PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : About the "peak oil" thing..



Vangelist
Apr 3, 2008, 1:40 PM
Could LABeauty or other doomsayers = explain the following article to me? I can't understand how both positions can be correct.

VIEWPOINT April 1, 2008, 3:41PM EST
http://www.businessweek.com/print/lifestyle/content/apr2008/bw2008041_945564.htm

THERE IS NO GAS SHORTAGE
But Washington, Wall Street, and ethanol and oil and gas companies want you to think there is, says automotive expert Ed Wallace

by Ed Wallace

"They see speculation in the market, I see decline in global inventories. I don't think this is a big surprise, that we've had a jump in price when there has been a decrease in crude inventories."— Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, Bloomberg News, Mar. 5, 2008

"It should be obvious to you all that the [gasoline] demand is outstripping supply, which causes prices to go up." — President George W. Bush, Associated Press, Mar. 5, 2008

One wonders if verifiable facts ever get in the way of this administration's statements on issues that are critical to the average American's wellbeing. After all, last time I checked, when politicians are elected to public office, or appointed, as is Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman, they must take an oath to the American people before assuming their new positions. How can they forget a sacred oath so quickly? Were they daydreaming when they took it, so it never meant anything to begin with? Maybe it's just another promise you have to make to get into office: When you're securely incumbent you can ignore even solemn oaths you took.

Obviously, the two quotes that led this article came from discussions concerning the current high price for oil on the futures market. Bodman appears to be protecting the speculators in oil, as opposed to looking after the interests of all Americans. President Bush, apparently, has never talked to the Energy Dept.'s Energy Information Agency to see whether gasoline demand is actually up. More troubling, the writer of that particular Associated Press article obviously didn't look up the EIA's numbers to verify the President's assertions. They weren't accurate.

1. There Is No Shortage

Gasoline reserves on hand are at the highest levels since the early 1990s, which is remarkable considering the nation's refineries have been cutting back on the production of gasoline because their margins have declined. In fact, average gasoline reserves on hand have risen since this past October, while oil reserves in this country have gone up virtually every week this year—and only fog in the Houston Ship Channel that kept oil tankers from unloading their crude one week kept it from being every week.

In the same Bloomberg article that quotes from Bodman's CNBC appearance on Mar. 4, he also said that it was thanks to ethanol that the gasoline problem isn't even worse. He then added that the fact that making ethanol is forcing up prices of other farm commodities, including hog and chicken feed, is "nowhere near as important as trying to relieve pressure on [gasoline] supplies."

Of course, there is no pressure on gasoline supplies in this country as of today, but Bodman's statement must have made eyes roll among the executives at Pilgrim's Pride PPC; the Pittsburg, (Tex.) poultry producer announced 1,100 layoffs on Mar. 13, closing one processing plant and 6 of their 13 distribution centers because their company's outlay for chicken feed went up $600 million last fiscal year and was on track to increase by another $700 million this year.

Here's the scorecard, in case you missed it. There's no shortage of gasoline or oil in the U.S. today, and we have near-record reserves on hand. Meanwhile the Congressional mandate for ethanol has jacked up the price of chicken feed for Pilgrim's Pride, which is the U.S.'s largest processor of chickens and turkeys—by $1.3 billion. And that's for just one company processing chicken. This is what passes for acceptable to our Energy Secretary?

2. Demand Is DOWN, Yet Prices Are UP

Just so we can all get on the same page, here are the verifiable facts on oil supplies, production, and gasoline demand.

In January of this year, the U.S. used 4% less petroleum than we did a year ago. (Oil demand was down 3.2% in February.) Furthermore, demand has been falling slowly since July of last year. Ronald Bailey of Reason Online has pointed out that worldwide production of oil has risen 2.5% in the first quarter, while worldwide demand has grown by only 2%. Production is expected to increase by 3.3% in the second quarter, and by as much as 4.1% by the third quarter. The net result is that the U.S. daily buffer for oil production against demand, which was a paltry 1.5 million barrels as recently as 2005, is now up to 3 million barrels in excess capacity today.

