Oil finally over $100 a barrel, officially

[kapkomet]

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080102/oil_prices.html

[NorthSideSox72]

I hope and pray that whomever gets into the White House in 2008 has the brains and the guts to work with Congress to truly prioritize getting us onto non-fossil fuels. Fast.

 

[kapkomet]

I hope and pray that whomever gets into the White House in 2008 has the brains and the guts to work with Congress to truly prioritize getting us onto non-fossil fuels. Fast.

It's probably not going to happen... at least for a while.

 

[BigSqwert]

When does this become an official "crisis"? $125/barrel? $150?

[NorthSideSox72]

When does this become an official "crisis"? $125/barrel? $150?

I'd say its already one. Certainly, it SHOULD be among the handful of highest priorities for this nation's government to address.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

When does this become an official "crisis"? $125/barrel? $150?

I would argue it already is. the problem is that the government has been looking the other way instead of trying to make some major changes to move away from oil. But since they have waited so long, it'll take another 10+ years for infrastructure to be built. By then, what...$250 a barrel? $8 a gallon? It's going to be a rough presidency for the next president. He's going to have to make some hard changes, and people wont like it, but it'll be in our best interests in the long run.

[Balta1701]

When does this become an official "crisis"? $125/barrel? $150?

I think the past few years have shown that there's no real line you can draw where you call it a crisis. Somehow, in the space of 7 years, the market has absorbed having oil go from what, $20 to $100, a factor of 5 increase in what you'd be spending, without anything more than slight decreases last year in oil consumption after continuous growth during the previous years. It certainly seems to me that oil alone making a fairly slow climb hasn't been enough to kick the economies of the world into a recession. A rapid climb to $150 within the next 6 months might be enough, but a climb to $130 in the next 12 months would pretty much be the same rate of increase we've seen over the last year, and that alone hasn't been enough to do it on its own.

 

I'm becoming more and more convinced that the housing debacle is a much bigger issue to the economy than oil prices as long as the price increases are moderately slow.

[HuskyCaucasian]

It's probably not going to happen... at least for a while.

I would argue Obama or Edwards would make this a high priority. The problem is they wont take office until 2009 and nothing firm would be done until 2010 and even then it's a transition process of 5-10 years.

[NorthSideSox72]

I would argue it already is. the problem is that the government has been looking the other way instead of trying to make some major changes to move away from oil. But since they have waited so long, it'll take another 10+ years for infrastructure to be built. By then, what...$250 a barrel? $8 a gallon? It's going to be a rough presidency for the next president. He's going to have to make some hard changes, and people wont like it, but it'll be in our best interests in the long run.

That's the key reason why its a crisis now, as you said - its the timing. Taking the scattered, unrefined technologies out there rolling and efficient and in wide use will take many years. If we don't start now, it will be that much uglier down the road.

 

[Balta1701]

That's the key reason why its a crisis now, as you said - its the timing. Taking the scattered, unrefined technologies out there rolling and efficient and in wide use will take many years. If we don't start now, it will be that much uglier down the road.

But the good news is...thanks to the high oil prices...the oil companies have more than enough money to make sure that doesn't happen!

[EvilMonkey]

But the good news is...thanks to the high oil prices...the oil companies have more than enough money to make sure that doesn't happen!

Are the oil companies really making the money off the futures, or is it the market speculators who jack the price up because they 'fear' some shortage next month, or because OPEC burped? Serious question, despite my snip at the end. It isn't costing them any more to get the oil out of the ground than it did last year, but the fear of a shortage is what is driving it up. So, who benefits from the 'fear pricing'?

[NorthSideSox72]

Are the oil companies really making the money off the futures, or is it the market speculators who jack the price up because they 'fear' some shortage next month, or because OPEC burped? Serious question, despite my snip at the end. It isn't costing them any more to get the oil out of the ground than it did last year, but the fear of a shortage is what is driving it up. So, who benefits from the 'fear pricing'?

When the sell the oil, either at spot market or if they play on the futures exchanges, they make money on its rise in price. Also, as they produce gasoline and what not, they still dictate those final prices for refined products, so they can make more money too, if they choose.

 

[southsider2k5]

By April 1st Oil will either be at $75 or $125 a barrel. That is my prediction for what it is worth.

