Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Gas Prices Aren't Cheap, They're Volatile

By Michael T. Klare, Tomdispatch.com. Posted September 29, 2006.


Because global oil supplies are never likely to be truly abundant again, it would only take one major storm or one major crisis in the Middle East to push crude prices back up near or over $80 a barrel.
092906story3
Gas Prices Aren't Cheap, They're Volatile

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Michael T. Klare

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

What the hell is going on here? Just six weeks ago, gasoline prices at the pump were hovering at the $3 per gallon mark; today, they're inching down toward $2 -- and some analysts predict even lower numbers before the November elections. The sharp drop in gas prices has been good news for consumers, who now have more money in their pockets to spend on food and other necessities -- and for President Bush, who has witnessed a sudden lift in his approval ratings.

Is this the result of some hidden conspiracy between the White House and Big Oil to help the Republican cause in the elections, as some are already suggesting? How does a possible war with Iran fit into the gas-price equation? And what do falling gasoline prices tell us about "peak-oil" theory, which predicts that we have reached our energy limits on the planet?

Since gasoline prices began their sharp decline in mid-August, many pundits have attempted to account for the drop, but none have offered a completely convincing explanation, lending some plausibility to claims that the Bush administration and its long-term allies in the oil industry are manipulating prices behind the scenes. In my view, however, the most significant factor in the downturn in prices has simply been a sharp easing of the "fear factor" -- the worry that crude oil prices would rise to $100 or more a barrel due to spreading war in the Middle East, a Bush administration strike at Iranian nuclear facilities, and possible Katrina-scale hurricanes blowing through the Gulf of Mexico, severely damaging offshore oil rigs.

As the summer commenced and oil prices began a steep upward climb, many industry analysts were predicting a late summer or early fall clash between the United States and Iran (roughly coinciding with a predicted intense hurricane season). This led oil merchants and refiners to fill their storage facilities to capacity with $70-80 per barrel oil. They expected to have a considerable backlog to sell at a substantial profit if supplies from the Middle East were cut off and/or storms wracked the Gulf of Mexico.

Then came the war in Lebanon. At first, the fighting seemed to confirm such predictions, only increasing fears of a region-wide conflict, possibly involving Iran. The price of crude oil approached record heights. In the early days of the war, the Bush administration tacitly seconded Israeli actions in Lebanon, which, it was widely assumed, would lay the groundwork for a similar campaign against military targets in Iran. But Hezbollah's success in holding off the Israeli military combined with horrific television images of civilian casualties forced leaders in the United States and Europe to intercede and bring the fighting to a halt.

We may never know exactly what led the White House to shift course on Lebanon, but high oil prices -- and expectations of worse to come -- were surely a factor in administration calculations. When it became clear that the Israelis were facing far stiffer resistance than expected, and that the Iranians were capable of fomenting all manner of mischief (including, potentially, total havoc in the global oil market), wiser heads in the corporate wing of the Republican Party undoubtedly concluded that any further escalation or regionalization of the war would immediately push crude prices over $100 per barrel. Prices at the gas pump would then have been driven into the $4-5 per gallon range, virtually ensuring a Republican defeat in the mid-term elections. This was still early in the summer, of course, well before peak hurricane season; mix just one Katrina-strength storm in the Gulf of Mexico into this already unfolding nightmare scenario and the fate of the Republicans would have been sealed.

In any case, President Bush did allow Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to work with the Europeans to stop the Lebanon fighting and has since refrained from any overt talk about a possible assault on Iran. Careful never explicitly to rule out the military option when it comes to Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities, since June he has nonetheless steadfastly insisted that diplomacy must be given a chance to work. Meanwhile, we have made it most of the way through this year's hurricane season without a single catastrophic storm hitting the U.S.

