NationStates Jolt Archive

This (http://thebusinessonline.com/Stories.aspx?Oil%20to%20shatter%20$80%20ceiling&StoryID=754774B2-F3A1-4563-AB06-0FD70244F85A&SectionID=F3B76EF0-7991-4389-B72E-D07EB5AA1CEE) is just SAD!!!

Goodness! This page must be almost twice as wide as my screen! o.O

Why don't you make that long-ass link into this: Linky (http://thebusinessonline.com/Stories.aspx?Oil%20to%20shatter%20$80%20ceiling&StoryID=754774B2-F3A1-4563-AB06-0FD70244F85A&SectionID=F3B76EF0-7991-4389-B72E-D07EB5AA1CEE) (you can copy it here, if needed).
Plus, you'll need to add some kind of comment/question by yourself, or the thread will be deleted as "copy&paste spam".

Of course it will end, when we run out :eek:

It'll end when demand destruction sets in and starts to underpace growth in supply; the notion that Bush is responsible for the rise in oil prices is laughable, especially since the rise in oil prices started in 1999, two years before Bush. In fact, the biggest yearly gain in oil prices occured in 1999, up 145%.

The reason oil prices are high is because we have record demand, geopolitical instability, crimped supply margins, and supply is straining to keep up with demand. You simply can't keep growing demand at 1.5-2% per year without prices rising to compensate for the additional supply; also, the price of production and cost of refining oil are also rising, both of which will push the price per barrel of oil higher. Light crude reserves are becoming scarcer and are being replaced by more and more heavy crudes and oil from sands/shale, and since those processes are intrinsically more expensive to produce than light crude, the price picture is pushed even higher.

However, there really isn't a lot to be concerned about. The world economy and the consumer can handle $80 oil; there simply hasn't been the kind of demand shifts that would accompany oil at an unsustainable leve. For all the whining about $3 gas (in the US), the demand picture simply doesn't show the consumer being heavily pressured by high oil prices. The same is true around the world. In fact, I seriously doubt that $100 oil would pose a serious threat to the US or world economies provided it wasn't caused by a sudden spike like in 1973 or 1979.

Damn Vetalia, how did you get so smart?

Damn Vetalia, how did you get so smart?

A combination of debates with PsychoticDan, a lot of reading on the subject, and the fact that finance is the field I'm going to major in at college.

I find oil interesting because it's the one commodity that influences geopolitics more than any other; when you learn about oil and where it comes from, it makes events such as the Iraq War, the conflict between the EU/US and Iran, and even things like the US support of Israel all the more interconnected.

A combination of debates with PsychoticDan, a lot of reading on the subject, and the fact that finance is the field I'm going to major in at college.

I find oil interesting because it's the one commodity that influences geopolitics more than any other; when you learn about oil and where it comes from, it makes events such as the Iraq War, the conflict between the EU/US and Iran, and even things like the US support of Israel all the more interconnected.
It really is all about the oil, isn't it? Has been all along, even back 30, 40 years ago . . .

It really is all about the oil, isn't it? Has been all along, even back 30, 40 years ago . . .

It's been all about the oil since the 1940's, when the US could no longer meet its demand with domestic sources and had to start importing it.

Welcome to a world of rapidly accelerating Chinese and Indian growth, growth that radically increases the global demand for oil and oil based products. The price of oil will never go back down, unless Ellis Wyatt appears out of nowhere and starts sucking oil out of tar sands and oil shale at next to nothing for a price.

What's so sad about it?

What's so sad about it?

Nothing, really. If anything, people should be happy that they can go for hundreds of miles using something that costs less per cup than a cup of coffee. They should be even happier that they can buy as much as they want and not have to wait in line or have to produce it themselves; all you do is put the credit card in, push a button, and begin filling up.

Another fact is that the cost of oil as a share of income is only half of what it was in the 1960's when the world was awash in cheap oil and cars got 12 miles to the gallon; gas would have to cost $6/gallon in order to be at the levels it was during that period.

What's so sad about it?
Gas is more expensive!!! POR QUE????!!!!!1

:rolleyes:

Gas is more expensive!!!

:rolleyes:

PRECISELY!!! I miss the $0.99 per gallon days of 15 years ago!!! Bring em' back, man! Bring em' back!!!

PRECISELY!!! I miss the $0.99 per gallon days of 15 years ago!!! Bring em' back, man! Bring em' back!!!

