The Era of "easy oil" is over

WTF?_2

posh*spice wrote: »

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1807697,00.html

Is this the sort of thing you mean? Has the West lost influence?

The economic power is steadily shifting eastwards for sure. The Western leaders have 'screwed the pooch' with their economic policies over the last 5-6 years and hastened the demise of the West as the leaders of the world economies.

As for the issue of Bush's visit, well there are those that say that the Saudis can't pump any more oil; They are consuming more of their own oil and they are at capacity of what they can pump. Hard to say as the Saudis are so secretive about their reserves and capacity.

Then there's the fact that with the sharp fall in real value of the dollar in recent times, of course oil producers want more dollars for their oil. It's absolutely not in their interest to lower the price as long as people are buying it.

Finally, there's the fact that Bush has always been in the thrall of the oil industry and that they are more than happy to see the price of their single product rocket. As shown in Fahrenheit 911, the Bush family has significant business ties with powerful families in Saudi Arabia.

borntobefree

Fuel prices are high
Gas & electricity prices are high
Food prices are high
Mortgage Interest rates are high

BUT

Oil companies make billions
Gas & power companies make billion
Supermarkets make billions
Banks make billions

I THINK I'm being scamed:(_pale_:whistle:

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

beingjdc wrote: »

Yes, they might be. My point is the 'headline' price of oil is for delivery in two months. So look at the price right now, that's for delivery in July. So the oil being delivered now was bought at the March price.

If they're managing to sell it all at the new price, it means the March price wasn't a bubble - if it was, there'd be too much oil and nobody buying it, and the spot price would collapse.

So we know $100 a barrel wasn't a bubble (which isn't to say it can't fall in the future if a recession causes demand to fall, or some new supply appears).

We'll find out in July whether $130 is a bubble.

So if I buy oil at $135 (I receive it in July), but if the oil is $110 then, nobody will buy my £135 oil?

jamtart6

well my vote is stop paying to offset your carbon and put it into a deposit for a house or a deposit to fill your petrol tank up

epz_2

setmefree2 wrote: »

Sadly, coal pollutes. Also it doesn't move cars or planes. We've already seen what the small switch that the Americans have done to ethanol has done to the cost of food in the short term, though the brazilians have cars that run on both ethanol and petrol.

try telling that to the south africans who made coal oil and plastics from it back when they under sanctions, oh and we have centurys of the stuff left in scotland, or would have if all the mines hadnt been shut down and flooded.

Generali

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

So if I buy oil at $135 (I receive it in July), but if the oil is $110 then, nobody will buy my £135 oil?

How it works is thusly (although simplified).

1. You buy futures contracts equivalent to 100 barrels of oil @ $135 for July delivery which 'costs' you $13,500 ($135x100) plus a $2 per barrel premium (the price of getting the seller to make the contract)
2. It comes to July. Oil at spot (ie for immediate delivery) is $110 per barrel.
3. The contract is settled. You lost $25 per barrel so have to pay $2,700 ($25 loss x 100 + the premium).

The reality is slightly more complicated as you can often sell your contract on in the meantime if you want.

Also, you would trade on 'margin' (like a deposit) in almost all cases so would put down (eg) 10% of the initial value of the oil underlying your contract and then have to maintain the value of that deposit.

setmefree2

ixwood wrote: »

This graph took my attention from an earlier link:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oil_Prices_1861_2007.svg

Is it me, or does it show that a small oil price increase causes a massive rise in inflation? I knew it was related, but never really looked at the relationship between oil price and inflation before. The inflation reactions do look VERY magnified.

Ergo, are we heading for a massive inflation hit (or stagflation with things as they are)? I know inflation is widely accepted as being an issue now, but the assumption seem to be that a few rate cuts (or even not rises) and bobs your uncle, it's under control again.

Is there mega inflation coming, regardless of rates etc?

It's diificult to compare now with the 70's, I think, with regard to inflation. So much of the cost of a product is made up with the cheap cost of (Dickensian style?) Chinese labour. So perhaps this low cost will offset the high cost of oil? However, of course the Chinese have high inflation (9%) themeselves, so perhaps this is about to work its way through to the cost of goods?

Oliveru

jamtart6 wrote: »

It melts ice caps which increase sea levels and wipe out

I don't agree with this popular belief, if ice caps melted I think sea levels would either stay the same or fall because the South Pole (Antarctica) is much bigger than the North Pole and because it's under sea level then it takes up more space as ice than it would as water as ice is expansive water. It would be like taking away a land mass I imagine.

But then I'm no expert perhaps someone else can comment.

WTF?_2

Never mind dinosaur oil, the vegetable oil tonight in my local Tesco was 1.29 a litre for Sunflower oil.

Price about six months ago for the same oil, 56p per litre.

(I always check because I can put it in my diesel car)

Snooze

Oliveru wrote: »

I don't agree with this popular belief, if ice caps melted I think sea levels would either stay the same or fall because [IMG]file:///C:/Users/ADMINI%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg[/IMG]the South Pole (Antarctica) is much bigger than the North Pole and because it's under sea level then it takes up more space as ice than it would as water as ice is expansive water. It would be like taking away a land mass I imagine.

:huh:

Just run that by me again.

If you're saying what I think you're saying you argument is flawed because the South Pole is real land whereas the North Pole is just a slab of ice.

The icebergs melting wouldn't make any difference to the sea level but the ice-caps would because they're basically very big chunks of sea suspended in mid-air when in frozen form.

However, that said, I personally don't think the ice-caps melting will cause London and East Anglia to go under like most seem to predict and in fact I think "Global Warming" is a load of bollox, full stop. It was just something invented to keep the tree-huggers happy. The planet has been going through cycles of warming up and cooling down for millions of years and will continue to do so regardless of how much "carbon footprint" :rolleyes: we produce.

2p.

Rob