This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Bears Explain The Price Of Gas (Special GOP Primary Edition)
In their own inimitable manner, the two bears are back to take on gas prices. Dismissing the higher demand thesis, concerns of the lack of supply, instability in the Middle East, and of course speculators (the same ones who were blamed for financial stocks' deterioration), our favorite speakers-of-the-truth point to what is the only relevant factor - the falling dollar. The Bernank once again stars for his schizophrenic perspective of asset price rises. Enjoy.
»
- 25578 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
My best laff of the repubican candidate campaign so far is the retards holding the $2.50 a gal. gas signs at the Newt rally. Repubicans care about gas prices even less than Obama.
What's weird is that alternative energy like FSLR stocks are falling...
I do not want solar crap on my roof. I guess others feel the same way.
"I don't want free energy that is immune to inflationary pressures and that pays for itself fairly quickly at CURRENT prices."
Solar is awesome, and new carbon technologies are going to make them a LOT cheaper. Recently heard about yet another wonder material called graphyne, which is similar to graphene, but consists of double and triple bonds (2.5x bonds) rather than single and double bonds (1.5x bonds). According to simulations, the material allows one way current, which makes it highly useful for electronics. It is also super strong like graphene, and about half as dense.
But then, there is no such thing as technological advance, so I'm sure the peak oil church ladies will quibble over this bleeding edge technology.
Free? Hardly. Take a look at the graph here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested.
Solar-derived energy has some of the lowest EROEI numbers.
How far should the EROI fall before you start investing in Alternatives?
"Solar is awesome"
Agreed! That's why I sought out a home and property that is (in a northern latitude) equator-facing. FREE, no technological shit to break down. Nice also to be able to go out on my property and harvest stored solar in the form of wood for my wood stove.
But, the technology shit, blah, blah, blah... 2/3 of the world's population lives on $3/day or less. Glad that you can be an elitist.
I've installed a solar hot water system. One of the technology-oriented solar "solutions" that has some merit. All well and good, except that none of this will scale.
Simple. Glut in Chinese solar companies. Flooding the markets with cheap solar applications. Markets that have been artificially pumped with subsidies the governments can no longer afford.
It's a global economy glut. This continued blaming of China for everything is getting old (not aimed at you if you did not intend it as such, but others will read it as such).
2/3 of the world's population lives on $3/day or less. Shit, I installed some solar HWH with a guy who had been in central Asia somewhere (some really remote place) where folks were heating with animal dung, he'd helped bring them the concept of solar hot water heating (and I can't recall what material he used, but clearly it's not something that's naturally occurring there). Neither business or govts can change this equation, can't make people buy when they don't have anything to buy with.
Mr. Brains (in this thread) just can't get it trough his thick skull that shit is only possible due to economies of scale, and that stuff that isn't crucial won't ever again be able to enjoy subsidies from the future in order to saturate (and drive up economies of scale) markets again. I'm sure that those 4 billion people would love to have nice homes and solar power too, but just because people want something it doesn't mean that there's a market (takes exchange of money, money, as I've already noted, it pretty damn scarce for the majority of humans on the planet).
Germany, UK cutting feed in tariffs for alternative energy.
buy low.
Let it rise...
I rode my bike to work every day last week.
Doing the same this week.
Use it on weekends for errands.
Who else is with me..???
I am! In my car burning the gas you're not...thanks, man.
What, your crach whores kick you out of the motel room?
what's a crach?
A combination of crotch and crack I assume.
Rock Hudson meet Len Bias ...
I don't know, ask your whore's pimp. I'm sure he'll know.
Better have his money first, though, lest he turns you out next.
It's where you hide the dope in your whore........any crachhead knows that!
I'd never made that connection before, that tmosley is a crachhead! But it's now starting to make sense!
Is your bike going to replace the farmers tractor or harvester? Or the truck that's taking it to market.
Energy conservation is admirable but if something structually significant isn't done fast a hell of a lot more than 48 million Americans are going to be on food stamps.
But they'll be fit.
Irish, the only thing my bike replaces is my mode of transport.
The more I use it the more my costs go down, and the better my health.
I don't get sick anymore.
I can eat like a pig and don't put on any weight.
