Price of oil continues to slide

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,580
75
91
www.bing.com
Crude oil futures fall further, adding to 10% decline over past two weeks

I was shocked when I filled up yesterday for only $1.86 near Detroit down almost 20 cents from my last fillup, my friend down in Toledo said she filled up for $1.68!

VIENNA (AP) - Crude futures prices fell Monday, briefly sinking below $49 US a barrel, as the U.S. supply of oil grows and institutional investors shift some of their money away from commodities and into equities.

After dropping as low as $48.60 a barrel, light sweet crude for December delivery was down 41 cents at $49.20 per barrel in trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Brent crude for December delivery was trading down 68 cents at $45.74 on the International Petroleum Exchange's electronic system.

Production in the Gulf of Mexico has been recovering from its battering by hurricane Ivan in mid-September, boosting U.S. crude supplies and helping prices fall about $6 since closing at a record $55.17 a barrel on Oct. 22 and Oct. 26.

Prices would have to surpass $90 a barrel, adjusted for inflation, to match those set in 1980.

"Part of it is due to the supply coming back on in the Gulf of Mexico. Primarily, there has also been a lack of negative news," said Kurt Barrow of Texas-based energy consultants Purvin & Gertz in Singapore.

Peter Gignoux, a London-based oil adviser for GDP Associates in New York, said he sensed "a shift of money out of commodities" because of the surging U.S. stock market.

As oil prices fell below $50 a barrel last week, the Dow industrials have been up eight of the last nine sessions, while the Standard & Poor's 500 index and the Nasdaq composite index have climbed for nine straight sessions.

"Trading money is coming out of oil," said Gignoux. "Part of the driver is simply the price - if you start coming down, more money will be pulled out."

The U.S. Energy Department said last week that commercially available stocks of crude in the United States rose by 6.3 million barrels to 289.7 million barrels. The market largely ignored a seventh straight week of drops in distillate stocks, which include heating oil, diesel and jet fuel.

Production of heating oil is also expected to grow in coming weeks as refiners complete pre-winter maintenance in time to take advantage of high prices.

Heating oil for December was marginally down at $1.3612 US per gallon while natural gas fell to $7.905 per 1,000 cubic feet in Europe.

However, traders remained edgy over reports that U.S. forces stormed into western Fallujah, Iraq, in what is expected to be a long-term assault on the insurgent stronghold.

Iraq's key exports from its northern pipeline have been suspended because of attacks by saboteurs and militants who have vowed to block supplies, a crucial source of revenue for the country's rebuilding.

Traders are also keeping their eyes on potential supply-side shutdowns in Nigeria, Africa's largest producer, and at OAO Yukos, the Russian oil giant on the brink of bankruptcy because of a government-led assault to claim back taxes.

Underlying these concerns is the limited excess capacity, now around one per cent of the world's daily consumption of 82.4 million barrels. This jeopardizes supply in the event of a prolonged production outage.

China's booming economy has made demand for oil surge. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is pumping out a record 30 million barrels daily in its attempt to deal with the demand and cool prices.

Despite the stock market rally, analysts warn warned that the continued demand for oil, and the high prices, will crimp global economic growth in 2005.

"Our fundamental view is that prices will remain between $40 to $50 for at least six to eight months until there is an adequate build in excess capacity," Barrow said.

In Britain, the government blamed soaring oil prices for pushing up the cost of goods leaving British factories at the fastest rate in nine years. The Office for National Statistics said Monday the output cost for British products rose by 3.5 per cent in the year to October

Edit: fixed price.
 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81
oklahoma, huh? Then again, if it wasn't for cheap gas, what would you have. :D
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
this is sort of mellow news.

High oil prices encourage exploration/production. Low prices don't. Unfortunately, most of the oil companies aren't spending the money they once used to to find and produce new sources of oil.
 

KEV1N

Platinum Member
Jan 15, 2000
2,932
1
0
Still $2.30/gal here in Central California. At this point I'd consider $2.00/gal cheap. I would have consider $1.70 preposterous only a few years ago... ahh, such fond memories of being 18 and filling up for $0.99/gal in CA.
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
KEVIN, gas should be 7 dollars a gallon. Be thankful they are cheap here. If we had more expensive fuel, our demand and consumption would both fall. And there is the magic buzzword of the election, "energy independance" we can't have our cake and eat it too.

"energy independance" for a time at least, until demand/growth again puts us in the same position again.
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,580
75
91
www.bing.com
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
KEVIN, gas should be 7 dollars a gallon. Be thankful they are cheap here. If we had more expensive fuel, our demand and consumption would both fall. And there is the magic buzzword of the election, "energy independance" we can't have our cake and eat it too.

"energy independance" for a time at least, until demand/growth again puts us in the same position again.
what makes you think the Oil companies havent been finding new sources of oil? If i recall, within the last year a new reserve was found in the Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes reserves proved to be larger than expected, as well as the Alaskan reserves, and thats just in the United States.

And now that every major auto company is coming out with hybrid vehicles, which will only increase in efficency and market share in the years to come, our consumption will continue to decrease.
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Train, those fields are peas compared to what we used to find.

Did you know in the 60s, we found over a 1 trillion barrels in the course of the decade? IIRC, we found <300 billion barrels in the 90s.

To put it in perspective, the largest find of 2001, the "super-giant" in Iran has 19 billion barrels. That is a 6 month supply total for the world. There simply isn't too much easy oil left.

The largest oilfield ever, Ghawar, was found in the 40s, brought online in '51 and has produced ~5 million barrels for 30 years now. We simply aren't finding those types of fields now. Now, a 500 million barrel (about a weeks worth of oil) is considered a mega-field. In the 60s/70s this would have been a pea in a pool.

For the most part, we haven't done much in terms of conservation. Most people cite the 70s as a time of conservation. However, during a presentation, Matthew Simmons described what some of the realer causes of demand curbing were. First, we stoppped burning oil for electricity, instead we used nuclear and gas. Heating also was taken off oil and put on gas. Finally, we began using more diesal fuels. He attributes only a few % points to conservation. Conservation also usually leads to people using more energy in total across all boards. It seems a tax on fuel is the only way to go.
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,580
75
91
www.bing.com
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Train, those fields are peas compared to what we used to find.

Did you know in the 60s, we found over a 1 trillion barrels in the course of the decade? IIRC, we found <300 billion barrels in the 90s.

To put it in perspective, the largest find of 2001, the "super-giant" in Iran has 19 billion barrels. That is a 6 month supply total for the world. There simply isn't too much easy oil left.

The largest oilfield ever, Ghawar, was found in the 40s, brought online in '51 and has produced ~5 million barrels for 30 years now. We simply aren't finding those types of fields now. Now, a 500 million barrel (about a weeks worth of oil) is considered a mega-field. In the 60s/70s this would have been a pea in a pool.

For the most part, we haven't done much in terms of conservation. Most people cite the 70s as a time of conservation. However, during a presentation, Matthew Simmons described what some of the realer causes of demand curbing were. First, we stoppped burning oil for electricity, instead we used nuclear and gas. Heating also was taken off oil and put on gas. Finally, we began using more diesal fuels. He attributes only a few % points to conservation. Conservation also usually leads to people using more energy in total across all boards. It seems a tax on fuel is the only way to go.
ya, your right, what was I thinking, easy oil is gone, its so hard to get Oil now that we have to charge less for it, damn supply and demand. And ya, lets tax gas more, I mean, the current tax of nearly 60 cents per gallon in most states is just way to low.
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,580
75
91
www.bing.com
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
KEVIN, gas should be 7 dollars a gallon.

Wow, one of the rare folks that realize this.
wow, I didnt have to go back very far for these quotes either.

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Only a Fearless Liar Supporter Neocon could be happy about $2.15 and $2.32.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Another Fearless Liar Supporter Rich Elitist Neocon happy about high Gas prices. :roll:

How much are you benefitting personally from the high prices???
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The oil Thugs remain in power so they get to keep maximum profits.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
KEVIN, gas should be 7 dollars a gallon.

Wow, one of the rare folks that realize this.
wow, I didnt have to go back very far for these quotes either.

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Only a Fearless Liar Supporter Neocon could be happy about $2.15 and $2.32.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Another Fearless Liar Supporter Rich Elitist Neocon happy about high Gas prices. :roll:

How much are you benefitting personally from the high prices???
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The oil Thugs remain in power so they get to keep maximum profits.


Oh I have a great quote Ill bring out when i get home from work from dmcowen674. Hilarious considering what is really happening.
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,580
75
91
www.bing.com
Originally posted by: Genx87
...
Oh I have a great quote Ill bring out when i get home from work from dmcowen674. Hilarious considering what is really happening.
wheres the quote? or did you forget?

 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
this is sort of mellow news.

High oil prices encourage exploration/production. Low prices don't. Unfortunately, most of the oil companies aren't spending the money they once used to to find and produce new sources of oil.
Oil company expenditures for exploration remain more or less constant. They're dictated more by demand than they are prices, as the oil companies can pump stuff out of the reserves they find at any rate they please to keep prices high or low. Each oil company blows billions every year on exploration so that they will find the next big well before their competitor.
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Train, those fields are peas compared to what we used to find.

Did you know in the 60s, we found over a 1 trillion barrels in the course of the decade? IIRC, we found <300 billion barrels in the 90s.

To put it in perspective, the largest find of 2001, the "super-giant" in Iran has 19 billion barrels. That is a 6 month supply total for the world. There simply isn't too much easy oil left.
Consider that we have only been able to really go to about 3000 feet of depth in the ocean. There is an ongoing project here to develop new offshore platform anchoring materials (carbon fiber bundles to replace the steel rods used currently, as the steel rods collapse under their own weight after a certain depth is reached). Then, consider that over 90% of 'dried up' reserves are still intact, as we stopped drilling years ago when the existing technology of the time no longer allowed us to get the rest of the oil out.

I'm not saying there's an infinite supply of oil, but last I heard we have only used 1-2% of the estimated reserves (can't remember if this was only known reserves or overall). I'm still all for moving to alternative fuels, which would greatly reduce our reliance on overseas oil supply, but I don't believe we're really in danger of exhausting the earth's reserves for a few centuries at least even after you account for an exponential growth in demand with time. The faster we switch to alternative fuels, the longer these reserves will hold up, which is important since these alternative fuels almost all are most easily produced from oil.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: desy
Cyclo
Your ability to totally distorts facts is truely amazingNo future for oil

There is not centuries of oil, we have used way more than 1-2 %

You will not find a single industry article claiming this

Truely indescribable
Yes, the Denver Post is a much more reliable source than people who actually work for oil companies. I'm sure they're much more aware of the amount of oil reserves than the oil companies themselves. How many petroleum engineers have you talked with about this subject? If anything, the oil companies would lowball the existing reserves to make an excuse to jack up prices which, according to your own article, is what appears to be happening:
There are signs this is beginning to happen on the supply side, fueled in part by the combined $18.8 billion third-quarter profits of the world's four largest publicly traded oil companies - Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp., BP Plc and Royal Dutch/Shell Group - that are 80 percent higher than a year ago.
I'm not distorting any facts, I'm just using facts to form a basis for my opinions rather than propaganda put out by oil companies or the media. Go take a petroleum engineering course, read some oil journals, then get back to me.
 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,446
214
106
I just gave you dozens of links to FACTS written By oil and gas professionals and economists. . .
Just give me one claiming otherwise. . There is something wrong with your 'fact' processing gear I suggest you get it looked at.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: desy
I just gave you dozens of links to FACTS written By oil and gas professionals and economists. . .
Just give me one claiming otherwise. . There is something wrong with your 'fact' processing gear I suggest you get it looked at.
I don't see any facts in the links you posted other than oil prices and oil company profits. Feel free to point out one that contradicts what I said above.
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
First of all, personal attacks and name calling does a great disservice to the debate.

Secondly, I think there have been differing reports on reserve usage. It really depends on whos numbers one uses. Some industry execs, such as Matthew Simmons and geologists Colin Campbell and Kenneth Deffreyes, have suggested that we are near the 50% mark of current, known reserves.

Others point out that much of the world, especially Russia, Asia and Africa haven't been explored extensively and could yield many more large fields. Others, such as the ones Cyclo pointed out, factor in deep-sea oil. However, much of deep-sea oil is extremely expensive to mine and fairly difficult to figure out the total reserve of a field.

Undoubtedly however, we will see more volatile oil prices and lowering production of conventional, "easy" oil. This can not be doubted. It is a question of what price governments and economies are willing to shoulder for the "life-blood of industrial civilization."
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
First of all, personal attacks and name calling does a great disservice to the debate.

Secondly, I think there have been differing reports on reserve usage. It really depends on whos numbers one uses. Some industry execs, such as Matthew Simmons and geologists Colin Campbell and Kenneth Deffreyes, have suggested that we are near the 50% mark of current, known reserves.

Others point out that much of the world, especially Russia, Asia and Africa haven't been explored extensively and could yield many more large fields. Others, such as the ones Cyclo pointed out, factor in deep-sea oil. However, much of deep-sea oil is extremely expensive to mine and fairly difficult to figure out the total reserve of a field.

Undoubtedly however, we will see more volatile oil prices and lowering production of conventional, "easy" oil. This can not be doubted. It is a question of what price governments and economies are willing to shoulder for the "life-blood of industrial civilization."
:thumbsup:
 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,446
214
106
So you think his claim of 1-2% is realistic
You think his claim of untold riches still lurking is valid, centuries worth at current consumption?
Won't believe Janes?
Cyclo has yet to post one link, just one. . .
You either. . .
 

eclavatar

Member
Oct 6, 2004
59
0
0
TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR

1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.

2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates in 1995 on bonus bids alone were $2.6 billion.

3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

4. Economic Impact Between 1980 and 1994, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.

5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 943,000 barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil too Costly The U.S. imports over 64% of the nation's needed petroleum. Currently we are spending more than $120 billion dollars a year on importing oil. This does not include the amount spent on military to defend that same oil. Including defence costs the number would be nearly a trillion dollars.

8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.

9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.

10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.