[YASNY]

When the sell the oil, either at spot market or if they play on the futures exchanges, they make money on its rise in price. Also, as they produce gasoline and what not, they still dictate those final prices for refined products, so they can make more money too, if they choose.

 

While we are pushing the non-fossil agenda, let's build some refineries in this nation. Or let's drill more off the Gulf Coast or Alaska. Let's put some more oil into the equation while we pursue these alternatives. Let's make it ecomonically worthwhile to invest in alternative fuel sources by giving subsidies and tax breaks to non-petroleum based companies to really open up the market and see what good old American ingenuity can come with without the deck being stacked in favor of the oil barons. And yes, I'm pointing my finger right at Bush43 by saying that. I'm also pointing at the southpaws for not letting us build new refineries or drill off the coast or Alaska. There is enough blame to go around to include both parties. Hell, they're all in it together anyway.

Edited January 3, 2008 by YASNY

[NorthSideSox72]

While we are pushing the non-fossil agenda, let's build some refineries in this nation. Or let's drill more off the Gulf Coast or Alaska. Let's put some more oil into the equation while we pursue these alternatives. Let's make it ecomonically worthwhile to invest in alternative fuel sources by giving subsidies and tax breaks to non-petroleum based companies to really open up the market and see what good old American ingenuity can come with without the deck being stacked in favor of the oil barons. And yes, I'm pointing my finger right at Bush43 by saying that. I'm also pointing at the southpaws for not letting us build new refineries or drill off the coast or Alaska. There is enough blame to go around to include both parties. Hell, they're all in it together anyway.

I'd be good with building refining capacity. Not so much on drilling in Alaska.

 

[YASNY]

I'd be good with building refining capacity. Not so much on drilling in Alaska.

 

Well hey! That's something anyway.

[Rex Kickass]

Ultimately, a lot of the oil pricing is speculation, no? The price of oil only touched 100 a barrel because one guy bought a small quantity at 100 to say he was the first to do so. Then he promptly sold it for a loss at 99.40.... (I think it was only a $600 loss on the $100 per barrel transaction).

 

I read that on the internets this morning so it must be true.

[YASNY]

Ultimately, a lot of the oil pricing is speculation, no? The price of oil only touched 100 a barrel because one guy bought a small quantity at 100 to say he was the first to do so. Then he promptly sold it for a loss at 99.40.... (I think it was only a $600 loss on the $100 per barrel transaction).

 

I read that on the internets this morning so it must be true.

 

I don't doubt it at all.

[RockRaines]

Im paying about 4 dollars a gallon down here in the loop. Thats highway robbery IMO. Of course meals have risen to at least 12 dollars, beers are 7 at some places and cable is 200 bucks, so who knows.

[southsider2k5]

Ultimately, a lot of the oil pricing is speculation, no? The price of oil only touched 100 a barrel because one guy bought a small quantity at 100 to say he was the first to do so. Then he promptly sold it for a loss at 99.40.... (I think it was only a $600 loss on the $100 per barrel transaction).

 

I read that on the internets this morning so it must be true.

 

There has been talk about the different "premiums" priced into oil for years now. That is pure speculation.

[iamshack]

Well, there is absolutely nothing to be gained by rushing any alternative energy solutions, that's for certain. The problem with the "Green" or Environmental Movement, in large part, is that so much of it is reactionary. We knew so little, and were so unaccustomed as a society to even caring, that often times we set in place solutions that on their face looked helpful, but actually made things worse. Both environmentally, and economically. Time is certainly running a bit short, but rushing to conclusions which are unsound and ill-informed only makes things worse, and there is absolutely no point in doing something simply to do something. We've done this countless times in our efforts to fix problems we have created, be it in our wildlife preservation strategies, or our attempts to use alternate cleaning solutions in industrial and commercial uses, etc., often times we simply make things worse.

 

Spend the money, take the time, and get things right. Don't compound the problem by rushing into quick fixes.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, there is absolutely nothing to be gained by rushing any alternative energy solutions, that's for certain. The problem with the "Green" or Environmental Movement, in large part, is that so much of it is reactionary. We knew so little, and were so unaccustomed as a society to even caring, that often times we set in place solutions that on their face looked helpful, but actually made things worse. Both environmentally, and economically. Time is certainly running a bit short, but rushing to conclusions which are unsound and ill-informed only makes things worse, and there is absolutely no point in doing something simply to do something. We've done this countless times in our efforts to fix problems we have created, be it in our wildlife preservation strategies, or our attempts to use alternate cleaning solutions in industrial and commercial uses, etc., often times we simply make things worse.

