Oil hits $100 a barrel

[homer]

We still get plenty of oil from them. I bet we are their largest customer.

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

[PlayerHader]

I use the E10 crap all the time now.

 

I used to be totally against drilling in AK, but I can't see a situation in the future where that is avoided. I think upping the average MPG for vehicles is a good first start.

 

I have to agree, though, that until consumption drops considerably that the price will continue to rise. I'm a broke college student, but I haven't taken any major steps yet either to curb the miles I put on.

[davebobn]

Another knock on ethanol is that it can't be transported via pipeline like oil. So to transport ethanol it has to be trucked around. Burning oil and ethanol to transport ethanol just doesn't make sense.

[Point Beer Is Best]

How much oil do we get from the middle east as a percentage of all our oil? I know we get some from Venezuela.

 

Venezuela is not exactly on our Xmas card list. I believe they offered free oil to Katrina victims and we told them to sit on it.

From this article: http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=108&subsecID=900003&contentID=254049

Currently, Venezuela is tied with Saudi Arabia as our 3rd highest source of petroleum. We get about 1/9 of our total oil supply from them. U.S. oil imports from Venezuela in 2006 is estimated at $34 Billion, and our 2005 imports of $28 Billion accounted for 30% of Venezuela's Gross National Income.

[Fatter than Joey]

We still get plenty of oil from them. I bet we are their largest customer.

 

Right -- however --- our relationship with them is far from stable.

[fondybrewfan]

We still get plenty of oil from them. I bet we are their largest customer.

 

Right -- however --- our relationship with them is far from stable.

Well when your president is a nutjob and is pals with Fidel Castro..... Seems like every major oil producing country is a friggin mess.

[homer]

Another knock on ethanol is that it can't be transported via pipeline like oil. So to transport ethanol it has to be trucked around. Burning oil and ethanol to transport ethanol just doesn't make sense.

Well ethanol would most likely not have to travel the same distance that oil does since most states could probably produce much of their own fuel. It's not like oil pipelines go directly to gas stations.

 

Right -- however --- our relationship with them is far from stable.

Agreed.

[Invader3K]

I can't believe how we've basically accepted gas at over 3 bucks per gallon now. It used to be people would get mad about this stuff and force change...now we just sit back and take it.

 

Not to get political, but hopefully things will go in a new direction starting in 2009. I think they have to.

[And That]

Well when your president is a nutjob

That's all point of view. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

[BrewCrewForever]

I actually rejoice when gas is south of the $3 mark even it its like 2.97 or 2.99. That isn't right. I should be pissed, when it is north of $3 then I start to get mad like the 3.09 it is now.

[olliegjw]

First of all, not drilling in Alaska for oil is just plain dumb. Why pay other countries billions, maybe trillions, of dollars for a resource we have plenty of? At least by drilling our own oil, it will buy time for the private sector to develop better alternative fuel sources.

 

This brings me to my second point. Governments, federal and state, have no business mandating fuel sources, i.e. ethanol. If the product is that good, the market will find a way to make it work. Also, a big reason for higher gasoline prices is all of the boutique gasolines that are mandated. What are there, 16 different types used in the midwest, or something like that. If everyone used the same gas, prices would be much lower.

 

Finally, we come to ethanol. Does it make sense to use a staple food product as a source of fuel? It just creates shortages of corn which leads to increased prices of food and fuel. Eventually, they may come up with a viable alternative to corn, but even then, it shouldn't be mandated. Takes more energy to create, has lower gas mileage, and is bad for many car engines. Great idea to require its use.

[homer]

Finally, we come to ethanol. Does it make sense to use a staple food product as a source of fuel? It just creates shortages of corn which leads to increased prices of food and fuel. Eventually, they may come up with a viable alternative to corn, but even then, it shouldn't be mandated. Takes more energy to create, has lower gas mileage, and is bad for many car engines. Great idea to require its use

See my post on the previous page about ethanol alternatives. Corn is not the only potential source.

 

And you don't think that if the market demand for ethanol was there that car manufacturers would figure out a way to capitalize on it?

 

I don't like mandates either but a lot of your concerns would be handled by demand.

[Invader3K]

"Why pay other countries (that largely hate America) billions"

 

Good point, olliegjw.

[rluzinski]

It used to be people would get mad about this stuff and force change...

 

Like get mad and buy a car that get's 45 MPG or get mad and vote for politians that will get mad and complain about something they can't change?

[mothershipconnection]

this is good for some texas towns isnt it?

 

Not always. Lots of them have a contract for several years that sets the price of a barrel. I remember hearing one guy gripe about a year ago that he was still only seeing $40 a barrel when it was maybe $70.

[Fatter than Joey]

First of all, not drilling in Alaska for oil is just plain dumb. Why pay other countries billions, maybe trillions, of dollars for a resource we have plenty of?

 

Because a lot of that oil would just end up going on the world market and be sold to China/India, or be sold to the US if the US was the highest bidder.

