Oil Falls to $132 a Barrel

  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jul 16, 2008 3:44 PM GMT
    I find it interesting that the closer we get to okaying offshore drilling over here, the price of oil begins to take a fall. Could it be that the oil producing nations are running scared? That the prospect of the U.S. aggressively weening ourselves off of Oil dependency on others is OPEC's worst nightmare??? If this is true, than this is reason enough to pass legislation and let the drilling begin.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2008 3:45 PM GMT
    well, thank god it's so cheap now... icon_cry.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2008 5:06 PM GMT
    Oil is overpriced right now. The US economy is slowing as is Europe, Canada and Asia. So the demand is going to start to drop off a bit. In the fall after the summer driving season is over, the price of oil will probably go below $100. Now the price of natural gas is another matter!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2008 8:17 PM GMT
    Please. Even if US offshore drilling/exploring happens, the US wouldn't even begin to produce oil for YEARS. Even then, we still don't have enough refineries to produce enough gas. It's called speculation. As long as we're dependent on a commodity with limited production and supply, we're going to be paying up the ying-yang. There is no short term answer/solution for where we are. Get used to paying $4+ (it's $4.98/gallon of regular here)for gas and more and more for food, clothes, and just about anything else. We're in a hole for a long time to come until the US (and others) smarten up and starts investing in alternative sources for energy....and NOT using FOOD sources as energy. Have a nice day. ;-)
  • silverfox

    Posts: 3178

    Jul 16, 2008 8:28 PM GMT
    I think it is wishful thinking that the cost of gas is going to go down.... to be blunt (and it is something we Americans don't like to hear) we just don't have the clout in the world that we would like to think we do.

    I predict $7 a gallon very soon.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2008 8:29 PM GMT
    Our most valuable untapped resource is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which is estimated to contain 10.4 billion barrels of oil. This remote frozen tundra could be drilled with minimal impact on surrounding life. ANWR is about the size of South Carolina and in 1995 the Republican Congress passed legislation to open ANWR for energy production, but President Clinton vetoed the bill. If he had signed it, the U.S. would now be producing one million barrels a day - almost enough oil to replace all of our daily imports from Saudi Arabia.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2008 8:38 PM GMT
    Considering that the US IMPORTS 60% of it's petro/liquid fuel, a 1M/day extra production (and I think it would be much less than that...considering we only produce about 6M barrels/day now) would be pennies in the jar.

    And I think we're a little more dependent on Saudi Arabia than a mere 1M barrels/day.
  • Squarejaw

    Posts: 1035

    Jul 16, 2008 8:43 PM GMT
    I don't understand the people who want us to use up our own oil reserves. Given fears of peak capacity, and given China's ever-increasing thirst for oil, doesn't it make more sense that we save our own reserves for the future?

    Tapping them now would only make sense if we expect oil to be CHEAPER in the coming decades, and I don't think anyone's predicting that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2008 8:49 PM GMT
    According to the Energy Information Administration, they do not feel ANWR will affect the global price of oil when past behaviors of the oil market are considered. "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."

    Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, OPEC could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount.

    Estimates for oil reserves in the ANWR offer a relatively small contribution to the world market. The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. In May 2008 the Energy Information Administration stated the following:

    "The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively."
  • metta

    Posts: 39167

    Jul 16, 2008 8:53 PM GMT
    We have been expecting them to come down for the short term. They have been pushed up too high by investors. I read that gold is too high as well for the same reason.


    Bush is using the high prices to push for more oil drilling for his buddies.

    However, over the long term, the oil prices will continue to rise.

    The thing that concerns me the most right now is the value of the dollar. I'm concerned that with the government having to create more and more debt to bail out the financial industry will result in a further decrease in the dollar. Which also may result in more countries pulling away from being backed by the dollar, which in turn could possible cause the dollar to spiral down.

    I think that the government should do what it can to buy back dollars to prop up its value.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2008 10:19 PM GMT
    metta8 said I think that the government should do what it can to buy back dollars to prop up its value.