For all these reasons, immediate fears about a clash with Iran, a possible spreading of war to other oil regions in the Middle East, and Gulf of Mexico hurricanes have dissipated, and the price of crude has plummeted. On top of this, there appears to be a perceptible slowing of the world economy -- precipitated, in part, by the rising prices of raw materials -- leading to a drop in oil demand. The result? Retailers have abundant supplies of gasoline on hand and the laws of supply and demand dictate a decline in prices.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts and the author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
$2OO
Posted by: rsaxto on Sep 29, 2006 12:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think oil should be priced at $200 a barrel so all these idiots wouldn't be driving around in gigantic SUVs causing global warming. Or else we should produce a better human being so that we can think more clearly and morally and not have all these stupid wars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: $2OO Posted by: edith
» RE: Perhaps a better way would be to... Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» Who's the driver Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: $2OO Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: $2OO..sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» RE: $2OO..sickofsleaze Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: $2OO... do I hear $1000? Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: $2OO... do I hear $1000? Posted by: saphil@yahoo.com
» RE: $2OO... do I hear $1000? Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Get Physical - save a tree! Posted by: Conservasaurus
No worry!
Posted by: Temporary on Sep 29, 2006 12:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a solution for the problem right here!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No worry! sickofsleaze..so does.. Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
storms ahead
Posted by: edith on Sep 29, 2006 1:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Klare's major point I think is that new oil supplies are there but generally are in places that are trouble-sensitive to war and weather disruption. I infer yet another problem: even more incentive will exist for powerful nations to seize control or access to these relatively hard to reach and hard to defend oil fields. Iraq is really the best example today. Should Iraqi oil become more accessible, it could drive down the cost of oil. Or should Iraq collapse in total civil war, a possibility, the negative impact on prices might be felt.

Since wars disrupt oil markets and make futures traders nervous, the longterm trend is high prices for sure. That as Klare seems to suggest is a recipe for energy volatilty along with the inevitable decline in total supply even if "peace" were to break out for a while. Unfortunately, the primary role of oil in the world economy makes peace more of a wish than a real prospect.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what about the saudi ?
Posted by: ShoShenQ on Sep 29, 2006 4:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
saudi arabia said they expected to have about 140 years of reserves at the current consumption rate, and yet there is no mention of it ??

assemble it in your browser for ref:

http://www.platts.com/HOME/
News/8632705.xml?S=printer&sub=HOME&p=HOME/News

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: what about the saudi ? Posted by: chinasdad
» quotas based on reserves Posted by: AdamG
Yata Yata Yata ! Why not just SHUT THE FUCKER UP and FIGHT TO LEGALIZE INDUSTRIAL HEMP ?!?
Posted by: SDres11 on Sep 29, 2006 6:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article, while I completely agree with the author on the crisis, the author FAILS to mention that for 70 years, HEMP has been banned. In fact, a few years ago in South Dakota, the Lakota folks tried to grow it but the DEA pulled the plant out from its roots, bombed the place out, and harboured fear and terrorism ! Oh wait, I forgot, South Dakota is deemed IRRELEVANT except on the "abortion" issue ! For all the doom and glum talk about oil prices and oil stability, I have yet to find any mention of the need to legalize industrial hemp. It's no coincidence that America is fighting one war/blood for oil after another while at the same time the same thugs in Washington keep pushing policies to cripple farmers especially in Middle America !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Peak Oil a fabrication?
Posted by: Trazom on Sep 29, 2006 6:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read this article

Just what if peak oil were a myth? What if we had enough oil to last the human race for thousands of years? The above article discusses a few deep oil wells that have been known to spontaneusly refill on their own, as if they were fed by larger fields deep inside the earth. The science behind this, based on 50 years of research by the Russians, is of course if largely ignored by Big Oil. They have demonstrated that petroleum can only be made at tremendous temperatures and pressures deep within the earth's surfce, so deep it would be in the upper layers of the mantle (~100km). This would make oil not even a fossil fuel. What do you think that would do to the price of oil, knowing that there was virtually a limitless supply of it at our disposal? Big Oil may have pulled the Big One over all of us, perhaps.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Peak Oil a fabrication? Posted by: symcokid
» RE: Peak Oil a fabrication? Posted by: Trazom
» RE: Peak Oil a fabrication? Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: Peak Oil a fabrication? Posted by: harris
» RE: Peak Oil a fabrication? Posted by: harris
» RE: Peak Oil a fabrication? Posted by: Trazom
» RE: Peak Oil a fabrication? Posted by: techphile
» RE: Peak Oil a fabrication? Posted by: Trazom
» RE: Peak Oil a fabrication? Posted by: harris
» RE: Peak Oil a fabrication? Posted by: Trazom
» RE: Peak Oil a fabrication? Posted by: harris
» RE: Peak Oil a fabrication? Posted by: tedbohne
» RE: Peak Oil a fabrication? Posted by: yellow
» RE: Peak Oil a fabrication? Posted by: harris
Correlation between oil exec testifying in Congress and Price
Posted by: greyw on Sep 29, 2006 7:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has anyone else noticed that the last two steep declines in pump prices (1st week Nov 05, and 1st week Sept 06) occured around the time oil executives were called to testify to congress about possible market manipulation?

