<Jay Hanson and Dieoff.org The Oil Drum Two quick political notes...>

167 comments on As Cantarell goes . . .

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

westexas on July 24, 2006 - 6:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Did you see this on CBS?  I haven't found anything on the web yet.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Biologyfool on July 24, 2006 - 6:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The only place I could find it is on their ad page:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/10/04/broadcasts/main64925.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories

"Also tonight, there are many reasons for the high cost of gas. You've probably heard about increased demand in China, lack of refineries, and trouble in the Middle East. But what's the OPEC factor? Sharyl Attkisson investigates. "

Doesn't seem like it's a major story since it's not on their front page.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
RickD on July 24, 2006 - 6:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I saw it on our 6:30PM National News on CBS.
It was as Roger described it.

No Peak Oil - all a group fixing of prices.

Rick

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ThatsItImout on July 24, 2006 - 7:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Rick,

The interesting points to me that stood out were,

Saudi Arabia seemed to not be at all caught off by the story and it's release, and

The dates given.  If the dates given are accurate, it would put the start time right about the period of the "Plauteau" as described by many who closely follow world oil production. (Stuart, Simmons and others)

We have to consider the possibility that the OPEC plauteau is very planned, and they knew they had the leverage on production again with North Sea in apparent genuine geological peak.

The main point being this, that no "production stats" can be considered reliable in indicating near term peak or no near term peak, all are equally suspect, because the production volume is being played with.  Thus, many months of dropping production would indicate absolutely nothing about the ability of the field or the nation to produce, and nothing about the geology, and instead be a part of the monopoly control being reexerted by certain big players.  This is how we were caught out so badly in the 1970's-80's, and those who said fuel was short worldwide and gas and oil would NEVER get cheaper were made fools of.

The FACT that still stands out:  WE THINK WE ARE RUNNING IN THE BLIND.  WE ARE RUNNING SO MUCH MORE IN THE BLIND THAN WE CAN EVEN KNOW, INDIVIDUAL PLANNING FOR THE WORST IS BECOMING THE ONLY SAFE WAY.

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
smekhovo on July 25, 2006 - 12:03am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
This is possibly the most transparent nonsense ever published, even in the US media.
You must have an impressive collection of bridges in Brooklyn, old chap.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Francois on July 25, 2006 - 6:49am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
There are actually many people (including me) who agree with Roger. The website www.interventionalanalysis.com will show you straigthline moving averages in oil (brent) and gold prices that are impossible in a natural market. It is not that the markets are controlled, it is that the extent to which they are controlled is far worse than you can possibly imagine.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
smekhovo on July 25, 2006 - 8:29am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
How on earth could a straight line moving average be impossible in a natural market (whatever that is)? Proof, evidence or even argument from authority (if yours really is such) would be nice.
And that still wouldn't say anything in favour of this posited diabolical Norwegian plot to reduce production.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
westexas on July 25, 2006 - 8:30am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"The extent to which they (the markets) are controlled is far worse than you can possibly imagine."

What always puzzled me about the great oil price conspiracy is how long it took the conspirators to get their act together.  Oddly enough, the conspirators were finally successful in controlling the oil market--and in forcing oil prices higher--just as the world hit the conventional 50% depletion mark.  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tate423 on July 25, 2006 - 9:42am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I read an article from John Mauldin, but I can't locate it.  That article was specific about the dollar weakness, but he was pointing out something.  You want to know what helps the dollar?  Higher oil prices.  As the prices of oil go higher, demand for dollars increases to settle these transactions throughout the central banks of the world.  So the increases in oil prices just this year created a demand of Trillions of new dollars just to meet this need.  This is bad for inflation though, as you may have figured.  

My only point to this is that he also touched on how hard cornering this market would be.  If you total the daily oil bill, this needs to trade hands in some form every day.  The staggering amount of money that trades hands is so large that even a few select players couldn't manipulate it.  If barrels of oil are $75 right now and there are 85M barrels (yeh i know there are lower priced long term contracts, but we're getting a worst case) so this total is $6.375Trillion dollars.  Then again, if you control the fields, all this crap is nonsense.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GreyZone on July 25, 2006 - 9:58am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
This is a transparent attempt to create "bad guys" who can later be vilified and thus attacked. Gee... Saudi Arabia is holding out on us! Let's "nuke their ass and take the gas" (as one popular T-shirt says).

You're being manipulated, Roger.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
westexas on July 24, 2006 - 7:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It seems to me that the "Iron Triangle" is developing a two-fold strategy to combat Peak Oil:  (1)  Oil traders are bidding oil prices to irrational levels and (2)  Oil production is down because of voluntary cutbacks by exporters, in an attempt to drive oil prices higher and/or in an attempt to prolong the life of the fields (take your pick).  

As I said above, from the exporter's point of view it is better to be hated than to be militarily occupied.  

If people truly believed that Peak Oil is at hand, they would implement ELP (Economize/Localize/Produce), and stop buying and financing large SUV's to travel long distances to large mortgages.  The auto/housing/finance industries would stop advertising, and many members of the MSM would be out of work.

By the way, I was interviewed at length by a reporter for a major paper (not one here in Texas) for a long article on where our oil comes from and on the pros and cons of Peak Oil.  From what he has told me, it looks like his editors are sitting on the story.  

 

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

167 comments on As Cantarell goes . . .

Comments can no longer be added to this story.