Oil at $87 and rising - still no alternative energy

Just how much would the price of oil drop? A few bucks? Worthless savings.

What you posit is akin to the recent housing crisis. Your situation only works if the amount of oil being drilled CONSTANTLY increases and the supply never diminishes. This is not going to happen. It's just setting us up for a crash in the future.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Just how much would the price of oil drop? A few bucks? Worthless savings.

Stupid question, cyclops, I don't know, but one thing is certain, it would drop the price some, over what it would otherwise be in the future, and it would give us a slightly better energy picture in terms of producing more of our own energy, which helps us in many different ways.

Quote:

What you posit is akin to the recent housing crisis. Your situation only works if the amount of oil being drilled CONSTANTLY increases and the supply never diminishes. This is not going to happen. It's just setting us up for a crash in the future.

Cycloptichorn

My post just recognizes reality, which points out the intelligence of self sufficiency and that there is no free lunch. Arrogance expects to do nothing and still be able to live comfortably, and it won't happen. I don't see the logic of your comparison to housing, but one thing is sure, if you made it against the law to build new houses, what do you suppose would happen to home prices and housing availability. You must be exremely dense, cyclops, when it comes to reality and the free market.

Why is it then that the Republican party NEVER pushes for more renewables, or solar, or for better hybrid cars, or any of the things you list, Okie? Your leaders work to strip money for those things out of the same bills they try and inject money FOR more oil drilling into.

The dichotomy has been put in place by obstructionists and oil-friendly Congressmen and Senators from YOUR party, not ours.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why is it then that the Republican party NEVER pushes for more renewables, or solar, or for better hybrid cars, or any of the things you list, Okie? Your leaders work to strip money for those things out of the same bills they try and inject money FOR more oil drilling into.

The dichotomy has been put in place by obstructionists and oil-friendly Congressmen and Senators from YOUR party, not ours.

Cycloptichorn

Another false premise. Republicans are totally pushing anything and eveything that is economically and technically efficient. What we don't do is promote pie in the sky government research programs which tend to go down the wrong road. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that we have confidence in the free market to develop practical technologies and bring them to reality. Democrats believe it requires robbing private companies to run some government run boondoggle to develop something. I think recent history shows it has been private companies developing wind turbines, solar, hybrid cars, etc. Government research has aided the process at the margins, but the mainstream of progress lies in the very powerful market of private enterprise pushing things forward.

Start here.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/subsidizing-big-oil.html

http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/08/03/bush-administration-threatens-veto-of-house-clean-energy-bills/

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Start here.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/subsidizing-big-oil.html

http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/08/03/bush-administration-threatens-veto-of-house-clean-energy-bills/

Cycloptichorn

Propaganda websites. And I am expected to take their word for it because they said it , with no evidence? In your own words, provide evidence of lower taxes oil companies. I don't feel like doing your own research. You will need to do it. And don't throw everything up against the wall, hoping one thing will stick. Provide one good point, with evidence.

We drill for oil, we build nuclear, we mine coal, we produce natural gas, we build wind turbines, develop solar, we build hybrid cars, fully electric cars, and we continue to research all the other ideas and technologies under development, but we don't scrap the primary and most efficient energy source intentionally now, which is oil. Basically, we allow the market to determine the most economical and efficient energy mix.

Basically, we allow the market to determine the most economical and efficient energy mix.

MSNBC REPORT

Some see oil bubble; others see troubleThe fears of a supply cutoff aren't without merit. There is so little excess production capacity today that the loss of a major supplier could create a shortage of oil. That has led to worries that oil prices could jump even further. Last week, a Goldman Sachs analyst created a stir by advising clients that oil prices could reach $150 to $200 a barrel over the next six months to two years, though he said the outlook "remains a major uncertainty." (His official forecast: oil will sell for $108 at the end of this year and gradually rise to $120 in 2010.)

Many analysts see prices moving the other way. According to the consensus forecast tracked by Thomson Reuters, oil prices are expected to end this year around $91 a barrel, falling to $90 by the end of next year and $82 by the end of 2010.

Bubble proponents argue that if demand for oil continues to ease and supplies hold up, the speculative fever driving up prices could quickly evaporate, and prices could fall sharply.

It wouldn't be the first time prices have crashed. In 1986, oil prices began the year at $26 a barrel. By March, crude was selling for $10.25. In 1997, prices peaked in October at nearly $23 a barrel only to fall below $11 a little more than a year later.


But the forces that caused those oil "crashes" aren't evident today. The 1986 slide was the result of heavy overproduction by OPEC, when Saudi Arabia opened the spigots after fellow cartel members cheated on their quotas. The 1998 pullback also resulted from a huge oversupply after the Asian economy unexpectedly slowed sharply as a currency crisis swept through the region.

