?m od=WSJ-Markets-LeadStory
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1236699020100212?type=marketsNews
Net imports of oil/oil products are rising over the past 6 weeks (scroll to bottom).
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WTTNTUS2&f=W
Running for the exits?
The Reaper
02-12-2010, 21:25
The commodities bubble just sprung a major leak.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703525704575060813470407750.html?m od=WSJ-Markets-LeadStory
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1236699020100212?type=marketsNews
Net imports of oil/oil products are rising over the past 6 weeks (scroll to bottom).
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WTTNTUS2&f=W
Running for the exits?
What happens if the Chinese bust their own housing bubble?
This could get interesting next week.
TR
GratefulCitizen
02-12-2010, 21:45
What happens if the Chinese bust their own housing bubble?
This could get interesting next week.
TR
Dang.
Off by a month on my prediction.
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26854
Don't worry. Be happy. Nothing to see here. It must surely be nothing but speculators.
LINK (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704140104575057260398292350.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel#articleTabs%3Darticle)
The Next Crisis: Prepare for Peak Oil
By PATIENCE WHEATCROFT
As Europe's leaders gather in Brussels today, they have only one crisis in mind: the debts that threaten the stability of the European Union. They are unlikely to be in any mood to listen to warnings about a different crisis that is looming and that could cause massive disruption.
A shortage of oil could be a real problem for the world within a fairly short period of time. It was unfortunate for the group which chose to point this out yesterday that they should have chosen to do so on the day the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, reported that the effects of the financial downturn had led to a slight downgrade in its forecast for oil consumption this year.
Against the gloomy economic backdrop that Europe currently provides, siren voices shrieking that a potential energy crisis is imminent and could be worse than the credit crunch are liable to be dismissed as scaremongers. Since they are led by Sir Richard Branson, whose Virgin group runs an energy-guzzling airline, and include Brian Souter, who runs Stagecoach, another energy-hungry transport business, they are also at risk of being seen as self-interested scaremongers.
But the work of the Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security shouldn't be disparagingly dismissed. Its arguments are well founded and lead it to the conclusion that, while the global downturn may have delayed it by a couple of years, peak oil—the point at which global production reaches its maximum—is no more than five years away. Governments and corporations need to use the intervening years to speed up the development of and move toward other energy sources and increased energy efficiency.
In the first report from the task force, Lord Ron Oxburgh, a former chairman of Shell, wrote that "It is pretty clear that there is not much chance of finding any significant quantity of new cheap oil. Any new or unconventional oil is going to be expensive." He went on to quote King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia commenting on a new oil find: "Leave it in the ground...our children need it."
MoreOPEC Worries U.S. Economic Uncertainty Will Hurt Oil Demand
.
The latest report from the Taskforce points out how much modern economies depend on oil, whether for transport, heating or even fertilizer. Demand may have peaked in the developed world but any shrinkage there, is likely to be more than outweighed by the developing countries, with their rapidly expanding appetite for energy to fuel industry needs and consumer aspirations. The International Energy Agency, in its World Energy Outlook report last year, estimated global oil demand, currently running at just over 85 million barrels a day, could reach 105 million barrels a day by 2030. The Taskforce, assimilating various opinions, believes 92 million barrels a day will be the most that global supplies will be able to generate, "unless some unforeseen giant, and easily accessible, finds are reported very soon."
It may be that the oil companies are keeping some giant secrets from us but that seems unlikely. So what lies ahead is a mismatch between supply and demand. According to Chris Skrebowski, of the Peak Oil Consulting firm, mid-2015 is when the crunch hits. "This is when capacity starts to be overwhelmed by depletion and lack of new capacity additions."
Where that would take oil prices, who can tell? In recent times they have been extremely volatile, hitting $147 a barrel in July 2008, plummeting to $32 at the end of that year and hovering between $70 and $80 since August last year.
At these levels, it is economic for some of the oil that is harder to get at to be extracted from deepwater developments such as the Gulf of Mexico or the Canadian tar sands. A higher price might encourage more of this difficult production.
But a higher oil price brings with it dangerous knock-on effects for oil-dependent economies with little in the way of their own oil resources. Europe has reason to be concerned. According to Philip Dilley, the chairman of Arup, the consulting engineers: "We must plan for a world in which oil prices are likely to be both higher and more volatile and where oil prices have the potential to destabilize economic, political and social activity."
Not everyone involved in the energy business takes such a pessimistic line. BP, for instance, has been more optimistic about the prospects for tar sands, although it is also pursuing wind, solar and biofuel investments. Gas is also becoming a much more important part of the energy mix.
Yet even if the gloomsters should turn out to be wrong, the core of their message surely deserves attention. Governments should be doing all in their power to encourage developments that lessen oil dependency. That will also enhance their energy security for, as Russia's Vladimir Putin has demonstrated with use of the on/off switch on the pipeline to Ukraine, it can be uncomfortable being dependent on other countries for energy.
Wind and sun and wave can all make their contributions, but nuclear is where the biggest strides can be made. The U.K. gave up an early lead in nuclear and only in 2008 gave the go-ahead for a new generation of reactors, though funding remains an issue. France is the most enthusiastic devotee of nuclear, with around 60 working reactors. Whatever progress can be made in turning crops into power, scale will make nuclear the fuel of the future. But governments need to wake up to the urgency with which it may be required.
Some dubious emails and slightly dodgy dossiers have cast a new, and unflattering, light on the global-warming debate, raising the risk of a return to the belief that we can go on consuming oil with impunity. Being a "climate-change denier" is in danger of becoming almost fashionable. But whatever the risk to the climate, scarce and expensive oil would be a threat to established economies.
We need alternatives.
GratefulCitizen
02-16-2010, 13:08
It may be that the oil companies are keeping some giant secrets from us but that seems unlikely.
How would oil companies benefit from a "fear premium" on their product?
How would oil companies benefit from reducing fears associated with future supply?
How would oil companies benefit from a "fear premium" on their product?
How would oil companies benefit from reducing fears associated with future supply?
Exactly. It's all a scam, a hoax, a deception. Nothing to see here. Just speculative excess. No, really.
That's why we as a nation and individuals can ignore it completely. We should not fall into their trap! Don't prepare.
GratefulCitizen
02-16-2010, 13:34
Exactly. It's all a scam, a hoax, a deception. Nothing to see here. Just speculative excess. No, really.
That's why we as a nation and individuals can ignore it completely. We should not fall into their trap! Don't prepare.
False dilemma/straw man.
I did not propose that oil companies are furthering the peak oil narrative.
Just saying that they have no vested interest (yet) in convincing anyone otherwise.
If there were suddenly massive effective investment in substitutes for oil, then the oil comanies may suddenly find reason to promote the arguments for future sustainability, or, if the peak is imminent, the nature of the plateau/decline.
GratefulCitizen
02-21-2010, 18:42
Peak oil may be coming...but it's not a supply peak.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-15/saudi-arabia-says-peak-demand-for-oil-is-an-alarm-update1-.html
Spare capacity and insufficient buyers.
Perhaps there's a moral worth considering in here somewhere...
http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_17/b3678084.htm
And so it goes...
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
6.8SPC_DUMP
04-08-2010, 06:30
Texas University has eureka moment for coal-to-gas? (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/texas-university-has-eureka-moment-for-coal-to-gas/article1502823/)
Scientists in Texas say they have found a way to convert coal into gasoline at a cost of less than $30 (U.S.) a barrel - with zero release of pollutants
Canada has more energy in its "proven, recoverable" reserves of coal than it has in all of its oil, natural gas and oil sands combined: 10 billion tonnes. The world has 100 times more: one trillion tonnes. These reserves hold the energy equivalent of more than four trillion barrels of oil. They are scattered in 70 countries, mostly in relatively easy-to-mine locations and mostly in democratic countries.
The United States alone has 30 per cent of the world's reserves, and scientists in Texas say they have found a way to convert coal into gasoline at a cost of less than $30 (U.S.) a barrel - with zero release of pollutants.
Researchers at the University of Texas at Arlington (UTA) announced last month that they have developed a clean way to turn the cheapest kind of coal - lignite, common in Texas - into synthetic crude. "We go from that [lignite coal] to this really nice liquid," Brian Dennis, a member of the research team, said in describing the synthetic crude that can be refined into gasoline.
Assuming that these Texas folk are correct, this advance in technology could represent a historic moment in energy production - for Canada as well as for the United States. Canada has huge reserves of lignite coal in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan (which already gets 70 per cent of its electricity from this common coal) - not to mention in Nova Scotia.
The Texas researchers, who worked on the project for about 18 months, expect the cost to drop further. "We're improving the cost every day. We started off some time ago at an uneconomical $17,000 a barrel. Today, we're at ... $28.84 a barrel," Rick Billo, UTA's dean of engineering, told an Austin television reporter.
Texas lignite coal sells for $18 a tonne. The coal conversion technology uses one tonne of coal to produce 1.5 barrels of crude oil. One barrel of crude produces 42 U.S. gallons of gasoline. In other words, $18 worth of coal yields 63 gallons of gasoline: 0.28 cents a gallon.
In her report of the announcement, Dallas Morning News energy writer Elizabeth Souder said the U.S. government has approved construction of a small-scale microrefinery to test the UTA lab-based breakthrough. This prototype microrefinery should be in operation by year-end. "While the process doesn't create renewable fuel, it would create a domestic source for vehicle fuel and plastics," she reported.
