[VIEWED 17601
TIMES]
|
SAVE! for ease of future access.
|
|
The postings in this thread span 2 pages, go to PAGE 1.
This page is only showing last 20 replies
|
|
Geology Tiger
Please log in to subscribe to Geology Tiger's postings.
Posted on 09-08-09 4:45
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
I have a question for all economic analysis experts. What will be the price of crude oil (per barrel) in the international market by the end of year 2009? When I checked this morning I found it was $ 71.35. It will be interesting to see how close you can come with your prediction after couple of months.
Last edited: 09-Sep-09 11:34 PM
|
|
|
The postings in this thread span 2 pages, go to PAGE 1.
This page is only showing last 20 replies
|
|
Geology Tiger
Please log in to subscribe to Geology Tiger's postings.
Posted on 09-11-09 11:41
AM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
At least we got two predictions from Gabbar Singh and kingofmorons. Let's see whether more people will show their interest. As kingofmorons pointed out due to OPEC's strategies and discoveries of new reserves the price can stay pretty flat (but not sure!). However, Washington may switch its interest on natural gas in long run which is considered cleaner than oil but there are several technical and other uncertainities associated with it.
Can Natural Gas Break Our Oil Habit?
By Thomas K. Grose
Natural gas is the only fossil fuel capable of getting good press these days. Its fans regularly rhapsodize about its merits, calling it an extraordinary fuel that's cheap, domestically abundant, and clean. Well, cleaner than oil, at least. Meanwhile, everyone from Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens to the Sierra Club is promoting natural gas as the key that America needs to free itself from its century-long addiction to oil. After all, the nation's appetite for oil means that nearly 60 percent of the petroleum consumed each year must be imported, much of it from unstable or unsavory regimes in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America.
Pickens, along with a growing number of groups, wants America to slash its oil consumption by making better use of natural gas. In theory, the plan sounds simple. Around 22 percent of the natural gas burned each year is used to generate electricity. If wind energy were substituted for gas at power plants, the freed-up natural gas could be used instead to fuel ground transportation systems, starting with diesel-burning fleet trucks and buses. Advocates say this plan could cut U.S. oil imports by up to 38 percent.
Yet if the nation makes the switch from oil to natural gas to run its vehicles, will it simply be trading one foreign-dependent fuel for another? The answer is, probably. But to what extent is very hard to say. "Welcome to uncertainty," says Gordon Kaufman, a professor emeritus and oil and gas expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/energy/2009/03/05/can-natural-gas-break-our-oil-habit.html?PageNr=1
Last edited: 11-Sep-09 11:41 AM
|
|
|
A_P
Please log in to subscribe to A_P's postings.
Posted on 09-11-09 11:42
AM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Crude oil futures traders at commodities exchange, such as New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX or NY Merc) take into consideration a whole host of disparate factors (not excluding such odd non-market factors as the personal health of rulers of large oil producing countries, or prediction of higher than expected winter temperatures, hurricanes, labor strike, pipeline or tanker accidents, etc. in addition to the market supply and demand) in buying or selling crude oil futures, thus determining market prices of crude oil, and yet they seldom are able to come up with precise prediction. Their trade is speculative, rather than based on statistical prediction. They keep their eyes open for non-market triggers for market trends in crude oil supply and demand. If you think stock market is volatile, commodities market is much more so. Barring tumultuous events in the Gulf or other oil-producing regions, like military attack on Iran by the U.S., the only safe prediction I can venture to make is that the crude oil prices aren’t likely to reach the highs of last year. Historically, the crude oil prices have jumped after such tumultuous events, as the chart in the link shows: http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif. Simply put, it's hard to be precise to come up with a dollar figure, let alone down to two decimal cents. So, I'll take that $71.35 prediction with much more than a pinch of salt… more like two sacks of it. My $0.02
Last edited: 11-Sep-09 11:45 AM
|
|
|
Geology Tiger
Please log in to subscribe to Geology Tiger's postings.
Posted on 09-18-09 10:03
AM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Error occured here because of server configuration. Any inconvenience is regretted - admin
|
|
|
A_P
Please log in to subscribe to A_P's postings.
