Predictions on oil costs for next decade
Drop_the_chalupa_RodSpeed
I bet oil drops a lot in price for the US consumer.
Paul M. Eldridge
<kwo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I bet oil drops a lot in price for the US consumer.
Along these same lines, I'm betting disco music, big hair, frilly
shirts, bell bottoms and platform shoes will make a come back.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ox0IzWR4LX8
Damn, now where did I leave the keys to my 'doba?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vIL3fbGbU2o
Cheers,
Paul
Just A User
> I bet oil drops a lot in price for the US consumer.
Not likely as the global demand for oil keeps increasing.
Drop_the_chalupa_RodSpeed
Yep, so if that is the case, maybe investing in energy conservation
should pay off? I think we are on the brink of cheaper long-run
energy costs via alternative energy. I am Pollyannish about it for a
reason. Almost a devil's advocate too. Once fuel prices go to $4 or $5
or $ 6 per gallon here in the US, consumers will either stop consuming
or look for a cheaper energy source. They will not care if they get 1%
returns on their stocks or bonds or houses annually. They will want
relief from paying an inordinate amount of their income to heat their
houses or fuel their cars.
The run-up in gasoline costs in the past 5 years has been met with no
great increases in wages but increases in housing and insurance and
just about anything that is necessary.
Unless something gives and costs drop somewhere, take home pay for US
consumer will not be geared for spending much on anything
anymore.Extend credit only so long. That is why I think oil prices
will need to drop. As other countries develop and devote more of their
discretionary income to oil costs, they catch up to US standards of
living.
Say what you want RodSpeed, but the USA has a standard of living and
low costs that many countries would really want to have. I can not see
average American going for reduced standards of living without
deciding to bail on the oil companies eventually and starting home-
grown energy projects.
Rod Speed
>>> I bet oil drops a lot in price for the US consumer.
Unlikely while ever the USD keeps sagging.
>> Not likely as the global demand for oil keeps increasing.
> Yep, so if that is the case, maybe investing in energy conservation should pay off?
Not like that it wont whileever the US continues to keep pouring trillions down the rat hole called Iraq.
> I think we are on the brink of cheaper long-run energy costs via alternative energy.
Not a chance. We've been trying to do that for decades now, it aint gunna change any time soon.
> I am Pollyannish about it for a reason. Almost a devil's advocate too.
> Once fuel prices go to $4 or $5 or $ 6 per gallon here
> in the US, consumers will either stop consuming
Not for their cars they wont. They are such a fundamental part of the
design of modern citys now that there is no way to stop consuming.
> or look for a cheaper energy source.
We've been looking for decades now, we arent going to find one.
Higher oil prices will make a number of other alternatives competitive,
most obviously with hydrogen from nukes, but thats going to need
higher oil prices before thats viable, not lower.
> They will not care if they get 1% returns on their stocks or bonds
> or houses annually. They will want relief from paying an inordinate
> amount of their income to heat their houses or fuel their cars.
Sure, they will certainly want that. Pity we are fresh out of magic wands to wave to get it.
Certainly both can be done using nukes, but that needs higher
than current oil prices, its not viable with lower oil prices.
> The run-up in gasoline costs in the past 5 years has been met
> with no great increases in wages but increases in housing and
> insurance and just about anything that is necessary.
But lower interest rates, and thats where a hell of a
lot of the income of many ends up, most obviously with
mortgages and even renters effectively pay that too.
> Unless something gives and costs drop somewhere, take home pay for
> US consumer will not be geared for spending much on anything anymore.
Fantasy. We havent even seen many abandoning their gas guzzling SUVs for
more fuel efficient cars and have seen hordes with utterly bizarre commutes.
We havent even seen many of those get enough of a clue and use buses for
the commute. Or many work at home and stop commuting either.
> Extend credit only so long. That is why I think oil prices will need to drop.
It aint gunna happen for that reason and the US
consumer is only a small part of world demand anyway.
And the europeans have been paying twice what the US consumer pays for gasoline
for something like 50 years now without that having any effect on the price of oil.