People have been converting coal into gasoline for decades, of course, most notably in Nazi Germany. China launched the biggest coal-to-oil conversion plant in the world in 2008, in Inner Mongolia. Researchers have devised a number of ways to convert one fossil fuel into another fossil fuel - and into gasoline and diesel. But high costs have always prevented commercial exploitation of the various technologies and none of them eliminated the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
From the information released by UTA, we don't know precisely what innovation the scientists stumbled upon. The Austin TV reporter quoted Prof. Dennis as saying: "I had the idea for this while I was walking to my car. I ran back to the lab and I started drawing it out in my notebook."
As the scientists describe it, though, the technology uses "micro-fluidic reactors" that convert coal to synthetic crude at a fraction of the cost incurred with traditional conversion methods - and in a fraction of the time. The process first converts carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide, then adds hydrogen from a renewable resource - such as from the water trapped inside lignite coal. Although this manufactured crude can be processed into gasoline by conventional refineries, it can apparently be processed more efficiently in "microrefineries" that cost one-fifth as much to build as conventional refineries.
Krishnan Rajeshwar, associate dean of UTA's College of Science, said the research team doubts that carbon sequestration - the process experimentally adopted by Canada to cleanse the Alberta oil sands - will ever work. "The idea that we can dispose of massive quantities of greenhouse gases by piping them underground ... is not very practical," he said in an article last year in UTA's Research magazine. Far better, he said, to capture CO{-2} right at power plants and convert it into crude on the spot.
Could the coal-to-oil technology put Canada's oil sands out of business? Not at all, in the opinion of Prof. Rajeshwar, who thinks that it would work equally well for oil sands and shale. "The same process will work with [unconventional oil], absolutely."
Assuming, arbitrarily for the moment, that Texas has struck oil in a huge way yet again, UTA's announcement shows that energy research has finally begun to move in the right direction - simultaneously toward clean coal and the commercial exploitation of carbon dioxide. The reasons are obvious. The world has enough coal reserves to last for centuries. And it has enough CO{-2} - used as an abundant new raw material - to last forever. Harnessed together, this cheap coal and this greenhouse gas could drive the global economy for hundreds of years.
The UTA energy lab, by the way, conducts parallel research into the further commercial uses of carbon dioxide - a free commodity that, along with Canada, countries around the world now propose to bury.
Also:
The US has the world's largest supply of recoverable natural gas (four thousand trillion cubic feet). Link (http://moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Pickens-Natural-Gas/2010/03/15/id/352645)
Shale-oil reservoirs in Colorado and Utah alone could hold upwards of 1 trillion barrels of oil—more than three times the proven reserves in Saudi Arabia.Link (http://www.newsweek.com/id/192480)
:munchin
LINK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/peak-oil-production-supply)
US military warns oil output may dip causing massive shortages by 2015• Shortfall could reach 10m barrels a day, report says
• Cost of crude oil is predicted to top $100 a barrel
The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact.
The energy crisis outlined in a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command, comes as the price of petrol in Britain reaches record levels and the cost of crude is predicted to soon top $100 a barrel.
"By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day," says the report, which has a foreword by a senior commander, General James N Mattis.
It adds: "While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India."
The US military says its views cannot be taken as US government policy but admits they are meant to provide the Joint Forces with "an intellectual foundation upon which we will construct the concept to guide out future force developments."
The warning is the latest in a series from around the world that has turned peak oil – the moment when demand exceeds supply – from a distant threat to a more immediate risk.
The Wicks Review on UK energy policy published last summer effectively dismissed fears but Lord Hunt, the British energy minister, met concerned industrialists two weeks ago in a sign that it is rapidly changing its mind on the seriousness of the issue.
The Paris-based International Energy Agency remains confident that there is no short-term risk of oil shortages but privately some senior officials have admitted there is considerable disagreement internally about this upbeat stance.
Future fuel supplies are of acute importance to the US army because it is believed to be the biggest single user of petrol in the world. BP chief executive, Tony Hayward, said recently that there was little chance of crude from the carbon-heavy Canadian tar sands being banned in America because the US military like to have local supplies rather than rely on the politically unstable Middle East.
But there are signs that the US Department of Energy might also be changing its stance on peak oil. In a recent interview with French newspaper, Le Monde, Glen Sweetnam, main oil adviser to the Obama administration, admitted that "a chance exists that we may experience a decline" of world liquid fuels production between 2011 and 2015 if the investment was not forthcoming.
Lionel Badal, a post-graduate student at Kings College, London, who has been researching peak oil theories, said the review by the American military moves the debate on.
"It's surprising to see that the US Army, unlike the US Department of Energy, publicly warns of major oil shortages in the near-term. Now it could be interesting to know on which study the information is based on," he said.
"The Energy Information Administration (of the department of energy) has been saying for years that Peak Oil was "decades away". In light of the report from the US Joint Forces Command, is the EIA still confident of its previous highly optimistic conclusions?"
The Joint Operating Environment report paints a bleak picture of what can happen on occasions when there is serious economic upheaval. "One should not forget that the Great Depression spawned a number of totalitarian regimes that sought economic prosperity for their nations by ruthless conquest," it points out.
Team Sergeant
04-15-2010, 09:39
I do hope all reading this are preparing for a very bad storm.
Bernanke: America Facing Financial 'Armageddon'
FOXNews.com
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress on Wednesday that America is facing something approaching a debt Armageddon.
"The deficit will recede somewhat over the next two years as the temporary stimulus measures wind down and as economic recovery leads to higher revenues," he said, testifying before Congress' Joint Economic Committee.
"Thereafter, however, the annual deficit is expected to remain high through 2020, in the neighborhood of 4 to 5 percent of GDP," he said.
The GDP is the combined value of all goods and services that the economy produces. Each deficit requires the Treasury Department to sell bonds to finance the accumulated federal debt. Under the best of scenarios, the ratio of debt to GDP, one indicator of national economic health, would be well over 70 percent.
But that assumes Congress and the White House won't do what they've already promised to do -- extend most Bush-era tax cuts and adjust the alternative minimum tax in a way to protect middle class earners from its heavy levies. Under this more likely scenario, Bernanke warned that annual deficits and accumulated debt would surge to historically high levels.
Foreclosure Actions Spike in 1Q Despite AidThursday, April 15, 2010
NEW YORK--U.S. home foreclosures actions spiked in March and set a quarterly record despite federal programs to combat the unrelenting pace that homeowners are defaulting on mortgages, RealtyTrac said on Thursday.
The government aid, intensified in late March, has so far failed to overcome the staggering effects of nearly double-digit unemployment and wage cuts on borrowers.
Foreclosure activity jumped 19% to a monthly record in March, driving first-quarter actions up 7% from the prior quarter and 16% from a year ago to a record of more than 932,000 properties.
One in every 138 U.S. households got a foreclosure filing in the quarter such as a notice of default, auction or bank repossession.
Banks took back more than 257,000 properties in the quarter, a record high, putting repossessions on pace to shatter last year's record of more than 918,000 properties.
"If there's going to be a modification program that really has a material effect this year, it's not there yet," Rick Sharga, senior vice president at RealtyTrac, told Reuters.
Government and lender efforts to alter loan terms for borrowers at risk of losing their homes have resulted in more temporary than permanent fixes, delaying the inevitable.
Foreclosure auctions were scheduled for the first time on nearly 370,000 properties in the first three months of 2010, a quarterly record, up 21% from the same time last year.
"As lenders go through these modification program options and short sale options and decide that loans don't qualify for either, they're going to start processing more of these into foreclosure and putting them back on the market," Sharga said.
"The most likely scenario is that we will be working through this inventory of distressed property well into 2013," he added.
More than 3 million U.S. households are likely to get a foreclosure notice this year, topping last year's record 2.8 million, RealtyTrac forecasts.
The government last month dedicated $14 billion to its efforts to tackle "under water" mortgages and high unemployment that propel more borrowers to default on their largest asset.
Principal reduction is one element of the enhanced program, which many housing experts contend needs to go even further to really make a dent in the foreclosure crisis.
A congressional watchdog said Wednesday that re-default is the bane of the Obama administration's $75 billion Home Affordable Modification Program, with billions of dollars spent to delay rather than prevent foreclosures.
Notice of default, the first stage of the foreclosure process, rose 1% in the first quarter from the prior quarter, flattening at an elevated level.
The burdensome supply of unsold homes, inflated by foreclosures, is widely seen being placed back on the market by banks in a managed way to avert a new freefall in prices.
Home prices have lost about 30%, on average, from 2006 peaks.
But the logjam of house to be sold "also means that we won't see much in the way of real recovery in pricing until we get through all of this," said Sharga.
Nevada posted the highest foreclosure rate among states for the 14th straight quarter, with one in every 33 housing units getting a filing.
Arizona was in second place for the third straight quarter, followed by Florida and California. In each of these states, massive overbuilding and speculative investment
during the housing boom resulted in the deepest losses during the bust.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/foreclosure-actions-spike-q-despite-aid/
Updated April 15, 2010
Jobless Claims Rise to 484,000 First-Time Claims
Associated Press
Jobs are still hard to come by as first-time requests for jobless benefits rose to 484,000 last week.
The number of newly laid off people signing up for unemployment benefits rose sharply for the second straight week, suggesting that jobs are still hard to come by even as the economic recovery gains traction.
The Labor Department reported Thursday that first-time requests for jobless benefits rose by 24,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 484,000, the highest level since late February. Economists were predicting claims would fall.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/15/jobless-claims-rise-time-claims/?test=latestnews
GratefulCitizen
04-15-2010, 10:00
Funny how the media pushed the story of the "suprise" drop in oil inventories on Wednesday.
