How would one figure 200 per barrel if no one would pay that price to begin with?
www.theskyisfalling.com : )
Not buying it... If a shortage occurs, as the article suggests, oil production can be ramped up very quickly to meet demand... long before the price hit 200 dollars a barrel.
So if OPEC doesn’t cut production now, the low price of oil will curtail future exploration causing oil to go up?
OK, then when oil goes up, exploration will resume. So what?
The Saudis seem determined to keep OPEC in check, and we’ll all be driving solar cars by then anyway.../s
Considering how well the predictions on future price swings on crude oil have been realized, this is just a little more effort to create buzz, but nothing concrete.
The price of oil will stabilize at somewhat above the cost of production of the majority of the resources from where it is recovered.
If that is by fracking, then the cost of fracking plus maybe 5-10%. If by thermal depolymerization, then probably by the same margins. If by the dry reforming of methane into liquid hydrocarbons, depends on the supply of the feedstock methane, and the requirements of the final composition of the fuel desired, again along the same margins.
The world shall NEVER run out of hydrocarbon mixtures commonly known as kerogen or crude oil.
I’m just mystified. Wasn’t that the goal of the group? To spike oil prices so that we pay enormously at the pump, and therefore, making super freaking expensive alternatives look cheap? Shouldn’t he be applauding the Saudi efforts to curb global warming, or even more wisely shut up?
Don’t get why he’s giving a warning about this. His solution is cut back production to keep the price high enough to support exploration and development which liberals hate. Sure, it might encourage a LITTLE renewable testing, but not like $200 a barrel oil would.
(AGI) - Berlin, Aug. 26 - After having a protagonist role for peace in Lebanon Italy asks to take part in the 5+ 1 group that negotiates with Iran on nuclear. Foreign minister, Massimo D'Alema in an interview to "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" asks a place near to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. "We are Iran's most important commercial partners with Germany and we are pledged in Lebanon with Hezbollah. So we have the right to be included in the negotiation with Iran. The goal is not a new conflict but talks aimed at preventing Iran from having an atomic bomb, he said. Italy searched for a greater G8 involvement in the negotiation with Iran but it remained excluded from the 5 plus 1, the group that started a negotiation with Tehran offering incentives in exchange for the suspension of the uranium enrichment program. This exclusion was due to the fact that Rome was not part of the European trio (France, Germany and UK) that had tried the first mediation with Tehran and represented the EU in the 5 plus 1. D'Alema remembered that the United Nations and the EU had not a role in the Iraqi crisis, and warned that the new opportunity in Lebanon could not be missed now. "It is a very difficult mission full of unknown points but it is worth pledging or the only alternative would be a new burst of war" he said. The foreign minister, was sceptical on the possibility of a new UN resolution for the mission in Lebanon asked by the US. "I'm sceptical about it, because in these situations they always open long negotiations. The strategic plan is clear and the resolution was completed defining the rules of engagement. If they will make a new resolution soon I agree with them but the most important thing is getting there as soon as possible (In Lebanon)" he said.
Why don’t they all just admit that they don’t have the foggiest idea what oil will cost next week, let alone in 5 years?