> As other countries develop and devote more of their discretionary
> income to oil costs, they catch up to US standards of living.
Western europe has been doing that for 50 years or more now and
manage it fine with gasoline prices often twice what the US consumer pays.
> Say what you want RodSpeed, but the USA has a standard of living
> and low costs that many countries would really want to have.
Yes, and some like the chinese have much lower costs
and are getting the higher standard of living fine.
> I can not see average American going for reduced standards of living without deciding
> to bail on the oil companies eventually and starting home- grown energy projects.
Have fun heating your house that way in the city.
Have fun fueling your car that way in the city too.
You can certainly choose to eliminate the commute and work from home instead, but that
sort of work is very easy to export to india etc too where they get much lower wages again.
I think its unlikely that the oil price will drop all that much, essentially because
of the increased demand from places like india and china and everyone will
just have to adjust to the oil prices, just like we did in the past.
If the oil prices gets much higher, that will make nukes economically viable,
but they wont be without a higher oil price, particularly for fueling cars.
Cheapo Groovo
yours-spammer.net says...
> Drop_the_chalupa_RodSpeed wrote:
> > I bet oil drops a lot in price for the US consumer.
>
> Not likely as the global demand for oil keeps increasing.
>
This is the reality. Wake up folks!
Just A User
Why is that reality? Just because you posted it on blog?
Drop_the_chalupa_RodSpeed
wrote:
> Along these same lines, I'm betting disco music, big hair, frilly
> shirts, bell bottoms and platform shoes will make a come back.
No, please no more Bee Gees.
Paul M. Eldridge
When I'm old and grey and sent off to the retirement home, sitting in
the hallway strapped to my wheel chair with drool dripping down the
left side of my face, they'll no doubt be playing the songs of my era,
just like the big band music they played for mom when she lived in
assisted care. Why I can hear it now... "....ah, ah... staying alive,
staying alive.... ah, ah, staying aliveeeeee!".
Cheers,
Paul
Cheapo Groovo
yours-spammer.net says...
analysis. I bet you even watched the CNBC video to gain more insight.
WaterBoy
it depends
partly on how many countries our King invades
10 years out is quite a while
how about "anything can happen?"
waterboy
Just A User
> In article <sbydnQ2aiavHuSXa...@giganews.com>, ken@up-
> yours-spammer.net says...
>> Cheapo Groovo wrote:
>>> In article <54-dnb-0PJD8vCra...@giganews.com>, ken@up-
>>> yours-spammer.net says...
>>>> Drop_the_chalupa_RodSpeed wrote:
>>>>> I bet oil drops a lot in price for the US consumer.
>>>> Not likely as the global demand for oil keeps increasing.
>>>>
>>> http://cheapogroovo.vox.com/library/post/oil-outlook.html
>>> This is the reality. Wake up folks!
>> Why is that reality? Just because you posted it on blog?
>>
> Nice rebuttal to the facts I mentioned. You really dug deep with that
> analysis. I bet you even watched the CNBC video to gain more insight.
>
Well if it were cheap and easy they would already be using is on a mass
scale. They are not. We are just about at the end of cheap oil. The ways
and places to get oil from this point forward are going to be more
expensive.
RodSpeed,_the_EWA_fund_is_doing_great
> Well if it were cheap and easy they would already be using is on a mass
> scale. They are not. We are just about at the end of cheap oil. The ways
> and places to get oil from this point forward are going to be more
> expensive.
Oil = energy.
Plenty of other sources of energy. Thing is, if far way places start
building their energy policy on non-oil sources little by little, how
will that make the oil companies feel?
We have nuclear (not green, but an alternative...maybe ship nuke waste
to moon someday, LOL), solar, wind, hydrolelectric, human power,
methane, natural gas, RodSpeed gravitational field force, etc.
Eventually world will wake up to cheap oil not being sustainable and
folks will need something, anything but they will need energy.
Hence, drop that oil price again and make it non-efficient to even let
people think about going with investment-intensive alternative energy.