The oil is either being kept offshore, or it was turned into something else.
Weekly change in "Total Crude Oil and Petroleum Products": 287 thousand barrel decline.
Weekly change in "Net Imports" : 1266 thousand barrel decline.
Had the net import level remained constant, the total products would have increased by about 1 million barrels.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_sndw_dcus_nus_w.htm
Some people are going to get taken for plenty of money this spring and summer.
GratefulCitizen
04-17-2010, 13:56
2009 stats for the US have been compiled.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec1_7.pdf
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec1_16.pdf
Energy consumption is down to the levels seen in 1997.
Petroleum/fossil fuel consumption is down to the levels seen in 1996.
Excess capacity is being shaken out of the market.
American businesses are getting more efficient in every way.
(7310 BTU per dollar GDP for 2009)
Capitalism and American ingenuity are overcoming the challenges.
The economy will recover.
The benefits will be delayed for many.
The economically nimble will benefit first and most, but the tide will eventually raise all boats.
I think the future looks good.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
LINK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/aug/22/peak-oil-department-energy-climate-change)
Peak oil alarm revealed by secret official talks
Behind government dismissals of 'alarmist' fears there is growing concern over critical future energy supplies
Speculation that government ministers are far more concerned about a future supply crunch than they have admitted has been fuelled by the revelation that they are canvassing views from industry and the scientific community about "peak oil".
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is also refusing to hand over policy documents about "peak oil" – the point at which oil production reaches its maximum and then declines – under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act, despite releasing others in which it admits "secrecy around the topic is probably not good".
Experts say they have received a letter from David Mackay, chief scientific adviser to the DECC, asking for information and advice on peak oil amid a growing campaign from industrialists such as Sir Richard Branson for the government to put contingency plans in place to deal with any future crisis.
A spokeswoman for the department insisted the request from Mackay was "routine" and said there was no change of policy other than to keep the issue under review. The peak oil argument was effectively dismissed as alarmist by former energy minister Malcolm Wicks in a report to government last summer, while oil companies such as BP, which have major influence in Whitehall, take a similar line.
But documents obtained under the FoI Act seen by the Observer show that a "peak oil workshop" brought together staff from the DECC, the Bank of England and Ministry of Defence among others to discuss the issue.
A ministry note of that summit warned that "[Government] public lines on peak oil are 'not quite right'. They need to take account of climate change and put more emphasis on reducing demand and also the fact that peak oil may increase volatility in the market."
Those comments were written 12 months ago, but a letter in response to the FoI request written by DECC officials and dated 31 July 2010 says it can only release some information on what is currently under policy discussion because they are "ongoing" and "high profile" in nature.
The letter adds: "We recognise the public interest arguments in favour of disclosing this information. In particular we recognise that greater transparency makes government more open and accountable and could help provide an insight into peak oil.
"However any public interest in the disclosure of such information must be balanced with the need to ensure that ministers and advisers can discuss policy in a manner which allows for frank exchanges of views and opinions about important and sensitive issues."
Yet the note of the workshop distributed last year talks about secrecy around the topic being "probably not good", although it also suggests officials stick to the line that the "International Energy Agency is an authoritative source in this field" and stresses how the IEA believes there is sufficient reserves to meet demand till 2030 as long as investment in new reserves is maintained.
But the Paris-based organisation has come under increasing scrutiny from a growing group of critics who believe the IEA's optimism is misplaced. Last year the Guardian revealed that the IEA was also riven with dissent over the issue with senior staff members privately telling newspaper they thought the official numbers on future global oil supply were over-optimistic.
The IEA predicted in the 2009 World Energy Outlook published last November that oil demand would grow from 85m barrels a day today to 88m in 2015 and reach 105m in 2030. The organisation presumes the challenge of meeting that demand can equally be met by a mixture of higher Opec production and considerably more output from unconventional sources.
But an internal IEA source said: "Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible, but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources."
The IEA has denied the claims of internal dissent and sticks by its figures. But Kjell Aleklett, a professor of physics at Uppsala University in Sweden and author of a report The Peak of the Oil Age, claims crude production is more likely to be 75m barrels a day by 2030 than the "unrealistic" 105m projected by the IEA.
-------------------------
By the way - at this LINK (http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/JOE_2010_o.pdf) is the JOE 2010 report. See page 24 about energy. It appears that United States Joint Forces Command sees the same effects discussed above.
:munchin
Interpretation of the above: Expect the present recessionary environment to last indefinitely. In addition, keep an eye on food availability, which may be sensitive to changes in oil availability. MOO, YMMV.
GratefulCitizen
08-24-2010, 19:20
Total stocks here in the US are the highest they have ever been.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WTTSTUS1&f=W
Imports have been increasing.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WTTIMUS2&f=W
Oil prices are sliding.
http://www.oil-price.net/
It's almost like all that oil in floating storage is rapidly coming to market, and getting stored here.
Now if we could just get a few more suckers...err people to take long positions...
Maybe we should remind them of the impending permanent oil shortage that is about to overtake us.
Just like it has been for over 100 years.
And just like the unavoidable coal shortage that Jevons predicted in 1865.
Good thing for the Chinese that they never read Jevons' work.
All snarkiness aside, it may well be possible that the USA has passed peak demand for petroleum.
Natural gas on the other hand...:munchin
My, my. The German and UK governments are concerned about peak oil But here's the amusing part - they suggest it may be 15 to 30 years after peak before we see major effects. I suspect that part is overly optimistic.
Oh, well. What do the German, UK, and US governments know? Peak Oil? Never gonna happen. We'll just run our economies with used frying oil. Yeah, that's the ticket. :munchin
LINK (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,715138,00.html)
Military Study Warns of a Potentially Drastic Oil Crisis
By Stefan Schultz
A study by a German military think tank has analyzed how "peak oil" might change the global economy. The internal draft document -- leaked on the Internet -- shows for the first time how carefully the German government has considered a potential energy crisis.
The term "peak oil" is used by energy experts to refer to a point in time when global oil reserves pass their zenith and production gradually begins to decline. This would result in a permanent supply crisis -- and fear of it can trigger turbulence in commodity markets and on stock exchanges.
The issue is so politically explosive that it's remarkable when an institution like the Bundeswehr, the German military, uses the term "peak oil" at all. But a military study currently circulating on the German blogosphere goes further.
The study is a product of the Future Analysis department of the Bundeswehr Transformation Center, a think tank tasked with fixing a direction for the German military. The team of authors, led by Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Will, uses sometimes-dramatic language to depict the consequences of an irreversible depletion of raw materials. It warns of shifts in the global balance of power, of the formation of new relationships based on interdependency, of a decline in importance of the western industrial nations, of the "total collapse of the markets" and of serious political and economic crises.
The study, whose authenticity was confirmed to SPIEGEL ONLINE by sources in government circles, was not meant for publication. The document is said to be in draft stage and to consist solely of scientific opinion, which has not yet been edited by the Defense Ministry and other government bodies.
The lead author, Will, has declined to comment on the study. It remains doubtful that either the Bundeswehr or the German government would have consented to publish the document in its current form. But the study does show how intensively the German government has engaged with the question of peak oil.
Parallels to activities in the UK
The leak has parallels with recent reports from the UK. Only last week the Guardian newspaper reported that the British Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is keeping documents secret which show the UK government is far more concerned about a supply crisis than it cares to admit.
According to the Guardian, the DECC, the Bank of England and the British Ministry of Defence are working alongside industry representatives to develop a crisis plan to deal with possible shortfalls in energy supply. Inquiries made by Britain's so-called peak oil workshops to energy experts have been seen by SPIEGEL ONLINE. A DECC spokeswoman sought to play down the process, telling the Guardian the enquiries were "routine" and had no political implications.
The Bundeswehr study may not have immediate political consequences, either, but it shows that the German government fears shortages could quickly arise.
A Litany of Market Failures
According to the German report, there was "some probability that peak oil will occur around the year 2010 and that the impact on security is expected to be felt 15 to 30 years later." The Bundeswehr prediction is consistent with those of well-known scientists who assume global oil production has either already passed its peak or will do so this year.
Market Failures and International Chain Reactions
The political and economic impacts of peak oil on Germany have now been studied for the first time in depth. The crude oil expert Steffen Bukold has evaluated and summarized the findings of the Bundeswehr study. Here is an overview of the central points:
•Oil will determine power: The Bundeswehr Transformation Center writes that oil will become one decisive factor in determining the new landscape of international relations: "The relative importance of the oil producing nations in the international system is growing. These nations are using the advantages resulting from this to expand the scope of their domestic and foreign policies and establish themselves as a new or resurgent regional, or in some cases even global leading power."
•Increasing importance of oil exporters: For importers of oil more competition for resources will mean an increase in the number of nations competing for favour with oil producing nations. For the latter this opens up a window of opportunity which can be used to implement political, economic or ideological aims. As this window of time will only be open for a limited period, "this could result in a more aggressive assertion of national interests on the part of the oil producing nations."
•Politics in place of the market: The Bundeswehr Transformation Center expects that a supply crisis would roll back the liberalization of the energy market. "The proportion of oil traded on the global, freely accessible oil market will diminish as more oil is traded through bi-national contracts," the study states. In the long run, the study goes on, the global oil market, will only be able to follow the laws of the free market in a restricted way. "Bilateral, conditioned supply agreements and privileged partnerships, such as those seen prior to the oil crises of the seventies, will once again come to the fore."