Looks very suspicious!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who are you trying to kid, Mr. Klare?!
Posted by: monkeywrench on Sep 29, 2006 7:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Didn't the author of this article stop to think that the disappearance from the media of news stories about our possible clash with Iran might ALSO be in response to the upcoming elections? Iran's nuclear ambitions, and our comfort level with them, has not changed one bit in the last few weeks. And as for the lessening tensions in the Middle East: the "war" in Iraq is going more poorly than ever, with the number and severity of attacks rising by the day, and with Saudi Arabia announcing that they are going to build a wall on their border with Iraq to keep the insurgency from spilling into their country. Some lessening tensions. Oh, and hurricane season is not over until late November.

What is cited in the article as reasons for the drop in oil prices does not compute with how quickly prices are falling. For the "free market" (which in actuality does not exist) to be causing the rapid drop in oil prices, we would have to be entering a depression; something that has not happened – yet.

It stretches the imagination that the author would not suspect that an administration with intimate ties to the oil industry, one that has been the most secretive, deliberately manipulative and dishonest in history, would not influence the price of oil for political gain. Media articles such as this, feigning innocence, are one reason why Bush and his fellow criminals have not been removed from office.

Sorry Mr. Klare; you will never convince me that we are not being gamed once again –– and the proof will be when gas prices go back up right after the mid-term elections. Count on it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

good article, but shallow
Posted by: AdamG on Sep 29, 2006 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author only points out the obvious. What should be pointed out is possible repercussions of oil become more scarce/expensive.

How is humanity going to cope when it loses nitrogen-based fertilizer? When synthetic nitrogen fertilizer is no longer feasible, food protein yields will be a fourth of what they are now. Sure, there will be leeway if we don't waste so much food, process the hell out of it, and feed it to livestock, etc. but there is no avoiding the consequence of less food and more people. It's called starvation.

Even if there was lots of oil, enough to burn for centuries longer, our evironment would burn, and possibly in response to the warming, go into an ice age. Then we'll all be living in an inferno for a short ime until we run to huddle in a cave to wait out the ice age. Sounds fun.

People and governments are squandering precious time. If we don't start addressing these issues soon, paying over $100 to fill the Hummer will be the least of our worries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Coincidence?
Posted by: Guy on Sep 29, 2006 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you think it is a coincidence that gas prices have gone down right before the November elections? Hmmm....

Guy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Coincidence?..sickofsleaze...No Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
HEY ALTERNET and the TAXACHUSSETTS whiner, here's a solution !!!
Posted by: NDnative on Sep 29, 2006 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.hempcar.org/indexOLD.html

Ok, of course everybody is aware of the oil crisis further caused by America doing one war for oil after another. But hey, Mr. TAXachussetts CLARE, instead of only whining and moaning about volatile gas prices, why not learn something new and use your goddamn intelligence to put translate that knowledge into a better article relating volatile gas prices and the need to legalize INDUSTRIAL HEMP !

And here's the site for all of you wondering why some of us are potty mouths:

http://www.hempcar.org/petvshemp.shtml

It's bad enough that Ted Kennedy fought to stop efforts to get wind energy going because he too was in bed with the "cheap" gas special interests !

Now when the fuck will Alternet start posting articles supporting the legalization of hemp? I'd like this site but they seem to be stuck in the framed trap ! All their talk about global warming is nothing but BIG GOVERNMENT BULLSHIT talk without discussing the need to legalize hemp and get the US the fuck off its dependence on foreign oil !!!

Sorry I'm an angry disaffected voter hating both sellout parties!