Unfortunately this is lost on about 98% of my fellow Americans.
Oil isn't just going to disappear overnight. It gets more expensive, then those uses for it that become uneconomical switch to something else, while those that remain economical continue in its use.
This is basic stuff. But wholly beyond the understanding of the church ladies of peak oil.
Yep... we will replace oil with the next thing....Adam Smiths magic hand....jeezus...
Could you remind me of the candidates?
Could you give an estimate of the capital costs?
(Hint, if you were serious you could look at existing energy sources and compute $/Giga-joule of marginal increase and be surprised at how similar they are)
Could you give me an idea what the growth rate would have be to replace oil over a 50 year time frame?
Do you think that some smart people have already done this?
Hint: Google Hirsch Report....
>>loses argument.
>>tells winner to repost 1000 things that have already been discussed.
>>pretends to be victorious.
You aint't discussed shit...
You babble about hypothetically cheap solar in one thread and diss the Volt in another...
Or maybe it will be about the wonders of graphene in one thread and then in another bitch about goverment funded research being wasteful (while not being phased in the least that the graphene research was originally driven by public funding)
You are a fucking hypocrite...
Let me guess, you are now going to tell us Cold Fusion is a guaranteed winner....
Nice ad hominem post.
Solar power is getting cheaper every year, and there is a path to ridiculously cheap solar through current materials research. The Volt is a peice of shit that catches fire. Liking good technology doesn't mean you can't dislike bad technology, you idiot.
Graphene is something that exists. You attempt to label it as being evil (or something, what the fuck are you even trying to say, except that you are trying to use ad hominem to discredit my arguments) because it was developed by government funded research. But government funds PRACTIALLY ALL RESEARCH. This is because without that funding, no-one would be able to do it because of all the regulations they have put on our shoulders. You make the argument that the slave who wants to be free, and talks about the benefits of freedom is a hypocrite for taking food offered by his master from the production of him and his fellow slaves. This is clearly retarded.
And then you shove words in my mouth. Fuck you.
Also, oil ain't doing shit in terms of gold. No peak oil. Anyone who claims that oil prices are rising because of lack of supply is RETARDED. This means YOU.
Careful now, you are getting spittle all over yourself...
So where is all the supply? eh?
2 Trillion dollars and zero increase in supply.... can you explain that? Didn't think so...
You are an obfuscating blowhard...
Well past the "Sell by date" if you catch my drift....
I agree with your logical points, Flak. Anyone only looking forward when saying solar is the next big thing is refusing to consider all the capital (read: energy) invested in bringing it to its current barely-efficient state. It's all about EROEI.
I would agree with Flakie's logical points too if he had any.
EROEI doesn't mean much because not all BTUs cost the same or are worth the same, e.g. a BTU from burning coal or laying out in the sun doesn't cost as much as a BTU derived from burning kerosene over the Atlantic and is worth much less.
The electricity generation facility near my home in the 1960s burned light sweet crude in a boiler. It no longer does that, but it still generates electricity. How is that possible? According to idiot Flakie, the crude that is no longer burned in this boiler does not become available for use to consume in some other manner such as gasoline because that would increase supply and supply is not increased when demand goes down.
Flakie is an oil company shill.
Don't you have some abiotic oil to drill for???
You certainly fail to grasp EROEI...
IMHO, it is you that fails to grasp EROEI. FYI, that's Energy Returned On Energy Invested.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/11/05/peak-oil-and-eroei-st...
Instead of loaded rhetoric from Forbes, here is a real article on EROEI
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8526
The entire economy is built on a house of cards and you come off spouting as though you know what the future holds, and that it's more of the same -nigh, MORE?!
Again, you continually operate on the assumption that PEAK OIL means that there's no more oil. What don't you get that it's about peak PRODUCTION?
Further, since nothing in existence, nothing that could possibly come on line in any time frame to offset rapid declines, even comes close to oil's energy density.
You're a perfect match for Obama the hopium man. Click your heels together. The unicorn bus should be coming around the corner for you any time now...
Economies of scale in reverse will take a big shit on your stupid logic.
Sorry Bobola I am too busy planting my "Victory Garden" and plucking chickens. Maybe I'll take the moped out for a spin with you next week...
