Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

OPEC signals it wants high oil prices
Sify ^ | Sunday, 27 February , 2005,

Posted on 02/27/2005 2:55:34 AM PST by M. Espinola

Paris: OPEC is sending out signals to the global market that the cartel wants oil prices, at near-record highs, to remain there this year.

Ali al-Nuaimi, oil minister for Saudi Arabia, OPEC’s largest producer, made it clear on Thursday where he expects the US price of a barrel of crude to be: "The price today is between 40 to 50 dollars, and that’s where it will probably stay during 2005."

These statements appear to confirm what analysts have predicted for several months: Riyadh has been changing its views on pricing, after having for a long time defended a price of 25 dollars a barrel.

At present, the price of crude based on OPEC calculations has increased to about the level indicated by the Saudi minister -- it closed Friday in New York at 51.49 dollars, while in London it sold for 49.61 dollars.

Several ministers in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries have hinted at an increase in the past few months, but it was not clear where Saudi Arabia stood. For that reason, analysts have taken note of al-Nuaimis recent remarks.

"I think it’s a signal to the market that there is going to be a big increase in the OPEC price band," said Kevin Norrish, an analyst at Barclays Capital in London.

The Saudis "have certainly laid out that there is going to be further discussions at the next (OPEC) meeting and I think its possible that it will be unveiled."

The 11-nation cartel, which represents 40 per cent of the world’s crude oil production, will next meet on March 16th in Isfahan, Iran.

All graphics added


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: economy; energyprices; highoilprices; inflation; oil; opec

OPEC PRICE BAND

OPEC collects price data on a "basket" of seven crude oils, including: Algeria's Saharan Blend, Indonesia Minas, Nigeria Bonny Light, Saudi Arabia Arab Light, Dubai Fateh, Venezuela Tia Juana and Mexico Isthmus (a non-OPEC oil). The OPEC price — which was introduced on January 1, 1987—is an arithmetic average of these oils. OPEC uses this price to monitor world oil market conditions. The OPEC basket price averaged $36.00 per barrel in 2004, $28.10 per barrel in 2003, $24.36 per barrel in 2002, and $23.12 per barrel in 2001.

1 posted on 02/27/2005 2:55:35 AM PST by M. Espinola
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola

Start drilling in Alaska, and everywhere else the left does not want us drilling to create an INDEPENDENT ENERGY PLAN for the US, getting us away from Arab oil. Screw OPEC, start drilling.


2 posted on 02/27/2005 3:23:35 AM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola
I'm a stock market trader myself and also interested in geopolitcal events. My view on the oil market is that there are a lot of reserves out in the world that could be developed fairly soon to bring down oil prices or at least keep them under $50. But these reserves are all controlled by top corporate managers in the West and by wealthy elites in the non-Western world. The problem for oil consumers is that neither of these groups has much incentive to develop existing reserves rapidly enough to stop oil prices from increasing in the next 5-10 years.

All the top managers and wealthy elites know that oil demand is steadily increasing while supplies are finite and production will ultimately peak and decline within the next 5-20 years. This situation essentially guarantees that oil prices will be higher than today in 5-10 years. So prudent corporate managers are not going to push for maximum production in the next two or three years. Maximum production in the short run just means their companies make more profits now but lose even greater profits in the future. They would be damaging their future business prospects by pushing for maximum development and production today. The wealthy elites in Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East think the same way: they have plenty of oil revenue today to run their governments and fill their investment accounts, so they don't need to push for maximum production in the next few years as this would just diminish future revenues for their countries and their families.

This is the psychology of producers in an inflating Seller's Market where product prices are rising. Producers are in no rush to produce and sell while consumers are in a hurry to buy now before prices rise further. It's a "virtuous circle" from the perspective of producers, which encourages less cheating on production quotas and even higher prices. My conclusion is that oil prices over the next two or three years are tough to predict but will probably stay between $40 and $55 for 95% of the time. But it looks like almost all capacity that can be brought online in the next five years will probably be completely absorbed by rising demand. So the market is very likely to have a really tight supply-demand balance in three or four years and prices are going to go higher then, up to a $55 to 65 range. Then around 2010-2012 we're looking at zero extra capacity or even production below expected demand and demand will have to be reduced by much higher prices to equal supply. Those prices will have to be $75-90 per barrel or even higher. That would push gasoline up by roughly $0.75 per gallon from today's prices in the U.S. to at least $2.75 for regular unleaded. So I've been buying oil companies with large oil reserves over the last 12 months. The only thing I can think of that will stop this scenario is some big new oil discoveries that are also developed rapidly and increased production of existing reserves. That possibility appears unlikely at this time.