•Market failures: The authors paint a bleak picture of the consequences resulting from a shortage of petroleum. As the transportation of goods depends on crude oil, international trade could be subject to colossal tax hikes. "Shortages in the supply of vital goods could arise" as a result, for example in food supplies. Oil is used directly or indirectly in the production of 95% of all industrial goods. Price shocks could therefore be seen in almost any industry and throughout all stages of the industrial supply chain. "In the medium term the global economic system and every market-oriented national economy would collapse."
•Relapse into planned economy: Since virtually all economic sectors rely heavily on oil, peak oil could lead to a "partial or complete failure of markets," says the study. "A conceivable alternative would be government rationing and the allocation of important goods or the setting of production schedules and other short-term coercive measures to replace market-based mechanisms in times of crisis."
•Global chain reaction: "A restructuring of oil supplies will not be equally possible in all regions before the onset of peak oil," says the study. "It is likely that a large number of states will not be in a position to make the necessary investments in time," or with "sufficient magnitude." If there were economic crashes in some regions of the world, Germany could be affected. Germany would not escape the crises of other countries, because it's so tightly integrated into the global economy.
•Crisis of political legitimacy: The Bundeswehr study also raises fears for the survival of democracy itself. Parts of the population could comprehend the upheaval trigged by peak oil "as a general systemic crisis." This would create "room for ideological and extremist alternatives to existing forms of government." Fragmentation of the affected population is likely and could "in extreme cases lead to open conflict."
The scenarios outlined by the Bundeswehr Transformation Center are drastic. Even more explosive, politically, are recommendations to the government that the energy experts have put forward based on these scenarios. They argue that "states dependent on oil imports" will be forced to "show more pragmatism toward oil-producing states in their foreign policy." Political priorities will have to be somewhat subordinated, they claim, to the overriding concern of securing energy supplies.
For example: Germany would have to be more flexible in relation toward Russia's foreign policy objectives. It would also have to show more restraint in its foreign policy toward Israel, to avoid alienating Arab oil-producing nations. Unconditional support for Israel and its right to exist is currently a cornerstone of German foreign policy.
The relationship with Russia, in particular, is of fundamental importance for German access to oil and gas, the study says. "For Germany, this involves a balancing act between stable and privileged relations with Russia and the sensitivities of (Germany's) eastern neighbors." In other words, Germany, if it wants to guarantee its own energy security, should be accommodating in relation to Moscow's foreign policy objectives, even if it means risking damage to its relations with Poland and other Eastern European states.
Peak oil would also have profound consequences for Berlin's posture toward the Middle East, according to the study. "A readjustment of Germany's Middle East policy … in favor of more intensive relations with producer countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, which have the largest conventional oil reserves in the region, might put a strain on German-Israeli relations, depending on the intensity of the policy change," the authors write.
When contacted by SPIEGEL ONLINE, the Defense Ministry declined to comment on the study.
GratefulCitizen
09-01-2010, 22:17
LINK (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,715138,00.html)
Military Study Warns of a Potentially Drastic Oil Crisis
By Stefan Schultz
<snip>
The study is a product of the Future Analysis department of the Bundeswehr Transformation Center, a think tank tasked with fixing a direction for the German military. The team of authors, led by Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Will, uses sometimes-dramatic language to depict the consequences of an irreversible depletion of raw materials. It warns of shifts in the global balance of power, of the formation of new relationships based on interdependency, of a decline in importance of the western industrial nations, of the "total collapse of the markets" and of serious political and economic crises.
<snip>
The leak has parallels with recent reports from the UK. Only last week the Guardian newspaper reported that the British Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is keeping documents secret which show the UK government is far more concerned about a supply crisis than it cares to admit[/COLOR].
<snip>
•Politics in place of the market: The Bundeswehr Transformation Center expects that a supply crisis would roll back the liberalization of the energy market. "The proportion of oil traded on the global, freely accessible oil market will diminish as more oil is traded through bi-national contracts," the study states. In the long run, the study goes on, the global oil market, will only be able to follow the laws of the free market in a restricted way. "Bilateral, conditioned supply agreements and privileged partnerships, such as those seen prior to the oil crises of the seventies, will once again come to the fore."
•Market failures: The authors paint a bleak picture of the consequences resulting from a shortage of petroleum. As the transportation of goods depends on crude oil, international trade could be subject to colossal tax hikes. "Shortages in the supply of vital goods could arise" as a result, for example in food supplies. Oil is used directly or indirectly in the production of 95% of all industrial goods. Price shocks could therefore be seen in almost any industry and throughout all stages of the industrial supply chain. "In the medium term the global economic system and every market-oriented national economy would collapse."
•Relapse into planned economy: Since virtually all economic sectors rely heavily on oil, peak oil could lead to a "partial or complete failure of markets," says the study. "A conceivable alternative would be government rationing and the allocation of important goods or the setting of production schedules and other short-term coercive measures to replace market-based mechanisms in times of crisis."
<snip>
For example: Germany would have to be more flexible in relation toward Russia's foreign policy objectives. It would also have to show more restraint in its foreign policy toward Israel, to avoid alienating Arab oil-producing nations. Unconditional support for Israel and its right to exist is currently a cornerstone of German foreign policy.
Ah, yes.
-Brought to you by the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
-Market economies collapse.
-We would only be able to follow the laws of the free market in a restricted way. :confused:
-A conceivable alternative would be government rationing.
-And it's all the Jews fault, again.
This line of reasoning sounds eerily familiar.
Meanwhile, the total hydrocarbon stocks in this country are at an all-time high, and rising...
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WTTSTUS1&f=W
Ah, yes.
-Brought to you by the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
-Market economies collapse.
-We would only be able to follow the laws of the free market in a restricted way. :confused:
-A conceivable alternative would be government rationing.
-And it's all the Jews fault, again.
This line of reasoning sounds eerily familiar.
Meanwhile, the total hydrocarbon stocks in this country are at an all-time high, and rising...
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WTTSTUS1&f=W
OK, Grateful...let's suppose, just for grins, that peak oil does assert itself over the next 15 years and proves to be a hard problem - one not easily or quickly fixed.
Let's also suppose someone decides to make you king. (Again, as a thought experiment.)
So....what would you do? Seriously.
GratefulCitizen
09-20-2010, 16:32
OK, Grateful...let's suppose, just for grins, that peak oil does assert itself over the next 15 years and proves to be a hard problem - one not easily or quickly fixed.
Let's also suppose someone decides to make you king. (Again, as a thought experiment.)
So....what would you do? Seriously.
Prohibit all forms of taxation, at all levels, on the production, distribution, and consumption of energy, regardless of source or use.
The reason for this is because of how mineral economics actually works.
Energy is produced when it is profitable to do so.
Taking away profits is taking away energy.
Human beings and their lust for power over others is the problem, not geology.
Let the rest of the world tax themselves until they freeze in the dark.
MOO, YMMV.
<edit>
Some mineral economics comments:
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=320165&postcount=22
Interesting thoughts, Grateful. Thank you for the reply.
GratefulCitizen
09-22-2010, 22:00
Hey, Nmap.
Been looking over some of Jean Laherrčre's work and he has been acknowledging the problem of using "proved" reserves as a form of aggregation.
He does make a sound argument that "reserves growth" is a false impression created by the accounting technique (which was mandated by the SEC...).
He also says that if mean values (proved + probable) were published we would be able to see the threat of peak oil.
This amounts to an admission that he doesn't have the data.
So the argument centers around whether the public has a right to private data belonging to the oil companies.
Here's the problem:
Whichever companies give up their data are at a competitive disadvantage to those companies who do not give up their data.
Many oil companies are state-owned.
Let OPEC tip their hand first.
There may yet be something to peak oil.
It just might be a big poker game with different nations not knowing who holds what cards.
:munchin
GratefulCitizen
11-06-2010, 17:29
The supply crunch for oil may yet be coming, but first the current bloated inventories have to decline.
Peak oil keeps looking like a mirage, just out of reach.
High inventories and high prices.
But this time it's different.
Looks like a bubble.
MOO--China's economy will have to correct, and this will greatly affect all commodity prices.
http://www.benzinga.com/10/11/586774/swimming-in-crude-oil-record-high-inventory-will-continue-to-build
By Dian L. Chu, Economic Forecasts & Opinions
Despite the recent price surge in crude oil this week, basically going from $81.50 to $87 a barrel within this week--thanks to a Fed's QE2-induced weak dollar-- oil inventories actually added another 2 million barrels build to the current stockpiles.
These are the highest inventory levels for Crude in 2010 and are just shy of the 370 million mark, which will be punctuated next week with another build in crude stockpiles. (See Stocks Chart from the U.S. EIA)
61% OPEC Compliance
Oil imports fell to 8.6 million barrels per day from the prior week's 9.5 million (See Chart). So we even had a build with lower imports, and this trend will not continue as even before the recent price spike, OPEC members were producing beyond quotas (OPEC average compliance rate was at 61 percent in Oct.)
With elevated oil prices and the need for revenue in these challenging times for countries struggling with increasing debt burdens, expect the over producing to only get worse. .
Contango Tankers & Non-OPEC
Another factor that is eventually going to put downward pressure on crude oil prices is that at $87 a barrel, any oil that was being stored in container ships is going to be dumped on the market at these elevated prices. Not to mention the fact that non OPEC countries will be producing as much oil as they possibly can with these higher price levels.
