Kay Bailey - On Target!

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

On the contrary. We use over 25% of the worlds oil. One country out of 189 using a quarter of all oil produced.

-

--Odd observation..... We are now using a huge amount of oil and we have those wanting us to drill more so we will have even more. Maybe figuring out how to consume less is the real answer... Oil is not in an unlimited supply. I stand on what I said... the price of oil is skyrocketing largely because of what is happening the China and the rest of Asia, not speculation of futures. I doubt any American politician can do much to bring down the price of oil..

--As for speculalion comments .. it may be a factor but that that much. Futures are sometime bought by companies such as airlines to lock down prices so they can plan and budget. I find it interesting that when oil was about $70 last year a Wall street "expert" came to Midland (I attended the meeting) and stated oil would be under $50 by Christmas. T.Boone Pickens came a month later and spoke at Midland College (April?) and said oil would be over $90 by end of the end. He was right. I don't trust Wall Street comments at all. They often say what they say (includes stock downgrades sometime) to hopefully drive prices down, then buy and make a profit.

Edited July 5, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Have you seen the T.Boone Pickens ad on TV ..... who has a couple Billion in the oil business....

He says, "We can't drill our way out of this mess".

Perhaps K.Bailey is incorrect.... and maybe the other guys are.

Edited July 8, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[KingDL1]

Have you seen the T.Boone Pickens ad on TV ..... who has a couple Billion in the oil business....

He says, "We can't drill our way out of this mess".

Perhaps K.Bailey is incorrect.... and maybe the other guys are.

Funny, T. Boone Pickens just may have an interest in keeping the supply of oil down, not very credible argument.

Not like drilling is the end all be all anyway, but not to use those oil fields is a bit insane. Technology is really improving solar power, the next generation solar panels should be pretty incredible, oil from algae is pretty amazing, wind and ocean current power sources are pretty cool. More things are coming all the time, the algae one is my favorite. When I was in Phoenix I talked with some people that were investing in this "green" oil plan. Pretty interesting stuff.

[UNTflyer]

Have you seen the T.Boone Pickens ad on TV ..... who has a couple Billion in the oil business....

He says, "We can't drill our way out of this mess".

T. Boone contradicts himself. In 2007, he said "Demand is up and supply is flat, so it's [oil prices] got to go on up." By that logic, more supply would at least contain the rise in prices, if not outright lower prices.

He also has a lot invested in natural gas, and he is pushing it as an transportation fuel alternative to oil... so he's not exactly unbiased. Pickens has dreams of CNG stations with the Pickens Fuel logo. For every T. Boone Pickens, there are hundreds of geologists, chemical engineers, etc. who say we have plenty of oil, can safely drill for it, and reduce the price of energy with sane policies.

If we "can't drill out way out of this mess", how the hell are we going to conserve our way out of this mess?

Edited July 9, 2008 by UNTflyer

[SilverEagle]

T. Boone contradicts himself. In 2007, he said "Demand is up and supply is flat, so it's [oil prices] got to go on up." By that logic, more supply would at least contain the rise in prices, if not outright lower prices.

He also has a lot invested in natural gas, and he is pushing it as an transportation fuel alternative to oil... so he's not exactly unbiased. Pickens has dreams of CNG stations with the Pickens Fuel logo. For every T. Boone Pickens, there are hundreds of geologists, chemical engineers, etc. who say we have plenty of oil, can safely drill for it, and reduce the price of energy with sane policies.

If we "can't drill out way out of this mess", how the hell are we going to conserve our way out of this mess?

Well, considering that we are such energy hogs, conservation would be the most logical first step. Switching to wind power for a lot of our electricity needs would take a lot less time than drilling in the arctic. And we have already gone into high gear in tapping into the Barnett shale gas field. And who cares if a good bit of the profits go to Pickins? Are you shilling for the big oil companys these days?

[UNTflyer]

Well, considering that we are such energy hogs, conservation would be the most logical first step. Switching to wind power for a lot of our electricity needs would take a lot less time than drilling in the arctic. And we have already gone into high gear in tapping into the Barnett shale gas field. And who cares if a good bit of the profits go to Pickins? Are you shilling for the big oil companys these days?

Most of our electric plants are fueled by coal, nuclear, natural gas, or hydro power. Very little comes from oil fueled plants, so I can't see where conserving electricity would lower oil prices.And I have no problem with Pickens making a profit, more power to him. I was just pointing out that Pickens has an interest in the U.S. NOT drilling for more oil, and that his opinion should be considered with all the facts.

Incidentally, Pickens interests are aligned with my interests, since I work in the natural gas industry.

Edited July 9, 2008 by UNTflyer

[SilverEagle]

Here is the information that I've been looking for. It was in an article published today.

Oil production cost

Here's what the price of a barrel of oil needs to be for different sources of petroleum to be profitably extracted:

- Accessible land: $19

- Shallow water: $20-60

- Deep water: $60

- Shale mining: $30-50

- Oil sands: $50-60

Current price per barrel: $145

Sources: U.S. Govt. CERA, Rand, EnCana

I've seen statements that our shale oil reserves are somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 years at current consumption.

I have also seen it stated that if the national speed limit was moved back to 55, we would consume 27% less oil.

[UNTflyer]

I have also seen it stated that if the national speed limit was moved back to 55, we would consume 27% less oil.

That's crap. It didn't work in the 80s, why would it work now? In fact, this could really hurt more people as there would be a greater speed differential between those who drive the natural speed and those "enforcers" who do the speed limit in the left lane. Slower speed limits will cause longer traffic jams which just burns more fuel. Not to mention, as discussed in another thread, the "sweet spot" of fuel efficiency is somewhere between 65 and 70 MPH.