3 posted on 02/27/2005 3:24:36 AM PST by carl in alaska (Visit downtown Chicago on a cold windy January day and you'll find that global warming is a myth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola

This just provides a growing incentive to locate, develop and adopt alternative energy sources.

And there is a HUGE deposit of one energy source relatively close at hand, virtually endless, and by all standards, one of the cleanest around. At the bottom of the continental shelf, there are deposits of a substance called Methane Hydrate, a gelatinous, amorphous substance, that is composed of methane (natural gas) and somewhat saline water. Heavier than saline ocean water, the compound sinks to the lowest level available, and collects in deposits in the ooze at ocean bottom, eventually becoming sealed in the sediment, where it becomes a natural gas reservoir, to be tapped sometime in the future as a gas well.

Instead of waiting for the sediment to solidify into a layer of rock, why do we not simply scoop up the Methane Hydrate, pump it up to the surface, and permit it to go through a phase change, which happens as the substance warms a few degrees above 38 degrees Fahrenheit? It is well know that oceans at depths of more than about 500 meters have a steady temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit, a fact overlooked by the global warming alarmists, and a HUGE argument against runaway temperature rises. That is just a tremendous quantity of water to warm up. And how would the warmer water get down there? Water at that temperature is at its most dense, therefore remains at the greatest depths. Water EXPANDS as the temperature dips closer to freezing, and density decreases even more as ice forms (else ice would not float).

All this time, Methane Hydrate is being formed naturally and continuously, as the small amount of methane dissolved in water (from organic decomposition) forms Methane Hydrate almost immediately under the conditions of temperature and pressure present.

So if we mine the ocean floor for Methane Hydrate, we shall have an endless supply of RENEWABLE energy, which is forming as fast as more organic material continues to drift to ocean bottoms.

In fact, there is a continuous turnover of the Methane Hydrate, as there is microscopic life that takes whatever small amount of free oxygen available in ocean depths and combines it with the methane fraction, forming CO2 and free water. At those temperatures, carbonic acid, H2CO3, is a stable solute in water, and acts to break down deposits of other minerals, forming carbonate salts of those minerals, resulting in sediment layers of limestone. And the limestone is what keeps the Methane Hydrate deposits trapped until the gas well is tapped. So you see the process has been going on a long time. Billions and billions of years, and it is continuous.

Sometime soon, in the not too distant future, it shall become economically feasible to tap this energy source. It may be already, in some locations. By cooling the methane to the point it becomes liquid, LNG may be transported anywhere in the world, offloaded at a port that opens into natural gas pipelines, and be further transported to end users. By keeping it in liquid form, and filling smaller portable tanks, it would be possible to make LNG a feasible substitute for both Diesel oil and gasoline, as it combusts much more efficiently, with less particulate matter, NO sulfur, and at a much higher octane rating (about 130) than the best of refined gasoline.

I see a potential win-win for the US on this matter.


4 posted on 02/27/2005 3:58:54 AM PST by alloysteel ("Master of the painfully obvious.....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola

Why?....He wants to buy three more yachts???...


5 posted on 02/27/2005 4:13:44 AM PST by Route101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA
U.S. Public Mostly Supports Release of Oil from Strategic Reserves

Blame for rising prices shifts from oil companies to OPEC, according to new poll

From the Gallup News Service 2-22-05:

"Prices for crude oil are on the rise again, with traders blaming political instability in the Middle East, cool weather in the Northeast, and dwindling U.S. inventories of crude oil and home heating oil. November futures contract prices for crude oil delivery are now at their highest level since Sept. 22, when President Clinton announced his decision to release 30 million barrels of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.'


6 posted on 02/27/2005 4:20:49 AM PST by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola
Look at the names of the 11 countries on the OPEC chart. Of the 11, 9 are Muslim. Nigeria is half-Muslim and unstable. And then there is Venezuela, run by an insane Marxist. We'd better start drilling in Alaska big time.
7 posted on 02/27/2005 5:02:10 AM PST by Malesherbes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carl in alaska

yours is an unusually intelligent reply.

thanks.