Posted on 09-18-09 1:06
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Ken Fisher is a rich, successful investor and a money manager... so he must be doing something right. But, the reasons he gives for a solid growth in investment in fossil fuel for the next 20 years aren't all correct. 1. He says when we drive hybrid or battery-powered cars, we actually are still burning oil (or natural gas) because, he says, the electricity to charge the battery is generated by burning oil (or gas). Not so; not everywhere. At least not where I live. Where I live, almost 93 percent of electricity comes from hydropower, only 6 percent comes from natural gas and 0.2 percent comes from diesel oil. 2. He says those who oppose fossil fuel due apparently to its environmental externalities (like GHG emissions and air pollution) or any number of other reasons also oppose hydropower and nuclear power. That's quite a stretch. For me, that's news. I have never heard of anyone opposing hydropower. Yes, where I live there is some opposition to independent power producing (IPP) model of hydropower generation but that has nothing to do with the technical aspect of generating energy. The opposition is strictly about ownership of hydropower projects. Those who oppose IPP are not opposed to hydropower, they only want to keep those projects in public domain (government owned), not in private hands (corporations). 3. He says non-fossil fuel energy, non-hydropower, and non-nuclear energy sector accounts for only 1.5 percent of energy sector globally. I won't dismiss that claim (because I don't have the facts and figures to confirm or deny that), but I think by lumping hydro and nuclear with fossil fuel in making an argument for a future growth of fossil fuel market, especially outside of North America, he is being disingenuous. Because, hydro and nuclear are completely different games. Their sets of externalities are nowhere near to those of fossil fuels. I don't know about nuclear, but I know that hydro has a great future, but I'm not so sure about fossil fuel. Yes, he may be correct, though, that for the foreseeable future growth in fossil fuel use will still continue, despite that we may have already hit "peak oil", but that's not because of bad faith in non-renewables; that's because fossil fuel derived energy is relatively cheaper and transportable (because many of them come as liquid or liquefied gas) than non-conventionals. But that's a no-brainer, because non-conventional energy sector will take the time it needs to mature and become stable and reliable. But still, fossil fuel energy s definitely not cheaper than hydropower. But, I can't expect anything different from Fisher. He's an investment analyst and money manager; he's not an energy analyst. He's making a pitch to sell energy stocks to add to your investment portfolio. The future belongs to non-fossil fuel energy. Still my $0.02.
Last edited: 18-Sep-09 01:08 PM
Last edited: 18-Sep-09 01:09 PM
|
|
|
A_P
Please log in to subscribe to A_P's postings.
Posted on 09-18-09 7:58
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
One little note on "opposition to hydropower"...
I said in my previous post that "I have never heard of anyone opposing hydropower." Lest it causes confusion, I should add that I have heard of opposition to specific hydropower projects (for example, Arun III Project in Nepal), but I have not heard of opposition to hydropower as a source of energy.
On the other hand, Fisher said that those who oppose fossil fuels also oppose hydropower. Honestly, I don't know what to make of such a sweeping statement. One could oppose a project for any number of reason (and projects could be modified, redesigned, reconceptualized, cancelled, etc.), but why would anyone oppose hydropower as a source of clean and relatively cheap energy?
Thanks.
|
|
|
raju161
Please log in to subscribe to raju161's postings.
Posted on 09-19-09 2:08
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Just gone through a research on a production of nitrate through Haber Bosch process and figured out that without Haber Bosch process 40% of world population wouldn't or couldn't be alive. What do you all think about this?
|
|
|
Geology Tiger
Please log in to subscribe to Geology Tiger's postings.
Posted on 09-19-09 3:59
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
I agree with AP, fossil fuel is definitely going to be replaced by other alternatives in long run. However, future projections of petroleum production are always not true. Several people just use the total proven reserve in the world today and divide that number by the production rate. I don't konw why they overlook petroleum resources which are yet to convert into reserves. Many believe that we are in peak oil and petroleum will last only for 25-30 more years.
THE OIL RESERVE FALLACY Proven reserves are not a measure of future supply To begin with, one of the most revealing speeches about world oil reserves went unremarked in 2006. The head of the world's largest oil company, Saudi Aramco, said: “We are looking at more than four and a half trillion barrels of potentially recoverable oil. That number translates into 140 years of oil at current rates of consumption, or to put it anther way, the world has only consumed about 18 percent of its conventional oil potential. That fact alone should discredit the argument that peak oil is imminent and put our minds at ease concerning future petrol supplies.” http://www.runet.edu/~wkovarik/oil/ US is certianly not in favor of hydro-electricity rather it can switch to natural gas as Washington is looking for cleaner energy. China, however, seems to be interested in developing more hydropower. Considered as the cleanest energy for long time hydroelectricity has also gained some environmental criticism. Some of these seem merely hypothetical, however, some have real impacts. Hydropower Doesn't Count as Clean Energy http://www.alternet.org/environment/64445/ Environmental Issues http://www.esd.ornl.gov/human_health_risk/env_analysis/hydro_effects/environmental_issues_for_hydropower.pdf
|
|
|
newton123
Please log in to subscribe to newton123's postings.