P.S.: In North Dakota, even conservatives joined the liberals to make legal the cultivation of hemp and Governor John Hoeven signed the bill into law with strong approval. Alternet should either bring in articles supporting the need to legalize hemp or SHUT THE FUCK UP !!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Agree 10,000% NDnative Posted by: Michiganman
This Author is a Hoaxster
Posted by: rwa on Sep 29, 2006 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does he avoid the reality of heavy oil? We are now entering the heavy oil era, there are many times more barrels of heavy oil than light. With conservation these resources could last for centuries. Venezuela has enough for 100+ years of current global consumption, proven. Yes, there are environmental problems with production of western tar sands and shale, this means we need to prevent them from being exploited in a pel mel manner. Over centuries alot of water is available in Canada. We may never see $11 prices again but $30-$35 could be a realistic price. Check the numbers below.

"The U.S. Govt’s
Secret Colorado
Oil Discovery

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world — more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. Three companies have been chosen to lead the way. Test drilling has already begun:-

Five months ago, the U.S. Energy Department announced the results of a land survey.It was conducted to determine the official amount of oil a thousand feet deep in the Rocky Mountains.
They reported this stunning news:
We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.
Here are the official estimates:

8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
18-times as much oil as Iraq
21-times as much oil as Kuwait
22-times as much oil as Iran
500-times as much oil as Yemen
And it’s all right here in the Western United States.
James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says, “We’ve got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East.”
More than 2 TRILLION barrels. Untapped. “That’s more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today,” reports The Denver Post.
When asked about America’s least-publicized oil supply, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch said “The amounts of oil are staggering. Who would have guessed that in just Colorado and Utah, there is more recoverable oil than in the Middle East?”
Here’s the kicker The U.S. government already owns the land. It’s been right there under our noses the whole time.
In fact, the government’s appointed a small group of companies to begin the drilling.
Test drilling has already begun.
And the profit forecasts are ridiculous. According to the RAND Corporation (a public-policy think tank for the government), this small region can produce:
Three million barrels of oil per day… That translates into more than $20 BILLION a year.
These are the conservative estimates. The U.S. Energy Dept. estimates an eventual output of 10 million barrels of oil per day. "

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This Author is a Hoaxster...sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» RE: CO oil shale Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: This Author is a Hoaxster Posted by: aebartle
» RE: This Author is a Hoaxster Posted by: HeroesAll
The Devil Bush Controls Gas Prices!
Posted by: hot_rad_man on Sep 29, 2006 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Election time and he wants his margin to remain so he can rule with his iron hand. Hugo Chavez the Great coined the name Devil and it fits. I buy nothing but Citgo and I encourage you all to do the same. That is good Venezuelan Chavez Oil my friends in case you did not know!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Don't forget Valero! Posted by: AdamG
New York Times Sept 25 story
Posted by: Ike Solem on Sep 29, 2006 9:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oil Prices Fall as Speculators Retreat
By HEATHER TIMMONS and CARTER DOUGHERTY
Published: September 25, 200


"Other market watchers noted that prices for oil for future delivery, which some economists use for their planning purposes, have not fallen as much as spot prices, and that most futures contracts continue to hover around $66 a barrel.

“The story is still very much the same for the futures market,” said Eoin O’Callaghan, an oil analyst with BNP Paribas. “That points to more expensive oil in the coming months.”

There are two oil markets - the spot and futures market, which is also how many other commodities are sold. What is interesting here is that the futures contracts are generally thought to be cheaper than spot prices - for example, a farmer will often prefer a guaranteed future sale at a lower price to a higher price on the 'right now' spot market.

If futures stay high while the spot market decreases, you are really looking at a very temporary phenomenon; thus one can expect gasoline prices to rise sometime in November.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Lot of words signify nothing! Posted by: hot_rad_man
» Futures and spots revisited Posted by: Ike Solem
Just Republicans Trying to Hold Off November Slaughter
Posted by: sofla100 on Sep 29, 2006 10:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look, all theories are dribble-drabble except the Truth. How can it be otherwise then machinations of those in the White House? Right before an election, and when everyone was predicting gas to go up even more, it goes down. Well, dahh? With gas going up, the Repubs. were headed towards Noevember slaughter. Heck, Iraq is down the toilet, Afghanistan is a mess, no domestic policy except tax cuts for the rich. So, what happens, gas drops rapidly in price and Bush shoots up in popularity. The Repubs. are looking to be saved from November slaughter. But, if you don't believe it just wait and see my friends. Just wait and see what hapens to gas prices AFTER election day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not down everywhere
Posted by: BlueTigress on Sep 29, 2006 11:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A guy on another website I go to notes that gasoline in Utah is still hovering around $3.

