COMMENTS: 69
Dirt-Cheap Gas in 2009: Be Careful What You Wish For
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Only yesterday, it seems, we were bemoaning the high price of oil. Under the headline "Oil's Rapid Rise Stirs Talk of $200 a Barrel This Year," the July 7 issue of the Wall Street Journal warned that prices that high would put "extreme strains on large sectors of the US economy." Today, oil, at over $40 a barrel, costs less than one-third what it did in July, and some economists have predicted that it could fall as low as $25 a barrel in 2009.
Prices that low -- and their equivalents at the gas pump -- will no doubt be viewed as a godsend by many hard-hit American consumers, even if they ensure severe economic hardship in oil-producing countries like Nigeria, Russia, Iran, Kuwait and Venezuela that depend on energy exports for a large share of their national income. Here, however, is a simple but crucial reality to keep in mind: no matter how much it costs, whether it's rising or falling, oil has a profound impact on the world we inhabit -- and this will be no less true in 2009 than in 2008.
The main reason? In good times and bad, oil will continue to supply the largest share of the world's energy supply. For all the talk of alternatives, petroleum will remain the number-one source of energy for at least the next several decades. According to December 2008 projections from the US Department of Energy (DoE), petroleum products will still make up 38 percent of America's total energy supply in 2015; natural gas and coal only 23 percent each. Oil's overall share is expected to decline slightly as biofuels (and other alternatives) take on a larger percentage of the total, but even in 2030 -- the furthest the DoE is currently willing to project -- it will still remain the dominant fuel.
A similar pattern holds for the planet as a whole: although biofuels and other renewable sources of energy are expected to play a growing role in the global energy equation, don't expect oil to be anything but the world's leading source of fuel for decades to come.
Keep your eye on the politics of oil and you'll always know a lot about what's actually happening on this planet. Low prices, as at present, are bad for producers, and so will hurt a number of countries that the US government considers hostile, including Venezuela, Iran and even that natural-gas-and-oil giant Russia. All of them have, in recent years, used their soaring oil income to finance political endeavors considered inimical to US interests. However, dwindling prices could also shake the very foundations of oil allies like Mexico, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia, which could experience internal unrest as oil revenues, and so state expenditures, decline.
No less important, diminished oil prices discourage investment in complex oil ventures like deep-offshore drilling, as well as investment in the development of alternatives to oil like advanced (non-food) biofuels. Perhaps most disastrously, in a cheap oil moment, investment in non-polluting, non-climate-altering alternatives like solar, wind and tidal energy is also likely to dwindle. In the longer term, what this means is that, once a global economic recovery begins, we can expect a fresh oil price shock as future energy options prove painfully limited.
Clearly, there is no escaping oil's influence. Yet it's hard to know just what forms this influence will take in the year. Nevertheless, here are three provisional observations on oil's fate -- and so ours -- in the year ahead.
1. The Price of Oil Will Remain Low Until It Begins to Rise Again: I know, I know: this sounds totally inane. It's just that there's no other way to put it. The price of oil has essentially dropped through the floor because, in the past four months, demand collapsed due to the onset of a staggering global recession. It is not likely to approach the record levels of spring and summer 2008 again until demand picks up and/or the global oil supply is curbed dramatically. At this point, unfortunately, no crystal ball can predict just when either of those events will occur.
The contraction in international demand has indeed been stunning. After rising for much of last summer, demand plunged in the early fall by several hundred thousand barrels per day, producing a net decline for 2008 of 50,000 barrels per day. This year, the Department of Energy projects global demand to fall by a far more impressive 450,000 barrels per day -- "the first time in three decades that world consumption would decline in two consecutive years."
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dipconsult on Jan 14, 2009 3:49 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I'm still shopping for a HUMMER
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Jan 14, 2009 4:07 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is the behavior of an international monopoly. The US public is completely unprotected. The right-wing makes much of how willing they are to protect us. If that is so, where have they been for the last 30 republican years.
What have the Canadians and the Mexicans done? Mexico nationalized Standard Oil's fields. It sure made wealthy easterners mad. Canada put a floor under the price of oil. Either would be preferable to our boom and bust policy.
I suggested a support price to a moderate democrat, oil production owner, and accountant. He was flabbergasted at the idea. I have a further suggestion. I suggest that the support price be tied to the same inflation factor that is used to raise Social Security checks. It might force a little realism.