Posted on 09-20-09 3:48
AM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
|
|
|
raju161
Please log in to subscribe to raju161's postings.
Posted on 09-21-09 5:34
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Don't know exactly about the size of the reserve but the modal estimate seems to be 6200 trillion cubic ft. for natural gas but as of 2004, use is c. 100 trillion cubic ft./year. So i don't think it is safe to assume supply of natural gas for a definite period of time. Use is likely to increase. Lets assume 60 year supply. So, i think as reserves dwindle it will become more expensive to obtain and there will be a lot of price flactuations which will have direct impact on every aspects.
|
|
|
Geology Tiger
Please log in to subscribe to Geology Tiger's postings.
Posted on 09-21-09 10:52
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Well, I think same with natural gas also. If we just look at Raju's data which show that the total reserve of natural gas in the world was 6,200 trillion cubic ft on 2004 with the consumption rate of 100 trillion cubic ft./yr, we might think that the total volume of the gas should have been depleted by now. But if you look at the figure given by EIA , you will find that the reserve is increasing. The total reserve of the natural gas was 6,254 trillion cubic ft on Jan 1st 2009 with total consumption rate of 106 trillion cu. ft. Actullay, we have huge volume of resources than the volume of reserve which is being converted into reserve continuously. There is too much development in technology that companies are extracting gas even from unconventional sources like shale which was once thought to be useless or only source rock. After discovery of methane coal gas, this is huge breakthrough in energy industry which is going to take that supply year far away from 60. Again after getting couple of prediction on oil price by the end of year 2009, I am also going to put mine one, which I hope will stick around $72/bl.
|
|
|
Geology Tiger
Please log in to subscribe to Geology Tiger's postings.
Posted on 09-25-09 6:25
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Who says that we are in peak oil position right now and running out of it very soon?
There are discoveries of giant oil fields one after another. Couple of weeks ago it was BP and coupld of months earlier Chevron also had announced discovery of another giant oil field.
http://www.chevron.com/News/Press/release/?id=2009-02-05
Last edited: 03-Oct-09 05:42 PM
|
|
|
raju161
Please log in to subscribe to raju161's postings.
Posted on 09-30-09 6:46
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Geology tiger, i do understand what you are trying to say, ya fossil fuel might be increasing as per you say and as per your research but don't you think the consumption rate is also alarming every now and then. Do you know, number of chinese automobiles is increasing about 5 million per year, leaving rest of the world alone? We have 6.5 billion humans currently what about 75 million that are added every year. As per the research conducted by demographers, it projects a population between 8 and 10 billion by 2050. What do you think about the impact ? Let me give you one example, The United States with about 4.6 percent of world's population consumes about 25 percent of all oil. Do you know there are about 1.3 billion people in China alone. Its annual per capita GDP is about $4500 per year and is increasing. What do you think if Chinese alone, reached that stage where they match the American level of consumption? And please think about the rest of the world too!
|
|
|
Geology Tiger
Please log in to subscribe to Geology Tiger's postings.
Posted on 10-03-09 6:08
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Water sustains life, Energy sustains civilization!
Steve Sonnenberg,
Raju161,
You wrote that you are getting what I am trying to put here. And again I am not denying this fact that there is no other way than looking for alternative energy to supply the demand of energy in the world. But my point is that the way people are predicting that we are running out of petroleum energy pretty soon that in not true. Instead we are accumulating the volume of petroleum resources. However, this is not going to happen forever. So two things: We have to develop the alternative energy resources before we run out of petroleum resources. And also we have to utilize most advanced and sophisticated techonology (which has been already developed) in environmentally friendly way to extract possible petroleum resources.
China is not going to explode population anymore, and so does India. Moreover, China is showing more interest in developing hydropower and coal rather than exploring oil. However there will be certain increase in energy consumption by these two countries.
src: wikivisual.com
Last edited: 03-Oct-09 06:15 PM
|
|
|
kingofmorons
Please log in to subscribe to kingofmorons's postings.
Posted on 10-03-09 7:16
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
i dont agree that we will run out of gasoline atleast anytime soon.we started using it just 50 years ago. the earth is few millions year old if not billions, so there are bunch of reserves to find.however we need to make efficient car for reducing pollution. people whinning about green energy like Russ Perot made bilions when they had chance, now they are crying because Saudi has more.
|
|
|
tyrannyoflogic
Please log in to subscribe to tyrannyoflogic's postings.
Posted on 10-04-09 12:03
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
What about US sanctions on Iran? It definitely will play a major role in reducing the supply for the US and increase it for china who is willing to back up china?
|
|
|
A_P
Please log in to subscribe to A_P's postings.