Yeah, one cannot eat a bicycle! Ha ha! OK, so no one can ride a chicken...
I do it too!
Oil 'long' positions hit record high: CFTC - (MarketWatch) -- Money managers added 47,600 "long" oil contracts, or bets prices would go up, pushing the net longs to a new record of 240,572 contracts, data from Commodity Futures Trading Commission data showed Friday. The managers also added 7,800 short contracts, or bets prices will go lower. Oil ended the week with gains of 14% as unrest in Libya and concerns about possible contagion to other North African and Middle Eastern countries roiled markets.
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-02-25/markets/30956675_1_money-managers-oil-contracts
I wonder how well this group did with the real estate market, whether they were long when the air went out.
in terms of silver value gas is cheaper than it was in the early 60s. does that mean that the price of silver will go down or up? as a measure of the value of the dollar the price of silver will rise given that the value of the dollar will continue to fall. if the bears are right then the price of gasoline will also rise. is the ratio of the price of silver to the price of gasoline circa 1960s(until 1964 when there were silver content coins) the tracking benchmark for the value of silver? looks like it.
Return of the Bernank
ive missed him, or at least the bears speaking his name
maybe someone can send this to Newt, that fat head idiot
Heads up, Breitbarts "secret" videos get aired tonight: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/07/buzzefeed-selectively-edits-obama-tape
I never saw eye to eye with the man all the time, but I gotta see just what the big threat was all about tonight.
The crack Bears? Not so much....
RIP A.B.
The tape has been edited, who knows what Brietbart actually had.
"See the tape was released, much ado about nothing, move on, nothing to see here"
Who cares?
Unless the same outfit tells the people that 9/11 was orchestrated by branches of the US government and with the full knowledge (and support) of the former US President, I don't give a rats ass if Obama was born on the moon, smoked a dozen joints per day or was a cross dressing Clovard-Piven scholar who also studied jihadism.
Really, who the fuck cares?
Forex driven cost push inflation. You can't "sanitize" the ocean of USD already washing around the globe. Central banks not increasing or even rolling their UST paper, demand for USD dropping as alternatives for internation trade begin to emerge. As confidence erodes, then cracks, velocity takes off and prices with it--just the beginning. The Bernank can sing, dance, weasel and lie but he can't fight the "physics" of it.
The Bears get it right again.
Hey on a lighter note, Federal Courts now hold that a police officer may search ones cellphone data without a warrant.
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/03/06/police-given-direct-line-to-cell-phon...
At least the Constitution is alive and well.
well, one circuit did. The 9th would probably disagree. 2nd maybe too. The SCOTUS will decide whether this is an effect and whether the search is reasonable or not.
Put the cellphone away...if it is in a container they cannot search, then they cannot search it. If they were to ask if you had a phone, plead the 5th.
Spot on, I sent the same advice to F&Fs today. When stopped, hide the phone out of plain view.
Interestingly the People's State of California ruled the same way last year. These things tend to creep eastward:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/calif-appeals-court-approves-cell-phone-searches-during-traffic-stops/
But moreover, is it really too much to ask that any Federal court actually read the BoR before ruling?
The recent SCOTUS decision tossing out the conviction of a man based on data culled from the placement of a GPS device on his motor vehicle, sans warrant, was surprising to me, so maybe there's hope...
Sorry officer, my cell phone sank to the bottom of the lake with my wallet, gold and silver. I am truly disheartened by the experience. But what is a guy to do?
Funny thing is that gas is still less than a pre-1964 quarter per gallon.
I have been posting this sort of message for months on all the blogs that bring up the high price of gas, so wasn't trying to copycat besnook's post, actually didn't refresh the page after watching the video, so didn't see it.
Please pardon the redundance.
Hasn't the creation of the US Department of Energy under President Jimmy Carter worked just so well?
P.S. - Charts, bitchez!
Yeah, about as well as Nixon turning us full FIAT...
But, for those who are ignorant of history: US oil production peak occurred the very same year that the USD was taken off the gold standard (or what little there was left).
The US will be a net exporter of energy in the near and long term given fracking and yet we are under some mysterious conspiracy of peak oil? The mind boggles...
you don't understand peak oil, do you?