Seasonal Low Demand & Reduced Refinery Run
Then, there's the reduced refinery utilization rate . U.S. refineries cut utilization rates to 81.8 percent, the lowest since March, as refiners try lower swollen inventory levels in the products market. We are also in the middle of the refinery turnaround season, which would further reduce the run rate.
Moreover, we are currently in the slower part of the demand side for crude oil products, the summer driving season is over, and historically, this is the weak part of the oil market from a calendar perspective, this is just in the U.S.
Quantitative Tightening - China, et al
If we take a look at China and India, they will be using less oil as well since both are struggling with escalating inflation levels. Both countries have raised gasoline and diesel prices the past month, lowering the subsidies for these products, which will only hurt demand.
As China, India and other emerging countries are implementing fresh “quantitative tightening”, including raising interests rates, among other measures to rein in inflation and "hot money" to combat Fed's QE2, growth is expected to drop for the next couple of quarters. That means the emerging markets are not going to be a factor in eating into these swollen inventory levels for the next couple of quarters either.
Econ 101 - Supply, Demand & Prices
Evidently, we have a problem, and the problem is that we have more supply of crude oil in the market than demand, and this isn`t going to improve over the next couple of quarters, especially with higher prices which only incentivizes more crude to come to the market, and dis- incentivizes consumption or demand for oil and oil products.
This is economics 101, and evokes the old adage there is no cure for high prices like high prices. In other words, when you have rising levels of supply that is more than demand, prices have to come down, this is sound economic theory.
Rollover or Take Delivery
So expect crude oil to reverse some of these gains and trade back in the $75 to $85 range after the initial hoopla surrounding Mr. Bernanke`s QE2 initiative wears off and reality starts to set in come physical delivery time at Cushing.
The December 2010 Crude Oil contract expires trading on the 19th of November, and in an over-saturated market with limited storage capacity, crude Oil is likely to go lower over the next couple of weeks due to the fact that nobody will want to take physical delivery at these prices.
And given the record number of historic longs (See CFTC Chart), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) report released on Friday shows cumulative net long positions at a record of 194,128. There were nearly 18,000 new net long positions against 2,551 new net short contract positions added in the week up to November 2.
Over the next couple of weeks these record number of long contracts have to be either rolled over or take physical delivery of the commodity, and given that a low number of market participants actually take physical delivery, the large number of rollovers will entail selling the Dec. 2010 futures contract and buying the Jan. 2011 futures contract.
These two factors of physical delivery and contract rollovers will be bearish for Crude Oil prices over the next couple of weeks.
Much Ado About Inventory, Credit & Housing
There is definitely an inflationary argument for higher crude prices (e.g. QE2) sometime in the future for the crude oil market, but not till inventories start going down, not when they are at record levels, and will only continue to build over the next couple of months based on the discussion so far.
The bottom line is demand has to improve considerably just to keep current supply levels at equilibrium, and this is just not going to occur in this economy with higher prices. The supply model was established at the peak of the credit bubble where you had a healthy housing market, healthy state and local budget revenue streams, and a robust credit market where small businesses, entrepreneurs, and individuals could easily attain credit.
The private contraction in the credit markets from the 2007 highs is still a major drag on the economy, and will not return to those levels for some time. So don`t expect crude oil demand to really start picking up steam till the housing market starts recovering, maybe by March 2011 is when both markets will start showing some improved demand fundamentals.
Swimming In Crude?
Crude, unlike gold and silver, which do not have weekly transparent inventory reports, and has much higher storage costs and capacity issues, actually has to adhere to the economics of supply and demand, and despite future inflation concerns, in the near term prices must go down due to swollen supply in the market.
Otherwise, we literally will be swimming in crude oil.
Looks like a bubble.
To whom? :p
...High inventories and high prices...
But this time it's different.
You're seeing the dollar implode and a flight to tangible assets, not pure market forces or typical speculation. And I'm afraid you ain't seen nothing yet. If the dollar index breaks 74 and can't hold at 72 get ready for the ride of your economic life.
If oil hits $100 blame Helicopter Ben.
GratefulCitizen
12-15-2010, 13:07
Something exciting is going to happen in the next few months.
QE2, tax cut chaos, Chinese inflation, etc.
An interesting thing just happened with oil imports.
Weekly net imports just dropped to their lowest level since January, 1998.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WTTNTUS2&f=W
:munchin
China is also buying Uranium at $75 a lb., slightly higher than the market is currently paying, but China is betting it will return to mid 70's prices of $130 per lb., before long, making the purchase price of $75 seem like a smart move.
GratefulCitizen
01-06-2011, 17:08
Interesting perspective.
How much time is left on the countdown?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/investing/rising-dollar-cooling-china-commodities-bubble/19787507/
greenberetTFS
01-06-2011, 17:51
Another form of slavery that was acceptable as stated in the Biblical Old Testament is the one where an indentured person would voluntarily accept slavery rather than go to prison for owing money and being unable to pay it back.................:(:(:(
Big Teddy :munchin
Oooops! Saudi oil reserves 'overstated by 40%'
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/oooops_saudi_oil_reserves_over.html
"......As far back as 2004, there was worry that the Saudis were fudging on how much oil they still had in the ground. Thanks to Wikileaks, we now have a little better idea. ............"
Yeap, oooops.
Here's the problem - along about the time Saudi Arabia "suddenly discovered" all of those mis-reported reserves, so did the other members of OPEC. They did this so they could maintain their relative sales quota for crude. This is all brought out in the late Matthew Simmon's book, Twilight in the Desert.
That said, many of the official estimates by US and international agencies are based on those inflated reserves. There is no transparency in reporting, meaning we don't really know when the effects of depletion will assert themselves.
We may be on track for an oil crunch that will be remarkably painful.
GratefulCitizen
02-09-2011, 14:43
It is impossible to estimate aggregate reserves unless you have the means and variances for every single well.
Those numbers are required for calculation.
The published aggregate numbers come from adding the "proven" reserves from individual wells and are absolutely meaningless.
(This includes all of the oil reserves numbers in the CIA world factbook)
I read Matt Simmons' book.
He repeatedly bemoaned the lack of certainty and referred to the voodoo of oil reserves estimation.
He also scoffed at the "fuzzy logic" used by the Saudis to maximize profitability.
Matt Simmons simply didn't understand the math and was ignorant of the fact that he didn't understand it.
Reserves estimates don't really matter, anyway.
Current production, distribution, and storage facilities are what matter.
Most of the oil price (and other commodity price) nonsense we've seen is due to low interest rates and financial shenanigans.
Watch what happens in commodities when China's bubble pops.
ZonieDiver
02-09-2011, 14:45
financial shenanigans
I thought the current administratioin had put an end to such things through current legislation! :D
GratefulCitizen
02-16-2011, 14:52
Domestic gasoline stocks are at the highest they've been in over 20 years.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WGTSTUS1&f=W
There's certainly no shortage of stored crude oil, either.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCRSTUS1&f=W
So what's driving the price increases?
(Quantitative easing, perhaps...)
How high can it go?
Let's see now.... LINK (http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052970204098404576130370708044708.html?m od=googlenews_barrons#articleTabs_panel_article%3D 1)
Here, we have an oil analyst who expects an oil shortfall.
The Pentagon's JOE-2010 report does likewise.
Shell says much the same thing. LINK (http://www-static.shell.com/static/aboutshell/downloads/aboutshell/signals_signposts.pdf)
However, I encourage those who choose to dismiss peak oil and its highly destructive consequences to do so. It will make the coming "told ya so" infinitely sweeter. :munchin
GratefulCitizen
02-16-2011, 17:51
Let's see now.... LINK (http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052970204098404576130370708044708.html?m od=googlenews_barrons#articleTabs_panel_article%3D 1)
Here, we have an oil analyst who expects an oil shortfall.
The Pentagon's JOE-2010 report does likewise.
Shell says much the same thing. LINK (http://www-static.shell.com/static/aboutshell/downloads/aboutshell/signals_signposts.pdf)
However, I encourage those who choose to dismiss peak oil and its highly destructive consequences to do so. It will make the coming "told ya so" infinitely sweeter. :munchin
Why stop at $300 per bbl?
I say $100 billion per bbl! <maniacal laugh>
We already shrugged off $100 trillion! <more maniacal laughing>
Why stop at $300 per bbl?
I say $100 billion per bbl! <maniacal laugh>
We already shrugged off $100 trillion! <more maniacal laughing>
No, great depression II will reduce demand. But I like your thinking!
GratefulCitizen
05-28-2011, 19:14
Oil prices are too high for the Saudi's liking. :munchin
Now we see the real reason for Saudi Arabia's spare capacity.
From the article:
Prince Alwaleed bin Talal said an oil price of $70 to $80 a barrel is in the best interests of Saudi Arabia because it diminishes the urgency in the U.S. and Europe to develop alternative energy sources.
“We don’t want the West to go and find alternatives,” Alwaleed, a nephew of Saudi King Abdullah, said in an interview on CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” scheduled for broadcast tomorrow. “The higher the price of oil goes, the more they have incentives to go and find alternatives.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-28/alwaleed-says-saudi-arabia-seeks-70-to-80-oil-to-preserve-sales-to-west.html
Meanwhile, the oil-boom spreads here in the USA. ;)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/business/energy-environment/28shale.html
Oil prices are too high for the Saudi's liking. :munchin
Now we see the real reason for Saudi Arabia's spare capacity.