What do you mean? They are, all thanks to the magic of inflation...0.99 per gallon in the late 70's/early 80's is about $3/gallon today! :p

PRECISELY!!! I miss the $0.99 per gallon days of 15 years ago!!! Bring em' back, man! Bring em' back!!!
...You need to learn the value of sarcasm and rolling eyes...
'Cause I was being sarcastic, and I was rolling my eyes.

...You need to learn the value of sarcasm and rolling eyes...
'Cause I was being sarcastic, and I was rolling my eyes.

Ohhh...So it's not sad that gas is $3.00+ per gallon? Hmmm...Maybe I'm just a cheap bastard but I sure preferred paying $12.00 to fill my tank versus the $36.00 I'm paying now!

Ohhh...So it's not sad that gas is $3.00+ per gallon? Hmmm...Maybe I'm just a cheap bastard but I sure preferred paying $12.00 to fill my tank versus the $36.00 I'm paying now!
Considering the fact that these kids
http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h297/Aenimus/th_african20children_water_basins.jpg (http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h297/Aenimus/african20children_water_basins.jpg)
are starving to death and they're smiling, no, I don't think $3 per gallon is very sad.

Ohhh...So it's not sad that gas is $3.00+ per gallon? Hmmm...Maybe I'm just a cheap bastard but I sure preferred paying $12.00 to fill my tank versus the $36.00 I'm paying now!
How much of your income do you pay in gas each month?

Ohhh...So it's not sad that gas is $3.00+ per gallon? Hmmm...Maybe I'm just a cheap bastard but I sure preferred paying $12.00 to fill my tank versus the $36.00 I'm paying now!

Oh, it sucks ass but there's nothing you can do about it other than driving less and improving your fuel economy. Of course, improving fuel economy necessitates buying a new car or optimizing efficiency in the one you've got.

It wouldn't be such a costly inconvienence if there was some decent public transportation around, but the idiots in Washington caved in to GM 60 years ago and pretty much killed it in its tracks.

Considering the fact that these kids
http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h297/Aenimus/th_african20children_water_basins.jpg (http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h297/Aenimus/african20children_water_basins.jpg)
are starving to death and they're smiling, no, I don't think $3 per gallon is very sad.
Hmmm. . . no, higher gas prices are not as bad as starving to death. At least my parents were not so irresponsible as to have children they could not feed.

At least my parents were not so irresponsible as to have children they could not feed.
Fuck you.

How much of your income do you pay in gas each month?

Roughly 10% of my monthly income is spent on gas, assuming I did the math right!!! I wasn't trying to start a war with this thread! I just figured more people would be upset about the outrageous price of gasoline! Obviously I'm the only one who thinks we're being robbed and screwed!!!

Hmmm. . . no, higher gas prices are not as bad as starving to death. At least my parents were not so irresponsible as to have children they could not feed.

You also don't have to worry about the government marching in, stealing your food, burning your crops and shooting half the village because they're a different ethnic group or religion. You also didn't have to worry about getting clean water or basic infrastructure because the local politicians decided they would prefer a few new Mercedes limousines and walled mansions on the coast to containing outbreaks of easily preventable diseases by spending tax money on basic services.

That kind of poverty and hunger runs a hell of a lot deeper than parental choices.

You also don't have to worry about the government marching in, stealing your food, burning your crops and shooting half the village because they're a different ethnic group or religion. You also didn't have to worry about getting clean water or basic infrastructure because the local politicians decided they would prefer a few new Mercedes limousines and walled mansions on the coast to containing outbreaks of easily preventable diseases by spending tax money on basic services.

That kind of poverty and hunger runs a hell of a lot deeper than parental choices.
...Uh, yeah, that's what I meant by "fuck you".
Thanks, Vetalia.

You also don't have to worry about the government marching in, stealing your food, burning your crops and shooting half the village because they're a different ethnic group or religion. You also didn't have to worry about getting clean water or basic infrastructure because the local politicians decided they would prefer a few new Mercedes limousines and walled mansions on the coast to containing outbreaks of easily preventable diseases by spending tax money on basic services.

That kind of poverty and hunger runs a hell of a lot deeper than parental choices.

Starving African children stopped phasing me a long time ago... Ahh, the magic of desensitization.

Fuck you.

That would only make more kids. :p

You also don't have to worry about the government marching in, stealing your food, burning your crops and shooting half the village because they're a different ethnic group or religion. You also didn't have to worry about getting clean water or basic infrastructure because the local politicians decided they would prefer a few new Mercedes limousines and walled mansions on the coast to containing outbreaks of easily preventable diseases by spending tax money on basic services.