Occasionally people ask what we are to do. The correct answer is everything all at the same time. We can't and shouldn't drill our selves out of this one. But that doesn't mean we just quit fossil fuels. We do self sufficiency. We do self sufficiency cleanly.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: larazzafilms on Jan 14, 2009 4:35 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mattfuniciello on Jan 14, 2009 4:43 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Matt Funiciello
Posted by: blondesprite
» RE: GOOD LUCK ON DOING THAT
Posted by: mattfuniciello
» sorry, not buying the OPEC conspiracy
Posted by: jon B
» RE: sorry, not buying the OPEC conspiracy
Posted by: Deep
» RE: sorry, not buying the OPEC conspiracy
Posted by: mattfuniciello
» RE: Matt Funiciello/how is OPEC manipulating prices?
Posted by: MyLeftFoot
» They Manipulate Price??
Posted by: gellero1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Inspector Roger on Jan 14, 2009 6:04 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jon B on Jan 14, 2009 6:41 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before the housing bust, oil was being pumped like mad to try to keep up with demand. Now, as the writer points out, the opposite is happening. There is now no incentive to keep looking for new sources or to begin expensive projects. But some time in the future it will be worth it and oil prices will sky because these projects weren't done now.
Some things don't change. Older big fields continue to be drained, it's just at a lower rate, they will run out no matter the speed of pumping. Mexico announced last year that its' biggest and essentially only worthwhile field Cantarell would be dry mid 2010s. So, now we can add a year or two to that analysis, nothing really changes in the long run.
Some things do change. At the $120 a barrel level or so the US had a surge of wildcatters hit upon old fields that the big corporations had abandoned decades ago. The price made it worth it to prompt small independent companies to get back in business. Well, you can bet the wildcatters are going broke or have given up. But, when the price rebounds again, some will be back, some might not from being burned this past year.
The wide swings in oil prices were predicted by peak oil theory, don't be surprised by the next swing whenever it happens.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: peak oil in action
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS
» RE: peak oil in action
Posted by: Dboy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jaynesian on Jan 14, 2009 9:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Peak oil predicts volatility -- but raising prices in the face of falling demand is simply gouging.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» a possible reason
Posted by: jon B
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sharloch on Jan 14, 2009 7:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» is clean good for the environment?
Posted by: jon B
» what must happen if we want to survive
Posted by: mgmyers79
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TexasCowboy on Jan 14, 2009 7:26 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The continued raping and pillaging of the American taxpayer has to stop. OPEC claiming low prices will hurt the world economy is like the drug industry saying negotiating drug prices would also hurt the economy. In fact, Americans are not stupid, they simply get overwhelmed with all the lobbyist-speak and seem to think they have no voice. I hope we all wake up to the fact that power does lie with the people.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield on Jan 14, 2009 7:30 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Conservatives run metros
Posted by: PaulK
» Thanks PaulK for the info. I guess they do to metros what they do to corporations.
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
» Bicycling 30 miles to work is difficult
Posted by: tommy_slothrop
» RE: Bicycling 30 miles to work is difficult
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
» RE: Bicycling 30 miles to work is difficult
Posted by: samd11
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS on Jan 14, 2009 7:46 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: PUKE OIL LIAR
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: PUKE OIL LIAR
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS
» ReallY???
Posted by: gellero1
» RE: eallY???/ New Energy
Posted by: MyLeftFoot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: littlepitcher on Jan 14, 2009 7:51 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is up to employed Americans to keep our consumption down and thwart OPEC's efforts to manipulate the USA's supply.
Once we have sufficient hybrids,bike trails, mass transit, and employment of minorities, we can worry about whether nations who hate us are making the income they desire.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 14, 2009 7:57 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So their fast-growing economies have somewhat sputtered, in tandem with Americans cutting back both spending and consumption of gas-er-lean? And the price of oil has fallen in response?
But you say that a limited resource, even when it's prices are low due to observable loss of demand, might rise again? Once demand is higher?
Amazing stuff that these learned journo-economists come up with. Truly amazing insight.
I file this article under D for Duh.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kwshanno on Jan 14, 2009 8:31 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» you can't build bridges and skyscrapers with wind.
Posted by: gellero1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulK on Jan 14, 2009 9:02 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the long run oil supply will level out with oil demand. Economics claims that one fuel will be replaced with another fuel as needed until things balance out.
In the very long run (maybe not long at all if the Arctic methane release keeps accelerating year after year) this planet is going to cook, we're going to lose most of the earth's species, and the hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts and floods are going to be stronger.
As a planetary coalition of governments, we will care which fuels we use. Solar, wind, geothermal and the other renewables will be subsidized. I'll include algae biofuel as a renewable if it ever works, because algae can theoretically double in mass every 24 hours and so it doesn't require 9/10 of a gallon of oil to produce a gallon of alkafuel. Coal and burning forests for fuel will be taxed and demonized. We must tip "free market" economics away from subsidizing big oil with $15 billion a year and away from local building inspectors demonizing solar home innovations just because the jerks don't understand it.