From the article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-28/alwaleed-says-saudi-arabia-seeks-70-to-80-oil-to-preserve-sales-to-west.html
Meanwhile, the oil-boom spreads here in the USA. ;)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/business/energy-environment/28shale.html
Don't worry, the Watermelons will stop it:
After the harm done by the spotted owl and delta smelt, the listing of a tiny reptile as endangered may be the latest salvo in the war on domestic energy.
As Yogi Berra would say, it's deja vu all over again. If the dunes sagebrush lizard is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an endangered species, another key part of the American economy will fall prey to the eco-extremist mantra that every little critter's well-being trumps that of the American people and economy.
Last December, the Fish and Wildlife Service announced that the lizard, a three-inch-long reptile native to the American Southwest, "faces immediate and significant threats due to oil and gas activities and herbicide treatments" and initiated the process to get it listed under the Endangered Species Act.
More... (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/570339/201104271827/Will-A-Lizard-Stop-West-Texas-Oil-.aspx)
Pat
GratefulCitizen
06-10-2011, 18:58
Will the Saudis follow through?
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/51985329-79/per-oil-saudi-percent.html.csp
Gotta keep everyone on the drug.
ZonieDiver
06-10-2011, 21:01
Don't worry, the Watermelons will stop it:
Pat
Yeah, cuz species never went extinct before evil man came on the scene! That's why all those damned dinosaurs are crapping all over my lawn, and the dodo birds are fouling my trees! :D
Yeah, cuz species never went extinct before evil man came on the scene! That's why all those damned dinosaurs are crapping all over my lawn, and the dodo birds are fouling my trees! :D
Lucky! All we have in my neck-of-the-woo...,uh, desert, are weird little foil wrapped aliens. Not to be confused with the SOTB aliens. ;)
Pat
Obama is probably thinking, "Why me, why now?"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43508263/ns/business-oil_and_energy/
The United States and other oil-consuming nations said Thursday they plan to release 60 million barrels of oil from government reserves over the next month in a bid to push down soaring energy prices.
The surprise announcement had an immediate impact on global markets, pushing down the price of one benchmark grade of crude by more than $8 a barrel to about $106. The move also weighed on Wall Street, helping to drive stock prices sharply lower.
More must-read stories EPA Scenes from the 2011 Paris Air Show
The show features 140 aircraft and host more than 300,000 people during its run from June 20-26.
Analysts said the move was aimed in large part at chasing oil speculators out of the market.
“This is the straw that breaks the camel’s back — this is the tipping point,” said Fadel Gheit, oil analyst for Oppenheimer, a leading investment bank. “The speculators will have to change their positions. Instead of betting on higher prices they have to bet on lower prices."
But with oil prices already well below their May peaks, the timing of the move brought criticism from business groups and Republican lawmakers, who accused President Barack Obama of playing politics with the country's oil reserves, which are intended to address emergencies.
"The president is using a national security instrument to address his domestic political problems," House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement. "This action threatens our ability to respond to a genuine national security crisis and means we must ultimately find the resources to replenish the reserve - at significant cost to taxpayers."
Even some Democrats were puzzled by the move.
"This decision would have been more timely if made when the disruption in Libyan oil supplies first occurred" early this year, said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Still, Bingaman said he hopes the move helps deflate "speculative froth in the markets" and drives prices back to levels where most experts believe they should be.
The United States will provide half the release — 30 million barrels of oil — from its huge 727 million barrel Strategic Petroleum Reserve, an amount that is worth about 1.5 days of U.S. consumption, with Europe supplying 30 percent. The rest will come from Pacific OECD nations.
The consumer nations acted after OPEC failed to raise production at a meeting on June 8 and despite assurances from OPEC's biggest producer Saudi Arabia that it would lift supplies unilaterally.
Story: Surprise oil release targets speculators
"Greater tightness in the oil market threatens to undermine the fragile global economic recovery," the IEA said.
U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu cited political disruptions in the Middle East for the move.
How much oil?
Barrels per day
Millions
World oil production
84.4
World oil consumption
84.2
June 23 government reserves release
60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCE: U.S. Energy Information Administration
"We are taking this action in response to the ongoing loss of crude oil due to supply disruptions in Libya and other countries and their impact on the global economic recovery," Chu said. "As we move forward, we will continue to monitor the situation and stand ready to take additional steps if necessary."
News of the oil release sent gasoline tumbling 14 cents a gallon in the futures markets. That’s the equivalent of about $56 million a day in savings at the gas pump — or about $20 billion a year, according to Peter Beutel, an oil analyst at Cameron Hanover.
“It’s a shot in the arm for the economy,” he said. “It acts like a massive tax rebate to the American consumer.”
Overall the U.S. and IEA plan to release 2 million barrels per day onto the world market over the next 30 days, more than making up for the 1.2 million barrels daily that Libya was exporting before the current unrest.
Demand for oil is typically highest in July and August, peak of the summer driving season, according to the Energy Department.
The amount of oil released Thursday represents just a drop in the bucket of daily crude oil demand and will have little impact on the balance of supply and demand.
“I don't see what the release of 60 million barrels of oil adds to the market," said Christophe Barret, an oil analyst at Credit Agricole. “We don't need it in terms of levels of stocks; we are 35 million barrels above the five year average already. It's the equivalent of two months (of) Libyan production, so I'm not sure it will make much difference (in terms of supply.)”
-----------BT------------
Drill baby drill!!
“It’s a shot in the arm for the economy,” he said. “It acts like a massive tax rebate to the American consumer.”
And therein lies a kernal of truth.
Quantitative Easing 2 (QE2) ends as June wraps up. Right now the Congress says they want austerity instead of stimulus, and the Fed (Federal Reserve) senses an unwillingness to start QE3. But the economy is going downhill by a variety of measures - and elections are coming.
How, then, to have stimulus without increased debt and without QE3? They've hit upon an answer - one which I believe will fail. Later on, say about November of this year, worsening numbers may well cause the Congress and Administration to embrace new rounds of stimulus along with QE3.
The sad reality is that we are wasting the reserves and will derive no benefit. That's not leadership, IMO, but rather opportunism of the lowest sort.
GratefulCitizen
06-24-2011, 16:53
The SPR release is idiotic.
The market will tend to itself, if left alone.
Oil companies have made significant domestic investment, created a great deal of new jobs, and now they're getting the rug pulled.
This may actually destroy jobs.
The "mining" line on the linked chart largely reflects increased employment in the oil and gas industries.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JJA7TwMIJ5M/TZScPq0YJzI/AAAAAAAAE0s/nLJCvNhml18/s1600/Monster+Indices.jpg
When the prices drop by fiat, production will scale back, and oil companies will be hesitant making future investments.
Ultimately this will result in higher oil prices and probably increased unemployment.
Later on, say about November of this year, worsening numbers may well cause the Congress and Administration to embrace new rounds of stimulus along with QE3.
I really hope you're wrong, but I fear the opposite.
More stimulus monies from our tax revenues will only hurt us in the long run. More stimulus will only prove that this Admin is not up to the challenge. Do we go down that road, see a bump in munbers and see also Obama get re-elected?
I fear also, America is still not in enough pain to really get pissed.
I really hope you're wrong, but I fear the opposite.
I would prefer to be wrong. It would be better for the country.
More stimulus monies from our tax revenues will only hurt us in the long run. More stimulus will only prove that this Admin is not up to the challenge. Do we go down that road, see a bump in munbers and see also Obama get re-elected?
Maybe not so long term. The last round made the stock market and commodities go higher - but did little for those who need a paycheck. That's the problem - we've been doing this for a long time and we've created quite a burden of debt.
In all candor, I expect Obama to get re-elected. I don't want it - not at all. But right now I expect it.
I fear also, America is still not in enough pain to really get pissed.
That will, IMO, come. Maybe not for a few years, but there are some trends that suggest we'll get there (MOO, YMMV). But my monsters-under-the-bed fear is that when that pain comes...when Americans become well and truly pissed...that we will have that crisis which Rahm Emanuel spoke of. The crisis one should not let go to waste. Clever orators have led other nations down dark paths. I hope (and, frankly, pray) we avoid that problem.
Maybe not so long term. The last round made the stock market and commodities go higher - but did little for those who need a paycheck. That's the problem - we've been doing this for a long time and we've created quite a burden of debt.
So it didn't work....., but I understand your point.
I'm preparing for another 6 years of "Barry".
alright4u
06-25-2011, 18:08
:mad:Obama is probably thinking, "Why me, why now?"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43508263/ns/business-oil_and_energy/
The United States and other oil-consuming nations said Thursday they plan to release 60 million barrels of oil from government reserves over the next month in a bid to push down soaring energy prices.
The surprise announcement had an immediate impact on global markets, pushing down the price of one benchmark grade of crude by more than $8 a barrel to about $106. The move also weighed on Wall Street, helping to drive stock prices sharply lower.
More must-read stories EPA Scenes from the 2011 Paris Air Show
The show features 140 aircraft and host more than 300,000 people during its run from June 20-26.
Analysts said the move was aimed in large part at chasing oil speculators out of the market.
“This is the straw that breaks the camel’s back — this is the tipping point,” said Fadel Gheit, oil analyst for Oppenheimer, a leading investment bank. “The speculators will have to change their positions. Instead of betting on higher prices they have to bet on lower prices."
But with oil prices already well below their May peaks, the timing of the move brought criticism from business groups and Republican lawmakers, who accused President Barack Obama of playing politics with the country's oil reserves, which are intended to address emergencies.
