| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Oil |
Topic: Oil
| Author | Message |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 11/7/2007 9:15:43 AM | show profile Some realistic articles in the MSM about oil. *** New York Times: High-Priced Oil Adds Volatility to Power Scramble As the price of oil surges toward a symbolic milestone of $100 a barrel ? hitting $96.70 yesterday ? it is creating new winners and losers across the globe. In southern China, high oil prices forced Wang Pui, a trucker, to wait in line 90 minutes the other day to fill up, just to be told he could pump only 25 gallons, as China faced spot shortages of gasoline and diesel fuel. When Vladimir V. Putin was making Russia?s bid to be host of the 2014 Winter Olympics last July, he reached into the country?s deep pockets, bulging with oil profits, and pledged $12 billion to turn a Black Sea summer resort into a winter-sports paradise. Russia, which was nearly bankrupt a decade ago, won the Games. The prospect of triple-digit oil prices has redrawn the economic and political map of the world, challenging some old notions of power. Oil-rich nations are enjoying historic gains and opportunities, while major importers ? including China and India, home to a third of the world?s population ? confront rising economic and social costs. Managing this new order is fast becoming a central problem of global politics. Countries that need oil are clawing at each other to lock up scarce supplies, and are willing to deal with any government, no matter how unsavory, to do it. ... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/business/07oilwealth.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 11/7/2007 9:17:55 AM | show profile And this.... ******* Time: Oil Prices: It Gets Worse Oil prices hit a record high of $97 a barrel on Tuesday, but the next generation of consumers could look back on that price with envy. The dire predictions of a key report on international oil supplies released Wednesday suggest that oil prices could move irreversibly over the $100 a barrel threshold in the not too distant future, as the global economy faces a serious energy shortage. This gloomy assessment comes from the International Energy Agency, the Paris-based organization representing the 26 rich, gas-guzzling member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The agency is not known for alarmist warnings, and its World Energy Outlook is typically viewed by policy wonks as a solid indicator of global energy supplies. In a marked change from its traditionally bland, measured tones, the IEA's 2007 report says governments need to make urgent, bold decisions on energy policy, or risk massive environmental and energy-supply crises within two decades ? crises and shortages that could spark serious global conflicts. "I am sorry to say this, but we are headed toward really bad days," IEA chief economist Fatih Birol told TIME this week. "Lots of targets have been set but very little has been done. There is a lot of talk and no action." .... http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1681362,00.html |
| keltoi2 | Posted – 11/7/2007 12:42:09 PM | show profile I'm one of those folks here in the Northeast who heats his home with oil. Got our first delivery of the season last week. Only needed half a tank; at $2.89 a gallon, the tab came to about $350--for half a tank. Last winter (a mild one), we filled the tank about 4 times, even with lowering to 60 degrees all day while we're at work, and keeping to 65 when we're home. My wife and I could be looking at about $3000 to heat our home this winter. We're fortunate enough that, with careful spending, we can afford it. (We both have decent-paying jobs.) Makes me wonder how so many others will manage. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 11/7/2007 9:29:46 PM | show profile This is the problem with oil and gasoline, we really can't do without it (in the near-term anyway). People are paying $1,500 plus for their mortgages, so even if the price of gasoline doubles or triples or quadruples, it's still a relatively small part of their monthly budget (unless they own/operate their own long-haul truck, etc.). And for most people, there really are no other options (in the near-term at least). Same goes with heating oil... if you are thinking of switching from heating oil to something else (I'd recommend electric heat with individual room controls rather than natural gas -- which we have -- since natural gas could be just as problematic someday soon), you seriously have to think about the cost of making that switch and whether it's worth it. I would think switching to electric heat with baseboard heaters and individual room control wouldn't be all that expensive but it's a hassle and you have to figure it all out. But yes I also wonder how people who live on minimum wage, paycheck to paycheck, are coping. Not well, if you look at the savings rate these last couple of years and unfortunately I think it will only get worse. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 11/9/2007 10:45:30 AM | show profile And here's another clue. On CNN, one of the lead articles in the business section is "Saudi Prince: Citi CEO had to go." The reshaping of global politics and power. Now we have a Saudi Prince talking about how Citigroups CEO had to go. And as the single largest investor he had the power to make that happen. Welcome to our new world. *** In a Fortune exclusive, Prince Alwaleed - Citigroup's biggest single investor - talks about his disappointment in Chuck Prince, the bank's colossal losses, and his views on a successor CEO. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 11/15/2007 8:56:31 AM | show profile Shhhhh...... Listen...... *** Peak oil crisis: Our government is speaking by Tom Whipple You have to be quiet? and listen very carefully, for our government is trying to tell us something. If the news were good, of course, the White House would announce it at the daily press conference. If the news were very good, the President himself might come out into the rose garden and tell us the news himself. But this news is bad, perhaps very bad, so the government relies on a third tier civil servant to break the bad news gradually so as not get the people too upset or cause a run on anything?banks, mutual funds, gas stations, or grocery stores. The bad news of course is something that many of us have been aware of for many months; this is likely to be a very tough winter for energy prices. ...Caruso?s real message was not the headline grabbing 20 cents gallon, but that the EIA is coming to believe there has been a major change in the oil markets. In the Administrator?s words, ?We think we're in a different era with relatively higher real oil prices going out through 2030. Rising demand coupled with ?insufficient? investment, lack of access to resource bases in the U.S. and elsewhere, and a ?dramatic rise in the cost of doing business' are boosting prices.? ... Caruso said that while speculators may have helped push the price rise, their impact "is really a symptom of market fundamentals" because demand for oil remains high. ...The IEA ominously reports that the OECD still continues to draw down stockpiles by nearly 30 million barrels in September and 21 million in October. Japanese crude stocks are at close to the lowest level in 20 years. Although OECD stockpiles are still close to average, the trends are not good. Since summer, the world has been using more oil than it has been producing, a situation that can not go on much longer without devastating consequences. OPEC production remains the key to how quickly the troubles come. World production has been on a plateau for two years now and few knowledgeable observers expect that it will ever get more than a couple of million barrels a day beyond current production levels before settling into the long decline that will signal the end of the oil age. ...In the meantime, all indications are that unless we have a major demand-killing economic setback in the next few months, the 500,000 barrels a day increase will not be enough to prevent higher prices so a major effort is underway to convince the Saudis to increase production still further. There are many who doubt that the Saudis really have much spare capacity left, especially in marketable grades of light oils. This may be the reason they continue to rebuff requests for higher production with an emphatic ?not at this time.? ...There is clearly some kind of major turning point in the industrial age just ahead and this may be what our government is trying to tell us --- or at least should be. http://www.energybulletin.net/37209.html |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 11/15/2007 8:57:11 AM | show profile Shhhhh...... Listen...... *** Peak oil crisis: Our government is speaking by Tom Whipple You have to be quiet? and listen very carefully, for our government is trying to tell us something. If the news were good, of course, the White House would announce it at the daily press conference. If the news were very good, the President himself might come out into the rose garden and tell us the news himself. But this news is bad, perhaps very bad, so the government relies on a third tier civil servant to break the bad news gradually so as not get the people too upset or cause a run on anything?banks, mutual funds, gas stations, or grocery stores. The bad news of course is something that many of us have been aware of for many months; this is likely to be a very tough winter for energy prices. ...Caruso?s real message was not the headline grabbing 20 cents gallon, but that the EIA is coming to believe there has been a major change in the oil markets. In the Administrator?s words, ?We think we're in a different era with relatively higher real oil prices going out through 2030. Rising demand coupled with ?insufficient? investment, lack