There will be a truly black market in untaxed coal and charcoal over much of the world for a while, because it's so easy for any individual to cut a branch down and burn it.
Our world's best hope is to drive down the cost of solar and wind technology until the profitability of mining the world's more inaccessable remaining coal and oil deposits drops toward zero. For example, cutting the cost of wind electricity generation in half has a long-term worldwide impact, as opposed to a national tax or subsidy which only has a short-term national impact.
The only problem with funding "new technology" is that for my money, the little starving guys have 2/3 of the best ideas, while the big corps have the best lobbyists. A smart government could get around this. However, I'm still a skeptic as to whether we have a smart government yet. Good luck, Mister President!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Dixie Dawg on Jan 14, 2009 9:06 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This four pager sounds like the old Fram oil filter commercial. A greasy faced car mechanic guy faces down viewers with the ragged challenge.
" You can pay me now or pay me later."
But, ya know, we all gotta know by now that "this ol world runs on sex a gasoline."
Cheers
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» FRAM was right...and so,
Posted by: jvaljon1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ron heringhauser on Jan 14, 2009 9:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Jan 14, 2009 10:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The huge run up of oil was certainly helped along by traders buying up the long side of futures contracts. Now we have some deep pockets manipulators taking the short side of the contracts and forcing down the price. Who are these manipulators? Money center Wall Street banks like JP Morgan are likely suspects with the help of the Fed.
Problem is, countries like Russia aren't going to take being screwed by Wall Street and the Fed lying down. Watch for some craziness in the American financial markets due to some counter manipulation.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Prediction: wild rebound in oil prices after market is cornered?
Posted by: gunboat diplomat
» RE: No commentary on oil futures?
Posted by: MyLeftFoot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jmmartin on Jan 14, 2009 10:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those who want to drive dinosaur SUV's should pay a gas tax based upon the weight of the vehicle so that a family with a Honda sedan pays a lot less than someone rumbling about in a Humvee. Alternatively, these taxes can be based on estimated mileage ratings, though these are less precise than axle weight. Waivers could be issued upon strict proof that a particular vehicle, e.g. a van or pickup, is used for non-personal, small business purposes (and the weight restrictions would not apply at all for 18-wheelers, semis, and vehicles used in commercial shipping).
The mechanics of it can easily be worked out, e.g. with stickers placed on windowshields. It chaps my butt when I see some idiot in a big SUV, say, an Escalade, driving down the street with only one occupant. These gluttons should pay their fair share and, in so doing, encourage limits to driving as well as purchase of gas-sparing transportation.
Can you believe that the Bush administration actually signed into law a provision for tax breaks for those who purchased Humvees? Disastrous, as was everything else about that sap's presidency.
But, hey, who am I but the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Tax it at the Pump
Posted by: YogiBear
» Idiotic
Posted by: gellero1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JP510 on Jan 14, 2009 10:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you are concerned about oil going up, there a lots of ways now to avoid the pain. With all the new ETFs you can easily gain exposure to oil/gas. For personal use you can use sites like gasbuddy.com and petrofix.com to minimize and risk that you would have to rising prices. It just seems like there are a lot of tools that we did not have in the past to deal with rising prices.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: ETF's
Posted by: Dboy
» RE: TF's
Posted by: JP510
Comments are closed-
Posted by: grindermonkey on Jan 14, 2009 10:26 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "supply and demand" model became corrupted at the commodities exchange in 1929. The phrase itself is a meaningless riddle presented by economists and industry sycophants at Congressional hearings. Competition between oil companies by lower pricing is non existent in the oil business. When one company's price rises to $5.00 they all do. "Well, they all buy oil from the same well!" This is probably the case and if it is then the industry is rife for nationalization or extinction.
The only competition taking place is between large concentrations of cash vying for deflationary protection at the money market level. This tendency of cash to stagnate or compost or rot unspent in banks and vaults worldwide ultimately produces the kind of currency cannibalization and destabilization that we are witnessing. Why do you think they color it green?
Bailing the situation out, adding more money, makes no sense. The Comptroller of the Currency should be acting in some way to free up this log jam of cash.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Oil demand dropped by 5 percent
Posted by: ReallyBearish
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gunboat diplomat on Jan 14, 2009 11:26 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"About the only economic break most Americans have gotten in the last six months has been the drastic drop in the price of oil, which has fallen even more precipitously than it rose. In a year's time, a commodity that was theoretically priced according to supply and demand doubled from $69 a barrel to nearly $150, and then, in a period of just three months, crashed along with the stock market."