Let us face the facts that oil is not really a good friend in the long
run. Just a cheap source of energy that can go up and down in price if
the exporters know the competition.
I cringe burning away $3 or more per gallon just to enjoy a sunday
drive.
Rod Speed
> Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote:
>> Well if it were cheap and easy they would already be using
>> is on a mass scale. They are not. We are just about at the
>> end of cheap oil. The ways and places to get oil from this
>> point forward are going to be more expensive.
> Oil = energy.
> Plenty of other sources of energy. Thing is, if far way
> places start building their energy policy on non-oil sources
> little by little, how will that make the oil companies feel?
Who cares ?
> We have nuclear (not green, but an alternative...
Its very green, no CO2 produced by the power generation process.
> maybe ship nuke waste to moon someday, LOL),
Or just design the nukes so they can be trivially encased
in concrete when they have passed their useby date etc
and build the new one next to it.
> solar, wind, hydrolelectric, human power, methane,
> natural gas, RodSpeed gravitational field force, etc.
You've left out politician's hot air and bullshit.
> Eventually world will wake up to cheap oil not being sustainable
> and folks will need something, anything but they will need energy.
> Hence, drop that oil price again and make it non-efficient to even let
> people think about going with investment-intensive alternative energy.
> Let us face the facts that oil is not really a good friend in the long run.
Fraid so, its a very decent transport fuel and
good source of carbon, tho coal is the last as well.
> Just a cheap source of energy that can go up and
> down in price if the exporters know the competition.
> I cringe burning away $3 or more per gallon just to enjoy a sunday drive.
I just yawn, chose a very fuel efficient car and carry on regardless.
RodSpeed,_the_EWA_fund_is_doing_great
>
> I just yawn, chose a very fuel efficient car and carry on regardless.
Yep, there is some economy in that. Once car gets too expensive to
run, just sell/give-it-away and use next mode of transport.
A consumer based economic existence has a few holes in it. Not that I
do not want to go back to days of our fore-fathers, but we
want,want,want. I think we have it all in this land here but need to
cattle prod the politicians and a few degenerates without public
notoriety.
Oil is gonna be the real thing until the dialogue shifts to fending
off boogie man enemies again and maybe economic meltdowns. Perhaps.
We are well fed here. What the heck happened to Midnight Oil?
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> RodSpeed,_the_EWA_fund_is_doing_great <kwo...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> I cringe burning away $3 or more per gallon just to enjoy a sunday drive.
>> I just yawn, chose a very fuel efficient car and carry on regardless.
> Yep, there is some economy in that. Once car gets too expensive
> to run, just sell/give-it-away and use next mode of transport.
Thats not going to happen in my lifetime.
> A consumer based economic existence has a few holes in it.
Not for me it doesnt. But then we have enough of a clue to
have a decent modern universal health care funding system.
> Not that I do not want to go back to days
> of our fore-fathers, but we want,want,want.
I dont.
> I think we have it all in this land here
Yep, and clearly plenty of others think that too and try to go there.
> but need to cattle prod the politicians and a few degenerates without public notoriety.
I expect the system will continue to work quite adequately
and the US economy is robust enough to be able to handle
even terminal stupiditys like the invasion of Iraq.
Dont even need a draft for that this time.
> Oil is gonna be the real thing until the dialogue
> shifts to fending off boogie man enemies again
I doubt thats going to happen again. The terrorists
have been very adequately handled since 9/11.
> and maybe economic meltdowns. Perhaps.
Cant see it myself.
> We are well fed here.
Yep, FAR too well fed in fact.
> What the heck happened to Midnight Oil?
The bald fool decided to go into politics and got muzzled very effectively indeed.
Didnt have the sense to hang himself either.
Brian Elfert
>On Feb 21, 2:13 pm, Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote:
>> Well if it were cheap and easy they would already be using is on a mass
>> scale. They are not. We are just about at the end of cheap oil. The ways
>> and places to get oil from this point forward are going to be more
>> expensive.
>Oil = energy.
>Plenty of other sources of energy. Thing is, if far way places start
>building their energy policy on non-oil sources little by little, how
>will that make the oil companies feel?
Oil and products derived from it is still the least expensive way to power
vehicles today and probably for some years to come.
We aren't going to see nuclear or solar powered cars any time soon and
electric cars are still some years from being practical and as inexpensive
as gas/diesel vehicles.
Alternatives sources of electricity and geothermal heating/cooling are
much more practical for energy consumed by buildings.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> RodSpeed,_the_EWA_fund_is_doing_great <kwo...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote
>>>> Well if it were cheap and easy they would already be using
>>>> is on a mass scale. They are not. We are just about at the
>>>> end of cheap oil. The ways and places to get oil from this
>>>> point forward are going to be more expensive.
>>> Oil = energy.
>>> Plenty of other sources of energy. Thing is, if far way
>>> places start building their energy policy on non-oil sources
>>> little by little, how will that make the oil companies feel?
>> Who cares ?
>>> We have nuclear (not green, but an alternative...
>> Its very green, no CO2 produced by the power generation process.
> But that CO2 provides the building blocks for the plants to make the green stuff,
Yes, but they did that fine with the CO2 levels seen before the industrial revolution.
> so that's not even a negative.
It does arguably increase the temperature of the surface.
> For a power source that has no real negatives
The most obvious one is that countrys like North Korea can produce bombs using them.
> it's surprising there's so much resistance to it.
> Our country even has a vast area that is quite suited to nuclear waste disposal,
And big areas which have lots of naturally ocurring radioactive substances too.
> and would probably also provide a healthy boost to
> the economy of the state that's best suited for it. SA.
They appear to be too stupid to realise that tho.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Jimington <wvzu...@gfa.pp> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> RodSpeed,_the_EWA_fund_is_doing_great <kwo...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Just A User <k...@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote
>>>>>> Well if it were cheap and easy they would already be using
>>>>>> is on a mass scale. They are not. We are just about at the
>>>>>> end of cheap oil. The ways and places to get oil from this
>>>>>> point forward are going to be more expensive.
>>>>> Oil = energy.
>>>>> Plenty of other sources of energy. Thing is, if far way
>>>>> places start building their energy policy on non-oil sources
>>>>> little by little, how will that make the oil companies feel?
>>>> Who cares ?
>>>>> We have nuclear (not green, but an alternative...
>>>> Its very green, no CO2 produced by the power generation process.
>>> But that CO2 provides the building blocks for the plants to make the green stuff,
>> Yes, but they did that fine with the CO2 levels seen before the industrial revolution.
>>> so that's not even a negative.
>> It does arguably increase the temperature of the surface.
> Perhaps a tenuous argument at best.
Not really.
> Bear in mind we do need the greenhouse effect to merely make the planet livable.
Sure, but clearly there is a greenhouse effect to do that.
> Whether there can be any radical increase is a moot point.
Doesnt need to be radical to be undesirable.
>>> For a power source that has no real negatives
>> The most obvious one is that countrys like
>> North Korea can produce bombs using them.
> Even they must be aware that doing a bit of bomb practice in naughty
> areas may well end up in their country being reduced to a lake or sea.
Its actually about deterrence. It is clear why countrys like North Korea
are keen on having some of that with Iraq and Afghanistan etc.
> However since their government has shown how much it
> cares about its own people, maybe they would be that stupid.
Yeah, likely we'll never know because no one will be
game to try it with South Korea and Japan so close.
We werent prepared to use ours in the Korean war either.
>>> it's surprising there's so much resistance to it.
>>> Our country even has a vast area that is quite suited to nuclear waste disposal,
>> And big areas which have lots of naturally ocurring radioactive substances too.
> Vast areas are still a no-go area from testing 50 years ago.
Nar, they're not no-go.
> It's hard to imagine any country being stupid enough to allow a foreign
> country to lay waste to a huge area but we did suck up to one then.
Two of those countrys did it to their own country. Its not surprising that the poms didnt.
> At least they used an un(der)populated area which isn't part of the artesian basin.