    I used to trade currencies for clients in the commodities markets (specifically, the CME, now owned by the CBOT).

    Central bank interventions of the kind you propose have been a regular staple of foreign currencies for years. They succeed very little in affecting the currency valuations, and what success they do have tends to dissipate in a very short time, often as little as two to three weeks, seldom longer than three months. Japan repeatedly did this to manipulate the yen during its 13-year (!) recession. The failure of this strategy is telling: currencies rise and fall because of intrinsic conditions, not speculation (except around the edges).

    The dollar is falling because of the immensity of the debt we've racked up with foreign countries. China is not the only holder of US Treasuries....Canada, England, and the European Union are large holders as well, and the value of the dollar reflects their view that our economy will be hampered in coming decades by the necessity of paying interest on the massive debt.

    The other part that you mention is already happening, quicker than we'd like....de-dollarization, which if it happens fast enough will turn our current inflation into hyper-inflation.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jul 16, 2008 10:53 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]Jockbod48 said[/cite]Our most valuable untapped resource is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which is estimated to contain 10.4 billion barrels of oil. This remote frozen tundra could be drilled with minimal impact on surrounding life. ANWR is about the size of South Carolina and in 1995 the Republican Congress passed legislation to open ANWR for energy production, but President Clinton vetoed the bill. If he had signed it, the U.S. would now be producing one million barrels a day - almost enough oil to replace all of our daily imports from Saudi Arabia. [/quote]


    This is exactly why we need to start drilling NOW, in tandem with also developing all the alternative forms of energy. Had we started this drilling back in the 90's, who knows how much it would have helped in the larger picture, but it sure as HELL couldn't have hurt. It's like we've been sitting around with a thumb up are asses for decades while the Saudis and all the other OPEC nations just keep reaming us for their oil. We can't be looking back in say the year 2018 and be saying shoulda woulda coulda. We simply have to do whatever it takes to get off, or at least severely lessen, our dependency of oil from other countries, and part of that puzzle has got to include drilling for the abundance of oil we have right here in the U.S. Even if they make huge strides in hybrids, or electric cars, or whatever in the next decade, there will still be millions of people who will not be able to afford these new cars and will still be driving gas cars.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2008 11:08 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI find it interesting that the closer we get to okaying offshore drilling over here, the price of oil begins to take a fall. Could it be that the oil producing nations are running scared? That the prospect of the U.S. aggressively weening ourselves off of Oil dependency on others is OPEC's worst nightmare??? If this is true, than this is reason enough to pass legislation and let the drilling begin.


    Or we could just f*cking develop and promote cleaner and more renewable technologies, increase production, reduce cost, and allow everyone access to these technologies. We've known about the limits and dangers of oil for almost 40 years. Did every last innovative person in the USA just ignore the situation? Because I haven't seen anything come to market in any significant volume.

    Certain men in power and their old-industry cronies would rather have Americans by the balls for a few more years. So keep wishing for more stuff to burn, as if this were the only way to harness energy, ya cancer-lovin' suckers.

    Frankly, anyone who thinks oil is the answer to all our oil problems is either as dense as a tar pit or has a stake in the game.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2008 11:21 PM GMT
    Common sense tells us that an increase in our fuel supply will help drive down soaring costs. Yet, there are lawmakers who continue to put forward politically expedient proposals that will neither raise domestic supply, nor solve the broader problem of American dependence on foreign oil.

    Some in Congress, including Obama, are proposing an irrational windfall profits tax on the U.S. oil industry. Increasing taxes on production only serves to decrease domestic production and encourage more exploration abroad where costs are lower. A punitive tax on profits would raise marginal production costs, reduce domestic oil production, and actually increase the overall level of oil imports.

    This is not just my speculation. This has been tried, and has failed, in the past. When Congress imposed a similar windfall profit tax on the oil industry in 1980, domestic oil production decreased significantly and jobs were lost. It raised our dependence on foreign oil by 10 percent.