"So what happened? It's a complicated question, and there are lots of theories. But as correspondent Steve Kroft reports, many people believe it was a speculative bubble, not unlike the one that caused the housing crisis, and that it had more to do with traders and speculators on Wall Street than with oil company executives or sheiks in Saudi Arabia."
Same with the food crisis. Is it still the high price of oil driving food costs? Is it biofuel? Is it higher demand for food? or is it mostly speculator-fueled manipulation of the international commodity markets, esp. the futures markets?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» He didn't talk about the other side
Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: He didn't talk about the other side
Posted by: MyLeftFoot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WyrdSister on Jan 14, 2009 12:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Many were stunned this year to witness the parabolic rise and fall of oil prices up to nearly $150 and then back around $36 by Christmas time. Quite a ride. I said in The Long Emergency that volatility would be the hallmark of post peak oil because it was obvious that advanced economies could not absorb super high prices and would crash in response; that at some point after crashing, these economies would respond to the new lower oil price, resume their cheap oil habits, and build to another price rise. . . and crash again. . . in a declension of ever-lower industrial activity.
What I probably didn't realize at the time was how destructive this cycling between low-high-and-low oil prices would actually be in the first instance of it, and what a toll it would take right off the bat. We can see now that our first journey through the cycle took out the most fragile of the complex systems we depend on: capital finance. As a result, a huge amount of capital (say $14 trillion) has evaporated out of the system, never to be seen again (and never to be deployed for productive purposes). It will be harder for the USA to rebound from the grievous injury to this crucial part of the overall system, and Europe has foundered similarly -- though the European nations are not burdened to the same degree by the awful liabilities of suburbia.
Even if these advanced economies -- throw in Japan too -- remain moribund, the price and supply prospects for oil look ominous. My own guess is that the price of oil has overshot on the low end just as it overshot on the high end, and that, when all is said and done, we'll still see an upwardly trending price line over the long haul. The plunge, which began right after the $147 peak in July 2008, was as much the result of banks, hedge funds, and individuals dumping oil investments and positions to raise cash as it was a matter of the markets predicting a sharp fall-off in economic activity (and supposedly oil consumption). The truth is that demand destruction for oil in the USA has been surprising mild compared to the drop in price. Jim Hansen's Master Resource Report says that gasoline consumption dropped from 9.29 million barrels a day in 2007 to 8.99 million barrels a day for 2008. That's not much of a fall-off, especially compared to the price drop.
As Julian Darley of the Post Carbon Institute put it recently: "There won't be any energy bail-out." And, as many other people have noted, the recent plunge in oil prices strongly implies future supply destruction, since so many planned oil projects have been suspended or cancelled because they are economic losers at $40-a-barrel (or even $70). Even projects well underway, such as Canadian tar sand production, have been scaled back or shut down because they don't make sense at current prices. Some of these other newer projects will now never get underway -- they have missed their window of opportunity with so much capital leaving the system -- and so the hope of offsetting very-near-future depletions in old giant oil fields looks dimmer and dimmer.
Those depletions are very serious. For instance, Mexico's super-giant Cantarell oil field, the second-largest ever discovered after Saudi Arabia's Ghawar field, has shown a 30 percent depletion rate in the past year alone. (Pemex had forecast a 15 percent rate entering the year.) Cantarell provides over 60 percent of Mexico's total production, and Mexico is America's third largest source of imports -- just after Saudi Arabia (#2) and Canada (#1). Obviously, Mexico soon will lose its ability to export oil, and as that occurs, America is going to feel more than pinch -- more like a two-by-four upside the head. In short, remorseless depletion is underway and we are less likely now than even a year ago, to make up for it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Oil Scene 2.0
Posted by: WyrdSister
Comments are closed-
Posted by: stina723 on Jan 14, 2009 2:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Pricing Oil in Euros? Has Anyone Considered This?
Posted by: MyLeftFoot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sonofloud2 on Jan 14, 2009 3:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Under legislation introduced Wednesday in both the House and Senate and called the "Cash for Clunkers" program, drivers could get vouchers of up to $4,500 when they turn in their old fuel-inefficient vehicles for scrapping and buy vehicles that get good gas mileage.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic
/stories/C/CASH_FOR_CLUNKERS?
SITE=AP&SECTION=
HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
It's these selfish morons who are destroyed the planet with their suvs and now we are going to reward them for being stupid enough to buy them in the first place???
Leave it to Feinstein to come up with this one.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: congressional logic
Posted by: badkitty
» RE: congressional logic
Posted by: FreeAmerica
Comments are closed-
Posted by: moonerone on Jan 14, 2009 4:01 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Oemissions on Jan 14, 2009 9:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Automobiles are weapons of mass destruction.