He thinks it's because there are enough Bush fans there to make the state a Repug shoo-in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not down everywhere Posted by: Trazom
» RE: Not down everywhere Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Not down everywhere Posted by: Trazom
» RE: Not down everywhere...sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
Tar and Shale Not an Answer
Posted by: StuartH on Sep 29, 2006 11:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are quite a few books out now and quite a few serious writers working the research on this issue.

Tar and Shale in Canada and elsewhere do contain some possible oil reserves, but the price of extraction is currently horrendous, both economically and environmentally.

The author is right. We have a few decades during which the appearance of things won't change much - although if China and India develop a lot more Los Angeles style traffic jams, there will be demand pressure on the price worldwide just from that.

We are at least twenty five years behind where we should be with the development of alternatives to petroleum. One can date this to the time when Ronald Reagan, after taking office, ripped out the solar collectors that Jimmy Carter had installed on the White House roof.

Bush especially, seems to be an activist for the oil industry. It seems obvious that we have gone to war and conquered a country in the Middle East in order to maintain control over the oil under it. For two decades Federal policy has been used to suppress the development of alternatives.

The essence of proper Federal policy would be to create all the various kinds of incentives possible to empower individuals and communities to pursue entreprenuerial innovation on their own terms. The alternative is to give subsidies to the largest corporations who act only when they see a large scale profit center. The larger the corporation and the economy of scale, the less likely individuals and communities can participate, and that solutions will be found.

Somehow, the logjam has to break loose. Our present oil industry-dictated policies are setting us up for a difficult time in the not too distant future. They will suck us dry and leave us to survive in a disadvantaged situation. They don't care.
We need representatives in Congress who are on our side.
Don't vote for anyone with oil money among contributors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

waterboarding
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Sep 29, 2006 1:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
anyone know what happened to the waterboarding story? it seems to be gone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: waterboarding Posted by: Gakl
Vast Oil Reserves Ignored in U.S. Media
Posted by: rwa on Sep 29, 2006 1:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BBC:

Analysis by the US Department of Energy (DoE) - seen by Newsnight - shows that at $50 a barrel Venezuela - not Saudi Arabia - will have the biggest oil reserves in Opec.

Venezuela has vast deposits of extra-heavy oil in the Orinoco. Traditionally these have not been counted because at $20 a barrel they were too expensive to exploit - but at $50 a barrel melting them into liquid petroleum becomes extremely profitable.

The DoE report shows that at today's prices Venezuela's oil reserves are bigger than those of the entire Middle East - including Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Iran and Iraq.

In the future Venezuela won't have any more oil - but that's in the 22nd Century

Hugo Chavez
The US agency also identifies Canada as another future oil superpower.

Venezuela's deposits alone could extend the oil age for another 100 years.

The DoE estimates that the Venezuelan government controls 1.3 trillion barrels of oil - more than the entire declared oil reserves of the rest of the planet.

Mr Chavez told Newsnight that "Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world. In the future Venezuela won't have any more oil - but that's in the 22nd Century."

He will ask the Opec meeting in June to formally accept that Venezuela's reserves are now bigger than Saudi Arabia's.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's An Election!!
Posted by: Sparks56 on Sep 29, 2006 2:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please! Enough of all this supply/demand, peak oil, etc. etc.
Gas prices are down because of the election!!!!!
Major oil companies and the governments they are in bed with, especially the Saudis, have a vested interest in maintaining the Republican majority in the US Congress. They feel they can go a long way toward that end by lowering prices. They see the temporary loss in profits as a worthwhile investment in future higher demand and much higher prices/profits.
That is why the price of gas is down.
For the moment.
For the election.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's An Election!! Posted by: cinattra
This article is okay, if simplistic
Posted by: vangogh69 on Sep 29, 2006 2:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While yes, the prices are being fix in no small part to spare the punks in Washington, even at its highest, Americans still pay less for oil than the rest of the world. That said, oil companies are not solely to blame for the oil problems in the US: our city designs suck; regionalism and sustainability seem to be quaintly archaic to most folks ("you mean I can't have mangos in december?! fuck you!"); and sprawl have all contributed to the current situation. The answer to the oil issue is not (as washington so shortsightedly thinks) "find more oil," but rather, remake society in a more sustainable model.