That kind of poverty and hunger runs a hell of a lot deeper than parental choices.
What does it have to do with higher gas prices?

Roughly 10% of my monthly income is spent on gas, assuming I did the math right!!! I wasn't trying to start a war with this thread! I just figured more people would be upset about the outrageous price of gasoline! Obviously I'm the only one who thinks we're being robbed and screwed!!!

No, we're not being robbed, we're just paying the price for our consumption. The world economy's getting bigger, and more and more people are starting to expect the same kind of luxury that the developed world enjoys; the West consumes gluttonous quantities of oil, and now the rest of the world wants to get in on the party. Unfortunately, the people who get screwed the most are the ones who are most vulnerable to rising prices.

Take comfort in the fact that you're paying more because people want to drive H2s or SUVs that get 9-15 miles to the gallon...they don't care if you have to spend so much for gas as long as they've got theirs.

What does it have to do with higher gas prices?

What part of new Mercedes Limousines do you not understand? It's not as though those things run on water :rolleyes: .

It wouldn't be such a costly inconvienence if there was some decent public transportation around, but the idiots in Washington caved in to GM 60 years ago and pretty much killed it in its tracks.

With gas prices going in the direction they're going, that will change. One good consequence of this mess.

What does it have to do with higher gas prices?

Oh, a lot. More and more of the world's oil is coming from places like Nigeria or Angola, where the people live in poverty and their oil wealth is stolen by corrupt politicians. The military runs amok to keep the crude flowing, and the people have to deal with filthy living conditions and water polluted by decades of abuse.

Unfortunately, people don't realize the cost of their consumption and the (possibly irreperable) harm it does to over a billion people worldwide.

What part of new Mercedes Limousines do you not understand? It's not as though those things run on water :rolleyes: .
No, they don't. But this thread is being hijacked for some bleeding heart "feed the starving children" nonsense that is unrelated to higher gas prices.

No, they don't. But this thread is being hijacked for some bleeding heart "feed the starving children" nonsense that is unrelated to higher gas prices.

Aye, I'm wondering if I'm the only person here who doesn't care about the poor living conditions in the far corners of the third world. Am I the only one here who doesn't care about citizens being exploited so that I can have cheaper oil?

Oh, a lot. More and more of the world's oil is coming from places like Nigeria or Angola, where the people live in poverty and their oil wealth is stolen by corrupt politicians. The military runs amok to keep the crude flowing, and the people have to deal with filthy living conditions and water polluted by decades of abuse.

Unfortunately, people don't realize the cost of their consumption and the (possibly irreperable) harm it does to over a billion people worldwide.
I fail to see how that is our responsibility, unless we are in fact allowed to run the rest of the world. Hell, I can't even run my own household!

Aye, I'm wondering if I'm the only person here who doesn't care about the poor living conditions in the far corners of the third world. Am I the only one here who doesn't care about citizens being exploited so that I can have cheaper oil?
Everyone exploits everyone else so that everyone can have less expensive goods. It's called Capitalism and Free Trade :rolleyes:

No, we're not being robbed, we're just paying the price for our consumption. The world economy's getting bigger, and more and more people are starting to expect the same kind of luxury that the developed world enjoys; the West consumes gluttonous quantities of oil, and now the rest of the world wants to get in on the party. Unfortunately, the people who get screwed the most are the ones who are most vulnerable to rising prices.

Take comfort in the fact that you're paying more because people want to drive H2s or SUVs that get 9-15 miles to the gallon...they don't care if you have to spend so much for gas as long as they've got theirs.

I really like your style! Intelligent, yet NOT BITCHY!!! It's cool when someone can back up their case with facts and knowledge without resorting to ASSCLOWNISM!!! Good Job!

Everyone exploits everyone else so that everyone can have less expensive goods. It's called Capitalism and Free Trade :rolleyes:

Well, someone needs to do a little more exploiting of someone else because the goods in question (oil & gasoline) aren't cheap enough for my liking!

I fail to see how that is our responsibility, unless we are in fact allowed to run the rest of the world. Hell, I can't even run my own household!

American oil companies produce most of the oil from places like Nigeria; many of them do honestly want to improve conditions in these places but they are unable to because of the corrupt government or because of their own focus on profit. When we import products from these countries, we do take some of the responsibility for what happens to get them to the United States; most people would find it unthinkable to buy products produced by child labor or exploited workers so it shouldn't be any different with our oil.