The NOISE and choking exhaust are beyond tolerable.
Unregulated use and a huge automobile company lobby has created the worst MONSTER we have on this planet: TRAFFIC.
Please get rid of it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tate on Jan 15, 2009 2:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: divetrader on Jan 15, 2009 5:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fanny666 on Jan 16, 2009 10:18 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: FreeAmerica on Jan 17, 2009 12:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We saw this under Clinton late in his term when gas went to 99 a gallon. We lost about half of the small refineries in the country, and thousands of oil exploration companies. The result was concentrating the gas business to a few big players, and their subsequent market manipulations.
This time around when we lose all of those companies, they will not be replaceable because of the hellish gauntlet of ridiculous environmental regulations and outright harassment by green groups.
Until alternative energy becomes viable in the free market on it's own merits, we need gasoline. It is the root of our prosperity. Shutting off the pump before there are alternatives is like writing checks because you are going to apply for a job today. It is pretty stupid.
Well, here we are, and the results of our stupidity is environmental nightmares like ethanol and oil sands. Good job little green buddies, you made it worse again!
With the concentration of players in the oil industry the market is easily manipulated. We saw that last summer when the speculators ran it up, and then when it crashed when the rats abandoned ship trying not to be the last ones out.
As that was going on, the regional cartels were marking up gas way beyond normal margins, and delaying pump price drops in response to market drops. Who is going to stop them, the competition? LOL The competition is the 5 companies who's CEOs golf together on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
In the end, the point of the article is valid. Too low of oil prices can cause a lot of problems.
What we need is reasonable regulation to provide more competition and a more tempered market. That will cover the short term. Obviously clean energy and high efficiency is the real long term path to take.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dipconsult on Jan 14, 2009 3:49 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I'm still shopping for a HUMMER
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Jan 14, 2009 4:07 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is the behavior of an international monopoly. The US public is completely unprotected. The right-wing makes much of how willing they are to protect us. If that is so, where have they been for the last 30 republican years.
What have the Canadians and the Mexicans done? Mexico nationalized Standard Oil's fields. It sure made wealthy easterners mad. Canada put a floor under the price of oil. Either would be preferable to our boom and bust policy.
I suggested a support price to a moderate democrat, oil production owner, and accountant. He was flabbergasted at the idea. I have a further suggestion. I suggest that the support price be tied to the same inflation factor that is used to raise Social Security checks. It might force a little realism.
Occasionally people ask what we are to do. The correct answer is everything all at the same time. We can't and shouldn't drill our selves out of this one. But that doesn't mean we just quit fossil fuels. We do self sufficiency. We do self sufficiency cleanly.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: larazzafilms on Jan 14, 2009 4:35 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mattfuniciello on Jan 14, 2009 4:43 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Matt Funiciello
Posted by: blondesprite
» RE: GOOD LUCK ON DOING THAT
Posted by: mattfuniciello
» sorry, not buying the OPEC conspiracy
Posted by: jon B
» RE: sorry, not buying the OPEC conspiracy
Posted by: Deep
» RE: sorry, not buying the OPEC conspiracy
Posted by: mattfuniciello
» RE: Matt Funiciello/how is OPEC manipulating prices?
Posted by: MyLeftFoot
» They Manipulate Price??
Posted by: gellero1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Inspector Roger on Jan 14, 2009 6:04 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jon B on Jan 14, 2009 6:41 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before the housing bust, oil was being pumped like mad to try to keep up with demand. Now, as the writer points out, the opposite is happening. There is now no incentive to keep looking for new sources or to begin expensive projects. But some time in the future it will be worth it and oil prices will sky because these projects weren't done now.
Some things don't change. Older big fields continue to be drained, it's just at a lower rate, they will run out no matter the speed of pumping. Mexico announced last year that its' biggest and essentially only worthwhile field Cantarell would be dry mid 2010s. So, now we can add a year or two to that analysis, nothing really changes in the long run.
Some things do change. At the $120 a barrel level or so the US had a surge of wildcatters hit upon old fields that the big corporations had abandoned decades ago. The price made it worth it to prompt small independent companies to get back in business. Well, you can bet the wildcatters are going broke or have given up. But, when the price rebounds again, some will be back, some might not from being burned this past year.
The wide swings in oil prices were predicted by peak oil theory, don't be surprised by the next swing whenever it happens.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: peak oil in action
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS
» RE: peak oil in action
Posted by: Dboy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jaynesian on Jan 14, 2009 9:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Peak oil predicts volatility -- but raising prices in the face of falling demand is simply gouging.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» a possible reason
Posted by: jon B
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sharloch on Jan 14, 2009 7:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» is clean good for the environment?