of access to resource bases in the U.S. and elsewhere, and a ?dramatic rise in the cost of doing business' are boosting prices.? ... Caruso said that while speculators may have helped push the price rise, their impact "is really a symptom of market fundamentals" because demand for oil remains high. ...The IEA ominously reports that the OECD still continues to draw down stockpiles by nearly 30 million barrels in September and 21 million in October. Japanese crude stocks are at close to the lowest level in 20 years. Although OECD stockpiles are still close to average, the trends are not good. Since summer, the world has been using more oil than it has been producing, a situation that can not go on much longer without devastating consequences. OPEC production remains the key to how quickly the troubles come. World production has been on a plateau for two years now and few knowledgeable observers expect that it will ever get more than a couple of million barrels a day beyond current production levels before settling into the long decline that will signal the end of the oil age. ...In the meantime, all indications are that unless we have a major demand-killing economic setback in the next few months, the 500,000 barrels a day increase will not be enough to prevent higher prices so a major effort is underway to convince the Saudis to increase production still further. There are many who doubt that the Saudis really have much spare capacity left, especially in marketable grades of light oils. This may be the reason they continue to rebuff requests for higher production with an emphatic ?not at this time.? ...There is clearly some kind of major turning point in the industrial age just ahead and this may be what our government is trying to tell us --- or at least should be. http://www.energybulletin.net/37209.html |
| keltoi2 | Posted – 11/15/2007 1:55:08 PM | show profile Ugo, if astronomical oil prices were going back into supporting the taxpayers in other ways, say, alternative energy research, energy saving rebates, etc, I'd be a little better about shelling out $3K to keep from freezing this winter. But they're not. They are making Saudi, Iranian, Venezuelan, American, Russian, and other despots and oiligarchs vastly more wealthy at the expense of the rest of the oil-consuming world. Acknowledging the huge impact of increased demand by China and India, the considerable impact of a highly destabilized Middle East and the great oil consumption of the American war machine in Iraq are both factors courtesy of BushCo which could have been prevented. It's no coincidence that Oily George, Dick, and Condi have presided over (and no doubt profited, or will profit from) a more than doubling of the price of a gallon of gas and barrell of oil during their tenure. |
| chucho | Posted – 11/15/2007 5:34:09 PM | show profile Another clue to what? |
| chucho | Posted – 11/15/2007 5:43:44 PM | show profile Yeah I read that Friedman editorial, too. I was a little confused when he said adding $1 a gallon fuel tax would help keep oil money at home -- unless he means explicitly that people would reduce their consumption tomake up for that $1 . . . -- imagine everyone reducing their fuel consumption by a third! Yeah, right. A then on top of that still facing ever-increasing base prices as industrialization at a global scale increases. As usual, Friedman has a lot of pie-in-the-sky pitches, but when you actually think about what he says, you usually find a fallacy in his arguments. In this case: that a $1 a gallon fuel tax would somehow divest oil investments in other economies and keep that money at home. I don't think that's quite how a situation like that would work, but the lib-rils seem to like everything Friedman says so what are ya gonna do? Not that I'm against a fuel tax, by the way, just Friedman's arguments, which tend to percolate down to forums like this. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 11/15/2007 11:07:37 PM | show profile Yes Keltoi this is the problem. Even though we know that all that oil money is going to countries that don't like us or companies like (the evil) ExxonMobil, we still continue to use their stuff. This is why I think we need a big tax on carbons (with that money going to clean energy of some sort), some kind of subsidy or break for low income (or help converting to other heating sources, etc.). Unless we decide, as a country, to take serious action oil prices will keep rising and most of that money go abroad. A clue? The clue I was referring to is that we'll increasingly see more and more rich Saudi's (and Russians, etc.) running the show all over the world, just as that rich Prince is the top stockholder of Citigroup. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 11/16/2007 12:14:26 AM | show profile The only way to go.... Our current energy regime is on the way out. Our future energy regime will have to be entirely different. Rather than depending on a small number of large power plants, we will need to collect renewable energy (from the sun, wind, tidal power, geothermal) all over the place. My backyard, yours, roofs everywhere, every field. That energy can go back into the power grid to power our homes and plug-in cars and electric vehicles. Eventually it will be stored in the form of hydrogen. Now, how do we get there? |