    On U.S. soil and off our coasts, we have significantly more oil than Venezuela's 80 billion barrel reserve, and our available natural gas reserves exceed that of Iraq, China, Yemen, Oman, Nigeria and Venezuela, combined.

    The American Energy Production Act of 2008 will leverage both traditional and renewable sources of energy that could add enough domestic production supply to satisfy U.S. energy demand for five years without foreign imports.

    The legislation would allow coastal states to petition the U.S. Department of Interior to lift drilling moratoria for offshore oil and gas leasing off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. It would also grant U.S. oil companies access to the 10 billion barrels of available oil in (ANWR).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2008 11:25 PM GMT
    Jockbod48 saidThe American Energy Production Act of 2008 will leverage both traditional and renewable sources of energy...


    In what proportion?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2008 11:35 PM GMT
    The system is rigged from top to bottom. I mean come on...anyone who thinks that the most powerful men in the world (here and abroad) are simply going to let natural market forces dictate this is incredibly naive. Let me put it to you as simply as I can...Bush and Cheney are OIL INSIDERS, and are known LIARS. So you can toss all your economic ideas in the sh*tter.

    The problem is that most people don't want to admit that something they cannot easily control is manipulating them, so they sit in denial and make up economic theories to try and explain what is essentially a long-running trillion-dollar crime against humanity.

    Now get back to watching "Tila Tequila" or whatever it is that you do to numb the pain of this raping we are experiencing.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2008 11:44 PM GMT
    XRuggerATX saidThe system is rigged from top to bottom. I mean come on...anyone who thinks that the most powerful men in the world (here and abroad) are simply going to let natural market forces dictate this is incredibly naive. Let me put it to you as simply as I can...Bush and Cheney are OIL INSIDERS, and are known LIARS. So you can toss all your economic ideas in the sh*tter.

    The problem is that most people don't want to admit that something they cannot easily control is manipulating them, so they sit in denial and make up economic theories to try and explain what is essentially a long-running trillion-dollar crime against humanity.




    Amen, brother!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2008 12:00 AM GMT
    It really pisses me off that we can spend millions to develop technology that allows us to put a man on the moon, dock with a foreign space station, put a robot on mars and circle a number of other planets in outer space, however we can't see to figure that there's a need to change our main mode of transportation from a combustion engine developed in the early 1900s that now requires us to be dependent upon another country.

    If we had started being serious about developing alternate sources of energy after the shortages in the 80s, we wouldn't be in this mess and we could tell them where they could shove those expensive barrels! But no, we're too worried about protecting automakers and oil refiners and all the greed that went with them. Now the automakers are suffering, maybe they'll think more about trying to develop something that the would actually help the American people and that didn't break down constantly! Again, simply MHO.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2008 5:51 PM GMT
    eb925guy saidIt really pisses me off that we can spend millions to develop technology that allows us to put a man on the moon, dock with a foreign space station, put a robot on mars and circle a number of other planets in outer space, however we can't see to figure that there's a need to change our main mode of transportation from a combustion engine developed in the early 1900s that now requires us to be dependent upon another country.

    If we had started being serious about developing alternate sources of energy after the shortages in the 80s, we wouldn't be in this mess and we could tell them where they could shove those expensive barrels! But no, we're too worried about protecting automakers and oil refiners and all the greed that went with them. Now the automakers are suffering, maybe they'll think more about trying to develop something that the would actually help the American people and that didn't break down constantly! Again, simply MHO.


    Thank you for that.

    Consider the Segway. It only uses kinetic energy. Nothing to buy or burn. So what happens? A calculated campaign to smear it as a faggy, fancy-boy, tree-hugger mode of transport. In America, sometimes a heaping dose of good old fashioned playground name calling can kill anything (including the aspirations of intelligent presidential candidates, but that's another dozen threads). Anyway, with consumer products, it seems that one simple question trumps any sort of rational decision making: "Will it get me laid, or will it prevent me from getting laid?" Play to someone's sexual insecurities, and you've got one damned effective marketing campaign.

    ...but enough of that tangent.