8 posted on 02/27/2005 5:11:07 AM PST by ken21 ( warning: a blood bath when rehnquist, et al retire. >hang w dubya.< dems want 2 divide us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola

the problem is this a cartel which works like a union. they raise the prices to suit their fancies. they are opportunists.

the only difference between a cartel and a union is that the union doesn't own the "means of production" to use their marxist stuff.

cartels and unions are at odds with free market economies.


9 posted on 02/27/2005 5:15:26 AM PST by ken21 ( warning: a blood bath when rehnquist, et al retire. >hang w dubya.< dems want 2 divide us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carl in alaska
But these reserves are all controlled by top corporate managers in the West and by wealthy elites in the non-Western world.

Controlled by smart investors who realize that given Saudi's pumping cost of $5, they have no choice but to wait to invest in production. Otherwise they sink billions into production and the Saudis bring the price back down to $20 for 20 years. Who in their right mind would invest in that environment?

10 posted on 02/27/2005 5:24:27 AM PST by palmer ("Oh you heartless gloaters")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola

I find it interesting that this current price for this non-seasonal commodity is nowhere near the cost of production for the large majority of current sites.


11 posted on 02/27/2005 5:24:45 AM PST by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carl in alaska
Excellent overview. The comment you made, The problem for oil consumers is that neither of these groups has much incentive to develop existing reserves rapidly enough to stop oil prices from increasing in the next 5-10 years is well taken.

At the present moment many in the energy world may not clearly view the immediate pressure to develop existing known reserves of oil & natural gas, plus increasing production of coal gasification, among other sources of energy, in order to bolster our own national security energy requirements, but with rouge terrorist promoting OPEC states, such as Iran, the global economic situation can be altered quickly.

Syria & 'nuclear' Iran continue to 'assist' Islamic Jihad terror attacks against Israel. Expect a firm response from Israel if the Islamic terrorist groups they bankroll do not stop directing incidents of mass murder against innocent Israeli civilians. Any new major acceleration having the potential of disrupting the oil flow from the Gulf, to add even more bullishness to energy prices.

The crude oil price range you issued is very likely, unless additional problems transpire in or near the oil rich Persian Gulf. The Syrian-Iranian-Hizballa terrorist Axis is alarming. The jihad instigators running Iran is one my main concerns, coupled with the corrupt Wahhabi regimé in Saudi Arabia being subject to internal upheavals, including 'petrol-terrorism' from the very wahhabist jihad monster Riyadh created.

Quoting: According to Baker Hughes Inc., which has tallied weekly U.S. drilling activity since 1940, domestic oil and natural gas drilling rebounded sharply since the low point of 488 reached in late April 1999 following the oil price collapse of late 1997.

In mid-October 2001, for instance, the U.S. weekly "rig count" reached the 1,141 mark (933 for natural gas and 208 for oil), close to the highest number since late 1990. The U.S. "rig count" then fell, reaching 843 (703 gas rigs and 137 oil rigs) as of mid-October 2002, before rising once again, reaching 1,225 during the week ending October 15, 2004.

During October 2004, natural gas rigs outnumber oil rigs in the United States by more than six-fold (1,068 to 171). Historically, U.S. drilling activity peaked in 1981, with a total of 91,553 wells (43,598 oil, 20,166 natural gas, 27,789 dry wells) drilled in that year. For 2003, a total of 29,984 wells (19,722 natural gas wells, 6,284 oil wells, and 3,978 dry wells) were drilled in the United States, up from the low point of 18,465 total wells drilled in 1999, and also up (16%) from 25,744 wells drilled in 2002.'

'During January-September 2004, total U.S. oil and natural gas wells drilled were up 15% from the same period in 2003.'

Source You also mentioned $75-90 per barrel or even higher

I would not rule striking those price levels if certain adverse events take place in the Middle-East sometime in 2005.

After crude oil prices dropped like a lead weight in early 2003, triggered in part by American & Coalition ground forces secured Saddam's remaining offensive missiles, during the early phase of the war, thus removing the threat for a broader war, oil prices sunk back to high 20's & very low $30's.

Back in the Fall of 2003 I stated there was a very strong likelihood crude prices would reach $45 to $50 per barrel in 2004, primarily based on increased demand from mainland China coupled with the unstable situation in the Gulf region.