Posted on 10-04-09 1:53
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Point 1: I take umbrage when people throw words like "whining" when talking about green energy. That is so "Glen Beck'ish"--the greatest King of Conservative Moron I've known of after Rush Limbaugh. Use of resentful knee-jerk statements in public discourse doesn't push a meaningful dialog forward.
Point 2: When talking about "running out of oil", use of he word "soon" is very relative and speculative. There is just no scientific method to accurately predict when new oil or gas reserve discoveries will be made. The phrase "running out" is legitimately applicable when we talk about dwindling reserve in one type of geologic formation (I'm sure Geology Tiger is in a much better position than I am to opine on this). For example, in Canada natural gas reserve in Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) is declining. New reserve discoveries might be made, but unlikely at this point. Natural gas production in Canada will likely move away from WCSB to coal bed methane (CBM). Just because WCSB natural gas production is in decline doesn't mean total natural gas production will because CBM will be there to yield production. However, all this will one day peak and overall production of both natural gas and oil will decline. We may debate ad infinitum when that'll happen; the truth is we don't know. We only know it will some day. God gave us only so much.
Point 3: Not all that God gave us will be used, if I can have my way. There is a push to move away from oil. But of course we all know that it won't happen overnight because of the known reserves and yet undiscovered reserves. Alternative energy resources will be developed not simply because oil will one day decline, because there is a growing international push toward branding oil like tobacco. Tobacco kills, but people still smoke. You get my drift, don't you?
Point 4: US trade sanctions on Iran alone will not have much effect on crude oil price, in my humble opinion. But a US military attack on Iran will most certainly push the price up. Even then, it won't have as much of an effect as it did when the US attacked Iraq--mainly because Iraq is one of the top 15 oil exporting countries the US imports its oil from; Iran is not on the top 15 list. The title of top exporter of oil to US belongs to Canada.
Point 5: Crude oil price will likely go up on a long term basis for two reasons. First, it's simple economics--the more you extract, the less you have left in the reserve and more it will cost to extract whatever is left. The marginal cost of all non-renewables will go up as more of it is used. Second, the God's playing field cannot be changed. Canada produced bulk of its crude oil in the past from deep geologic formations. Deep well production technology was advanced and oil production was relatively cheaper then. But, deep deposits of oil is running out in Alberta (Canada's Saudi Arabia). The present focus and the future growth will be the oil sands of Athabasca. But, producing oil from oil sands, even though it is closer to the surface of the earth) is not as cheap as deep well production. Technology will certainly improve, but that tipping point has not yet come.
Final Point: Quit smoking!
|
|
|
kingofmorons
Please log in to subscribe to kingofmorons's postings.
Posted on 10-04-09 2:26
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
A_P i used the term "whinning" to describe hypocrites like Perot. I have Beck's pic to remenber there is freedom of speech eventhough his might be irrational.
About "running out of oil soon" nobody has any evidence about it and i dont either. Brazil has discovered oil in deep oceans and there are much more areas in the ocean they will be looking in future. I agree it will take more money to extract.
Another thing about price, when it reached 150 a barrel,these OPEC people didnot increased production,they blamed it totally on speculators. when it went below 60 they started cutting .i think there should be more efficient way for fixing the price. i will leave that upto professionals.
|
|
|
Geology Tiger
Please log in to subscribe to Geology Tiger's postings.
Posted on 10-14-09 2:00
AM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
|
|
|
raju161
Please log in to subscribe to raju161's postings.
Posted on 10-21-09 10:27
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
|
|
|
Geology Tiger
Please log in to subscribe to Geology Tiger's postings.
Posted on 11-15-09 2:27
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Once again price of crude oil from oil-price.net
|
Crude Oil and Commodity Prices November, Sunday 15 2009 - 14:39:16
Crude Oil |
$76.54 |
▲0.19 |
|
0.25% |
14:34 PM EST - 2009.11.15 |
|
| |
| |
Gold Price |
$1118.20 |
▲2.10 |
|
0.19% |
14:39 PM EST - 2009.11.15 |
|
| |
| |
Crude Oil Price by OIL-PRICE.NET © |
Price |
Change |
Trades |
Volume |
14:39 - $ 76.54 |
0.19 0.25% |
88,799 |
287,185 |
Range |
Open |
52 Wk Range |
1 Year Forecast |
75.57 - 77.67 |
76.54 |
55.60 - 81.85 |
$ 88 / Barrel | | | |
Last edited: 15-Nov-09 02:33 PM
|
|