"The president is using a national security instrument to address his domestic political problems," House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement. "This action threatens our ability to respond to a genuine national security crisis and means we must ultimately find the resources to replenish the reserve - at significant cost to taxpayers."
Even some Democrats were puzzled by the move.
"This decision would have been more timely if made when the disruption in Libyan oil supplies first occurred" early this year, said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Still, Bingaman said he hopes the move helps deflate "speculative froth in the markets" and drives prices back to levels where most experts believe they should be.
The United States will provide half the release — 30 million barrels of oil — from its huge 727 million barrel Strategic Petroleum Reserve, an amount that is worth about 1.5 days of U.S. consumption, with Europe supplying 30 percent. The rest will come from Pacific OECD nations.
The consumer nations acted after OPEC failed to raise production at a meeting on June 8 and despite assurances from OPEC's biggest producer Saudi Arabia that it would lift supplies unilaterally.
Story: Surprise oil release targets speculators
"Greater tightness in the oil market threatens to undermine the fragile global economic recovery," the IEA said.
U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu cited political disruptions in the Middle East for the move.
How much oil?
Barrels per day
Millions
World oil production
84.4
World oil consumption
84.2
June 23 government reserves release
60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCE: U.S. Energy Information Administration
"We are taking this action in response to the ongoing loss of crude oil due to supply disruptions in Libya and other countries and their impact on the global economic recovery," Chu said. "As we move forward, we will continue to monitor the situation and stand ready to take additional steps if necessary."
News of the oil release sent gasoline tumbling 14 cents a gallon in the futures markets. That’s the equivalent of about $56 million a day in savings at the gas pump — or about $20 billion a year, according to Peter Beutel, an oil analyst at Cameron Hanover.
“It’s a shot in the arm for the economy,” he said. “It acts like a massive tax rebate to the American consumer.”
Overall the U.S. and IEA plan to release 2 million barrels per day onto the world market over the next 30 days, more than making up for the 1.2 million barrels daily that Libya was exporting before the current unrest.
Demand for oil is typically highest in July and August, peak of the summer driving season, according to the Energy Department.
The amount of oil released Thursday represents just a drop in the bucket of daily crude oil demand and will have little impact on the balance of supply and demand.
“I don't see what the release of 60 million barrels of oil adds to the market," said Christophe Barret, an oil analyst at Credit Agricole. “We don't need it in terms of levels of stocks; we are 35 million barrels above the five year average already. It's the equivalent of two months (of) Libyan production, so I'm not sure it will make much difference (in terms of supply.)”
-----------BT------------
Drill baby drill!!
Zero put our nation in harm's way for votes. He is not drilling. He is selling us out for votes.
GratefulCitizen
07-09-2011, 18:00
Saw something interesting in the UPS newsletter.
UPS is bringing on line a bunch of LNG tractors (trucks) for the feeder department.
They are working out deals to get LNG fill stations from LA to Las Vegas.
Utah already has plenty of natural gas stations.
Colorado has a vested interest in natural gas fill stations.
They are a major producer.
Once the fill stations are in place along the freeway corridors, more trucking companies will switch to LNG rigs.
With that, more stations will follow, and then more cars will start using natural gas.
The dominoes are starting to fall.
GratefulCitizen
11-15-2011, 18:55
Oil is losing to natural gas in pricing.
Guess what countries produce the most natural gas.
:munchin
Interestingly enough, it appears we may have 5 (or more) years of lackluster global economic activity. ( McKinsey on Finance, 35th issue, Spring 2010 ). That implies reduced energy demand, hence downward pressure on energy prices.
Patience, patience. :munchin
GratefulCitizen
11-15-2011, 19:14
Interestingly enough, it appears we may have 5 (or more) years of lackluster global economic activity. ( McKinsey on Finance, 35th issue, Spring 2010 ). That implies reduced energy demand, hence downward pressure on energy prices.
Patience, patience. :munchin
Currently more interested in price ratios and who produces natural gas or oil.
Peak oil will be a consequence of rising natural gas production.
As coal surpassed wood/water/animal power and oil surpassed coal, natural gas will surpass oil.
Oil is cleaner than coal; ng is cleaner than oil and also has less carbon.
The evil oil companies are pulling ju-jitsu on the greenies.:D
The evil oil companies are pulling ju-jitsu on the greenies.:D
Nah, they're not evil - they pay good dividends! :cool:
GratefulCitizen
03-27-2012, 15:26
Natural gas prices keep getting lower.
Oil prices are still high.
Natural gas is too good of a substitute for oil for this to keep going.
http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2012/03/natural-gas-is-becoming-incredibly.html
Natural gas prices do appear to be good news - despite this administration's negative attitude toward increased drilling - natural gas requires drilling and benefits from transportation pipelines...similar to, if not related to the Keystone pipeline project.
IMO, aggressive pursuit of energy exploration, extraction and transportation of energy products could be the boost this economy needs.
The second and third order effects could also get job creation back on track.
Anybody but Obama in November.
GratefulCitizen
05-08-2012, 12:44
Oil prices are falling.
The slide will probably continue.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/05/08/bloomberg_articlesM3OCQ30UQVI901-M3PE1.DTL
Back in March, the Saudis "hired the largest number of super-tankers in years."
It takes a couple of weeks to load at Ras Tanura and 40 days of travel to get here.
(Original FT article won't hot-link but can be found at the top of google search results by entering: the price that launched a wall of ships )
I still think this has something to do with undercutting Iran's oil bourse and keeping oil priced in dollars.
greenberetTFS
05-08-2012, 13:44
I watched my girl Diane Sawyer who I think is a really attractive lady(65 yo) on the ABC News last night an she said gas has gone down 18 cents so far and the average price is now $3.79 a gallon.........:p And yes,Maggie knows about my attraction to Diane and at my (75 yo) situation she's not worried a bit............;) :D
Big Teddy :munchin
gas has gone down 18 cents so far and the average price is now $3.79 a gallonBig Teddy :munchin
Thank you President Obama! :rolleyes:
What was the price of gas when he took over again?...you know, back when it was "Bush's fault".
GratefulCitizen
05-11-2012, 19:45
Found a great article which addresses the concerns of Malthusian hand-wringers.
The root of wealth creation is the creativity of the human mind, not how molecules are arranged and distributed through the Earth's crust.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/05/10/the-end-of-thought/
Natural gas prices keep getting lower.
Oil prices are still high.
Natural gas is too good of a substitute for oil for this to keep going.
http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2012/03/natural-gas-is-becoming-incredibly.html
Some of the smart folks over at iTulip reckon we are getting pretty close to a bottom on NG prices.....and expect to see a fair few bankruptcies in the NG industry starting by the end of the year.
They seem to equate the NG investment bubble a bit like the alt energy bubble(Solyndra et al).
GratefulCitizen
05-15-2012, 11:43
Some of the smart folks over at iTulip reckon we are getting pretty close to a bottom on NG prices.....and expect to see a fair few bankruptcies in the NG industry starting by the end of the year.
They seem to equate the NG investment bubble a bit like the alt energy bubble(Solyndra et al).
There's been a commodity bubble fueled by China's building bubble.
The China bubble is deflating and it will have a big impact on Australia's economy.
Not sure how much of this will spill over to NZ.
LINK (http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/we-were-wrong-on-peak-oil-1.1045786) - I have been reading some other articles on this, the peak oil people are still standing by their argument. While I think their argument has some merit, the problem is they keep saying, "In the next few years, it will happen," then the next few years comes, and nothing happens. They were saying we'd hit peak oil in the mid-1990s, then in the late 1990s, then in the early 2000s, then in the mid-2000s, then in the late 2000s, then surely by 2012, now in the next few years according to some. I think they do not understand the subject as well as they think they do.
What will be really cool is if we see large booms in oil production from the United States, Canada, and Israel (which may be on the verge of becoming a major energy nation), and thus a decline in the geopolitical influence of the oil-producing countries hostile to the West.
I agree, and in my personal opinion.........
Energy Independence is the real key to winning the "war on terror".
From what I have read, energy independence unto itself isn't really attainable. Even if 100% of the U.S.'s oil came from North America, oil is still priced globally, so a supply shock from say Saudi Arabia would still raise prices here in the U.S. And it would affect other economies that the U.S. is linked to. As it is, I think only about 25% of America's oil actually comes from the Middle East (and 10% when excluding Saudi Arabia). Most of it is from Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. itself. I think energy security is something definitely attainable though.
Who said I was talking about oil..........
I think oil will always be needed, however I am talking about an overall reliance in regards to our day to day. People will always have a "want" for it, however I would gladly drive a vehicle that runs on an alternative fuel most of the time if it were cost efficient.
But that doesn't mean that i will give up my 4 wheeler, motorcycle, generator, or lawn equipment.
All in all, that may account for 5% of my oil consumption.
GratefulCitizen
07-09-2012, 09:47
LINK (http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/we-were-wrong-on-peak-oil-1.1045786) - I have been reading some other articles on this, the peak oil people are still standing by their argument. While I think their argument has some merit, the problem is they keep saying, "In the next few years, it will happen," then the next few years comes, and nothing happens. They were saying we'd hit peak oil in the mid-1990s, then in the late 1990s, then in the early 2000s, then in the mid-2000s, then in the late 2000s, then surely by 2012, now in the next few years according to some. I think they do not understand the subject as well as they think they do.