Friday's (2-25-05) April-2005 NYMEX crude contract settled @$51.49 after reaching a high for the day's trading session of $51.90, thus in the event global oil supplies are threatened with shortfalls due to the Iran problem with prices of over $50 a barrel, what shall the panic driven trading high be?

Remain in those oil/energy related stocks!

12 posted on 02/27/2005 5:35:24 AM PST by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
After reading the information you wrote, which is very interesting, some additional data was located at this Source
13 posted on 02/27/2005 5:49:20 AM PST by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: carl in alaska

I think you are pretty close. Actual future prices, though, ten or fifteen years out, say, are unknowable.

I rather see oil reserves confiscated by governments in the name of national security. Oil is the sinew of war.


14 posted on 02/27/2005 6:43:08 AM PST by Iris7 (.....to protect the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Same bunch, anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

".....Start drilling in Alaska, and everywhere else the left does not want us drilling "

oil exploration and development, being a capital intensive process will be invigorated by this. Since there is little risk now that the Saudis will force the price dramatically lower, investment in properties that are marginal at $25/barrel will be more worthwhile at $40/barrel and domestic production will rise.


15 posted on 02/27/2005 6:51:08 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: carl in alaska

There are reports that China is providing a complete oil infrastructure to Brazil for zero money and a share in future production. Project is about ten years to completion. Chinese are investing enough cash in this project that, it is reported, it will require world prices for petroleum of $150 a barrel for them to break even.

So the Chinese are betting on $5.00 a gallon gasoline in ten years. Hmm.

Wonder where this oil field is. All they say is in the Andean foothills.


16 posted on 02/27/2005 7:25:29 AM PST by Iris7 (.....to protect the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Same bunch, anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: carl in alaska

There are reports that China is providing a complete oil infrastructure to Brazil for zero money and a share in future production. Project is about ten years to completion. Chinese are investing enough cash in this project that, it is reported, it will require world prices for petroleum of $150 a barrel for them to break even.

So the Chinese are betting on $5.00 a gallon gasoline in ten years. Hmm.

Wonder where this oil field is. All they say is in the Andean foothills.


17 posted on 02/27/2005 7:26:18 AM PST by Iris7 (.....to protect the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Same bunch, anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: carl in alaska
The o&g service industry was dessimated years ago...the providers of pumps, engines, etc and other required components to build equipment used at the surface to "manage and control" wells has been set on it's head with recent orders.

We are currently trying to build 6 coiled tubing units to be used offshore (GoM) as well as 6 industrial nitrogen units...we placed these orders LAST year...and the builders of these components units, (Hydra Rig, Stewart & Stevenson etc) can not meet deadlines, because they TOO are being held up on lead times. It has become a vicious circle.

AND MARK my words...as soon as we have all the revenue generating equipment finally in place,,,the OPEC dogs will allow the price to drop...and once again the o&g service providers will go under or bankrupt or will have no choice but to sell out to the few remaining large O&G service providers.

My company is currently turning jobs away...and our competitors too...the demand for "fracing, hydraulic workovers, foam washes, jetting, fishing tools etc...the mundane little pain in the ass work required to keep wells healthy is becoming back logged.

The US's O&G oilfield service sector was damn near destroyed and now that the O&G owners need to get their existing wells producing better they have no one to turn to...we are SWAMPED with work...we have customer's now waiting 3 -4 weeks before we can show up on location and a a typical job may last the same amount of weeks before the well is at optimum performance.

The O&G dillemma is much bigger than you have desctibed as being wealthy greedy people controlling events...it comes right back to "SUPPLY AND DEMAND" (even the supply and demand for a triplex pump or a injector head)...PLUS add the new regulations of pipeline maintenance that has affected the industry...the picture is much bigger.

Your post doesn't even touch reality in the oil patch you are speculating on events that you think will make you money. BTW you should look at the following stocks...SPN, RES and BJS...

18 posted on 02/27/2005 7:30:21 AM PST by antivenom (If your not living on the edge, you're taking up too much damn space!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola

OPEC can suck it.

Seriously... We'll drill elsewhere, or someone else will pick up the slack, or investment in alternative fuel will be more 'attractive' to the private sector...

They'll just 'accelerate' the evolution of our energy policy. As long as we are flexable and stay true to our free market and entrepreneurial systems and keep gov't out of the way... we'll be fine.