So what is going on here? Why would our Energy Secretary say there's a supply and demand problem when none exists? Why would he say that speculators have little or nothing to do with the incredibly high price of oil and gasoline, when it's clear they do? President Bush—a former oilman—gives the ever-growing demand for gasoline as the primary reason prices are so high, yet that notion can be dispelled with one minute of research. That's the problem with rhetoric; it rarely matches the facts.

3. Speculation is Up, and the Dollar Is Down

On the same day the President and our Energy Secretary made those foolish comments, no less an authority than ExxonMobil (XOM) Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson was quoted by Marketwatch as saying, "The record run in oil prices is related more to speculation and a weakening dollar than supply and demand in the market." He added, "In terms of fundamentals, fear of supply reliability is overblown."

As for the speculators, in 2000 approximately $9 billion was invested in oil futures, while today that number has gone up to $250 billion. Now, if any publicly traded company had an additional $241 billion put into its stock in the same period, its stock would rise out of sight too—even if the company was not worth anywhere near that amount of market capitalization.

Moving on to the weak U.S. dollar as a primary cause for skyrocketing oil prices—there is "some" truth in that statement. But consider this: The dollar has depreciated 30% against the world's currencies since 2002, while the price of oil has gone up 500%. So is it the weak dollar that has caused a 500% increase in the price of oil, or is it the extra $241 billion worth of speculation? You can make the call on that one.

Possibly just to ensure oil prices don't respond to real-world market conditions, Goldman Sachs (GS) forecast on Mar. 7 that turbulence in the oil market could cause oil to spike as high as $200 a barrel. This flies in the face of all known information—but then again, Goldman Sachs is the world's biggest trader of energy derivatives, and its Goldman Sachs Commodities Index is a widely watched barometer of energy and commodities prices.

What Is Washington Thinking?

Rounding out the list of experts discussing our oil and gasoline situation is Bill Klesse, head of San Antonio (Tex.) Valero Energy (VLO). He spoke in San Diego a week after those comments from Goldman Sachs, the President, and Secretary Bodman. Believe it or not, Klesse said poor margins may cause Valero to sell one-third of its refinery operations; he stated that poor margins in recent months had caused planned refinery expansions—which would have produced 500,000 more barrels per day—to be canceled. Moreover, according to a report from Reuters on Mar. 11, 2008, Klesse recently released the information that gasoline production has been curtailed in response to slowing demand.

Imagine that: Refiners cut gasoline production, yet gasoline reserves have grown to their largest since late 1992. So much for "surging demand."

Klesse also called for the government to start imposing a tariff on imported gasoline to protect U.S. refiners' profits. Protectionism? As famed economist John Kenneth Galbraith correctly said, "In America, the only respectable form of socialism is socialism for the rich."

Which takes us back to the original question: Why is Washington doing everything it can to convince us there is a shortage when there isn't one? After all, the only people they're protecting are those heavily invested in oil futures—and that's to the detriment of all other Americans.

We're Paying for What?

When it became undeniable that poor decision-making by company executives had put a respected 85-year-old U.S. institution in financial peril, why did the Federal Reserve rush in to save investment bank Bear Stearns (BSC)? Of course, we need to restore confidence in our financial institutions, but why protect the personal assets of those who were responsible for the mess? Both the corporation's officers and its board members should contribute their personal assets toward saving the bank they put in the ditch—the bank all of us are going to pay to bail out.

Instead, the Bush administration is protecting those responsible for creating yet another speculative bubble in oil futures, and is protecting investors in the ethanol industry—much to the detriment of food-processing companies such as Pilgrim's Pride. And the net result of all this is that the prices of crude and gasoline rise ever higher thanks to a "shortage" that does not exist, while food costs are soaring thanks in part to the ethanol mandate.

