OPEC worried about high oil prices

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: conjur
Then start complaining more, Engineer:

>$70/bbl
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsChannel.aspx?type=businessNews

I always complain when things go up.

Makes me wonder if the "it will see $40 before $80 crowd" really knows what they're talking about! 🙁

Looks like we may get to see who is right here soon...

If it doesn't hit $80 by Labor Day, it won't hit $80 this year. Yet, it won't go to $40 again unless some outside force takes hold, such as alternatives that scare OPEC or actually lower the use of oil.

how about adding in this economic riddle

linkage

Over the most recent 4-week period, crude oil inputs to refineries (refinery runs) are down over 300,000 barrels per day from the same period a year ago. This, while crude oil imports over the same 4-week period are up over 300,000 barrels per day from year-ago levels! It appears that refiners are importing crude oil, but putting it in inventories rather than running it through their refineries at rates that might be expected.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: charrison


how about adding in this economic riddle

linkage

Over the most recent 4-week period, crude oil inputs to refineries (refinery runs) are down over 300,000 barrels per day from the same period a year ago. This, while crude oil imports over the same 4-week period are up over 300,000 barrels per day from year-ago levels! It appears that refiners are importing crude oil, but putting it in inventories rather than running it through their refineries at rates that might be expected.

That's a good one. The longer they can hang on to the crude, the more it will be worth when they refine it.

 

[Future Shock]

Then again, to be less cynical (a rarity from me), the refineries COULD be acting in advance of the hurricane season, knowing that things like Katerina (sp?) are going to bash into prime oil producing AND refining areas and disrupt production in the short-term...

Nahhhh, couldn't be...

Future Shock

 

[rahvin]

High oil prices is driving a LOT of capital into alternative research, in the long run that is very very bad for OPEC so their concern is genuine and completely self-motivated. Personally high oil prices are probably a good thing for this country in the long term although we need to be vigilant about the damage and inflation it will cause to our economy.

 

[Stunt]

High oil prices are an excellent thing.
As long as it grows gradually and the economy has time to react, we should have no issues with oil at 4 times this level. Maybe by that time we will have converted to alternate sources 😀

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: nergee
If the refineries sustain extensive storm damage, I guess we can expect
$3.00/gal gas sooner than expected.....

Oil's over 70 now thanx to Katrina... Bloomberg is all over it.

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: Stunt
High oil prices are an excellent thing.
As long as it grows gradually and the economy has time to react, we should have no issues with oil at 4 times this level. Maybe by that time we will have converted to alternate sources 😀

At the rate it is climbing companies just have to blame energy costs as an excuse for poor performance/management.

 

[Vic]

There are NO fundamentals in the oil futures market right now. It's flying high like the dot-com right now. Proof? A relatively common event like a gulf hurricane causes prices to soar.

Prices are relative. If oil prices quadrupled, the largest effect on the economy would be inflation, and a devaluation of US currency and wealth.

 

[MadRat]

Don't blame OPEC for the sudden proliferation of mechanical mules in China that have been the catalyst behind their thirst for the black stuff. The Chinese have been irresponsibly selling these three wheeled mini-trucks, around the size of a golf cart, for under $300 apiece which is well within reach of the average farmer coop. Around 6 million of these have been dropped into their agricultural programs this past five years alone and this alone accounts for a 20% spike in their net oil use. The Chinese farmers are suddenly able to do things they could never accomplish with traditional beasts of burden, and as a net result in this influx of mechanical mules their overall farm productivity in these coops has nearly risen 30%. So don't blame OPEC for China suddenly realizing that people and animals can't do the work as well as machines.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Vic
There are NO fundamentals in the oil futures market right now. It's flying high like the dot-com right now. Proof? A relatively common event like a gulf hurricane causes prices to soar.

Prices are relative. If oil prices quadrupled, the largest effect on the economy would be inflation, and a devaluation of US currency and wealth.

And poof...the US dollar falls .3% (.003) on oil spike.

 

[piasabird]

Hmm. . . the Oil Price Bubble.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Hmm. . . the Oil Price Bubble.

LOL! :laugh:

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Pfff, Engineer...you guys get off easy on gas prices, some of the lowest in the world.

Yeah, but look at our "defense" budget.

 

[imported_alp]

yeah, in england its the equivalent of $6.50 a gallon - we get taxed so much on it!

and we are an oil exporter...