However, it is true a good portion of our oil doesn't come from these places; Canada is one of our biggest suppliers as is Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.

What do you mean? They are, all thanks to the magic of inflation...0.99 per gallon in the late 70's/early 80's is about $3/gallon today! :p

Gas was a buck a gallon as early as...6 years ago.

I really like your style! Intelligent, yet NOT BITCHY!!! It's cool when someone can back up their case with facts and knowledge without resorting to ASSCLOWNISM!!! Good Job!

I try...;)

American oil companies produce most of the oil from places like Nigeria; many of them do honestly want to improve conditions in these places but they are unable to because of the corrupt government or because of their own focus on profit. When we import products from these countries, we do take some of the responsibility for what happens to get them to the United States; most people would find it unthinkable to buy products produced by child labor or exploited workers so it shouldn't be any different with our oil.

However, it is true a good portion of our oil doesn't come from these places; Canada is one of our biggest suppliers as is Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.
Isn't oil fungible? How can we tell exactly where our oil comes from? And exactly which gallon of gasoline am I supposed to forgo purchasing to change this? Again, how are we, as consumers, responsible for starving African children?

Gas was a buck a gallon as early as...6 years ago.

In 1998 gas prices were hitting $0.70/gallon in some places. Of course, the main reasons for that were the Asian financial crisis and the Russian debt default that slowed the world economy.

And then, in 1999 OPEC cut output and oil rose 145%...that marked the beginning of the uptrend.

Die OPEC, die!!! :sniper:

Isn't oil fungible? How can we tell exactly where our oil comes from? And exactly which gallon of gasoline am I supposed to forgo purchasing to change this? Again, how are we, as consumers, responsible for starving African children?

It's fungible, but it can be traced. Various agencies like the EIA trace imports of crude from around the world, and refiners keep records of the oil they buy according to its origins. Thus, we can usually trace the source of oil; several documentaries have been made that actually trace the composition of the gas at individual stations. Of course, the irony of the situation is that using less oil will also hurt because it will reduce revenue to the government, in turn making it harder to build the needed improvements even with an honest government.

The best thing to do is to use gas sensibly; there's not much more you can do than that. Don't waste it, but also don't be afraid to use it, because not using oil could be as damaging to these places as reckless consumption of it.

I try...;)
BTW, just for the record, it is nice to debate with someone who knows whereof they speak ;)

Die OPEC, die!!! :sniper:

I hate them as much as you; any organization whose main members are huge supporters of terrorism, are brutal repressers of their people, and who try to control the oil market in order to maximize their profits are totally reprehensible.

OPEC's attempts to "stablize" prices are nothing more than profit grabs. They don't allow foreign investment in their countries and their production and reserve numbers are cloaked in secrecy and greed.

It's been all about the oil since the 1940's, when the US could no longer meet its demand with domestic sources and had to start importing it.
Hell, even before that. What do you think the Japanese incentive for pushing the US out of the Pacific was?

Well, this certainly ended in a civilised manner :)

I really hate to say this but I don't think we can blame this on GW. A better target is Reagan. It just took 25 years to catch up with us. At the end of the '70's nearly everything that would save energy or convert to renewable was a direct write off on ones income tax. Everyone was doing everything to save energy. Reagan (who's VP happened to be an oil man) said this was an unfair tax deduction since the houses of the rich tended to be more energy efficient than the houses of the poor and middle. So, they had fewer changes that they could make, thus fewer deductions.

Just think--What if every house built in the last 25 years had solar panels to aid heating in winter or heat water? What if every house was super insulated? What if every water heater sold in the last 25 years was tankless? What if every window installed was triple pane? What if every car was as energy efficient as was tech possible 25 years ago? What if we used the desert sun to produce all kinds of energy? What if we used the wind? The technology to cut the use of oil by at least half was available 25 years ago. But the tax cuts to encourage their use was declared unfair and eliminated in Reagan's "tax reform".

Would we be at war right now?

I really hate to say this but I don't think we can blame this on GW. A better target is Reagan. It just took 25 years to catch up with us. At the end of the '70's nearly everything that would save energy or convert to renewable was a direct write off on ones income tax. Everyone was doing everything to save energy. Reagan (who's VP happened to be an oil man) said this was an unfair tax deduction since the houses of the rich tended to be more energy efficient than the houses of the poor and middle. So, they had fewer changes that they could make, thus fewer deductions.

