Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6835|San Diego, CA, USA
I saw this article (via. http://www.drudgereport.com/):

Oil rises above $77 after US crude supply drop...and was thinking about when oil prices spiked at over $140/barrel under Bush.  The high prices of oil were partly to Obama's credit during the election which help popularized him; however, it was never clear what he would do to keep oil prices down (if I recall all he did was point fingers at the speculators and oil fat cats).

Now oil prices are inching higher, but this time its not because of Supply and Demand, but rather a the devaluation of the United States Dollar as we keep borrowing from the world (e.g. $1.4 trillion deficit we have this year).  When we pull out of this recession and demand increases this will put additional pressure on oil prices.

1) What will Obama do to keep oil prices down?

2) Will he be blamed when oil prices increase?

3) With policies like `Cap and Trade` and his unwillingness to expand technologies like Nuclear, Coal, and domestic oil production, exacerbate the problem?


Discuss.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England
Oil production hasn't dropped at all and our reserves are still almost at capacity. The only reason the prices are rising is because commodities traders are keeping the oil tankers offshore and creating artificial demand in order to drive up prices before they sell it at market. They can only do that so much before people start undercutting them. Oil is going to stay steady in the $50-$75 dollar a barrel range for the foreseeable future.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX
Its in everyones interests that prices go up, as an extra incentive to develop alternatives.

Oil production is at capacity, new reserves are not being found, even if the recession does not end soon Chinese internal growth will suck away the oil.
The only direction for the oil price is up.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-12-26 04:58:38)

Fuck Israel
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6439|what

Would Obama be blamed if Oil prices raise like they did under Bush?
Governments are often acting on behalf of consumers to lower costs of living, with monetary policy etc and it is easy to see how petrol prices do affect cost of living for the average household. I would hope that the Obama administration is put under the same pressure the Bush admin was, but they can't really enact much change unless they go against the big monopolies and often stupid "future" markets of the stock exchange.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its in everyones interests that prices go up, as an extra incentive to develop alternatives.

Oil production is at capacity, new reserves are not being found, even if the recession does not end soon Chinese internal growth will suck away the oil.
The only direction for the oil price is up.
Oil production is nowhere near capacity.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
jord
Member
+2,382|6965|The North, beyond the wall.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its in everyones interests that prices go up, as an extra incentive to develop alternatives.

Oil production is at capacity, new reserves are not being found, even if the recession does not end soon Chinese internal growth will suck away the oil.
The only direction for the oil price is up.
Aren't they about to auction off massive deposits in Iraq that would put them the in the top 3 oil distributors?

It's not in my fucking interest the price goes up, expensive enough as it is to drive...
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5546|foggy bottom
most analysts say oil is staying down
Tu Stultus Es
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

jord wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its in everyones interests that prices go up, as an extra incentive to develop alternatives.

Oil production is at capacity, new reserves are not being found, even if the recession does not end soon Chinese internal growth will suck away the oil.
The only direction for the oil price is up.
Aren't they about to auction off massive deposits in Iraq that would put them the in the top 3 oil distributors?

It's not in my fucking interest the price goes up, expensive enough as it is to drive...
The auction happened last week.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
jord
Member
+2,382|6965|The North, beyond the wall.

JohnG@lt wrote:

jord wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its in everyones interests that prices go up, as an extra incentive to develop alternatives.

Oil production is at capacity, new reserves are not being found, even if the recession does not end soon Chinese internal growth will suck away the oil.
The only direction for the oil price is up.
Aren't they about to auction off massive deposits in Iraq that would put them the in the top 3 oil distributors?

It's not in my fucking interest the price goes up, expensive enough as it is to drive...
The auction happened last week.
Oh, did BP get any?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

jord wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

jord wrote:

Aren't they about to auction off massive deposits in Iraq that would put them the in the top 3 oil distributors?

It's not in my fucking interest the price goes up, expensive enough as it is to drive...
The auction happened last week.
Oh, did BP get any?
Yeah, BP, Shell and the Norwegians got the biggest fields I think. Do a WSJ search, it was in there last week.