Yeah, and it has only a trivial effect now.
>>> and would probably also provide a healthy boost to
>>> the economy of the state that's best suited for it. SA.
>> They appear to be too stupid to realise that tho.
> I suppose it doesn't sound pretty to be the nuclear garbage dump for the world
Yeah, thats the main problem, and the transit of that stuff to get it there.
> but with it being stable politically and geologically,
> where better in the world to reduce a growing problem.
Yeah, I think we should do that myself.
Terryc
> For a power source that has no real negatives it's surprising there's
> so much resistance to it.
1)Nuclear waste that lasts longer than any human civilisation.
2)Easiest used for weapons.
3)Not economic unless heavily subsidised.
> Our country even has a vast area that is quite suited to nuclear waste
Lol, Australia is not suited to long term storage of nuclear waste.
If a country creates it, then let them store it
> disposal, and would probably also provide a healthy boost to the
> economy of the state that's best suited for it. SA.
Prepared to line up for microchipping to keep the waste safe?
Rod Speed
> Jimington wrote
>> For a power source that has no real negatives it's surprising there's so much resistance to it.
> 1)Nuclear waste that lasts longer than any human civilisation.
Pity that what you start with does that even if you leave it in the ground.
> 2)Easiest used for weapons.
Not all nukes can be used for weapons.
> 3)Not economic unless heavily subsidised.
Thats a lie with countrys that dont have their own coal.
Which might just be why the frogs generate most of their power using nukes.
>> Our country even has a vast area that is quite suited to nuclear waste
> Lol, Australia is not suited to long term storage of nuclear waste.
Pig ignorant lie.
> If a country creates it, then let them store it
No thanks.
>> disposal, and would probably also provide a healthy boost to the economy of the state that's best suited for it. SA.
> Prepared to line up for microchipping to keep the waste safe?
No point, its perfectly possible to make it completely safe from everyone.
Nicik Name
"Drop_the_chalupa_RodSpeed" <kwo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:57de0f4a-6192-47ae...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> I bet oil drops a lot in price for the US consumer.
The US big oil and Saudi Arabia will make damn sure not one once of Iraq 112
billion barrels of oil will make it to market...ok
Shell pump reg 3.85 p/g USD by 5/1/08
Terryc
> Which might just be why the frogs generate most of their power using nukes.
Come back when they actually have the waste safely disposed of and the
full accounts are in.
> No point, its perfectly possible to make it completely safe from everyone.
so what did you get from Santa?
>
>
Terryc
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:29:19 +1100, Terryc
> <newsfour...@woa.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Jimington wrote:
>>
>>
>>>For a power source that has no real negatives it's surprising there's
>>>so much resistance to it.
>>
>>1)Nuclear waste that lasts longer than any human civilisation.
>
> the ground it came from?
a) because it is not the same material or even eqivalent.
b) there is masses more of it then was mined, aka it infest a hell of a
lot of stuff along the way that also has to be stored.
> Why pass up a chance to make some money in a safe and logical fashion?
> I'm sure other countries will be quite happy to kick the politically
> hot football of waste as far as possible.
A) it isn't safe. none of the systems proposed in the last 30 years is
in major scale use.
> Yeah right, i can really see a terrorist group camping out in the fly
> ridden scrub digging their own hole down however many metres the waste
> will be buried and dragging up concrete encased drums of the stuff.
Lol, I have some news for you. concrete encased drums are not long term
storage. If it is stored in any form of drum, then it need regualr
drumreplacement.
George
>
>
>> Yeah right, i can really see a terrorist group camping out in the fly
>> ridden scrub digging their own hole down however many metres the waste
>> will be buried and dragging up concrete encased drums of the stuff.
>
> Lol, I have some news for you. concrete encased drums are not long term
> storage. If it is stored in any form of drum, then it need regualr
> drumreplacement.
Exactly, that is still "we still haven't figured out know what to do
with this so lets encase it and put it under a mountain for coming
generations to worry about..."
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> For a power source that has no real negatives it's surprising there's so much resistance to it.
>>> 1)Nuclear waste that lasts longer than any human civilisation.
>> Pity that what you start with does that even if you leave it in the ground.
>>> 2)Easiest used for weapons.
>> Not all nukes can be used for weapons.
>>> 3)Not economic unless heavily subsidised.
>> Thats a lie with countrys that dont have their own coal.
>> Which might just be why the frogs generate most of their power using nukes.
> Come back when they actually have the waste safely disposed of and the full accounts are in.
No thanks, it clearly viable right now for them.
>>>> Our country even has a vast area that is quite suited to nuclear waste
>>> Lol, Australia is not suited to long term storage of nuclear waste.
>> Pig ignorant lie.
>>> If a country creates it, then let them store it
>> No thanks.
>>>> disposal, and would probably also provide a healthy boost to the economy of the state that's best suited for it.
>>>> SA.
>>> Prepared to line up for microchipping to keep the waste safe?
>> No point, its perfectly possible to make it completely safe from everyone.
> so what did you get from Santa?
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Rod Speed
> Jimington wrote
>> Terryc <newsfour...@woa.com.au> wrote
>>> Jimington wrote
>>>> For a power source that has no real negatives it's surprising there's so much resistance to it.
>>> 1)Nuclear waste that lasts longer than any human civilisation.
>> So does the raw material, so what's the problem with returning it to the ground it came from?
> a) because it is not the same material or even eqivalent.
Irrelevant to that stupid pig ignorant line of yours above.
> b) there is masses more of it then was mined,
Pig ignorant lie.
> aka it infest a hell of a lot of stuff along the way that also has to be stored.
Not if the process is designed to minimise the other stuff.
>> Why pass up a chance to make some money in a safe and logical fashion? I'm sure other countries will be quite happy
>> to kick the politically hot football of waste as far as possible.
> A) it isn't safe.
Corse it is.
> none of the systems proposed in the last 30 years is in major scale use.
Just because there is no need to.
>>>> disposal, and would probably also provide a healthy boost to the economy of the state that's best suited for it.
>>>> SA.
>>> Prepared to line up for microchipping to keep the waste safe?
>> Yeah right, i can really see a terrorist group camping out in the fly ridden scrub digging their own hole down
>> however many metres the waste will be buried and dragging up concrete encased drums of the stuff.
> Lol, I have some news for you. concrete encased drums are not long term storage.
Yes they are when you put them where it doesnt matter a damn what happens to them.
> If it is stored in any form of drum, then it need regualr drumreplacement.
Wrong, as always.
And irrelevant to your stupid lie about microchipping anyway.
Rod Speed
> Terryc wrote
>>> Yeah right, i can really see a terrorist group camping out in the fly ridden scrub digging their own hole down
>>> however many metres the waste will be buried and dragging up concrete encased drums of the stuff.
>> Lol, I have some news for you. concrete encased drums are not long term storage. If it is stored in any form of drum,
>> then it need regualr drumreplacement.
> Exactly,
Nope.
> that is still "we still haven't figured out know what to do with this so lets encase it and put it under a mountain
> for coming generations to worry about..."
They can just ignore it when the location is selected properly.
Terryc
>>>>Prepared to line up for microchipping to keep the waste safe?
>>>No point, its perfectly possible to make it completely safe from everyone.
>>so what did you get from Santa?
> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Thanks Rod. I'll take that as your admission of defeat {:-).
Terryc
>>>>Prepared to line up for microchipping to keep the waste safe?
>>>Yeah right, i can really see a terrorist group camping out in the fly ridden scrub digging their own hole down
>>>however many metres the waste will be buried and dragging up concrete encased drums of the stuff.
>>Lol, I have some news for you. concrete encased drums are not long term storage.
> Yes they are when you put them where it doesnt matter a damn what happens to them.
>>If it is stored in any form of drum, then it need regualr drumreplacement.
> Wrong, as always.
Thanks Rod, I'll take that as an admission of defeat. {:-).
William Souden
Rod Speed
Rod Speed
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
William Souden
flushing bot.