Posted on 03/04/2005 6:26:18 AM PST by Crackingham
Prices of crude oil could rise to as high as $80 a barrel within the next two years although such a price band would not last long, OPEC's acting secretary general was quoted as saying Thursday. "I can affirm that the price of a barrel of crude oil rising to $80 in the near future is a weak possibility," Adnan Shehab al-Dine told Kuwait's Al-Qabas newspaper.
"But I cannot rule out (the possibility) of oil prices rising to $80 a barrel within the next two years," he said.
"If the oil price rises to this level for one reason or another - for example, interruption of supplies from a producing nation by 1 to 2 million barrels a day - it is not expected to continue for long," he said.
Shehab al-Dine said a price rise to between $50 to $60 a barrel for a period of two years or more will inevitably boost investments to increase supplies and lead to a drop in demand, eventually reducing prices.
World oil prices were mixed on Thursday after reaching four-month highs in New York and London the previous day amid a rise in U.S. crude stocks and jitters over increased global demand.
The crude oil closed in New York at just over $53.05 a barrel for the second day, the highest closing level since Oct. 26.
In London, the price of Brent North Sea crude oil for delivery in April rose $0.08 to $51.30 a barrel on Thursday, after earlier reaching a new four-month high of $51.50.
"The continued upward trend in crude prices is a reflection of market perception that has changed in the last few weeks," London-based Barclays Capital analyst Kevin Norrish said.
"The market is very sensitive to any kind of supply disruptions at the moment."
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was to meet in Isfahan, Iran on March 16, when it was expected to maintain its current production level of 27 million barrels a day.
"OPEC certainly won't cut production, the question is whether they will agree to increase production," Barclays Capital's Norrish said.
We cannot go after our own oil in ANWAR though, it might disturb the mating habit of a Caribou.
Isn't it about time for an international law covering cartels? In the US we do not allow a group to set prices on the goods they sell by having a meeting and agreeing what to charge. International law always seems to go against America, let's use it to our advantage for once.
OK, drill Alaska. By the time the price-gouging hits us like that, we'll have our own supply.
That, and a democratic Iraq would be more inclined to drop rates for it's biggest ally.
Just keep buying those SUVs and filling the Saudi coffers.
Why don't we just tax gasoline a bit more so that consumption goes down. That way the higher price of gas will flow into the American treasury rather than the Saudi one.
Isn't it amazing that China will soon have higher fuel efficiency standards than the US?
Gasoline in (per capita income approx $850) has more expensive gasoline than the US.
Why is a country so focused on independence, so blind to its oil addiction? with our greatest enemies as the big suppliers.
then sally struthers can do an infomercial about a correspondence course in 'blacksmithing'
People need to start thinking smarter. For example in Vegas people should have solar panels for residential energy use. Noone in Crete or Cyprus has fuel heated hot water tank. They have a tank on the roof of the house and the sun warms their water. Save oil and gas for cars and where you have no energy alternative.
So within 2 years, I should convert to gas?
Diesels too
lots of them
torque + economy
GOOD then we can finally start drilling in Alaska : ))
I will gladly pay more to start that off : ))
It is time to move away from oil based energy. How about 1000 brand new nuclear plants, home solar plants on every rooftop, and a new hydrogen based combustion engine. Oh, and lets drill Anwar so we can continue to produce our own petro-chemical by-products without going broke.
Those sound like Rat talking points.
Not that it actually does, of course.
Speculators are ruining the markets. It used to be about long term gains; now it's all about that quick score.
Lol.
It's all part of a very clever plan. First we get all the OPEC nations to use up THEIR oil first, THEN we drill our own...but at 100X the price, because "it's all that's left."
THEN, when all the oil is gone, Russia and the U.S. are sitting on the biggest piles of coal on the planet.
We can't lose.
Besides, we NEED the power, fuel, energy and all the stuff the petroleum industry makes...cosmetics, plastic, cars...we NEED our stuff.
Might, sure, but it's a given that it will disturb the mating habits of lib'ral bedwetters.
My poiints were pure economics fellas.
If consumption rises, and supply does not immediately follow, prices rise.
When prices rise in the oil market 2 things happen.
Companies go out and find more oil. To do so and bring that oil on-line and turn it into supply at the gas pump takes about 10 years.
In the meantime, prices stay high. High prices lead to increased efficiency, because the technology necessary to becomes cost effective.
Then, couple that increased efficiency (also about a 10-year process) with a sudden surge in supply and you get $10 a barrel oil.
But, during those 10 years, you transfer a very large amount of revenue into the treasuries of the oil exporters.
If a tax were placed on gas to mimic $65 a barrel (easily calculated) then people would make technilogical decisions based on that price information. Thus, efficiency would increase, without a commensurate rise in real oil prices.
This is a very overt and logical market manipulation for a resource that is critical to national security.
I would never advocate the same scenario with any other resource which was not a fundamental key to our economy and where the largest reserves of which were located in a geographic region generally hostile to the United States.
The point is, you are going to get $80 a barrel anyway. Why not have the money stay in the country?
Now, if those are anyone's talking points, please feel free to refute the logic.
Went to a big boat show a couple weeks ago. The sailboats were tucked in one small corner of the exhibition hall; >90% of the boats on display were huge powerboats with monstrous twin inboards or gas outboards the size of cars stood on end. And this was in Boston - supposed liberal bastion of environmentally-conscious greenfreaks. Freakin' hypocrits.
By and large, America just doesn't care about the price of oil, or the suppressive effect that gratuitous consumption of it has on the overall economy. Apparently, our conspicuous displays of status are more important. That's Ok though; this is America and we're free to set our own priorities. I just can't wait 'til the weather improves so I can start commuting on my 50mpg motorcycle again.
Time to dust off the ANWR bill, open up domestic and off-shore exploration, and shove it down the Dimwits throats - the time is right, even if there is no immediate impact aside from OPEC fears that the ANWR field may be bigger than anyone believes.
There is way too little public discussion of the pervasive economic impact of ultra-high oil and gosloine prices and, from my perspective, a lot of half-baked, off-the-cuff explanations for the reasons that oil has shot up to the $50-plus range, is staying there, and may go much higher. Our dependence on foreign oil obviously has been a major vulnerability for some time; it seems that vulnerability has gotten worse and it's escalated from a vulnerability to a liability.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.