19 posted on 02/27/2005 7:30:58 AM PST by FreedomNeocon (2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola
And in other shocking news, the sky is blue, trees do not grow to the sky, birds fly south in winter, bears...

Of course an oil cartel wants high oil prices - what are we, daft? High oil prices will nevertheless bring increases oil production. Particularly if we react to that price rationally, allow all possible development, economize uses and alternatives, etc.

Chart output and stockpiles as well as prices. They aren't going down...

20 posted on 02/27/2005 7:34:19 AM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola
Three noticable things on the chart itself. First there is the 3 month valley right at 9-11. That is the airlines shutting down and the Arabs pumping like mad in the immediate aftermath. Then there is a brief "mesa" out of the band immediately before the actual invasion of Iraq. That is war jitters as it becomes clear the attack will take place and people do not know if Iraqi facilities will be destroyed during the war. The rapid recovery back to the middle of the band is due to the quick victory over Iraq's regular forces. Then there is the long slow accelerating move from 25 to 45, which is fears over the US election and with it the prospect that the US might fail and withdraw. When Bush wins anyway you get that collapse to the mid 30s, followed by a half size retracement.

Now, I don't doubt OPEC would like the keep prices up at the level they touched on fears Bush would lose. But the objective political conditions on which those prices were based have largely evaporated. It will take a superheated atmosphere of fears over Iran and nukes etc to maintain them. Minor production cuts etc will not get it done. In the absence of anything remotely threatening US defeat or withdraw from the region, oil prices will retrace to the mid 30s within a year, and probably back under the 30 level within three years.

21 posted on 02/27/2005 7:43:10 AM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JasonC
Particularly if we react to that price rationally, allow all possible development, economize uses and alternatives, etc.

So how do we make the transition to reacting rationally? Since the oil crisis of 1973, we have only grown more dependent on foreign oil and there doesn't seem to be any change in that course over the next five years, which is the absolute minimum it would take to develop any new sources, including ANWR.

Unfortunately, I tend to fall on the side of foreseeing a "national security" type solution, where oil becomes even more of a catalyst for conflict because it is simply too difficult to overcome the political barriers to self-sufficiency.

That's not to say I advocate such an approach. I just don't see any other resolution on the horizon.

22 posted on 02/27/2005 7:50:32 AM PST by SlowBoat407
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SlowBoat407
Sorry, that is just crazy. It presumes the leftists and greens opposing rational policies across the board on this subject are politically unstoppable, when in fact the left is in full retreat. Environmentalist pieties have to be demolished as the political lies they are - something the right has not yet been willing to do, because it sees no reason to hand the left such issues as a weapon, thinks they are bad PR, etc. The left does not have the votes to stop major legislative changes on this subject. Their ideology has gone around the bend far enough that they will not even work with the conservatives whose votes they would need, to do so.

It is purely a matter of political spine among guys on our side, and their calculation of the present state of public opinion and rhetoric. The green position is flimsy, scientifically and as a matter of political alliances. They carry the day in politics because the right is afraid of them, the right is afraid of them largely because of press, the press kowtows without even a pretence of debate because the right does not challenge green BS as the BS it so obviously is.

You come up with a program of environmental regulation that actually makes economic sense and addresses real science but not scaremongering. That acts as your political cover and defense. Then you systematically destroy the greens' regulatory arsenal. You allow new dams to be built. You allow new oil wells to be drilled. You allow new power plants, nuclear included. You regulate real issues like sulphur content of coal but allow new uses of coal when sensible cleaning measures are included. You expedite gas infrastructure held up over pipelines rights and the like. Depreciation and depletion schedules and similar regulatory and tax changes can encourage long term investments in these areas.

The greens had to get the state to systematically block every form of energy investment and development. The state is holding the entire sector back, on purpose. You can make an enourmous difference just by abating this constant interference and pressure in all the wrong directions. If the state wants to see energy development it should stop forbidding energy development and demonizing the entire industry, and instead encourage that industry. Duh.

23 posted on 02/27/2005 8:31:21 AM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola

BTTT


24 posted on 02/27/2005 8:49:36 AM PST by Chgogal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JasonC

Jason, I agree wholeheartedly with everything you've proposed. The problem is, I do question the political will of the people who have the power to make these things happen. I've seen no reason not to, sadly. I think our president has put out a good plan, and I'm solidly behind it. I worry about Congress, though, and their ability to see through the clutter and do what is absolutely right for this country, which is, let the producers produce.