Posted by: jon B
» what must happen if we want to survive
Posted by: mgmyers79
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TexasCowboy on Jan 14, 2009 7:26 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The continued raping and pillaging of the American taxpayer has to stop. OPEC claiming low prices will hurt the world economy is like the drug industry saying negotiating drug prices would also hurt the economy. In fact, Americans are not stupid, they simply get overwhelmed with all the lobbyist-speak and seem to think they have no voice. I hope we all wake up to the fact that power does lie with the people.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield on Jan 14, 2009 7:30 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Conservatives run metros
Posted by: PaulK
» Thanks PaulK for the info. I guess they do to metros what they do to corporations.
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
» Bicycling 30 miles to work is difficult
Posted by: tommy_slothrop
» RE: Bicycling 30 miles to work is difficult
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
» RE: Bicycling 30 miles to work is difficult
Posted by: samd11
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS on Jan 14, 2009 7:46 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: PUKE OIL LIAR
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: PUKE OIL LIAR
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS
» ReallY???
Posted by: gellero1
» RE: eallY???/ New Energy
Posted by: MyLeftFoot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: littlepitcher on Jan 14, 2009 7:51 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is up to employed Americans to keep our consumption down and thwart OPEC's efforts to manipulate the USA's supply.
Once we have sufficient hybrids,bike trails, mass transit, and employment of minorities, we can worry about whether nations who hate us are making the income they desire.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 14, 2009 7:57 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So their fast-growing economies have somewhat sputtered, in tandem with Americans cutting back both spending and consumption of gas-er-lean? And the price of oil has fallen in response?
But you say that a limited resource, even when it's prices are low due to observable loss of demand, might rise again? Once demand is higher?
Amazing stuff that these learned journo-economists come up with. Truly amazing insight.
I file this article under D for Duh.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kwshanno on Jan 14, 2009 8:31 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» you can't build bridges and skyscrapers with wind.
Posted by: gellero1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulK on Jan 14, 2009 9:02 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the long run oil supply will level out with oil demand. Economics claims that one fuel will be replaced with another fuel as needed until things balance out.
In the very long run (maybe not long at all if the Arctic methane release keeps accelerating year after year) this planet is going to cook, we're going to lose most of the earth's species, and the hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts and floods are going to be stronger.
As a planetary coalition of governments, we will care which fuels we use. Solar, wind, geothermal and the other renewables will be subsidized. I'll include algae biofuel as a renewable if it ever works, because algae can theoretically double in mass every 24 hours and so it doesn't require 9/10 of a gallon of oil to produce a gallon of alkafuel. Coal and burning forests for fuel will be taxed and demonized. We must tip "free market" economics away from subsidizing big oil with $15 billion a year and away from local building inspectors demonizing solar home innovations just because the jerks don't understand it.
There will be a truly black market in untaxed coal and charcoal over much of the world for a while, because it's so easy for any individual to cut a branch down and burn it.
Our world's best hope is to drive down the cost of solar and wind technology until the profitability of mining the world's more inaccessable remaining coal and oil deposits drops toward zero. For example, cutting the cost of wind electricity generation in half has a long-term worldwide impact, as opposed to a national tax or subsidy which only has a short-term national impact.
The only problem with funding "new technology" is that for my money, the little starving guys have 2/3 of the best ideas, while the big corps have the best lobbyists. A smart government could get around this. However, I'm still a skeptic as to whether we have a smart government yet. Good luck, Mister President!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Dixie Dawg on Jan 14, 2009 9:06 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This four pager sounds like the old Fram oil filter commercial. A greasy faced car mechanic guy faces down viewers with the ragged challenge.
" You can pay me now or pay me later."
But, ya know, we all gotta know by now that "this ol world runs on sex a gasoline."
Cheers
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» FRAM was right...and so,
Posted by: jvaljon1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ron heringhauser on Jan 14, 2009 9:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Jan 14, 2009 10:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The huge run up of oil was certainly helped along by traders buying up the long side of futures contracts. Now we have some deep pockets manipulators taking the short side of the contracts and forcing down the price. Who are these manipulators? Money center Wall Street banks like JP Morgan are likely suspects with the help of the Fed.
Problem is, countries like Russia aren't going to take being screwed by Wall Street and the Fed lying down. Watch for some craziness in the American financial markets due to some counter manipulation.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Prediction: wild rebound in oil prices after market is cornered?
Posted by: gunboat diplomat
» RE: No commentary on oil futures?