Aw shucks, I guess I ain't smart enuf <spit>...yuk yuk yuk...
Well, I am glad you admitted it in your own words....
So bitter.
Get over it, bitch. Man up and accept that you are wrong.
Did I hear a troll?
yes, but what aspect of peak FRN eludes you?
It's not a mysterious conspiracy but rather the second law of thermodynamics. I am not convinced it has happened to date, but it will.
I don't see how newton's second law on entropy plays into it. There is no 'peak oil' as the technology envelope allows for cash efficient extraction at the right price, there is always enough cost-effective supply. Look at the deep water shelf off Brazil. This was not a technological reality 30 years ago, now it is doable for the current market price due to improvements in extraction technology. Heck, the US, not allowing new contracts in the gulf, is actually signing agreements with Brazil for deep water oil supply access (let's stop and smell the hypocrisy, shall we? Ah, deep breath....http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/19/br-obama-brazil-deals-idUSN192...)
FWIW, The 2nd law of thermodynamics came about 150 years after Newton passed away...
So, could you explain why we have not discovered more new oil than we have burned in a given year since about 1980...
Or could you explain why C+C has not increased in 6 years despite throwing 2 trillion dollars at the problem in the past 10 years?
Also, since you seem so well versed in the physical sciences, you do understand that Q and dQ/dt are two very different beasts?
>So, could you explain why we have not discovered more new oil than we have burned in a given year since about 1980...
Reserves are going up and meeting supply as traditional fields are being offset by unconventional means. This chart from Canada is a good example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Canadian_Oil_Production_1960_to_2020.png
Peak oil theory did not account for the offset in supplies from US, Canada, Brazil, etc. The US will turn to a net exporter of oil in the next 3 to 5 years. This was completely missed in any of the 2000-2006 senario analysis. Heck, there is so much gas supply coming online you are even seeing US prices drop in real terms even while oil continues to rise.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/markets/oil-rises-above-105-in-eu...
>Or could you explain why C+C has not increased in 6 years
C+C music factory hasn't put out a record in FAR more than 6 years.
>dQ/dt
"It's getting hot in here (so hot), so take off all your clothes...."
Could you compare the net oil exports of North American producers from 5 years ago today?
Hint Canada is one of them... and the number is way down... Google Cantarell for a reason why,,
So, the US which currently imports about 9 mmbpd of oil and produces about 6 mmbpd will roughly triple production in the next 5 years? Wow....Really impressive, considering the all time high for US oil production was in 1970 at ~10 mmbpd...
Since you did not understand what C+C means, I may safely ignore anything you may choose to add on oil and natural gas...
And, you seem to be confused on the physical meaning of dQ/dt... Why am I not surprised....
I'll give you a suggestion, quit posting and making a bigger fool of yourself...
Oh, here are some pretty pictures to look at,
http://crudeoilpeak.info/no-number-crunching-in-alan-kohler-opinion-piece-on-premature-peak-oil-death
Acording to Goldmen Sachs and estimates by BP and Exxon, US daily produciton will hit 9-10.9Mbopd by 2017 and the US will become the world's largest oil exporter.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/Industry/article773144.ece
So, I do believe that would make the US a net exporter, wouldn't it?
Fools names and fools faces, I believe is the quote...
How would that make the US a net exporter?
Were you homeschooled in math?
If we currently use ~18 million barrels a day of petroleum products and produce about 6, how does going up to 10 (if that were possible!), could we be exporting on a net basis?
ad hominem much? The production projections are for a combined Canada N. America total of 12 million by 2017 augmented with convertible shale gas. The assumption is that demand will not radically increase.
http://fuelfix.com/files/2011/09/Bentek-North-American-Oil-Production-Gr...
Umm... I did not realize that the US could count Canadian production as their own... Did they invade and I missed it?
And I must laugh, imagine using a Goldman-Sachs document to argue a point here at ZH (as you did above earlier)...
Now that is ironic...
By the way the Bentek link is at odds with your claim above in at least two places...
I will let you figure out where...
Flakmeister said:
Cantarell's decline has been nothing short of disastrous.
Perhaps if we all wish hard enough, the east Texas fields will start gushing again and won't require a 99 percent water cut.
"But, but...what about the earth's magical soft nougat core that exudes pure light sweet crude forever? Derrrrrp?!"
"Condensates? Stop talking like a fag. Huh huh huh. Derrrp!"
Dear God, not flow rates! His head will explode. He's having a hard enough time as it is with integer arithmetic. Don't even bother with EROI. He'll tell you that the market price of oil makes it economically feasible to use two barrels of oil for every barrel extracted.
I drew a chart that shows future production declining, so that proves you're wrong.
Flakie: "you do understand that Q and dQ/dt"
Flakie is trying to impress us with his command of the calculus by spitting out, inconsequentially, Q (that's normally charge or quantity, but he doesn't tell us) and dQ/dt (that's normally the derivative of the charge or quantity per unit time, but ditto).
Very good....
In this case, Q refers to the oil in place...
Started drilling yet? or are you still raising money?
Did you look at that link I sent you??
Funny how the really deep wells did not find shit even though they were in oil fields supposedly fed by an interior source...
I don't drill. I'm a retired engineer. I don't need to raise any money.
Which link?
Really deep wells don't find shit, eh? Maybe that's because there isn't any shit (matter of biological origin) in really deep wells, just like the Russians claim. But judging from the Deepwater Horizon's last deep well, they did find one hell of a lot of oil that appeared to be from a source so deep as to be unlikely to be of biological origin.
"now it is doable for the current market price"
I think this is the key. So agreed, increasing price levels have allowed for more complex/extraction techniques to be economically viable, increasing production. Ignoring the sustainability of this relationship for a moment, the price level itself represents a certain amount of economic output. The price level is a unit of account, representing a certain amount of economic output that created a certain amount of wealth, which was converted into a convienient medium of exchange.
So if further complex exploration is profitable only at a higher price level, economic output must increase to create the additional wealth required by the marketplace in exchange for a barrel of oil. The current economic system is one that requires growth, such that the system is sustainable only so long as growth is exponential. Since the early 20th century this exponential growth has been possible because of the availability of highly concentrated, low entropy energy in petroleum. It would stand to reason that there is a point at which the energy required to produce exponential economic growth, required to sustain a suffcient increase in price level to support continued production, is actually greater then the energy derived from the barrel of oil.
After this point economic output is actually insufficient to derive a net energy benefit from the highly concentrated, low entropy energy source that is a barrel of oil.
In the abscence of a new source of equivilant low entropy energy or discovery of a lower entropy energy source, economic growth would seem impossible. A reversion to either fuel sources of lower energy density or lower levels of economic growth would produce the same outcome. If the very sustainability of the current system is dependant upon exponential growth, then this reversion would destroy it. If you believe that this level of population is sustainable in the current economic system but not in that which prevailed prior to oil (look at a plot of world population over this period), the implication is beyond bleak.
As to a "closed system" </sarc> clearly not, however can low entropy energy from the sun be concentrated to a sufficient density on a human time scale? Realistically forget a human time scale (vs geologic time) could this even occur over the p in which human population and economic output have grown exponentially? Over a short enough p to sustain the exponential growth?
>So agreed, increasing price levels have allowed for more complex/extraction techniques to be economically viable, increasing production.
But you are assuming that the new technology is 'relatively' more expensive than the old technology. In the case of fracking, the extra cost is quite marginal and new reserves have been able to be tapped by the productivity gains in the new technology. Deep water drilling has become relatively less expensive as well, in fact, Seadrill has been profitable even with the price of oil falling in 2007-2010.
Sometimes, it is simply a question of technological innovation radically increasing productivity.
I heard that the Earth was a closed system. Also, the crust doesn't interact with the mantle.
Yep... closed system, you really don't think things out...
Does the Sun factor into your analysis at any time?
Did I really need to include the <sarc> tag?
Christ you guys are dumb.
Look up Poe's Law and you'll see why...
You are the idiots who cite thermodynamics as if every form of energy production except for hydrocarbon extraction violates them.
You can't distinguish between my position and a parody of yours, which is fucking retarded.
Well, Cliff, in all honesty, you have said so many bat shit crazy wrong things I don't really know when you are trying to be facetious or not....
Same can be said of those poor countries whose citizens can't afford the oil themselves.
As to NG, takes a lot of infrastructure to move it around. It's a bit unstable: requires a lot of energy to keep mellow.
I suspect your mind boggles at the thought of there being a dark side of the moon. Kind of why no one takes you seriously.
gas prices are rising largely due to foreign demand. The U.S. is exporting more refined product now than it has in it's history, with most of it going to China. Check with the majors, like exxon. they're selling to the highest bidder. it's that simple.
So the falling dollar and the excess reserves have nothing to do with the price?
there are no excess reserves of refined product. crude yes. but the refined stuff, gasoline , kerosene -those inventories are fairly low due to exports.
It doesn't make a lot of sense (or cents) to ship refined product, it is more economical to refine and produce locally. However, that system is under pressure. Kerosene (mostly for Jet A) use is fairly static, and contracts are hedged out a long way in advance so it is easy to anticipate supply. In Europe the big problem is enough refining capacity for desel, as in many countries desel is artificially kept lower in cost than petrol (France, Germany and Belgium it isn't taxed as highly), so there has been a large increase in demand for desel without a commensurate increase in refining capacity.
Do you just make shit up on the fly?
Maybe you could explain to us this nugget:
(and no, I don't care about the typo...) So this would explain why European refiners are closing because of a lack of light sweet feedstock and tight crackspreads....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16696749
Jesus. The IEA has data showing the demand of diesel moving from 2400kbd in 1995 to 4300in 2008. In the meantime gas went from 3000kbd in 1995 to 2450kbd in 2008.
Do you honestly think that the demand for diesel has not increased and this is arificial due to EU taxes? What is your point?
Here is a quote for Ian Conn, CEO of BP refining, addressing this very issue:
"Those of you who remember my speech here in Brussels in November 2008, will also recall the interaction with taxation of transport fuels and the trend towards diesel in the European economy. Over time this has resulted in a substantial switch from gasoline to diesel use in vehicle transport...we should think hard about why we would continue to favour diesel development for personal transport, given the potential advances of both gasoline technology and sustainable biofuels sourcing."
So to answer your question, I don't make this up. I generally back up my statements with data.
Do you know anything about refining? Just curious...
Do you think that you can dial what you get from cracking a barrel of crude?
Do you think that you can take any type of crude and plug it into a generic refinery and get any desired mix of refined products?
Do you think maybe that the North Sea being down about 2 million bpd from its peak in 2000 has led to an excess of capacity for light sweet crude refining in europe...
Finally, if an oil company exec pissed down your leg and told you it was raining, would you believe him? (Not that I doubt the above statement)
Another ad hominem. My, aren't you pleasant?
To answer your questions.
1) Yes
2) I don't dial, I usually skype my crude
2) No
3) Yes, but ultimately this is irrelevant if the supply is made up for somewhere else in the world. It doesn't indicate peak oil if that is your point.
4) Only if he/she gave me a reach around first.
Well, if the oil on the open market is down ~10% since 2005 (as indicated in one of figures I linked for you) would it not stand to reason that supply of light sweet crude was not made up from elsewhere...
Your reply did nothing to indicate to me that you have the slightest clue about the refining business....
>Well, if the oil on the open market is down ~10% since 2005 would it not stand to reason that supply of light sweet crude was not made up from elsewhere
And there was (and is) a terrible recession, and demand dropped until 2010. Your argument is a red herring. The issue is addressing your belief that the world is experiencing peak oil, the fact the North Sea production dropped is correlation, but not causation of peak oil.
Since 1971, the first year (and only year) where consumption exceeded production was 2010. Even then, those statistics don't account for biofules and other non-conventional sources which according to industry data made up the difference.
Not to get involved in the argument, just for setting it out there:
Peak oil is a very simple concept--it says that oil *production* will start to decline at some point in time.
If total oil production has started to decline, that was "peak oil."
If total oil production is continuing to increase, or if it has reached a level and maintained that level, then we have not yet reached "peak oil."
Most of the arguments on this subject are based on people using different definitions of "peak oil."
The common response that "peak oil is a myth (or lie)" always amuses me, because it's a lot like saying "the number 8 is a myth."
We may never reach peak oil, but that doesn't invalidate the concept.
The problem is that unconventional fuels are often excluded from the numbers, and this is where all the growth is, particularly in the US and Canada (and probably Poland in the next 3-5 years, another HUGE potential resource to offset the Russian natural gas monopoly and export all over Europe).
I also see Norway's multibillion Kroner investment strategy in Hydro electric energy as an interesting alternative to France's nuclear energy export business. They have set up a 2 billion euro fund at NTNU university to develop flexible girds and new technologies as they have a potential over-supply if they aggressively develop the sector.
Are legacy fields declining? Yes. Is more coming online to replace it that, 10 years ago, was unexpected? Yes.
Admittedly, I lean towards the interpretations of Daniel Yergin and the industry as I work with new technologies in the upstream space with several super-major clients. I see new technologies every day that bring online new reserves, so I'm an optimist.
No, the unconventional crude is certainly counted...
NGL is counted as oil in "All liquids" at 65% of the energy density
Bio-fuels are counted, with out subtracting the oil used to produce them....
Refinery gains are included as production, (now how is that for sleight of hand!)
You might want to google up XOM and Poland for some recent developments....
PS You might also want to consider this tidbit from another blog:
Its not that simple according to Chris Cook, former compliance and market supervision director of the International Petroleum Exchange:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/03/chris-cook-the-ghost-of-enron-past-explains-oil-market-manipulation.html
Let this administration continue raising gas prices. When the economy comes to a screeching halt, gas prices will fall quicker than a two bit whore dropping to her knees.
http://www.economonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Hamilton-3-7-12.jpg
Let's reword this: Let the Fed continue printing money, doing currency swaps and more useless QE's that do nothing for the real economy. When the economy comes to a screeching halt, gas prices will fall quicker than a two bit whore dropping to her knees.
You're assuming we will still have two bits left?
Besides oil Ben Bernanke and the Fed's printing is causing food prices to increase as well.
Maybe it's just me, but these Bears cartoons always seem funnier when one of 'em shits his pants.
No one explains idiocy better than the Bears!
The bears are cute but graphing price data apparently isn't their forte. I encourage others who doubt the price of oil in $ is determined by the FED $ printing QE to go to say, Big Charts, as I did, and co-plot USO (oil index fund), vs $USD (US$ index) vs $gold. What you will find is that over the last three years oil is up by 45%, $ is down by 10% and gold is up by 80%. And the correlation between fluctuations in $ and oil is very weak (you sure wouldn't want to trade it. Obviously worldwide supply/damand issues are more important for oil price.
There's a serious shortage of pre 64 quarters.
This video is retarded. They should stop posting ideas they no nothing about. Oil refineries are making obscene amounts of dollars. Exxon, Chevron, and all the oligopolies collude in prices. They set price according to the demographic neighborhood, the nicer the neighborhood the higher the prices not because its rent is more expensive its because the people can afford to pay a higher premium. And vice versa for the crappier neighborhoods. Gas prices are essentially siphoning money from the economy, which they have been doing for many years and all the revenues go it the true fat cats which is defined by 99% of all politicians as well as hedge funds in wall street, other bankers and institutions, who ultimately are all the shareholders and love that gas prices continue to increase !!!
it all started with GWB, that fuckin retard...
So, there's no counter-betting going on? If they hit prices really high it has NO affect on killing demand?
Sorry, but it IS complex. Yes, the Bears are over-simplifying things (and perhaps doing us all a disfavor), everyone is trying to maximize whatever, what else is new? If you or I don't like it then we should look to be less dependent, reduce risk exposure, yes?
No, it all started when we pretended that there was an infinite amount of oil. Now that that's not the case, and when the TRUE cost couldn't possibly be priced in (whether that means huge profits to some or not), we're whining that it's not cheap enough.
yes falling dollar is the key for everything.
http://www.jinrongbaike.com/
http://www.cnhedge.com/
lovely. oil is the currency-destroying commodity.
- you'd expect an appreciation of crude vs product.
- it would hold until capacity and carry costs peak.
or until the paper vs physical reaches full retard.