[yyz28]

Not to mention, as discussed in another thread, the "sweet spot" of fuel efficiency is somewhere between 65 and 70 MPH.

It's all in the gearing... the sweet spot until the 80's was around 55. 3 Spd. automatics with no overdrives and 4 speed manual boxes were the choice of the time. 5-6 gear manual transmissons and 4, 5 and 6 speed auto transmissions push that sweet spot higher and higher.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

That's crap. It didn't work in the 80s, why would it work now? In fact, this could really hurt more people as there would be a greater speed differential between those who drive the natural speed and those "enforcers" who do the speed limit in the left lane. Slower speed limits will cause longer traffic jams which just burns more fuel. Not to mention, as discussed in another thread, the "sweet spot" of fuel efficiency is somewhere between 65 and 70 MPH.

Amen..... just for grins once in a while I will slow down to 55 for a mile or two and it feels like I am riding a mule....so slooow. I never could tell any real difference in MPG in anything I drove. Can't remember when it started but it ended in 1994 after oil dropped to new lows under Clinton.. (85 cents a gallon, $8-9 per barrel ) Those of us in West Texas where miles and miles of fast roads exist were overjoyed (with the new limit, not oil prices). It takes me about 5.5 hours to get to Dallas now and then it was about 8 hours (if I drove somewhat legally, it also meant more Rest Room etc. stops because of the time).

Edited July 14, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNTflyer]

...but it ended in 1994 after oil dropped to new lows under Clinton.. (85 cents a gallon, $8-9 per barrel )

I think you mean $18-19.

[HoustonEagle]

Here is the information that I've been looking for. It was in an article published today.

Oil production cost

Here's what the price of a barrel of oil needs to be for different sources of petroleum to be profitably extracted:

- Accessible land: $19

- Shallow water: $20-60

- Deep water: $60

- Shale mining: $30-50

- Oil sands: $50-60

Current price per barrel: $145

Sources: U.S. Govt. CERA, Rand, EnCana

I've seen statements that our shale oil reserves are somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 years at current consumption.

I have also seen it stated that if the national speed limit was moved back to 55, we would consume 27% less oil.

The true problem we are facing right now and is upsetting so many Americans is that we can not bring new oil/energy on fast enough. All of these projects take years to develop. And, they are indeed being developed because of the simple reason that they are profitable.

One more note. About as soon as the afore mentioned prices were published they were out of date. Why? Because it takes a lot of energy to produce it. And as you see prices are high and lately seem to go higher everyday.

When people say there is no one solution they are right on. There is not. If you had to sum it all up though you could just say that high prices will make us more efficient in every-way and that will indeed take care of the problem.

Sadly I do believe the next 5-10 years will continue to be very rough on a lot of folk around the world.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

I think you mean $18-19.

No, I meant $8 or at least $8.xx. Check this site: the 1973-2007 graph. http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

Quote:

"Following what became known as the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait crude oil prices entered a period of steady decline until in 1994 inflation adjusted prices attained their lowest level since 1973."

It doesn't state the price but the graph shows it below $10.

found this --

1994 monthly average.

January $13.29 February $13.28 March $13.13

There were some days it was below $9 (briefly, my memory, friends in oil business, I live in Midland) . Housing was cheap then and finding jobs here was a problem. Cross Timbers ( a production company from Ft. Worth but also in Midland) could be bought for 81 cents a share in 1994 (split adjusted) . It was over $70 last month.

Edited July 15, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Quoner]

I may have missed them, but any thoughts on the oil speculation debate?

What do you guys think of this: http://www.stopoilspeculationnow.com/

[UNTflyer]

I may have missed them, but any thoughts on the oil speculation debate?

What do you guys think of this: http://www.stopoilspeculationnow.com/

I think it's more crap. Speculation is why you're paying $500 for a plane ticket today instead of $1500. Since oil speculation became unregulated, the price of oil dropped for 6 years. Obviously, speculation does not cause oil prices to rise. More heavily regulated commodities markets have experienced more volatility in recent years than oil. Futures speculation allows companies to hedge against future price spikes.

Regulation of oil futures is simply not a way to reduce oil prices, despite what some websites claim. Traders will just go to other foreign markets to play the game. Besides, futures speculation is self-regulating. There are traders betting the house, betting OTHER PEOPLE'S houses, that oil prices will continue to rise. And just like every other bubble market in the past 20 years(Japanese assets, Dot-com, U.S. housing), when it busts there will be a lot of speculators jumping out their office windows.

[Cerebus]

The Economist had a good article deflating the "speculation is raising gas prices and needs to be stopped" thinking.

Don’t blame the speculators

More importantly, neither index funds nor other speculators ever buy any physical oil. Instead, they buy futures and options which they settle with a cash payment when they fall due. In essence, these are bets on which way the oil price will move. Since the real currency of such contracts is cash, rather than barrels of crude, there is no limit to the number of bets that can be made. And since no oil is ever held back from the market, these bets do not affect the price of oil any more than bets on a football match affect the result.

[Quoner]

The Economist had a good article deflating the "speculation is raising gas prices and needs to be stopped" thinking.

Don’t blame the speculators

Slate has two good takedowns too - both with links to other good ones:

http://www.slate.com/id/2195037/

http://www.slate.com/id/2195037/

Just curious to see if anyone supported this viewpoint. I think there can be some tightening of the rules around speculation, but the 20-60% price jumpdue to speculation doesn't sit well.