Posted by: MyLeftFoot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jmmartin on Jan 14, 2009 10:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those who want to drive dinosaur SUV's should pay a gas tax based upon the weight of the vehicle so that a family with a Honda sedan pays a lot less than someone rumbling about in a Humvee. Alternatively, these taxes can be based on estimated mileage ratings, though these are less precise than axle weight. Waivers could be issued upon strict proof that a particular vehicle, e.g. a van or pickup, is used for non-personal, small business purposes (and the weight restrictions would not apply at all for 18-wheelers, semis, and vehicles used in commercial shipping).
The mechanics of it can easily be worked out, e.g. with stickers placed on windowshields. It chaps my butt when I see some idiot in a big SUV, say, an Escalade, driving down the street with only one occupant. These gluttons should pay their fair share and, in so doing, encourage limits to driving as well as purchase of gas-sparing transportation.
Can you believe that the Bush administration actually signed into law a provision for tax breaks for those who purchased Humvees? Disastrous, as was everything else about that sap's presidency.
But, hey, who am I but the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Tax it at the Pump
Posted by: YogiBear
» Idiotic
Posted by: gellero1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JP510 on Jan 14, 2009 10:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you are concerned about oil going up, there a lots of ways now to avoid the pain. With all the new ETFs you can easily gain exposure to oil/gas. For personal use you can use sites like gasbuddy.com and petrofix.com to minimize and risk that you would have to rising prices. It just seems like there are a lot of tools that we did not have in the past to deal with rising prices.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: ETF's
Posted by: Dboy
» RE: TF's
Posted by: JP510
Comments are closed-
Posted by: grindermonkey on Jan 14, 2009 10:26 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "supply and demand" model became corrupted at the commodities exchange in 1929. The phrase itself is a meaningless riddle presented by economists and industry sycophants at Congressional hearings. Competition between oil companies by lower pricing is non existent in the oil business. When one company's price rises to $5.00 they all do. "Well, they all buy oil from the same well!" This is probably the case and if it is then the industry is rife for nationalization or extinction.
The only competition taking place is between large concentrations of cash vying for deflationary protection at the money market level. This tendency of cash to stagnate or compost or rot unspent in banks and vaults worldwide ultimately produces the kind of currency cannibalization and destabilization that we are witnessing. Why do you think they color it green?
Bailing the situation out, adding more money, makes no sense. The Comptroller of the Currency should be acting in some way to free up this log jam of cash.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Oil demand dropped by 5 percent
Posted by: ReallyBearish
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gunboat diplomat on Jan 14, 2009 11:26 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"About the only economic break most Americans have gotten in the last six months has been the drastic drop in the price of oil, which has fallen even more precipitously than it rose. In a year's time, a commodity that was theoretically priced according to supply and demand doubled from $69 a barrel to nearly $150, and then, in a period of just three months, crashed along with the stock market."
"So what happened? It's a complicated question, and there are lots of theories. But as correspondent Steve Kroft reports, many people believe it was a speculative bubble, not unlike the one that caused the housing crisis, and that it had more to do with traders and speculators on Wall Street than with oil company executives or sheiks in Saudi Arabia."
Same with the food crisis. Is it still the high price of oil driving food costs? Is it biofuel? Is it higher demand for food? or is it mostly speculator-fueled manipulation of the international commodity markets, esp. the futures markets?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» He didn't talk about the other side
Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: He didn't talk about the other side
Posted by: MyLeftFoot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WyrdSister on Jan 14, 2009 12:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Many were stunned this year to witness the parabolic rise and fall of oil prices up to nearly $150 and then back around $36 by Christmas time. Quite a ride. I said in The Long Emergency that volatility would be the hallmark of post peak oil because it was obvious that advanced economies could not absorb super high prices and would crash in response; that at some point after crashing, these economies would respond to the new lower oil price, resume their cheap oil habits, and build to another price rise. . . and crash again. . . in a declension of ever-lower industrial activity.
What I probably didn't realize at the time was how destructive this cycling between low-high-and-low oil prices would actually be in the first instance of it, and what a toll it would take right off the bat. We can see now that our first journey through the cycle took out the most fragile of the complex systems we depend on: capital finance. As a result, a huge amount of capital (say $14 trillion) has evaporated out of the system, never to be seen again (and never to be deployed for productive purposes). It will be harder for the USA to rebound from the grievous injury to this crucial part of the overall system, and Europe has foundered similarly -- though the European nations are not burdened to the same degree by the awful liabilities of suburbia.