| chucho | Posted – 11/16/2007 3:15:45 AM | show profile Bin Waleed invested over $700 million in Citicorp over 15 years ago -- when Citicorp was in trouble because of its portfolio in Latin America. Today that investment is worth billions. If anyone is to take credit for Bin Waleed's wealth it's the Western business interests that -- as usual -- don't mind doing business with unsavory governments. Bin Waleed made a lion's share of his wealth by helping foreign firms do business in Saudi Arabia, and in banking and real estate developments (including ones in London and the USA). One of the big problems -- and one most poeple in the West ignore -- is that Western business interests have no problem pimping themselves to Russian and Saudi "special interests" for profit. We prop up Saudi princes and Russian gangsters in an attempt to cash in on some of those petrol dollars. This is kinda like how the USA always blames Mexico for drug trafficking without giving enough attention to the corruption inside US institutions (public and private) that allows drugs to pass through ports into the country, and the American addicts that feed the trade. It's always somebody else's fault. In any case, I agree -- as anyone would -- that alternative energy is good. Did you forget to mention nuclear power? |
| chucho | Posted – 11/16/2007 3:28:30 AM | show profile Oh, I forgot to mention: As much as Bin Waleed gives me the creeps (he looks like a porn star) and as much as he's been a benefactor of the Saudi royal family, he comes from the more liberal wing. His father lived in exile in the UK for a while for calling for political reform, and Bin Waleed has been instrumental in advocating liberal reforms in the KSA, including calling for the right for women to vote in the municipal elections, advocating women in sports and the workplace, and judicial reforms. His businesses are well run (especially considering the business climate in the KSA). I guess my point here is that most Americans have no idea about the nuances of this monarchy ruled by a large royal family, nor do they fully comprehend the situation that Saudi Arabia is in -- family-dividing schizophrenia with a large contingency of Islamist extremists and Islamic judges holding the liberal contingencies in society hostage. It's way more complicated than "a bunch of corrupt princes". And don't forget: oil is America's heroin and, like a typical junkie, Americans are in deep denial about just how much they consume and how wrong it is to dictate to suppliers terms under threat of invasion or sanctions. Take, for example the 18 "Benchmarks" for Iraq: No. 3 involves profit-sharing agreements, where the US says it will not leave Iraq until laws have been passed that will allow Chevron (and other foreign oil companies) to cash in on oil development. This is crap and crass violation of sovereignty. And even Nancy Pelosi is heralding this hegemony. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 11/16/2007 10:39:57 AM | show profile Nuclear power is not the long-term solution. It is at best a stop gap measure in the medium term to help save us from extinguishing ourselves via climate change. We don't have nearly enough uranium to replace our coal-fired power plants for any length of time. Even worse, I recently heard that nuclear power plants require vast amounts of water (hear of the water fight in the southeast, with Alabama needing huge amounts of water for its nuclear power plant and Georgia needing it for everything else?). I also heard that France, which gets almost all of its energy from nuclear power, needs to use huge amounts of its water to cool these plants, something like 25 or 50% (can't recall which). For these reasons, and not to mention dealing with the horrific waste and accident issues (and don't you dare put that in my backyard) I have come to see less role for nuclear power. I gripe a lot about America and Americans but I really do believe that when we decide to do something, we can do it in a very big way, using innovation and the "can do" spirit. But we need to know where we want to go. We need to have a vision or plan for where we want to be in 50 years and then work toward it. Right now we're kind of all over the place, in a bit of denial about how much we have to change and how fast. I think if we need a vision for what our future can be, nothing something pie-in-the-sky but something we can achieve with enough time and effort, and a plan to get there, then we can make it happen. But we need to be excited about that future, and be ready to do what it takes to get there. Which politician has laid out a future like this? |