BAGHDAD -- Iraq awarded some of its most promising, untapped fields to a variety of foreign bidders in a two-day auction Friday and Saturday that Iraqi officials held up as an endorsement by international investors.

Companies that won fields over the weekend -- including Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Russia's Lukoil Holdings -- and companies that have won deals already this year have pledged to more than triple the country's oil output.

Iraqi officials hailed the auction as the clearest sign yet that Baghdad is on its way to rebuilding its vast but hobbled oil industry, and more broadly, reasserting its regional economic power. The auctions lend "more credence that Iraq is coming back, and Iraq is strong" again, Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq's foreign minister, said in an interview over the weekend.

Big challenges still loom for Iraq and the companies, including winning final government approval for the deals. Iraq has scheduled parliamentary elections for March, and there is some worry among Iraqi officials themselves and oil executives that a new government could reconsider the deals.

But the current government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has strongly backed the country's two auctions so far. In June, Iraq held its first oil auction, offering foreign companies the chance to boost production at already-pumping fields. This weekend's auction was the first time foreign firms could bid on untapped fields.

If the companies that won fields over the weekend live up to their production pledges, they would increase the country's oil production to 4.765 million barrels a day, the country's oil minister Hussein al-Shaharistani said on Saturday. That's up from current production of around 2.5 million barrels a day.

"It is a very successful bid round," Mr. Shahristani said Saturday.

The estimate of 4.765 million barrels a day doesn't include production increases pledged by companies that won field-development contracts in previous months for already producing fields. All told, international consortia have committed to boosting Iraqi production capacity to 12 million barrels a day, Mr. Shahristani said. That would rival the output of Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter.

Reflecting that optimism, Mr. Shahristani said Saturday that Iraq would be ready to eventually accept a production quota from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Iraq is an OPEC member but has long been exempted from the output quota that other members adhere to, in a mechanism aimed at managing global prices.

By many estimates, Iraq sits on the world's third largest reserves of oil, behind Saudi Arabia and Iran. But the Iraqi industry has struggled for years because of United Nations sanctions, war and under-investment.

Production growth won't be easy. Legal hurdles remain. The oil ministry and Mr. Maliki's government designed the current contracts -- essentially service contracts that pay out a per-barrel fee to oil companies in exchange for production increases -- without parliamentary approval. A petroleum law setting out the legal framework for foreign oil development has been marooned in parliament, and a new government next year could object to the current contracts.

Technical worries also persist. Fields, especially untapped ones, often prove more technically challenging than expected or result in fewer reserves than anticipated. For currently producing fields, decades of overproducing by Mr. Hussein may have caused irreparable reservoir damage, oil analysts have long warned.

Still, interest from foreign firms was high. Executives from more than 30 international oil companies came to Baghdad to bid for the oil fields, despite a volatile security situation. A series of coordinated bombings in Baghdad last Tuesday killed more than 100.

A consortium led by Shell and Malaysia's Petronas won Majnoon, a giant field that could hold some 12 billion barrels of reserves, on Friday. The consortium proposed a remuneration fee of $1.39 and pledged to increase output to 1.8 million barrels a day. Lukoil along with Statoil Hydro secured a deal Saturday to develop another big field, West Qurna Phase 2. They proposed a fee of $1.15 a barrel and a production plateau of 1.8 million barrels a day.

Mr. Shahristani told the winning companies to come to Baghdad in two weeks to work out initial agreements, and then he will send the draft contracts to the cabinet for approval. He expects the final signing of these contracts to take place early next year.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126064193056889083.html
2 weeks ago, not one week. My bad

I find it interesting that countries like Norway and Russia, countries that condemned the invasion, are going to profit so handsomely from it's aftermath.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-26 08:59:36)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6842

Harmor wrote:

1) What will Obama do to keep oil prices down?

2) Will he be blamed when oil prices increase?

3) With policies like `Cap and Trade` and his unwillingness to expand technologies like Nuclear, Coal, and domestic oil production, exacerbate the problem?
1) Hope that the free-for-all of Iraqi oil-fields continues apace. The original intention of the Iraq mission - to get the roadblock on those fields out of the way so that multinationals could free up the sea of oil underneath the Iraqis - will bear fruit, however immoral, within the next few years depending on the Iraqi resistance.

2) Probably not because the media treats him with kid gloves. The fact of the matter is that the high price of oil is a market signal indicating that we must find an alternative. Once the world booms again we'll be back at the same question we seem unwilling to meaningfully confront: what do we do about the finite nature of fossil fuels.

3) 'Cap and Trade' is an irrelevance, in fact it should help in further hammering home the market signal we want to ignore. He will be forced to embrace further nuclear power and clean coal technologies.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-12-26 09:04:34)

Reciprocity
Member
+721|6867|the dank(super) side of Oregon
we need to tap into the vast oceans of oil under our land.  We have vast oceans of oil, right?  and we need to burn more clean, healthy coal.  it's clean, you know.
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6958|UK

Reciprocity wrote:

we need to tap into the vast oceans of oil under our land.  We have vast oceans of oil, right?  and we need to burn more clean, healthy coal.  it's clean, you know.
it's shale oil and it's not economically viable to extract it....yet.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX
The invasion and the opening of the oilfields are unrelated.
But for US driven sanctions they would have been open for the last 20 years.
Fuck Israel
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

The invasion and the opening of the oilfields are unrelated.
But for US driven sanctions they would have been open for the last 20 years.
Just stop posting. Please.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6673

m3thod wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

we need to tap into the vast oceans of oil under our land.  We have vast oceans of oil, right?  and we need to burn more clean, healthy coal.  it's clean, you know.
it's shale oil and it's not economically viable to extract it....yet.
He was being sarcastic.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

The invasion and the opening of the oilfields are unrelated.
But for US driven sanctions they would have been open for the last 20 years.
Just stop posting. Please.
Don't like the truth eh?
Fuck Israel
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

The invasion and the opening of the oilfields are unrelated.
But for US driven sanctions they would have been open for the last 20 years.
Just stop posting. Please.
Don't like the truth eh?
There was nothing truthful about it. "US driven" yeah ok.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX
They were US driven, and intended to effect regime change, WMD were the pretext, as they were for Gulf War II.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liber … ct_of_1998
Fuck Israel
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5645|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

They were US driven, and intended to effect regime change, WMD were the pretext, as they were for Gulf War II.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liber … ct_of_1998
You're conveniently ignoring the reams of UN accords and sanctions. Is the UN just a cover for the US government now too?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX
Those accords and sanctions were largely pushed through by the US.
Fuck Israel
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6697|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Those accords and sanctions were largely pushed through by the US.
Actually, the only program that was "largely pushed...by the US" was the Oil-for-Food Program, as an attempt to counter some of the negative impacts of the sanctions on the Iraqi population--which the UN proceeded to fuck up with its corruption.

Yet again, your knee-jerk, "blame the US for everything" bullshit is wrong again.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX
No it was a means for letting the world buy Iraqi oil, nothing more.
Fuck Israel
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6697|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

No it was a means for letting the world buy Iraqi oil, nothing more.
Wrong...yet again.

SOURCE

The Oil-for-Food Programme, established by the United Nations in 1995 (under UN Security Council Resolution 986)[1] and terminated in late 2003, was established with the stated intent to allow Iraq to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs for ordinary Iraqi citizens without allowing Iraq to rebuild its military.

The programme was introduced by United States President Bill Clinton's administration in 1995, as a response to arguments that ordinary Iraqi citizens were inordinately affected by the international economic sanctions aimed at the demilitarisation of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, imposed in the wake of the first Gulf War. The sanctions were discontinued on November 21, 2003 after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the humanitarian functions turned over to the Coalition Provisional Authority. [1]

As the programme ended, there were revelations of corruption involving the funds.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard