Perhaps we are getting a little more attention
Posted by Heading Out on April 26, 2006 - 12:25am
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: peak oil [list all tags]

So being curious I did it again.

And suddenly we have another peak, though this is about twice as high as the last one.
To turn to the President's plans; if I understand this correctly, the President has stopped filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in order that there should be that much more (only actually around 70,000 bd) crude oil to go around and to keep prices down. Which would suggest that there is a shortage, where every little helps.
Saudi Oil Minister Ali Naimi, the powerbroker within OPEC and its convincing voice on extra capacity, said while it would offer more oil if the market wants it, the demand isn't there.would suggest that the supply of crude is not the problem.'There's no demand even for light crude,' Naimi said, referring to the higher quality oil favored by most refiners. The usable spare capacity is judged to be as low as 1.7 million barrels a day of high-sulfur, harder-to-refine crude.
'Send the customers, we will give them what they want,' said Naimi.
Well, the Murphy refinery at Meraux (125,000 bd) is scheduled to reopen the second week in May; so we should soon be back in production at all the refineries, just as the new Hurricane season starts. This should allow some greater influx of crude, to provide additional gas to the market, and perhaps this might influence prices. Though following through on the scenario that developed last year nothing much helped.
It would be nice, for those of us who look for answers, if there were more funds for creative processes outside of the defined few, since, as has been said before, the answers will be in bb's not a single bullet. Unfortunately we are not seeing that level of creativity in the allocation of funding. Pity, really!