Today, the world's oil producers have little extra capacity, and the Asian economy is booming. Bubble skeptics say that while oil prices may be due for a pullback, the longer-term trend is clearly higher.

"When I hear bubble, I'm thinking of a technology bubble where we spike up and we just never come back to it again," said Chris Jarvis, an energy analyst at Caprock Risk Management. "I don't think that's the case. I think if anything you're talking about more of a short-term pullback. What is short term? I don't know, nine months to a year. But the trend higher is still intact. I would definitely not call it bubble."




"It's now twice as expensive to start a new oil field as it was three years ago," said Cambridge Energy Research Associates Chairman Daniel Yergin. "All of these commodity prices are interacting with each other."and here are some facts that are especially bad imo :

Despite big gains in efficiency after the surge in oil prices in the mid-1970s, the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. has remained pretty much flat since 1985. But overall mileage has fallen, as the share of lower-mileage light trucks and SUVs has risen from about 20 percent of the total fleet in 1980 to about half of all vehicles on the road today.

As suburbs have expanded, Americans are driving further to work, according to Federal Highway Administration surveys. In 1983, the average commute by car was 8.5 miles; by 2001 that had risen to 12.2 miles.

The good news is that those same surveys found that there's room for some conservation if gasoline prices do go through the roof. About a third of the vehicle-miles traveled in 2001 were work related: the rest were for family and personal business (35.4 percent) and social and recreation (24.4 percent).


© 2008 MSNBC Interactive
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24625005/

Global Petroleum

The oil supply system continues to operate at near capacity and remains vulnerable to both actual and perceived supply disruptions. The supply and demand balance for the remainder of the year is tighter than in last month's Outlook. World oil markets are particularly tight during the first half of 2008, with year-over-year growth in world oil consumption outstripping growth in non-Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) production by over 1 million bbl/d. The combination of rising global demand, fairly normal seasonal inventory patterns, slow gains in non-OPEC supply, and low levels of available surplus production capacity is providing firm support for prices.

The flow of investment money into commodities markets and ongoing geopolitical concerns in a number of producing countries, including Nigeria, Iraq, and Venezuela, have contributed to crude oil price volatility. OPEC appears satisfied with current market conditions, given recent statements by some members, suggesting that there are no plans to review OPEC production until the next scheduled meeting on September 9th. Also weighing on market expectations is Saudi oil minister Naimi's public statement suggesting no need to add production capacity beyond the announced plan to expand Saudi oil production capacity to 12.5 million bbl/d by 2009.

If non-OPEC production rises as expected and some OPEC members add production capacity as planned, surplus crude oil production capacity should increase and ease upward price pressures by early next year. The expected surplus capacity, however, is less than projected in last month's Outlook.

Consumption.
World oil consumption is projected to grow by 1.2 million bbl/d in 2008. Almost all of the growth in 2008 is expected to come from the non-Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, led by China, Middle East oil producing countries, and Russia, as well as Brazil and India (World Oil Consumption). China's oil consumption is expected to rise by 0.4 million bbl/d in 2008, with Chinese oil imports in March showing an increase of 0.8 million bbl/d from year-earlier levels. OECD oil consumption is projected to remain relatively unchanged, with growth in consumption in Europe, where weather factors constrained oil consumption in 2007, offsetting declines in the United States.

I already did. The fact that you discount the evidence doesn't mean that it isn't evidence.

Cycloptichorn

Ive invested a significant amount in energy funds in the last 5 years. Im thinking of getting out .

The govt should once again reward efforts in energy research and provide rebates for installation of alternative energy.That was the poor leadership that began with Reagan and continues to today. If the market is allowed to progress without direction other than pure speculative greed, and without any concern for the future times when oil will be scarce, then the whole planet is screwed.

okie wrote :

Quote:

We drill for oil, we build nuclear, we mine coal, we produce natural gas, we build wind turbines, develop solar, we build hybrid cars, fully electric cars, and we continue to research all the other ideas and technologies under development, but we don't scrap the primary and most efficient energy source intentionally now, which is oil. Basically, we allow the market to determine the most economical and efficient energy mix.

quite an ambitious agenda !
i wonder who'll be footing the bill for all that ? will it be okie through higher taxes and higher gas prices ... or the fairy godmother ?have you checked the U.S. debt load lately ?

from a report by the EIA - ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION -
energy statistics from the U.S. government

Quote:

Global Petroleum

The oil supply system continues to operate at near capacity and remains vulnerable to both actual and perceived supply disruptions. The supply and demand balance for the remainder of the year is tighter than in last month's Outlook. World oil markets are particularly tight during the first half of 2008, with year-over-year growth in world oil consumption outstripping growth in non-Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) production by over 1 million bbl/d.

There's something about that wording. World oil consumption exceeds non-OPEC production. Kind of like saying world consumption of rice exceeds South Dakota production of rice by x-many bushels per year. Not the kind of precise writing I would have expected here.