[TooLiveBrew]

Not to mention the environmental impact of drilling in Alaska - along with the precedent it'd set. The issue is that the drilling would have to be in nationally protected wildlife areas... not exactly a good idea.

[Blazer25]

Because a lot of that oil would just end up going on the world market and be sold to China/India, or be sold to the US if the US was the highest bidder.

Quick supply and demand lesson FTJ...

 

It doesn't matter who buys the oil drilled in Alaska. The point is that it increases worldwide supply. The more supply you have the lower prices will become. The problem driving prices up right now is that the perceived supply is low due to the high demand in places like India, China and the US.

 

By increasing the overall supply you're going to bring the overall price down.

 

Oil isn't bought and sold in a vacuum and contrary to the overwhelming sentiment on this board the oil producers don't set the price. Price is a function of supply verses demand.

 

Oil is a worldwide product.

 

 

 

FYI the $100 dollar price was created by one trader who wanted to make a name for himself. He bought 1000 barrels (lowest possible amount on the exchange) and took a $600 loss by immediately selling it back. The guy wanted nothing more than to make a name for himself.

 

Linky for oil story.

[olliegjw]

First of all, not drilling in Alaska for oil is just plain dumb. Why pay other countries billions, maybe trillions, of dollars for a resource we have plenty of?

 

Because a lot of that oil would just end up going on the world market and be sold to China/India, or be sold to the US if the US was the highest bidder.

 

The oil in Alaska is on US government property. There would be no bidding. Combine that with a few more refineries, and the cost will go down. Even if some is sold, who cares? The money from the sale would be coming to the US, not to the Middle East.

[homer]

"Oil isn't bought and sold in a vacuum and contrary to the overwhelming sentiment on this board the oil producers don't set the price."

 

Are you referring to this thread? I'd say it's split 50/50 on that point.

[olliegjw]

Not to mention the environmental impact of drilling in Alaska - along with the precedent it'd set. The issue is that the drilling would have to be in nationally protected wildlife areas... not exactly a good idea.

 

Environmental concerns? Have you seen the area that they would drill? It's in the middle of nowhere, with little wildlife in the area. Once set up, how would a pipeline affect wildlife? Are moose and elk running away from the current Alaskan pipeline running through Alaska and Canada? When was the last oil spill in the US? The Exxon Valdes 20-some years ago. The environmental concerns are so overblown its not even funny.

[endaround]

No the impact of the oil is overblown. It won't make much of any difference. What it will do is make some company really rich as drilling rights for government property are far below what private land holders would charge.

[olliegjw]

No the impact of the oil is overblown. It won't make much of any difference. What it will do is make some company really rich as drilling rights for government property are far below what private land holders would charge.

 

Then every one of us should buy stock in that drilling company if its going to make so much money.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

 

[Fatter than Joey]

Quick supply and demand lesson FTJ...

 

Dude -- That's exactly what I said. -- "sold to the US if the US was the highest bidder."

 

It doesn't matter who buys the oil drilled in Alaska. The point is that it increases worldwide supply.

 

Simplistically you are right of course, however you are over looking some key significance issues.

 

Here is a list of oil reserves.

 

1.) Saudi Arabia -- 262 gigabarrels

2.) Canada (Alberta) - 174 GB

3.) Iran -- 133 gigabarrels

4.) Iraq -- 112 gigabarrels

5.) UAE -- 98 GB

6.) Kuwait -- 97 GB

7.) Ven. -- 77 GB

8.) USA (current) - 21 GB

 

Now in the Alaska area -- there is supposed to be between 4-10 billion barrels. If we consume 20 million barrels a day, and we used exclusively the Alaskan oil we would tap it dry in about a year.

 

Will it increase supply? -- sure. Enough to make a substantial dent in the world market -- very unlikely.

 

Oil isn't bought and sold in a vacuum and contrary to the overwhelming sentiment on this board the oil producers don't set the price. Price is a function of supply verses demand.

 

I think everyone is onboard with this idea.

 

EDIT: I went outside and checked -- and by my counts there is roughly 1300 gigbarrels of oil reserves in the world -- Optimistically ANWR could account for .7% of the world's supply -- that is simply not enough significant oil to impact the world market in a noticeable fashion.

[Fatter than Joey]

The oil in Alaska is on US government property. There would be no bidding.

 

Of course there would be -- it's not as if the US gov't can drill for oil -- some private company would buy or bid for the rights to drill the ANWR and when they did, they would sell the oil to whomever was the highest bidder.

 

Then every one of us should buy stock in that drilling company if its going to make so much money

 

Well -- that's exactly what is happening -- lobbyists from oil concerns are trying to get politicians to allow the drilling, and yes, if a company gets the OK to drill that would probably be a good stock to purchase.

 

The drilling will be profitable, very profitable -- but it will not translate into savings at the gas pump, because the ANWR reserves are overall relatively trivial.