Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Foxfyre wrote:

On the other hand, the price of a gallon of gasoline is quite modest in most countries who furnish all their own petroleum needs. Certainly their economies are more secure when they do not need to depend on supplies from unstable parts of the world. If this Wikipedia analysis is correct, some prices are as low as 17 cents per gallon: SEE HERE

The price is moderate in those countries where the government controls the oil. Unless the US was willing to nationalize its oil production like Qatar, Nigeria, Iran, etc did we would not have low prices.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

On the other hand, the price of a gallon of gasoline is quite modest in most countries who furnish all their own petroleum needs. Certainly their economies are more secure when they do not need to depend on supplies from unstable parts of the world. If this Wikipedia analysis is correct, some prices are as low as 17 cents per gallon: SEE HERE

Yes, I'm sure the economies of Venezuela, Turkmenistan, Nigeria or Iran are more secure than the economy of the United States.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
On the other hand, the price of a gallon of gasoline is quite modest in most countries who furnish all their own petroleum needs. Certainly their economies are more secure when they do not need to depend on supplies from unstable parts of the world. If this Wikipedia analysis is correct, some prices are as low as 17 cents per gallon: SEE HERE

Yes, I'm sure the economies of Venezuela, Turkmenistan, Nigeria or Iran are more secure than the economy of the United States.

Surprised to hear of your certainty OE. I would have thought you would know better. (Yes, I know you were being sarcastic. So am I.) I, however, believe economies in all those places are more secure when they don't have to import raw materials for fuel and pay $4/gallon or more for the finished product. Would you care to make a remark about that?

0 Replies

anton bonnier wrote:
If the USA was self sufficient in oil, couldn't it determine it's own domestic price for oil... That would be the logical out come, wouldn't it?

anton bonnier,
The price of domestic oil would be determined by its domestic demand, and the cost and profit to lift it, transport it, refine it, and transport it again.

parados wrote:
Not at all. Unless the US government wanted to pass restrictions on how that oil could be used, oil companies would be free to ship it overseas thus letting the world market decide the price. That is why the opening of ANWR would only decrease the price of a barrel of oil by $0.75.

parados,
(1) Shipping our oil overseas would increase its price. If that made sense, US companies would already be shipping most of their oil overseas.

(2) Opening ANWR and the other currently prohihited domestic oil rich locations would decrease the price of a barrel of oil $75, not $0.75. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

anton bonnier wrote:
If the USA was self sufficient in oil, couldn't it determine it's own domestic price for oil... That would be the logical out come, wouldn't it?

anton bonnier,
The price of domestic oil would be determined by its domestic demand, and the cost and profit to lift it, transport it, refine it, and transport it again.

parados wrote:
Not at all. Unless the US government wanted to pass restrictions on how that oil could be used, oil companies would be free to ship it overseas thus letting the world market decide the price. That is why the opening of ANWR would only decrease the price of a barrel of oil by $0.75.

parados:
(1) Shipping our oil overseas would increase its price. If that made sense, US companies would already be shipping most of their oil overseas.

You don't spend much time actually working in any market, do you ican?

Quote:

(2) Opening ANWR and the other currently prohihited domestic oil rich locations would decrease the price of a barrel of oil $75, not $0.75.

Care to provide a competent source to support you outlandish statement.
Even if every inch of available US territory was leased tomorrow there would be no decrease in oil prices of $75 because the act of leasing does nothing to change the supply. Wells would still need to be drilled.

The equipment required to drill wells is limited and presently in use so there will not be a large increase in well drilling just because the number of leases has increased. I can't find any drilling company sitting around with equipment ready to start drilling 1000 wells let alone 100 wells on a moments notice. It appears there are 10,000 well permits in the US that presently are not being drilled.

If the threat of opening the areas is enough to drop the price per barrel by $75 and not one drop more of oil would be flowing then that would be pretty solid evidence of price manipulation in the market. Such a drop would not only get the attention of Congress but the DoJ would be investigating.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

anton bonnier wrote:
If the USA was self sufficient in oil, couldn't it determine it's own domestic price for oil... That would be the logical out come, wouldn't it?