What will be really cool is if we see large booms in oil production from the United States, Canada, and Israel (which may be on the verge of becoming a major energy nation), and thus a decline in the geopolitical influence of the oil-producing countries hostile to the West.
The peak-oilers don't understand the cause of peak production.
It is an issue of will, not technology or geology.
So long as oil is the best choice available, people will do what takes to produce more.
If oil becomes too expensive, it will no longer be the best choice, and people will put their efforts elsewhere.
It's about profit.
Both for the producers and consumers.
Peak oil will happen...
once a better, cheaper alternative is found.
GratefulCitizen
03-17-2013, 10:26
Natural gas making inroads.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/06/column-kemp-gas-engines-idUSL6N0BYDDN20130306
The price differential between oil and natural gas is unsustainable.
Something has to give.
Grateful Citizen: The price differential between oil and natural gas is unsustainable.
Something has to give.
I agree. The energy spread versus price spread is to great to justify same old same old. I realize there is a built in inertia in business and that initial changeover of fixed assets is high, but if you were able to reduce your fuel costs by 1/4 to a 1/3, especially when your competitors are still tooled up for gasoline versus NG, you would have a huge advantage at least in the short term and a leg up in the mid as you've worked the bugs out of the logistics.
Another website which looks at the trends in crude, natural gas, and natural gas liquids: http://rbnenergy.com/methane-train-runnin-big-savings-from-lng-locomotives (http://rbnenergy.com/methane-train-runnin-big-savings-from-lng-locomotives)
Also, don't count out oils, or at least refined diesel yet. Sasol is building a gas to liquids plant in South Louisiana. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/business/energy-environment/sasol-plans-first-gas-to-liquids-plant-in-us.html
GratefulCitizen
09-21-2013, 14:58
Irreversible decline of peak oil in the US.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus1&f=a
Cumulative 2013 will be even higher.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCRFPUS2&f=W
Where's Nmap?
The Reaper
09-21-2013, 15:09
Irreversible decline of peak oil in the US.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus1&f=a
Cumulative 2013 will be even higher.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCRFPUS2&f=W
Where's Nmap?
Even with a Dim POTUS, no drilling on public lands, and envirowhackos running the EPA.
Wow!
TR
GratefulCitizen
09-21-2013, 16:56
Even with a Dim POTUS, no drilling on public lands, and envirowhackos running the EPA.
Wow!
TR
The government doesn't have as much power over this as they think they do.
(Much like the rest of the economy)
The war on coal has affected production, but also increased exports:
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec7_13.pdf
http://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/pdf/t7p01p1.pdf
Natural gas is doing well and having secondary effects:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9010us2A.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/20/boom-in-natural-gas-production-sends-us-shipyards-into-overdrive/
And about that dependency on foreign oil:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=wttntus2&f=4
There's still a big enough economy and bright enough future for anyone willing to diligently pursue happiness.
Even with a Dim POTUS, no drilling on public lands, and envirowhackos running the EPA.
Wow!
TR
Running the EPA with armed operators:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/14/armed-epa-agents-in-alaska-shed-light-on-70-fed-agencies-with-armed-divisions/
GratefulCitizen
10-09-2013, 09:42
About that oil dependency problem...
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=13251
Demand is rising elsewhere in the world.
The US will soon be a net exporter of energy.
GratefulCitizen
01-11-2015, 16:14
Oil around $50/barrel...
www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/bartiromo/2015/01/11/bartiromo-saudi-prince-alwaleed-oil-100-barrel/21484911/
Where's Nmap?
:munchin
Often times in energy investment it's the 2nd owner of the energy producing asset/property that makes the BIG money.
There's going to be some operators losing heaps per BOE at these prices and as it drifts lower for a bit.
Companies sitting on a lot of cash and picking indebted operators apart like vultures are going to make an absolute KILLING.
Some big fortunes over the next 6-12 years are going to be made purchasing distressed energy producing assets over the next 6-12 months.
GratefulCitizen
01-11-2015, 19:11
My understanding is that oil will have to stay under $42/barrel for two years to kill the shale industry.
Even then...
This will hurt production methods which require huge investments (like offshore and arctic) more than it will hurt shale.
Lower oil prices also give room for the Fed to monetize more of the debt.
The massive increase in hydrocarbon production and the multiplicative effect of energy/technology demonstrate the reality of how economies actually function:
Money isn't real, goods and services are real.
How's this gonna work out for Russia, Iran, and Venezuela?
:munchin
How's this gonna work out for Russia, Iran, and Venezuela?
:munchin
Which was the only reason that oil dropped at all, let alone so quickly.
So where is the money coming from to subsidize House Saud in order to maintain the pump rates and flooding of the market?
What new gas tax?
GratefulCitizen
08-08-2015, 19:08
Real capital is not found in chemical concentrations underground, it is found in the human mind and will.
The mind and will of the American entrepreneur is a force to be reckoned with...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html
The chart referencing oils prices necessary to balance budgets is interesting.
:munchin
GratefulCitizen
11-05-2015, 13:46
Peak demand, not peak supply.
Make something expensive enough, people will develop substitutes, develop ways of producing that something more effeciently, and develop ways of using it more effeciently.
Markets work.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/peak-demand-could-mean-world-will-never-see-dollar100-oil-again/ar-BBmRRqp?li=AA4Zjn
GratefulCitizen
01-11-2017, 23:03
About that oil dependency problem...
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=13251
Demand is rising elsewhere in the world.
The US will soon be a net exporter of energy.
Coming soon...
http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/0383(2017).pdf
Scroll down to the page marked 15 (might be a different page on your reader).
Heading towards being a net energy exporter.
GratefulCitizen
03-03-2019, 21:52
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WTTNTUS2&f=W
By the weekly estimates, the US has been a net exporter twice.
(11/30 and 2/22)
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCRFPUS2&f=W
Production is still climbing.
So much for peak oil.
GratefulCitizen
09-11-2022, 17:43
About those energy prices…
The problem is too much printed money, not a lack of production.
The United States is now a net exporter petroleum + petroleum products.
(Technically, we still are a net importer of petroleum, but products exports exceed raw imports).
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WTTNTUS2&f=W
The United States is also a net exporter of natural gas.
(Have to compare both charts.)
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9100us2m.htm
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9130us2m.htm
GratefulCitizen
04-03-2023, 13:31
The United States is becoming a greater exporter of energy.
Predictions of demise of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency may be a bit premature.
The US has been a net exporter of petroleum + petroleum products for over a year.
(Technically, petroleum is still a net import, but this is more than offset by the export of products).
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WTTNTUS2&f=W
The US is also a significant net exporter of natural gas.
(Compare the links.)
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9100us2m.htm
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9130us2m.htm
The US is also a net exporter of coal.
(Compare the links.)
https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/pdf/t18p01p1.pdf
https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/pdf/t7p01p1.pdf
The United States is becoming a greater exporter of energy.
Predictions of demise of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency may be a bit premature.
The US has been a net exporter of petroleum + petroleum products for over a year.
(Technically, petroleum is still a net import, but this is more than offset by the export of products).
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WTTNTUS2&f=W
The US is also a significant net exporter of natural gas.
(Compare the links.)
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9100us2m.htm
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9130us2m.htm
The US is also a net exporter of coal.
(Compare the links.)
https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/pdf/t18p01p1.pdf
https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/pdf/t7p01p1.pdf
Which could be the reason why TPTB are pushing green so they sell those resources overseas instead of within the US. And/or bankrupt the current owners as a means of nationalizing those industries or foreign entities buying up the assets for pennies on the dollar. Whether or not the US loses reserve currency status or not, very little bit that isn't traded in US dollars is a hit on the US economy especially when your running a 31+ trillion deficit.
GratefulCitizen
04-03-2023, 14:22
Which could be the reason why TPTB are pushing green so they sell those resources overseas instead of within the US. And/or bankrupt the current owners as a means of nationalizing those industries or foreign entities buying up the assets for pennies on the dollar. Whether or not the US loses reserve currency status or not, very little bit that isn't traded in US dollars is a hit on the US economy especially when your running a 31+ trillion deficit.
I think these resources are being sold overseas because the product is better and cheaper (particularly the refined products.)
Of course, it helps to have a captured European market which has difficulty getting cheap Russian energy due to sanctions and a pipeline which suffered from a tragedy of unknown causes…
Badger52
04-03-2023, 15:36
...and a pipeline which suffered from a tragedy of unknown causes…Yeah, I'm one of 'those' guys.
GratefulCitizen
10-22-2023, 15:05
Most “news” is just propaganda to manipulate behavior on the large scale.
This has been happening under the radar.
US oil production reaches all-time high:
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCRFPUS2&f=W
The only “issues” surrounding the US oil production market are that our domestic refining capacity is set up to run “heavy-sour” grades of crude and the shale-oil being produced are “light-sweat” grades. The buildout of / retooling of refining in the US is underway to sever ties with the global system but will likely take 3-5 years to fully become operational.
GratefulCitizen
03-25-2024, 22:33
So much for peak oil…
https://www.yahoo.com/news/usa-now-producing-more-oil-173047232.html
Oil production is not a problem of hydrocarbon scarcity.
It is an economic problem.
bblhead672
03-26-2024, 10:47
So much for peak oil…
https://www.yahoo.com/news/usa-now-producing-more-oil-173047232.html
Oil production is not a problem of hydrocarbon scarcity.
It is an economic problem.
IMHO, it's more a political problem.
With record US production you'd think we would have much lower prices than we currently do. But the green cartel and their controlled politicians/bureaucrats won't allow it.