Posted on 02/03/2011 7:00:10 AM PST by SeekAndFind
This week's uprising in Egypt that occurred in concert with a minor spike in the price of oil unsurprisingly led to renewed commentary suggesting the U.S. must achieve "energy independence." A USA Today editorial noted that "More than half the oil Americans use is imported - a vulnerability exposed by the ongoing tumult in Egypt", while noted energy scold T. Boone Pickens decried our continued "exposure" to overseas events that allegedly reward us with higher oil prices.
But looked at with a more reasoned eye, the events in Egypt exposed the sheer absurdity of the charitably false notion of energy independence.
For one, the not so notable increase in oil prices was to be expected either way. As this column has shown more than once, the price of a barrel of crude tends to revert to 1/15th of an ounce of gold, and as of Tuesday, oil's price increase merely brought it in line with its historical cost.
On the other hand, assuming some of the oil price increase was related to fears of supply shortfalls given the shipping lanes under Egypt's purview, what becomes apparent is that even if the U.S. were totally oil sufficient, our being that way would in no way shield us from global events that might reduce supply while increasing costs. Oil is oil is oil, and it's a commodity whose price is discovered in deep world markets.
Canada is seemingly "energy independent", but assuming ongoing Middle East uncertainty, its citizens will - like us - buy gasoline the price of which is based on the cost per barrel set in global markets. Much as we might like to naively fantasize about walling ourselves off from international market realities, we'll never be immune to the activities around the world that impact oil's price.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearmarkets.com ...
‘a minor spike in the price of oi’
It was trading over 103$ a barrel...yeah, minor spike for Billionaires like T. Boone and Oprah, fatcat buddies...
Seems to me that if we can get cheaper American oil and gas, that’s what we’ll buy.
EPIC FAIL. This author should spend more time outside his cubicle, and less time making idiotic generalities like the ones in this article.
If you control the means of production, transportation, and refinement, you control the price. Period. It doesn’t matter what the price of an ounce of gold is. It doesn’t matter whether they close the Straits of Hormuz. It doesn’t matter what some billionaire sheik thinks the average US consumer can afford.
That’s the point this Bozo fails to grasp. Sure, even with oil independence, we’d still be a player in world markets. But we’d have the ability to ‘buy within’ instead of being dependent on the rest of the world.
The other fact lost here, is that our ‘independence’ would greatly affect the world market in a positive way, our being the largest consumer.
A FAIL, for sure, but markets would affect the price unless we were prohibited from selling energy, which would be foolish.
We have all the energy we need here and enough more that we could lower world prices by exporting.
Seems to me that if we can get cheaper American oil and gas, that’s what we’ll buy.
The price of crude is set on the global market. Players enter and withdrawl as the price benefits them. Just yesterday Libia made the comment about getting in on the $100 per barrel. Not that I agree with it but that is the way it works. Seems that if American really wanted to be self-sufficient we’d drill and keep what we find for our selves. I’d love to see that happen, but I am not holding my breath.
Yep. Supply and Demand. As I see it, the question is were more of the supply coming from the USA, is it expected that OPEC et. al. would then decrease their production by that same amount? Is the potential supply from USA sources enough to impact the worldwide price?
American energy independence would be good for the world but bad for non American energy producers. No doubt the outsiders are aware of this and do all they can to make sure we aren’t producing.
You control the cost. The price is whatever the market will bear, in light of competition for the sale.
I agree with you that the historical connection to the price of gold is contrived. The two commodities can have independent "dollar" values, for reasons unrelated to the cost of production/delivery of the other - although the cost to obtain new gold has, I think, a significant energy component to it.
We are the largest block of energy consumers on the world market. Yet we are unwilling (I’m referring to government) to sustain our own supplies, thereby providing a less costly product to ourselves. Sure, that same product would trade on world markets at world market prices. But in a real world, we should not have to consume that product at world prices.
Beyond that, it would be the world’s decision to continue maintaining inflated prices what with the availability of less costly crude being available. That’s not a true free market. And that’s what is being foisted on us by the world and our own government.
Not only that, but they also don’t see (or don’t care) that we’re dissipating our wealth at the rate of 500 to 800 billion dollars a year paying for imported oil. What should be obvious is that we’d be much better off spending that on American oil, where the dollars would be recycled into our economy.
Do you realize that we are the only country on Earth with substantial oil and gas reserves that is not activly working to exploit them? The only country.
Yep. And there's a reason for that. We are not being governed by leaders concerned with America's welfare, but aligned with those who wish to destroy our dominance and our culture.
this may be a really really stupid question, but is there anything that is NOT allowed to be traded as a commodity, with speculators driving the costs up no matter the supply? I realize this is how the price is set, but does everything get its price like that? is it only domestic products that have to respond to supply and demand?
And this writer didn't contribute anything useful to the discussion, either. When people talk at the two extremes of the argument it's not very useful. The US now uses about 21 million barrels per day and produces around 7 million barrels per day.
The US probably can't become totally energy independent, but it could damned well increase its domestic crude oil production to ten million barrels per day or more,and it can make more use of our vast natural gas reserves. And it could it also hold some productive wells in reserve to be put in production when international supplies are disrupted for whatever reason.
The US can definitely increase domestic production of crude oil and natural enough to keep international prices in check, and all this talk of total energy independence just seems like one more ruse to avoid doing what can be done.
I see the point, but the price is only one factor. If we produced enough of our own domestic oil, yeah it'll be pegged at the world price but in the event the muzzies block up the Suez canal, or threaten a boycott, at least we'll be in a better position.
Doesn't anyone think that if the fed sold oil leases on federal land they'd make enough money to start paying off some of this Chinese debt we're sinking under?
Not going to happen. Wellhead prices for US oil and gas wells are set in New York, and follow world pricing in USD. This is good for those who are invested in US gas and oil production. There is no break for the consumer.
this guy is a nitwit.
If the US became energy independent then some 10-12 billon barrels a day of demand would be taken off the world market.
Guess what that would do to the price of oil.
As it is China has already announced they’re going to go on the Pickens plan. So they’re demand for middle east oil is going to peak in then next couple years.
| Wellhead prices for US oil and gas wells are set in New York, and follow world pricing in USD. This is good for those who are invested in US gas and oil production.
It did seem that way. Tomorrow somebody could announce that they have reproduced Pons and Fleishmann's Cold Fusion results using Titanium as a catalyst; or the Chinese could announce they've discovered a new field that has more reserves than Saudi Arabia. Investment is by nature risk. Anything that goes up can go down. |
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.
That's like saying that housing prices are set by the market, and this is good for those who are invested in housing.