Not at all. Unless the US government wanted to pass restrictions on how that oil could be used, oil companies would be free to ship it overseas thus letting the world market decide the price. That is why the opening of ANWR would only decrease the price of a barrel of oil by $0.75.

The world market for oil would determine the price, but we would benefit greatly in regard to a couple of things, one being the price of fuel would be less, and secondly our balance of payment picture in terms of import vs exports would look infinitely better than it currently does, so that we wouldn't be bleeding to death economically. Energy is a life blood to our economy and is crucial to our economic well being, so the benefits would be obvious and huge, regardless of the price of oil.

And for Parados to suggest the difference would only be $0.75 is 100% presumption and 0% knowledge, because I don't think anyone knows how much the price would come down, but logically it would come down. We don't know how much, any more than we would know how much the price of wheat would be affected if a few thousand farmers planted wheat instead of corn. We could guess, but thats all, it is only a guess, and then it would depend upon which person's guess you wanted to take seriously. But even if the price of oil did not come down a dime, at least we would get the money for the oil, not pay someone else for it.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:

the opening of ANWR would only decrease the price of a barrel of oil by $0.75.

parados wrote:

Quote:

Care to provide a competent source to support you outlandish statement.
Even if every inch of available US territory was leased tomorrow there would be no decrease in oil prices of $75 because the act of leasing does nothing to change the supply. Wells would still need to be drilled.

Care to provide a competent source to support you outlandish statement that "the the opening of ANWR would only decrease the price of a barrel of oil by $0.75."

My alleged "outlandish statement" re:$75 was made in response to your alleged "outlandish statement" re:$0.75.

You first: "provide a competent source to support you outlandish statement that 'the the opening of ANWR would only decrease the price of a barrel of oil by $0.75.' "

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Even if every inch of available US territory was leased tomorrow there would be no decrease in oil prices of $75 because the act of leasing does nothing to change the supply. Wells would still need to be drilled.

Who knows what the amount would be, $75 is only a guess, but estimates of future supplies do affect markets. To explain, Parados, if all the car companies announced they will quit building new cars next week or a month from now, the price of cars would probably increase immediately, probably tomorrow, due to the speculation that the supply of cars would become tight in the future, so buyers may rush out to buy more of them now while the supply is available, thus increasing demand in the short term, thus driving up prices. Dealers of any commodity are more inclined to hold the line on prices for anything that is in short supply, and make deals on things that are in abundance.

Quote:

The equipment required to drill wells is limited and presently in use so there will not be a large increase in well drilling just because the number of leases has increased. I can't find any drilling company sitting around with equipment ready to start drilling 1000 wells let alone 100 wells on a moments notice. It appears there are 10,000 well permits in the US that presently are not being drilled.

If drilling equipment companies know there will be more demand for wells to be drilled 6 months from now, or a year from now, they will begin right now to invest in building more equipment to satisfy projected demand. It will take that long just to get the permitting done following lease awarding and all of that anyway, but you can bet that once the demand is increasing, the suppliers to the demand will take notice and they will be ramping up what they do. To suggest they will do nothing to satisfy the demand is - well - pretty naive.

Quote:

If the threat of opening the areas is enough to drop the price per barrel by $75 and not one drop more of oil would be flowing then that would be pretty solid evidence of price manipulation in the market. Such a drop would not only get the attention of Congress but the DoJ would be investigating.

No, it is not a sign at all of manipulation, it is a sign that commodities traders are doing what they do, which is entirely legal, and entirely normal in any market, and I would add that they are beneficial to markets by helping to moderate the even wilder swings that may exist in markets. The value of a commodity will be deemed of less value in the market now if there is news of more hope of a greater future supply. It is not far different than how the stock market works. Read Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics book, Parados, and he has valuable information about all of this that would help you understand it.

To bring it to every day understanding, will you be as likely to buy a watermelon in the grocery store at an inflated price if you expect the store to receive loads of watermelons 2 weeks from now because of a bumper crop arriving? Maybe you would, I don't know, but I would be less likely, which will decrease demand for the current stock, thus driving the price of the watermelons down today, not 2 weeks from now.

Parados, your post is pretty convincing evidence that you know not much about markets. I would be embarassed if I were you.

0 Replies

Have I been arguing on another thread with someone who knows "not much" about markets?

Sheesh!!.

0 Replies

ican - It was not parados that posted the info, it was OE, and it was in this post below. Now that the source has been provided, it's your turn.

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
All of your points are liberal talking points, and they are all bogus.

Actually, all of my points were made by the US Energy Information Administration, in a report responding to a request from Senator Ted Stevens.

You can have a look at it here.

Maybe it would also help to understand that older numbers on ANWR drilling were based on the EIA's last report from 2000, when oil was still $22.04 a barrel.

Can't wait to have barrels of oil go down in cost $75.00!!!

T
K
O

0 Replies

On a different note, I found this interesting:

"Scientists often look at the role of greenhouse gases in producing climate extremes," says scientist Wouter Peters, who led the study at ESRL and is also affiliated with Wageninen University and Research Center in The Netherlands. "Here we show the reverse is also true. Climate extremes can have a major affect on the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere."

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/media/2007/CO2andDrought.html

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

ican - It was not parados that posted the info, it was OE, and it was in this post below. Now that the source has been provided, it's your turn.

old europe wrote:
okie wrote:
All of your points are liberal talking points, and they are all bogus.

Actually, all of my points were made by the US Energy Information Administration, in a report responding to a request from Senator Ted Stevens.

You can have a look at it here.

Maybe it would also help to understand that older numbers on ANWR drilling were based on the EIA's last report from 2000, when oil was still $22.04 a barrel.

Can't wait to have barrels of oil go down in cost $75.00!!!

T
K
O

Quote:

The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.

ican - you even quoted this in the past. Are you pretending you didn't read it?

T
K
O

0 Replies

okie wrote:

The world market for oil would determine the price,

Exactly. Unfortunately, other countries participating in the world oil market have way more influence than the US. In regard to ANWR, the projected oil production would only constitute between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of the total world oil consumption (see EIA analysis).

okie wrote:

but we would benefit greatly in regard to a couple of things, one being the price of fuel would be less,

True, but only by something between $0.41 and $1.44 per barrel (see EIA analysis).

Sounds like hyperbole to call that a "great benefit".

okie wrote:

and secondly our balance of payment picture in terms of import vs exports would look infinitely better than it currently does,

In 2004, America imported goods for about 1,470 billion dollars. Oil imports totalled 2.5 billion dollars, or about 0.17% of all imports. Oil production from ANWR could replace about 2.5% of that, or about 0.004% of all imports.

Now, that using old numbers for imports, and medium capacity for ANWR peak production - in about 20 years from now.

You're right, the balance would look better, even though I probably wouldn't call it "infinitely better".

okie wrote:

so that we wouldn't be bleeding to death economically.

I'd say it sounds like an extraordinarily bad plan to rely on drilling ANWR in order to achieve that.

okie wrote:

Energy is a life blood to our economy and is crucial to our economic well being,

No doubt about that.

okie wrote:

so the benefits would be obvious and huge, regardless of the price of oil.

Well, the benefits of improving fuel economy of the car fleet by just 2% would probably be larger. And fairly easy to achieve. Regardless of the price of oil.

okie wrote:

And for Parados to suggest the difference would only be $0.75 is 100% presumption and 0% knowledge,

Well, at least it's based on the EIA analysis, whereas your assumptions are purely based on gut feeling and probably annoyance about high gas prices.

okie wrote:

because I don't think anyone knows how much the price would come down, but logically it would come down. We don't know how much, any more than we would know how much the price of wheat would be affected if a few thousand farmers planted wheat instead of corn.

Sure, we don't know, but we don't have to rely on lucky guesses. That's what an analysis is good for.

I mean, you probably approve of the idea of having a business plan before starting up a new business venture, don't you?

okie wrote:

We could guess, but thats all, it is only a guess, and then it would depend upon which person's guess you wanted to take seriously.

I'll go with the EIA's guess over yours or Foxy's. Or mine, for that matter.

okie wrote:

But even if the price of oil did not come down a dime, at least we would get the money for the oil, not pay someone else for it.

Well, "we" is only true of you're one of the oil companies to exploit ANWR. And multinational corporations don't even have a particular patriotic reason to reinvest all the money they'd be making in the United States.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Opening ANWR and the other currently prohihited domestic oil rich locations would decrease the price of a barrel of oil $75, not $0.75.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Opening ANWR and the other currently prohihited domestic oil rich locations would decrease the price of a barrel of oil $75, not $0.75.

Exactly!

Likewise:
Opening ANWR and the other currently prohihited domestic oil rich locations would decrease the price of a barrel of oil $0.75 not $75. Rolling Eyes

Both my oil market prediction and parados's (alias the Fed's) oil market predictions are ludicrous! Market's respond to buyer and seller expectations in ways which are rarely predicted accurately. Not the oil market predictions of a federal agency, not the oil market predictions of parados, not even my oil market predictions are credible to me.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
and secondly our balance of payment picture in terms of import vs exports would look infinitely better than it currently does,

In 2004, America imported goods for about 1,470 billion dollars. Oil imports totalled 2.5 billion dollars, or about 0.17% of all imports. Oil production from ANWR could replace about 2.5% of that, or about 0.004% of all imports.

Now, that using old numbers for imports, and medium capacity for ANWR peak production - in about 20 years from now.

You're right, the balance would look better, even though I probably wouldn't call it "infinitely better".

I shortened your quotes to the above, and just to address the above point, if we imported 1.5 million barrels per day less right now than we are, at $140 per barrel, my calculator comes up with 76,650 million dollars, lets see, is that 76.65 billion dollars less that would be leaving the country each year?

And we are importing more like 10 million barrels per day, so at $140 oil, around 500 billion or a half trillion dollars will be leaving the country each year for imported oil. Even at reduced prices in 2004, I don't see how it could have been a mere 2.5 billion dollars you quote? I didn't check your numbers, but my calculator seems to come up with far higher ones, just for oil alone, so I think some of your numbers are highly questionable, including the percentages imports attributed to oil.

And another correction of one of your points, I am not relying on ANWR to fix the problem of imports, but it is an important piece to the puzzle, especially given the minimal to insignificant negative effects of producing oil from there.

0 Replies

oe, here is a link showing import bill to top 400 billion, and that is probably outdated now:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2008_March_7/ai_n24380607

And in 2004, it shows well over a hundred billion, not the 2.5 billion you claimed.

0 Replies

ican...

Since you now have the EIA source that lists the $0.75 mean change in the price of a barrel of oil if ANWR was opened, could you provide your source for your $75 claim?

(As was pointed out ican, you quoted from the EIA report including the part that states the mean $0.75 figure. I just assumed you would know what you were posting. )

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

old europe wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Opening ANWR and the other currently prohihited domestic oil rich locations would decrease the price of a barrel of oil $75, not $0.75.

Exactly!

Likewise:
Opening ANWR and the other currently prohihited domestic oil rich locations would decrease the price of a barrel of oil $0.75 not $75.

Both my oil market prediction and parados's (alias the Fed's) oil market predictions are ludicrous! Market's respond to buyer and seller expectations in ways which are rarely predicted accurately. Not the oil market predictions of a federal agency, not the oil market predictions of parados, not even my oil market predictions are credible to me.

Only an idiot would think leases being taken out on ANWR and other places would affect supply in the next 2-5 years. Markets respond to expectations and the expectation would be there would be no effect for several years.

If the Fed's prediction is ludicrous ican, why did you use it as a source? Do you normally use ludicrous sources to support your opinion?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

In 2004, America imported goods for about 1,470 billion dollars. Oil imports totalled 2.5 billion dollars, or about 0.17% of all imports. Oil production from ANWR could replace about 2.5% of that, or about 0.004% of all imports.

I am still looking, oe, but oil imports being 0.17% of all imports that you claim, is ludicrous on its face, it has to be, but I am still looking for a good link to show the correct number.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know