I'd blame Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton because they were the ones who presided over 18 years of cheap energy and did absolutey nothing to better prepare us for the inevitable time when prices would start to rise; fuel economy in 1999 was lower than it was in 1987 despite 12 years of technology and engineering advancement and continues to stagnate despite oil prices rising nearly 700% since January of 1999.

The one good thing they did was help replace the US's oil power plants with natural gas; that stuff is a lot more abundant and will remain cheap for a while in to the future (at least another 30-40 years before it peaks with current proven reserves). We've made our electricity supply generally free from oil, which is a plus.

Just think--What if every house built in the last 25 years had solar panels to aid heating in winter or heat water? What if every house was super insulated? What if every water heater sold in the last 25 years was tankless? What if every window installed was triple pane? What if every car was as energy efficient as was tech possible 25 years ago? What if we used the desert sun to produce all kinds of energy? What if we used the wind? The technology to cut the use of oil by at least half was available 25 years ago. But the tax cuts to encourage their use was declared unfair and eliminated in Reagan's "tax reform".

Currently, residential natural gas usage accounts for 25% of demand and of that amount 88% is used in heating and cooling. Those kinds of upgrades would slash demand by at least 22% overall, and would keep much of the demand growth flat. 22% is easily 10-20 years of demand growth at current rates, let alone the greatly reduced growth rate if those upgrades were implemented.

Another big boost would be in manufacturing; people forget that the US pays the highest rates for natural gas in the world due to tight supply, and that puts our manufacturers at an artificial disadvantage. Many chemical producers that would be competitive have gone bankrupt due to the higher cost of natural gas and lack of infrastructure, and that costs the US jobs and GDP growth that it shouldn't lose in a competitive industry.

The benefits of maximizing energy efficiency and keeping it up would save more money than all the tax cuts in the world.

Would we be at war right now?

I think we would be, mainly because the oil itself isn't what matters; the plan for Iraq is to have an ally in the region who has the influence to dominate OPEC and give the US even more proxy control over the resource. Even if domestic production could meet all of our demand the US would still want to control oil to influence those who are more dependent than us on foreign imports.

I'd blame Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton because they were the ones who presided over 18 years of cheap energy and did absolutey nothing to better prepare us for the inevitable time when prices would start to rise
*snip*
The benefits of maximizing energy efficiency and keeping it up would save more money than all the tax cuts in the world.

But didn't they just leave it up to the market and private enterprise to do this? And aren't we doing so, now that it is more economically feasible? Or would goverment-funded research be more efficient?

Another big boost would be in manufacturing; people forget that the US pays the highest rates for natural gas in the world due to tight supply, and that puts our manufacturers at an artificial disadvantage. Many chemical producers that would be competitive have gone bankrupt due to the higher cost of natural gas and lack of infrastructure, and that costs the US jobs and GDP growth that it shouldn't lose in a competitive industry.

One of the areas we could have used in industry is hydrogen produced by solar or wind. Hydrogen is hard to use in cars because of all the containment problems but would be easy to use in a stationary factory. It could even be piped in like nat. gas. And pollution advantages. Of course, we could blame that part on GW as he wouldn't sign the treaty.

But didn't they just leave it up to the market and private enterprise to do this? And aren't we doing so, now that it is more economically feasible? Or would goverment-funded research be more efficient?
Do you see a problem and try to solve it, or just react to one crisis after another? This is the problem, we've had a generation grow up with not one leader with vision. Not one has said "this is my ideal, follow me."

We don't need and didn't need government research 25 years ago. The technology was and is there. What we needed was an incentive to encourage the adoption of the technology. In the late 70's any energy saving purchase came right off the top of income for tax purposes. Reagan in his "tax reform" cut taxes for the rich while raising taxes on energy conservation. The power to tax is the power to destroy. And it destroyed all energy conservation.

Do you see a problem and try to solve it, or just react to one crisis after another? This is the problem, we've had a generation grow up with not one leader with vision. Not one has said "this is my ideal, follow me."

We don't need and didn't need government research 25 years ago. The technology was and is there. What we needed was an incentive to encourage the adoption of the technology. In the late 70's any energy saving purchase came right off the top of income for tax purposes. Reagan in his "tax reform" cut taxes for the rich while raising taxes on energy conservation. The power to tax is the power to destroy. And it destroyed all energy conservation.
I agree that we have had the technology, but disagree that there is currently a crisis or that we needed an incentive 25 years ago. It used to be too expensive to use the technology. Now the gap has narrowed. Market forces, all the way ;)