 

Spend the money, take the time, and get things right. Don't compound the problem by rushing into quick fixes.

Like corn-based ethanol, for example?

 

There are some things that there simply is little to fear, and which we can undertake now with a very high probability of avoiding those pitfalls. Solar energy and improving its efficiency, for example. Hybrid cars. Higher efficiency appliances. More mass transit. Encouraging and incenting the creation and protection of green space. Plenty can be done right now.

 

[iamshack]

Like corn-based ethanol, for example?

 

There are some things that there simply is little to fear, and which we can undertake now with a very high probability of avoiding those pitfalls. Solar energy and improving its efficiency, for example. Hybrid cars. Higher efficiency appliances. More mass transit. Encouraging and incenting the creation and protection of green space. Plenty can be done right now.

 

Oh I agree, there are certainly some technologies which have shown to be effective and we are fairly certain are beneficial in the near-term as well as the far-term.

 

However, your example of hybrid cars. The technology is far from perfected. The nickel-based battery used in hybrid cars is NOT a good thing. Take a look at this excerpt from an article on the topic:

 

"Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

 

The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.

 

“The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,” said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.

 

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?

 

Wait, I haven’t even got to the best part yet.

 

When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis.

 

Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

 

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.

 

So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot.

 

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/Recorder/editorial/e....asp?NewsID=188

 

 

So the point is that we may not even know enough about the technology to determine whether it is actually beneficial in the long-term. It's probably better, for the time being, to buy a conventional vehicle that gets good gas mileage and try to keep your driving to a minimum, and when you do drive, not to speed, etc.

 

As for some of your other examples, most of them are solid. Solar technology is increasing rapidly. Efficiencies in both panels and films are still low, but new nanotechnology has made it possible to increase efficiencies exponentially (this technology was recently used to power NASA's Mars rovers). Higher efficiency appliances are good. Mass Transit is good, but who are we kidding, we are not going to stop driving cars until it becomes economically unfeasible or against the law.

 

The point is that a lot of technologies which we think are good simply are not. And that is often the result of quick fixes, single-mindedness, and not enough research.

 

We need to find the best solutions before we act. And that takes time.

[NorthSideSox72]

Oh I agree, there are certainly some technologies which have shown to be effective and we are fairly certain are beneficial in the near-term as well as the far-term.

 

However, your example of hybrid cars. The technology is far from perfected. The nickel-based battery used in hybrid cars is NOT a good thing. Take a look at this excerpt from an article on the topic:

 

"Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

 

The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.

 

“The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,” said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.

 

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?

 

Wait, I haven’t even got to the best part yet.

 

When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis.

 

Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

 

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.

 

So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot.

 

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/Recorder/editorial/e....asp?NewsID=188

So the point is that we may not even know enough about the technology to determine whether it is actually beneficial in the long-term. It's probably better, for the time being, to buy a conventional vehicle that gets good gas mileage and try to keep your driving to a minimum, and when you do drive, not to speed, etc.

 

As for some of your other examples, most of them are solid. Solar technology is increasing rapidly. Efficiencies in both panels and films are still low, but new nanotechnology has made it possible to increase efficiencies exponentially (this technology was recently used to power NASA's Mars rovers). Higher efficiency appliances are good. Mass Transit is good, but who are we kidding, we are not going to stop driving cars until it becomes economically unfeasible or against the law.

 

The point is that a lot of technologies which we think are good simply are not. And that is often the result of quick fixes, single-mindedness, and not enough research.

 

We need to find the best solutions before we act. And that takes time.

The information about the nickel is interesting, though I find this editorial somewhat questionable in its conclusions. I do agree with the overall point though, that many technologies have unintended consequences.

 

But you see, that is yet another reason to get some of them moving - to vet them out and see what needs to be changed. As the hybrids example goes, the newer hybrids are using lithium ion batteries.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Oh also, forgot to add... see the link Balta provided recently about new gen solar panels. They are getting much more efficient, much more quickly, now that more people are investing in them.