25 posted on 02/27/2005 9:38:30 AM PST by SlowBoat407
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola

Time for President Bush, via Secty Rice, to let the Saudi family know that if oil is going to be 50.00 we might as well have people we don't like as the sellers i.e. a democratic Saudi government, as to have a royal family. We might offer some economic help to the democratic leaders of a new Saudi Arabia and we may help break up the country into smaller states. OR You might start to get the price of oil back around 30.00.


26 posted on 02/27/2005 9:46:59 AM PST by q_an_a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SlowBoat407
The pols are weak in the knees because they do not see the urgency of it on the policy side, and they do not see the right winning the public debate with greens in the red press. They calculate that they will hand their political opponents an issue those opponents will use to beat them up and steal "moderate" (read, impressionable) votes away from them. They think it is politically safer to say "me too" to green silliness, than to fight it. They mistakenly think the policy consequences or stakes involved in doing so, are minor.

They need help from political activists, writers, and pundits, willing to take on the greens ideologically, in public opinion and the press. They need detailed "sensible environmental" proposals, from the think tanks. They need the industry itself to snap out of its seige mentality of public defensiveness (brought on by decades of green interference without any political defense coming to help them), and state forcefully what it needs and what senseless leftisms stand in the way.

Pols in congress aren't going to stand up, realize the economy needs n new plants and the navy needs m barrels per month in a shooting war, carry the 3, and launch a full scale ideological assault on modern enviromentalist ideology. They need leadership (from administration types), education (from real scientists, from industry, from economists in the think tanks), planning (from pundits on the ideology as well as think tanks on the policy), and broad movement support.

But it is all perfectly doable. It is part of being a governing party rather than a minority one, that such campaigns can be planned and conducted, to move opinion and policy in a coordinated fashion, to where they need to go.

27 posted on 02/27/2005 9:57:38 AM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JasonC

Dang, you talk good! Sign me up!

Seriously, though, you've hit it on the head. We cannot simply depend on people with an "R" after their names to automatically do the right thing. There's too much pressure from the public, from credentialed "experts" with agendas, and from other pols who hold their pet projects hostage.

We need to hold their feet to the fire. We also need to counter, at a grass roots level, all of the lies that have been foisted on us by those who want to see the U.S. held down and who see energy policy as a key means for ensuring that this country remains dependent on the rest of the world.


28 posted on 02/27/2005 10:10:53 AM PST by SlowBoat407
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SlowBoat407
So let's get started.

1. Lomberg should get a full scale US speaking tour complete with 50 venues $5000 honorariums. He should meet with the president's science advisor. Lomberg chairs in responsible enviromentalism should be endowed.

2. The Department of Homeland Security should launch a campaign against the Earth Liberation Front, complete with FBI mugshots and briefing papers, regular sober statements of grave concern to the press, and if possible a show trial. Plus regular reports on the potential dangers of domestic nutjob bioterrorism by green freaks. Smear the hell out of them.

3. Frist should be seen reading "State of Fear".

4. Limbaugh should do environmentalist wacko updates continually for three months, take the resulting calls from offended precious holier than thous, and skewer them mercilessly.

5. National Review and the Weekly Standard should do special issues on green craziness. Cover Earth in the Balance, the claim that automobiles will destroy civilization, "deep ecology" types promoting "die back" to hunter gatherer existence, the Human Extinction Movement, etc.

6. The trails of watermelons from hard right to green superregulators should be traced in individual careers and giant silly flowcharts on websites.

7. Details of silliest regulatory hurdles should be collected into conservative expose books. All the dams stopped for no good reason, all the wastelands protected by transparent sophistries, the land grabs, invented "species", wetlands that aren't wet 330 days of the year.

8. All the public money flowing to environmentalist advocacy groups, their grant mills, their "public input" sessions, should be systematically dismantled by executive orders and discretion and rechanneled to conservative advocates of responsible development. No reasoning needs to be given, just blackball them.

I'm just getting warmed up. It'll be lots of fun.

29 posted on 02/27/2005 10:39:44 AM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola

We need to start drilling.