| keltoi2 | Posted – 11/16/2007 11:57:50 AM | show profile Another funny thing about the PSA at gunpoint deal, chucho--you hardly ever see a single word about it in ANY mainstream American media. We invaded Iraq to steal its oil, and almost 5 years later, we are still trying to do it and STILL no one talks about it. Americans may be clueless about it thanks to collusion by the media and the pols in both parties, but the rest of the world, especially the Iraqis, sure as hell know about it. Unless we drop this oil grab, it'll be sure to fuel the next generation of terrorists. |
| chucho | Posted – 11/16/2007 4:52:42 PM | show profile >> Nuclear power is not the long-term solution. << It's part of the long-term solution, tho. I flew into Madrid a couple of weeks ago. I wish I had had my camera to shoot that nuke plant with a ridge of high-tech windmills behind it that I saw as we landed. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 11/16/2007 5:32:57 PM | show profile More evidence of the new world order with respect to oil, money, and power... *** Nov 14, 2007 08:29 ET Another Consequence of High Priced Oil: Large Sums of U.S. Assets Purchase by Arab Gulf States Flush With Petroleum Dollars ...In September 2007 in a complex set of transactions, Dubai proposed to acquire 19.9 percent of the NASDAQ, placing the Arab nation in an ownership position of a key U.S. stock exchange. Earlier in the year through the state owned holding company for Dubai Financial Market (DFM) and Dubai International Financial Exchange (DIFX), Borse Dubai, the country announced a public all-cash offer to the shareholders of OMX AB, the Nordic Stock Exchange, headquartered in Stockholm Sweden. This recent acquisitions of ownership in U.S. and European entities by private and state-owned Middle Eastern entities are just part of the flood of oil wealth spilling from the region. Middle Eastern investments in the United States have been on the rise since mid 2006 and have been showing constant gains since the tense period following September 11, 2001. While some of these takeovers are triggering alarm, most famously the purchase by Dubai Ports World of a seaports management firm, others are evoking warm welcomes. ...While Dubai owes most of its growth to Sheikh Mohammed's vision and not to a great extent to its oil wealth, other states in the region have great amounts of accumulated petroleum wealth. The rush of these petro dollars is creating enormous private and public wealth and reshaping regional businesses and society. A small portion of this wealth is being invested regionally but a great majority of it is being funneled back to the U.S. in form of investments and joint ventures with Western entities. ...So what does all this mean for U.S. businesses? Besides the obvious opportunities in raising capital through Middle Eastern funds, it is important to understand the forces behind the emerging interest in U.S. businesses. Behind such transactions are two powerful forces. One, of course, is the high price of energy, which has left several oil-producing Arab countries swimming in cash. The other is the burgeoning U.S. trade deficit, $726 billion last year, which means that the United States needs foreign capital; a country that imports more than it exports must cover the gap with money from abroad. ..."The price of oil is going only one way, up, for the next five years, because it is going to take at least that long for alternatives to kick in," said Youssef M. Ibrahim, managing director of the Strategic Energy Investment Group, a consulting firm based in Dubai. "So there is no question in my mind that billions of dollars will continue flowing this way, and people cannot handle all of that kind of money here. You've got to circulate the money, and the United States is still the biggest market." ... Floyd Associates |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 11/17/2007 1:57:40 PM | show profile And by the way, as long as we continue our "addiction" to oil, these are the people we will be making richer. ***** Saudi court ups punishment for gang-rape victim (CNN) -- A court in Saudi Arabia increased the punishment for a gang-rape victim after her lawyer won an appeal of the sentence for the rapists, the lawyer told CNN. The 19-year-old victim was sentenced last year to 90 lashes for meeting with an unrelated male, a former friend from whom she was retrieving photographs. The seven rapists, who abducted the pair and raped both, received sentences ranging from 10 months to five years in prison. ...Women are subject to numerous restrictions in Saudi Arabia, including a strict dress code, a prohibition against driving and the need for a man's permission to travel or have surgery. Women are also not allowed to testify in court unless it is about a private matter that was not observed by a man, and they are not allowed to vote. |