Am I a dreamer? Yes. Is another reality possible? I believe it is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Americans Really Pay More for Gas Then Europe
Posted by: sofla100 on Sep 29, 2006 4:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is often said that American gas is much cheaper then in Britain, Germany and France. But what is always omitted is when you take out from the European gas prices the taxes used to fund mass transit, American gas is really more expensive. Mass transit is cheap and affordable across pretty much all of Western Europe. But you literally cannot survive in most American cities without a car. Mass transit or alternative forms of transit were never developed here, and that is one of America's big problems when gas prices go up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hydrogen is like electricity - it has to be generated
Posted by: Ike Solem on Sep 29, 2006 6:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This appears to be a rather misunderstood principle - hydrogen is not found in nature in any quantity, but must be generated. The two methods for doing this are stripping it off of natural gas or running electric current through water (electrolysis). You still have the problem of the primary power source - nuclear plants? coal fired turbines? or solar and wind power?

However, hydrogen fuel cells may play important roles in balancing electrical loads. If you run everything on solar and wind, you have a serious problem - you might want power when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. A 'renewable energy grid' would have to have mechanisms built in for storing energy - and hydrogen fuel cells combined solar/wind powered water electrolyzers may be the best tools for that purpose.

We do have the technology - we can rebuild the grid better than it was before.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Do you live by your overused edicts?
Posted by: Sparks56 on Sep 29, 2006 6:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey tedbohne, telling people to "shut the f**k up" contradicts what this forum is all about. Expressing it as profanely as you do indicates to me that you are not yet grown up enough to engage in dialog with grown up people.
Please, its time for you to go off to bed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nighty Night
Posted by: Sparks56 on Sep 29, 2006 6:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Time to go to bed, tedbohne.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is old news
Posted by: ecotopian on Sep 29, 2006 9:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There was an article back in 1999 in Automobile magazine which stated that oil (back then) should be priced at $150 a barrel, taking the cost of defending that region into account. What? You mean that I and a few other car nuts were the only ones who read that? Wow.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the oil companies always protect their friends at election time
Posted by: gerdhansel on Sep 30, 2006 2:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone who accuses the Bush Administration of causing the recent drop in gas prices to manipulate the mid-term elections is living in fantasy land.

These incompetents couldn't punch their way out of a wet paper bag if they were wearing brass knuckles.

But the oil barons are certainly capable of temporarily lowering gas prices to protect their friends.

I recall a television interview a few years back when Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia admitted that the Saudi Royal family had in fact done exactly that to help incumbents like Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan get reelected. (Didn't help Carter much. No Democratic President has successfully commanded a complex, large-scale military operation successfully since LBJ).

The Saudi royal family prize stability above all things in their most important market, namely the USA. They don't want a Democratic party-controlled House of Representatives issuing subpoenas and holding hearings and generally rocking the boat for their friends in the White House.

So the Saudis are willing to open the oil spigots for the three months leading up to pivoltal elections, as long as they can jack prices back up before Thanksgiving and gouge New Englanders for home heating oil costs.

It's a kind of international quid-pro-quo. The Saudis will never admit it, but as long as American troops are pinned down in Iraq, Shia Iranians will have a hard time invading Sunni Saudi Arabia and seizing control of the oild fields there.

As long as Iraq remains unstable, their oil stays in the ground and the Saudis can charge whatever the hell they want for their oil.

And now that the Bush Administration has appeased wealthy Saudi bad boy Osama bin Laden by moving America's permanent bases from Saudi soil to Iraq, the Saudis and their frieinds in the Carlyle Group are once again shiny, happy campers.

Like we used to say during the Vietnam years, "War is good business, invest your sons." Only now we're investing our daughters too.

Business booms while the dream that was America goes to hell in a handbasket.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BREAKING NEWS: CA Governor sides with BIG OIL and vetoes HEMP and ALTERNATIVE FUELS !!!
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 30, 2006 8:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bills signed and vetoed

At least now you can't say that Arnold supports alternative renewables anymore !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Lets Fix Prices! Posted by: TWilliams
» RE: Lets Fix Prices! Posted by: harris