Even if these advanced economies -- throw in Japan too -- remain moribund, the price and supply prospects for oil look ominous. My own guess is that the price of oil has overshot on the low end just as it overshot on the high end, and that, when all is said and done, we'll still see an upwardly trending price line over the long haul. The plunge, which began right after the $147 peak in July 2008, was as much the result of banks, hedge funds, and individuals dumping oil investments and positions to raise cash as it was a matter of the markets predicting a sharp fall-off in economic activity (and supposedly oil consumption). The truth is that demand destruction for oil in the USA has been surprising mild compared to the drop in price. Jim Hansen's Master Resource Report says that gasoline consumption dropped from 9.29 million barrels a day in 2007 to 8.99 million barrels a day for 2008. That's not much of a fall-off, especially compared to the price drop.
As Julian Darley of the Post Carbon Institute put it recently: "There won't be any energy bail-out." And, as many other people have noted, the recent plunge in oil prices strongly implies future supply destruction, since so many planned oil projects have been suspended or cancelled because they are economic losers at $40-a-barrel (or even $70). Even projects well underway, such as Canadian tar sand production, have been scaled back or shut down because they don't make sense at current prices. Some of these other newer projects will now never get underway -- they have missed their window of opportunity with so much capital leaving the system -- and so the hope of offsetting very-near-future depletions in old giant oil fields looks dimmer and dimmer.
Those depletions are very serious. For instance, Mexico's super-giant Cantarell oil field, the second-largest ever discovered after Saudi Arabia's Ghawar field, has shown a 30 percent depletion rate in the past year alone. (Pemex had forecast a 15 percent rate entering the year.) Cantarell provides over 60 percent of Mexico's total production, and Mexico is America's third largest source of imports -- just after Saudi Arabia (#2) and Canada (#1). Obviously, Mexico soon will lose its ability to export oil, and as that occurs, America is going to feel more than pinch -- more like a two-by-four upside the head. In short, remorseless depletion is underway and we are less likely now than even a year ago, to make up for it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Oil Scene 2.0
Posted by: WyrdSister
Comments are closed-
Posted by: stina723 on Jan 14, 2009 2:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Pricing Oil in Euros? Has Anyone Considered This?
Posted by: MyLeftFoot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sonofloud2 on Jan 14, 2009 3:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Under legislation introduced Wednesday in both the House and Senate and called the "Cash for Clunkers" program, drivers could get vouchers of up to $4,500 when they turn in their old fuel-inefficient vehicles for scrapping and buy vehicles that get good gas mileage.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic
/stories/C/CASH_FOR_CLUNKERS?
SITE=AP&SECTION=
HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
It's these selfish morons who are destroyed the planet with their suvs and now we are going to reward them for being stupid enough to buy them in the first place???
Leave it to Feinstein to come up with this one.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: congressional logic
Posted by: badkitty
» RE: congressional logic
Posted by: FreeAmerica
Comments are closed-
Posted by: moonerone on Jan 14, 2009 4:01 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Oemissions on Jan 14, 2009 9:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Automobiles are weapons of mass destruction.
The NOISE and choking exhaust are beyond tolerable.
Unregulated use and a huge automobile company lobby has created the worst MONSTER we have on this planet: TRAFFIC.
Please get rid of it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tate on Jan 15, 2009 2:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: divetrader on Jan 15, 2009 5:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fanny666 on Jan 16, 2009 10:18 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: FreeAmerica on Jan 17, 2009 12:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We saw this under Clinton late in his term when gas went to 99 a gallon. We lost about half of the small refineries in the country, and thousands of oil exploration companies. The result was concentrating the gas business to a few big players, and their subsequent market manipulations.
This time around when we lose all of those companies, they will not be replaceable because of the hellish gauntlet of ridiculous environmental regulations and outright harassment by green groups.
Until alternative energy becomes viable in the free market on it's own merits, we need gasoline. It is the root of our prosperity. Shutting off the pump before there are alternatives is like writing checks because you are going to apply for a job today. It is pretty stupid.
Well, here we are, and the results of our stupidity is environmental nightmares like ethanol and oil sands. Good job little green buddies, you made it worse again!
With the concentration of players in the oil industry the market is easily manipulated. We saw that last summer when the speculators ran it up, and then when it crashed when the rats abandoned ship trying not to be the last ones out.
As that was going on, the regional cartels were marking up gas way beyond normal margins, and delaying pump price drops in response to market drops. Who is going to stop them, the competition? LOL The competition is the 5 companies who's CEOs golf together on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
In the end, the point of the article is valid. Too low of oil prices can cause a lot of problems.
What we need is reasonable regulation to provide more competition and a more tempered market. That will cover the short term. Obviously clean energy and high efficiency is the real long term path to take.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped




