What's the cause of $100 oil?
Maybe I'm too cynical, but I can't escape the feeling that these skyrocketing oil prices have as much to do with a lot of speculation and game-playing in the oil markets as anything else.
Of course we need to conserve, and of course we need to move as fast as we can to alternative energy supplies. That's a good idea if for no other reason than to protect the environment and shed our dependence on unstable Middle Eastern nations, as columnist Tom Friedman often points out.
But that doesn't mean we should be paying $4 a gallon, which now seems likely in the near future, when real supply and demand don't justify it.
I call your attention to this article from breakingviews.com in Thursday's Wall Street Journal. Some highlights include assertions that oil in storage tanks around the world is near all-time highs, below-ground supplies are abundant and production is increasing due to higher prices that encourage drilling while demand is slowing.
The author, Cyrus Sanati, also has detail on how speculators are "artificially boosting prices." He said it costs Royal Dutch Shell about $9 per barrel to bring a barrel out of the ground while the full cost of production is around $30 per barrel.
That's a pretty hefty markup, even allowing for other expenses. It's Happy Holidays indeed for your friendly oil industry executives, sheiks and day traders.
6 Comments:
The price of oil is skyrocketing because of the tremendous profits to be realized by speculators, refiners, and marketers. It's always about the money. The U.S. government has cut domestic companies so many breaks, allowing them to use "Enron" accounting to add profit at every level from pumping to refining to distribution, that they have us "over a barrel".Big oil has no incentive at all to work for lower prices.
That said, right now the big price driver is that the speculators consider it a virtual certainty that George Bush will attack Iran and kill the oil supplies from the Middle East.
When George Bush and Dick Halliburton Cheney took office in 2001, oil was $25 a barrel; today it's $93. Republican "leadership"--ain't it grand?
It's called the law of supply and demand. Simple economics. The USA makes a political decision to leave 80% of their oil supply under USA territorial ground/ocean and buy this demand from the foreigners. Then the foreigners control the price. It's not too complicated.
Would the libs support new USA oil exploration if all USA oil reserves were nationalized? Then, these socialist could enjoy a barrel of oil at whatever price they choose to charge. Or they could choose to even give it away.
What do you think the libs would do? I know. They would charge as much as the market could tolerate, so they may fund as many socialist programs as they could pass by law or judicial fiat. Sounds alot like the present open market of supply and demand. Amazing !!!!
The European countries tax the fuel to force lower consumption. At $8.00 a gallon, you'd leave that second SUV in your driveway more often and carpool. BUT, we have a history of being a sleeping giant which wakes up when something "attacks" it.
The point is, nobody knows what the real price is because we're hooked on it, and the Enron accounting allows corporate welfare from car companies to big oil.
And no, I would not encourage new oil exploration at this time. It's backward thinking and a misuse of our brain power to change our reliance.
However, I will concede that it's not so backward as invading another sovereign country to steal it's oil
to provide for national security over the next 100 years+, so we can go back to sleep for awhile.
Nighty night.
There was a scientist back in the 1950's who worked for Shell Oil and wrote a report about the world supplies of oil. If one can push through all the calculus and dry writing, you'll discover some shocking information. He was predicting; we are seeing his predictions come true. He predicted the peak of domestic oil production in the 1970's. IT happened. This scientist has predicted the peak of global oil production, and we are past that point. Oil prices will contine to go up, supplies are declining, and this will eventually effect the power grid in this country, the Internet, our financial institutions, and a few other rather important things...and current events are supporting this man's predictions.
This is not some crazed liberal. This is a respected scientist, employed by th oil industry. I believe his data is as accurate as he could make it in 1956. We would be wise to get off oil as soon as possible; I realize that takes complete upheaval of our enire way of life, but it's coming anyway, so we'd be better positioned for it if we began to transition now.
The scientist advocates nuclear power as an alternate. I don't agree with it, but it is interesting to see how his predictions have become the power industry's current slution suggestion. Obviously, they respect this guy's opinion; maybe we should, too.
By the way, here's the report name and author, and the link I accessed the data from (it was 2 years ago, so I hope the link still works): REPORT ON FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY, by Dr. Marion King Hubbert. http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf
Pay particular attention to figures 15, 22 and 24, since they address US oil supplies specifically. Happy reading!
* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.
By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site. << Home