The Federal Reserve lowers interest rates, but the cost of mortgages goes up six weeks in a row—and last month Bank of America (BAC) credit-card holders started being charged more than 24% interest on new purchases.

This is what they call "Republican Prosperity?" Ronald Reagan was both right and wrong when he said, "Government is not the solution, government is the problem." And government is still the problem. Instead of a fair and open market they gave us a free-for-all marketplace with no regulations at all, which lately these "bubble boys" have sent south for all of us.

One would guess that Washington missed the obvious: Protect all U.S. consumers and you're also protecting business expansion.

Ed Wallace holds a Gerald R. Loeb Award for business journalism, bestowed by the Anderson School of Business at UCLA. His column heads the Sunday Drive section of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and he is a member of the American Historical Society. The automotive expert for KDFW Fox 4 in Dallas, Wallace hosts the top-rated talk show Wheels, Saturdays from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. on 570 KLIF AM in Dallas.

Vangelist
Apr 3, 2008, 1:47 PM
the = sign was meant to be a =) or ;) sorry

BrighamYen
Apr 3, 2008, 8:25 PM
1) Peak Oil's significance is a global supply/demand imbalance. Not just a GASOLINE reserve issue here in the USA.

2) Much of the oil we import into the USA are from "unfriendly" countries who don't like the US much (Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, etc.). That within itself is a scary thought when it comes to energy security. We might not even have to wait for peak oil to happen to experience oil supply shocks like those that happened in 1973 and 1979.

3) No one knows exactly when Peak Oil will "happen." You never know until you've reached the peak and you look back in hindsight. Similar to the housing crisis. You can't know when prices peaked until there is a drop.

4) Even this Ed Wallace guy has included in his misleading article that "worldwide demand for oil has increased by 'just' 2%." When you consider that the world uses about 85 million barrels of oil A DAY, that's 1.7 million more barrels of oil that's needed from a supply pool that is quickly shrinking. Did you know that the USA uses over 20 million barrels of oil a day? That's almost a FOURTH of the all oil used in a day. Talk about a waste!

5) It's a fact that discoveries of new oil reserves have peaked since the 70s and has gone into irreversible decline. We're basically adding less and less supply from new reserves and straining the oil reserves that have been relentlessly siphoned from insatiable demand (from the USA and even China).

6) It should be noted that it can take up to 5 years or longer before oil discoveries are introduced to the market. It takes energy to build the infrastructure to extract and refine oil.

7) So although the price for a barrel of oil on the NY Mercantile Exchange has definitely spiked higher due to speculation, and the price for an OPEC barrel has increased because of the weak dollar (Iran is now switching to the Euro I believe which is a major slap to the dollar), it doesn't mean that Peak Oil doesn't exist.

So yes, both positions CAN BE correct at this time because Ed is explaining why he thinks the price is so high is NOT due to peak oil and lack of supply issues are over-hyped. While Peak Oil is a phenomenon that MAY NOT have happened yet. It takes a few years to realize the peak because you have to see it from hindsight. So having high prices for oil due to speculation and the weak dollar doesn't disprove that Peak Oil will happen (if not already - remember it takes a few years before you realize it).

BrighamYen
Apr 3, 2008, 8:33 PM
Hope that clears it up somewhat.

Vangelist
Apr 3, 2008, 9:05 PM
Thanks!

northbay
Apr 3, 2008, 10:28 PM
yea, peak oil may not be happening right now
but its gonna darn soon

ocman
Apr 5, 2008, 3:58 AM
This subject is at the point of hysteria in this forum.

Sedition
Apr 7, 2008, 4:53 PM
I've got tinfoil hats for everyone.

jamesinclair
Apr 9, 2008, 5:51 PM
"In January of this year, the U.S. used 4% less petroleum than we did a year ago."