 

[IronWing]

Interesting article from Physics Today concerning the relative life spans and prospects for using various fuels to replace or supplement oil:

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p47.html

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: ironwing
Interesting article from Physics Today concerning the relative life spans and prospects for using various fuels to replace or supplement oil:

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p47.html

Wow, great article. Very eye opening. There is going to be alot of pain in the future generations (maybe at the end of mine too) of the world. Seems that any alternative to energy that's been discussed is simply a 100 year bandaid or less, much less.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: ironwing
Interesting article from Physics Today concerning the relative life spans and prospects for using various fuels to replace or supplement oil:

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p47.html

Wow, great article. Very eye opening. There is going to be alot of pain in the future generations (maybe at the end of mine too) of the world. Seems that any alternative to energy that's been discussed is simply a 100 year bandaid or less, much less.

There was one error in that document. The US has significant shale deposits, but the article notes that this resource is neglible in the US. I also question the uranium resource timeline, from what I understand those resources are vastly untapped. The citation he notes for this, no longer exists.

 

[charrison]

linkage

If these estimates are accurate, Canada's oil reserves rank second behind only Saudi Arabia's 260 billion barrels. And there are many who believe the current oil sands assessments understate the true potential here. The AEUB has projected that rising prices and improved technology could ultimately push the oil sands yield close to 300 billion barrels, which would make it the richest petroleum field in the world.

....

Montana has 120 billion tons of state and federal coal reserves under its surface, mostly in Eastern Montana. Schweitzer said 115 billion tons of that coal is recoverable. He said using the Fischer-Tropsch method, one ton of coal would produce 1.5 barrels of diesel fuel. A barrel is 42 gallons.

"It would cost less that a $1 per gallon to make that diesel," he said.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: ironwing
Interesting article from Physics Today concerning the relative life spans and prospects for using various fuels to replace or supplement oil:

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p47.html

Wow, great article. Very eye opening. There is going to be alot of pain in the future generations (maybe at the end of mine too) of the world. Seems that any alternative to energy that's been discussed is simply a 100 year bandaid or less, much less.

There was one error in that document. The US has significant shale deposits, but the article notes that this resource is neglible in the US. I also question the uranium resource timeline, from what I understand those resources are vastly untapped. The citation he notes for this, no longer exists.

It appears he was quoting current price extraction costs to deteremine uranium reserves.

Since uranium is ubiquitous and plentiful in the earth's crust, its availability is determined almost entirely by the willingness to find it. Thus, while today's low uranium cost equates to about 50 years of assured resources (3.1 Mt) using conventional reactors at the current usage rate, a doubling of the market price increases this time roughly ten-fold. In all, conventional estimated resources account for about 250 years' supply (16.2 Mt) at the current consumption rate. This does not include advanced uranium-extraction scenarios (phosphate deposits accounting for 22 Mt, seawater accounting for up to 4000 Mt) that require 10-15 times the current market price.

linkage

I would have to say the rest of this article is suspect at this point..

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: ironwing
Interesting article from Physics Today concerning the relative life spans and prospects for using various fuels to replace or supplement oil:

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p47.html

Wow, great article. Very eye opening. There is going to be alot of pain in the future generations (maybe at the end of mine too) of the world. Seems that any alternative to energy that's been discussed is simply a 100 year bandaid or less, much less.

There was one error in that document. The US has significant shale deposits, but the article notes that this resource is neglible in the US. I also question the uranium resource timeline, from what I understand those resources are vastly untapped. The citation he notes for this, no longer exists.

It appears he was quoting current price extraction costs to deteremine uranium reserves.

Since uranium is ubiquitous and plentiful in the earth's crust, its availability is determined almost entirely by the willingness to find it. Thus, while today's low uranium cost equates to about 50 years of assured resources (3.1 Mt) using conventional reactors at the current usage rate, a doubling of the market price increases this time roughly ten-fold. In all, conventional estimated resources account for about 250 years' supply (16.2 Mt) at the current consumption rate. This does not include advanced uranium-extraction scenarios (phosphate deposits accounting for 22 Mt, seawater accounting for up to 4000 Mt) that require 10-15 times the current market price.

linkage

I would have to say the rest of this article is suspect at this point..