"With international oil prices breaching US$75 per barrel, China's crude prices, which fluctuate with international benchmarks, are expected to rise considerably as well. The country's Daqing crude price is forecast to rise to 4,701 (US$586.55) yuan/ton in May, 421 yuan/ton higher than that in April"
One last try. Does this indeed mean that China expects oil to go to $83/b on the June contract, and does this mean that they are willing to bid to $83/b next month?
A price of 4701 yuan thus translates (today) into $586.89 which is close enough to the original poster given currency fluctuations. At $586.89 per ton, this works out to $80.06 per barrel.
So yes, the Chinese appear to be willing to bid oil above $80 per barrel soon.
RR
The president's statement notwithstanding, this MTBE purge will continue until all of the MTBE gas is out of the system. Whether the gas going out for sale is reformulated with ethanol or straight-up gasoline is another story altogether. As soon as these declines are wrapped up, I cannot fathom continued declines in gas stocks, given most refineries seem to be up to speed at the moment.
Off topic, but yesterday someone from the U.S. House of Representatives domain was visiting my blog. I was feeling pretty good about that. This morning, someone from the CIA domain ws visiting it. I wonder if I should be concerned? Both were reading my essay on windfall profits. I captured a screenshot:
http://img85.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ciavisittomyblog12fm.jpg
RR
Crude oil stocks fall by 200,000 barrels. Gasoline stocks fall 1.9 million barrels. Both are larger declines than expected. More soon
Also, in the other thread I reported on today's COP earnings release:
HOUSTON, April 26, 2006 --- ConocoPhillips [NYSE:COP] today reported first-quarter net income of $3,291 million, or $2.34 per share, compared to $2,912 million, or $2.05 per share, for the same quarter in 2005. Total revenues were $47.9 billion, versus $38.9 billion a year ago. During the quarter, the company reinvested 141 percent of its net income into the development of oil and gas resources and its global refining business, excluding the acquisition of Burlington Resources.
Emphasis mine.
RR
Anyway, thanks for the info. I have to admit I did a double-take when I saw that this morning.
RR
I don't think it's automatic spidering, because I run several personal sites for friends and family, and I never see government agencies on the visitor source list. Google, yes, the CIA, no.
(McKillop has been predicting, for some time, that higher oil prices, at least up to the $75 range, would not slow the economy.)
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/mckillop/2006/0425.html
Whatever Happened to Oil Price Elasticity?
by Andrew McKillop
Author & Consultant
April 25, 2006
Excerpt:
Getting back to the narrow question of why oil demand (and world gas demand now growing at around 5%-per-year) are much less than unaffected by rising prices, but are directly increased by higher oil and gas prices, we finally call on facts. We can use theory first, but finally we call on facts, because scientific theory is based on and comes from facts. The other way round is called economics - that is, bending facts to fit brokenback theories.
Price elasticity of anything has an underlying notion, hard to quantify, of `satisfaction', and another of `substitution'. Neither of these have much place for the vast majority of oil and gas users. Nobody uses oil and gas `for the fun of it', or at least very few persons. Equally, the famous `hi-tech emerging new energy' substitutes and alternatives simply don't exist. They may exist on the Nasdaq or in people's heads and PCs, and in cute business video presentations, but not in the real economy.
So the simple fact that oil and gas demand is increasing much, much faster than during the cheap energy 1990s, with much, much higher oil and gas prices should at least allow us to accept reality, and find or develop theories that fit. When we go back to economic theory notions of `elasticity', as mentioned above, we soon see that they don't apply in large measure, or any convincing way to explaining what is happening. The bottom line is however very simple: until and unless interest rates are sharply raised, to double-digit annual rates, oil and gas prices can go on crawling ever up. With the ever surer approach of Peak Oil, they will in any case have no other direction to move.
Demand is INCREASED by higher oil prices.
The economy is not slowed by it.
I truly don't understand how this works. I mean, my own discretionary spending diminishes. The extra money I'm spending on gas is somehow being recycled to my benefit?
Anyone care to light my lantern on that?
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1019
Oh, then what's NASCAR? - and won't it be looked back upon similarly to the Roman spectacles?
Crude oil stocks fall by 200,000 barrels. Gasoline stocks fall 1.9 million barrels. Both are larger declines than expected.
Who was it that suspected the inventory report had bad news, and Bush saw it early, hence yesterday's speech?
Anyway, it looks like it's back up to where we started, and a few cents more...
IMO, in regard to oil prices we are going to see steadily higher highs and higher lows, as the markets allocate declining crude oil and product supplies to the highest bidders.
This is what is ironic about the US Congress complaining about high prices. IMO, the only thing keeping the US market supplied is higher prices.
The article is quite supportive of westexas' theory about declining net export capability:
Iran is one of top four net oil exporters. The bottom two, Iran and Norway, are definitely declining. The top two, Saudi Arabia and Russia are, at best, flat to slightly up. The economies in all four countries are growing fast, and domestic consumption in at least three, all but Norway, is increasing fast.
This is the reality of 2006. What the top exporters can, or will, export is declining. What the top importers want to import is increasing. Price is where the battle will be fought, if we are lucky. If we are not lucky, the battle may involve weapons, conventional and otherwise.
We are now below the average range.
They're like the bin Laden tapes that always seem to pop up whenever the administration is in some kind of trouble. They could be real; or they could be just more psych-ops.
I just don't know what to believe, and I feel like I'm being manipulated most of the time.
On the other hand, "oil for food" (i.e. Iraq) got about 32 responses. And "global warming" got about 46 hits.
It has been that way for the last year and a half that I have monitored that site. These people and just about all the right-wing blogs (except for a few econoblogs) are deathly afraid of the topic. And it isn't because it is an "end-times" marker.
recognition in the msm! ...if only fleeting
to those TODers (or just PO-aware folks) who made ads, good work!
-pop
You mean we were pre-programmed to financially self-destruct just because of one terrorist attack?
We were/are programmed to self destruct because the game is one where the best bullsh*tter comes out ahead in each round. It is not win-win on each exchange. It's tails they win and heads you lose. When some fancy-named water-in-a-plastic bottle company sells you water for 100 times cost, it's not fair and balanced. The game belongs to those who can and do psyche you out.
Same with cars and gasoline. Why does a machine that pollutes the atmosphere, puts you in hock and just drives you in circles cost $30,000?