Fun fact: People use oil outside the US too

BrighamYen
Apr 9, 2008, 10:21 PM
^ Exactly. Refer back to #1 in my first post on this thread.

James Bond Agent 007
Apr 14, 2008, 2:59 AM
Wow, some people never give up.

Here, even on The Oil Drum . . .

Still no peak, a new record (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3835)

BrighamYen
Apr 14, 2008, 5:02 AM
^ That's a silly and purposefully misleading post you have there James Bond. We all know that just because the production of oil continues to increase doesn't mean it will never hit the peak.

People including economists and even some geologists were laughing at Hubbert before 1971 because there was never more oil extracted prior to the US peaking.

What you're saying is akin to all those speculators hoping and wishing the housing prices would continually increase in value for all of eternity. Obviously, it peaked (far shorter than eternity wouldn't you say) but you wouldn't be able to accurately predict that peaking with any certainty.

That's the same concept when applied to the peaking of OIL.

James Bond Agent 007
Apr 14, 2008, 5:04 AM
We're all doomed!!

LOL.

BrighamYen
Apr 14, 2008, 5:11 AM
uh huh.

bricky
Apr 17, 2008, 4:54 PM
uh huh.

Just looked at your signiture, "religion is bullshit" haha. But it looks like you've found another religion to prosthelize! What is it about humans and their interest in doomsday cults?

BrighamYen
Apr 17, 2008, 6:53 PM
^ Religion in the deity-sense is bullshit. To "prosthelize" the idea that we should be more aware of our hubris ways (such as someone's obsession towards materialism and waste of natural resources), and therefore, being a bit more judicious and reserved in our consumption isn't a bad thing.

bricky
Apr 17, 2008, 7:49 PM
^ Religion in the deity-sense is bullshit. To "prosthelize" the idea that we should be more aware of our hubris ways (such as someone's obsession towards materialism and waste of natural resources), and therefore, being a bit more judicious and reserved in our consumption isn't a bad thing.

Oh, my bad... I seem to remember a pretty funny "the sky is falling, we're all going to die!" vibe coming from you, when, was it a few months ago? And all the effort to convince a few teenagers and 20-somethings on this website who have absolutely no influence on the grand scheme of things. It struck me as very doomsday cult-like. In kind of a funny cartoonish way.

BrighamYen
Apr 18, 2008, 8:33 AM
Oh, my bad... I seem to remember a pretty funny "the sky is falling, we're all going to die!" vibe coming from you, when, was it a few months ago? And all the effort to convince a few teenagers and 20-somethings on this website who have absolutely no influence on the grand scheme of things. It struck me as very doomsday cult-like. In kind of a funny cartoonish way.


There's nothing funny or cartoonish about what my message was (and is) on this board and you're being extremely flippant, immature, and insensitive about a very serious topic.

And the idea of coming on this forum to discuss any topic is funny because people (like you) are unimportant in the grand scheme of things - let's be honest about it. Retort all you like. But I'm really sick and tired of ignorant people like you. That's my last word on that (at least with you) since it's pointless to put any effort into convincing someone who is absolutely miniscule in the grand scheme of things. ;)

bricky
Apr 18, 2008, 1:05 PM
There's nothing funny or cartoonish about what my message was (and is) on this board and you're being extremely flippant, immature, and insensitive about a very serious topic.

And the idea of coming on this forum to discuss any topic is funny because people (like you) are unimportant in the grand scheme of things - let's be honest about it. Retort all you like. But I'm really sick and tired of ignorant people like you. That's my last word on that (at least with you) since it's pointless to put any effort into convincing someone who is absolutely miniscule in the grand scheme of things. ;)

Dude your messages were very cartoonish. Read them again if you don't believe me.

Discussion for fun is fine. That's what most people and I are doing here. But if you think you'll change the world through converting four people on the LA subforum of SSP - and your many dozens of long screeching posts about the Rapture I mean Peak Oil suggest that you did - you might find yourself mistaken.



Forums Directory