30 posted on 02/27/2005 10:41:02 AM PST by Dustbunny (The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola

Any substance to the rumors that OPEC will want to tie in oil pricing to the Euro rather than the dollar? Seems to be an awful lot of internet blogging on this point.


31 posted on 02/27/2005 10:45:11 AM PST by Zuben Elgenubi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JasonC

How about reports from scientists showing how regulation is actually harming the environment! I'm sure the numbers can be jockeyed for that just as easily as they've been jockeyed for the other side of things.

They believe in the power of fear? Let's hit 'em with stats showing what life will be like in a world that lives under Kyoto compliance. Power shortages and outages nationwide, transportation, freight, and communications costs skyrocketing, the simplest features of life that we take for granted today, such as lights, cooking, entertainment and commuting priced out of reach or simply unavailable.

Stats with every volcanic eruption detailing how much material it throws into the atmosphere, compared with human output since the Industrial Revolution.

This is gonna be fun!


32 posted on 02/27/2005 10:50:08 AM PST by SlowBoat407 (Mya-hee! Mya-ho! Mya-ho! Mya-ha-ha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SlowBoat407
It's easy because it is true. There is a reason their extremists like the die-backers go to those silly lengths - it is because full implimentation of their precious principles would result in the rather immediate death of nine tenths of humanity. The present population, let alone the future one of 50 years from now, can only be supported by the full wealth made possible by modern division of labor and fully powered industry. There is plenty of this in Lomberg, incidentally. Along with scads of ways of getting a hundred times the bang for the buck just doing common sense things instead of catering to green pieties.
33 posted on 02/27/2005 10:56:31 AM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ken21
"yours is an unusually intelligent reply."

Thank you. I've spent a lot of time doing research and thinking about the oil & gas industry. Trading stocks is a full-time job and I have to give these issues a lot of thought before putting my own capital into any major investment. Those Saturday afternoon "infomercials" on TV about "making $10,000 a month while trading one hour a day with our system" are total BS. I think most people who try that approach lose their shirts....lol.

34 posted on 02/27/2005 11:05:30 AM PST by carl in alaska (Visit downtown Chicago on a cold windy January day and you'll find that global warming is a myth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: palmer; antivenom; ken21
That's a good point and the Saudis did collapse the price of oil back in 1998 to discipline the rest of OPEC for cheating on production quotas. But right now most estimates for extra OPEC capacity that can be brought online in the next 2-3 years are only about 3 to 4 million barrels per day. Meanwhile demand is growing at about 1.5 million bpd every year. So in just a couple of years nobody will have the ability to increase production and collapse prices. This is why oil companies are now making much bigger investments in offshore drilling and oil sands projects.

The oil service industry is heading into a boom and nobody will be able to stop the boom. This is going to be a terrific opportunity for investing in the oil & gas industry and in a second wave of alternative energy companies that will emerge during the next twenty years in response to high oil & gas prices. Large-scale wind power is becoming economically attractive at today's natural gas prices. I will be putting more research time into energy companies than any into other sector for the forseeable future.

35 posted on 02/27/2005 11:17:22 AM PST by carl in alaska (Visit downtown Chicago on a cold windy January day and you'll find that global warming is a myth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola

Do you have any interest in starting a weekly Friday-Saturday discussion thread on the energy industry, using a ping list of interested persons? I think eventually you would attract quite a large crowd of participants.


36 posted on 02/27/2005 11:29:25 AM PST by carl in alaska (Visit downtown Chicago on a cold windy January day and you'll find that global warming is a myth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: palmer; antivenom; ken21
I need to clarify post #35. Based on OPEC's public statements, they have about 3-4 million bpd of extra capacity that can be brought online in the next few years. There's little doubt that they actually have more extra capacity that could go online in a 2-3 years if they start developing those oil fields now. But they don't talk about that production capacity because they're unwilling to develop it. OPEC keeps the West in the dark about their true quantities of reserves and production capacity. This effectively silences criticism from the West as OPEC restricts production to generate steadily increasing prices and hold reserves for higher prices in the next decade. They are indeed very sneaky.
37 posted on 02/27/2005 11:45:13 AM PST by carl in alaska (Visit downtown Chicago on a cold windy January day and you'll find that global warming is a myth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: carl in alaska; antivenom
AV makes some very good points which are unknown unless you work in the O&G industry.