The article discusses timelines if these energy sources were called upon to replace oil. Holding the use to current consumption levels was not the exercise. Shifting the mix toward other sources will increase the consuption rate and decrease the lifespan of the sources. Technological innovation will of course stretch things out just as with oil but there will be limits. Continued runaway population growth and growth in per-capita energy use will further limit the time frames for these fuels.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Stunt
Yeah, it must be a hard-knock life getting all that money for all the oil you have. :roll:

OPEC isn't concerned for anything other than itself, they like higher oil prices; that's why they started the cartel to begin with. I see this as more of a last ditch attempt to keep people from investing in new technologies, oil sands projects, and converting to alternate fuels.

Anyone agree? What is the REAL reason they are making these comments?

OPEC benefits short term from high oil prices, but not long term. Chronic high oil prices encourages the development of alternative energy sources, which then directly compete against them.

This can actually be seen post OPEC embargo where a decade of high oil costs drove cars and appliances to become more energy efficient. That eventually drove the demand and cost for oil down, which is why oil was cheap during the 90s.

I'm not personally concerned about high oil prices, it is ultimately good for the US to reduce demand/dependence on ideologically opposed/hostile countries for energy.

bingo

plus i'm sure OPEC looks at the total revenuw of their production rather than spot prices. Higher prices = low demand which lower the revenue and worries them.

 

[conjur]

WSJ: Investors see $100/barrel oil
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Journal_Investors_see_100bar_0830.html

Hurricane Katrina, which killed dozens and left a million without power, sent stocks sliding in New York trading Monday, with oil prices over $70/barrel.

The market got some good news from the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, or LOOP, which suggests no catastrophic damage to the energy shipment hub south of New Orleans. Even so, refineries are closed across the region and oil rigs are floating like rubber ducks in a giant bathtub.

The WALL STREET JOURNAL REPORTS: "The sight of oil topping $70 alarmed analysts and sparked worries that prices could keep going higher. Analysts projected a possible slow creep: "We could see oil hovering around $75, and then we could get to $80 and $85 and then $100 a barrel is right around the corner," said Robert Pavlik, chief investment officer at Oaktree Asset Management.
Advertisement

"The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 65.12 points to 10397.93, wiping out Monday's gains, as 27 out of the 30 components slid into the red.

"Wal-Mart Stores declined 1.7% after it said 123 of its stores remained closed because of the hurricane. Home Depot, which gained about 2% yesterday as investors bet the home-improvement retailer stood to gain from rebuilding after the storm, dropped 2.5%.

Milwaukee hits $3/gallon gas
http://www.milwaukeegasprices.com/

 

[Pneumothorax]

Originally posted by: ironwing
Interesting article from Physics Today concerning the relative life spans and prospects for using various fuels to replace or supplement oil:

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p47.html

Great article. So the gist is we should convert our cars to electric and power our society based on solar cells and batteries. Meanwhile using nuclear fuel to carry us along until the change is complete. That is if we want to try to maintain our current way of life. Guess all those SW deserts are going to be solar farms lol. Hydrogen economy seems like a pretty stupid thing since you need electricity to generate the H2 which is then burned. Why not just use the electricity directly?

 

[conjur]

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.a...F%2DA4EC%2D5591044B0A37%7D&siteid=mktw

Crude for October delivery was last up $1.55 at $68.75 a barrel, backing off a new all-time high of $70.85 hit earlier in the session.

The rise in oil sent gasoline futures to a record high. At last check, September unleaded gas was up 14.5%, or 30 cents at $2.36 a gallon, just off a record high $2.46.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: ironwing
Interesting article from Physics Today concerning the relative life spans and prospects for using various fuels to replace or supplement oil:

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p47.html

Great article. So the gist is we should convert our cars to electric and power our society based on solar cells and batteries. Meanwhile using nuclear fuel to carry us along until the change is complete. That is if we want to try to maintain our current way of life. Guess all those SW deserts are going to be solar farms lol. Hydrogen economy seems like a pretty stupid thing since you need electricity to generate the H2 which is then burned. Why not just use the electricity directly?

The hydrogen economies value is in it's ability to store and re-use energy. Batteries are still very limited in comparison to the energy that can be stored by conversion of water to hydtrogen and we currently waste billions of megawatts of power every night. If even the current nighttime energy waste was converted to hydrogen we could re-use vast amounts of power later with fuel cells. Yes the power used is at a loss but battery technology sucks and probably will for a century or longer if not forever.