Our industry was decimated in the mid-80s, and we haven't recovered. The confidence is not there to gear up for a boom. Everyone still remembers the bankruptcies and the losses of business' associated with $11. a barrel oil.
No one wants to get caught in that trap again.

We haven't got the equipment or the people for a boom, and unless service companies see some security in the investment, we won't have in the foreseeable future.
Drilling rigs for hire are almost non-existent, but the cost of building new rigs has skyrocketed in the last few years because the price of steel has been dictated by an ever increasing demand from China.

It's true that the number two supplier of our oil, Saudi Arabia, as well as the other MidEast countries, are producing at near capacity and their bump of 4 million barrels a day is not going to have an impact on prices.
What does have a significant impact on prices is the increasing demand from China, but that demand doesn't help our domestic O&G service companies. Most of them don't work in China or anyplace else overseas.

The only incentive which will facilitate a boom in the US O&G industry is a complete change of attitude in Congress.
If it can be seen that Congress is really interested in opening up areas in the US for drilling which have heretofore been off limits, it will provide the confidence factor necessary to build the equipment and raise the payscale to attract workers.
Even then, it will take years to develop the infrastructure necessary for a domestic boom.

38 posted on 02/27/2005 11:59:40 AM PST by TexasCowboy (Texan by birth, citizen of Jesusland by the Grace of God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: carl in alaska

You have a capitol idea there and I too believe there would be keen interest. Now if I can figure out how to create a ping list. Let's do it!


39 posted on 02/27/2005 3:09:59 PM PST by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: q_an_a
Very good ideas referring to those 'good friends' the Wahhabist Saudi 'Royals'.

Maybe once the Iranian situation is fully rectified the internal Arabian problem can be addressed.


40 posted on 02/27/2005 6:11:01 PM PST by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FreedomNeocon

what energy policy, we don't have one. who is going to develop these "alternate energy sources"? unless it comes from government via another "Manhattan Project", there isn't enough of a source of capital for any significant effort from the private sector. We need major technological breakthroughs. We should have had a balanced increase in the CAFE standards over the last 20 years, 2MPG every 5 years, to force the auto makers to invest in R&D to improve auto mileage. We couldn't even do that.


41 posted on 02/27/2005 6:21:35 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Malesherbes
Points well taken.

How much do The OPEC Boys pay at the pump?

42 posted on 02/27/2005 6:24:03 PM PST by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola

I think a ping list is just a text file that you create in an application such as Notepad or MS Word. You just type in all the user names on the ping list with a semicolon in between, just as they're listed in the "To:" line on replies to posts. Then open the file, click on page 1 and type Ctrl + A simultaneously to select the entire ping list. Then you paste it into the reply with a Ctrl + V. Well you probably knew all of that but that's all there is to a ping list as far as I know...lol.


43 posted on 02/27/2005 7:07:20 PM PST by carl in alaska (Visit downtown Chicago on a cold windy January day and you'll find that global warming is a myth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola

LOL


44 posted on 02/28/2005 7:52:47 AM PST by Truth666 (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Proof+that+at+least+one+of+two%22)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
I see a potential win-win for the US on this matter

Not if this is ratified.

Law Of the Sea Treaty

45 posted on 02/28/2005 8:32:02 AM PST by Freebird Forever (Support your local gunsmith.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola

very interesting grapic. Thanks.


46 posted on 02/28/2005 9:28:55 AM PST by q_an_a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: carl in alaska; M. Espinola

What is the cost to build an offshore rig?


47 posted on 03/07/2005 9:52:22 AM PST by July 4th (A vacant lot cancelled out my vote for Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: July 4th
I found the following information:

'The average offshore rig cost $24,000 per day to rent in 2003, and today the same 30 year-old-rig costs $40,000 per day to rent due to rig availability. Yes, most of our rigs are 30 or more years old – would you rent a cabin on a 30 year-old cruise ship? Yet this is what we drill oil wells with in the new millennium…

Multiply that times the average 45 days to drill a “second tier” oil or gas well, you get $1,800,000 just for renting the drilling rig! No other mining industry or industry I know of has such tremendous up-front costs. The average price for a typical offshore well is around 3.7-4 million dollars. A production platform to bring the oil to is easily in excess of $10 million…….and these prices will escalate with energy costs!


48 posted on 03/07/2005 10:06:31 AM PST by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson