digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

See the original image at money.cnn.com —

Saudis get serious on oil prices

money.cnn.com — Concern about oil prices and the reasons behind them are going world wide in the next few days. This is worth the read

show profanity settings
expand all
  • phreak79, on 06/20/2008, -9/+7We have peak oil, we can't just turn the taps up. Surely not Mr Bond.
    • Justice101, on 06/21/2008, -4/+3Well, peak oil says that there's a finite amount of oil, and that some is left undiscovered so eventually it will trickle down to nothing, but what if we've found most of the worlds crude reserves and just increased production. Than there will be more oil and lower prices in the short term by flooding the market...but will run out of oil faster. See you can just turn up the taps.
    • PhilLesh69, on 06/21/2008, -5/+20Peak oil is a myth. Do not buy into it.

      We are paying $4.05 a gallon for regular because of the myth of peak oil.

      The entire history of oil for energy is centered on it's scarcity, even back as far as 1890, when anyone selling oil was swimming in it and barely able to find a buyer for it.

      I've read several books about "peak oil" and most are using tenuously valid science, but most are just outright manipulating statistics.

      If you do the math (and I'm going from memory, I'm too lazy at 4:19 am to get the real numbers) the real time for "peak oil", even counting for increased demand, is 2030. And even that projection explains that as the price per barrel increases, making it more cost effective to explore for and extract more costly oil, that date could move much farther into the century.

      The books I've read were all working on 2002 to 2004 numbers. Most books figured we'd reach $80 to $100 a barrel by 2012, and that would create the greater drive to search for and spend more money extracting more expensive to reach oil.

      Peak oil is most likely a myth for the next 40 to 50 years.

      At this point, it is not a peak, it is still a measure of how much a cartel controls oil production.


      You know, that Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries?????

      That is a cartel. Cartels are like Mobs, or Monopolies.
      • phreak79, on 06/21/2008, -2/+2Sarcasm clearly doesn't travel well ;)
      • bipolarruledout, on 06/21/2008, -2/+3Did you put China and other new economies into your spreadsheet?
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1BRIC was already a factor in the peak oil alarmist's projections.
        • adamd35941, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0Have you been to China? There are few developed roadways linking major cities let alone the provinces. This a great scare tactic though to hype up the fear factor - the major cause for the spike in fuel prices. India only has approximately 40,000 miles of developed roadways - compare this to 3,000,000 (million) miles in the US. And as many in the US know roadways are not quick or inexpensive to build let alone maintain.
      • Ortheos, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1The peak oil is a myth fellows have come out of the woodwork. When the ***** starts to fly towards the fan, they are always the most numerous, but when the ***** actually hits the fan, they are nowehere to be found.

        Same deal with global warming. Bu bu bu its a myth despite over 95% of peer reviewed scientific reports stating otherwise.

        • PhilLesh69, on 06/22/2008, -0/+195% of peer reviewed scientific reports stating otherwise?

          Really?

          Do you really believe that? Well, even if you do really believe that, it doesn't make that true.

          Do you even know what peak oil means? It means when we have reached 50% of all oil available for extraction. Even if we reach peak oil in 2009, considering that oil was first extracted in 1859, that means we have just about 150 more years before we run out.

          Then, if you've even read a book by peak oil alarmists, you'll realize that every time oil prices increase (by their own admission) the increased profitability affords greater access to previously unprofitable oil deposits, and pushes the "peak" period out even further.

          In other words, it will be some time in the middle of the next century, if at all, before we run out of oil. Think 2170, maybe 2190. And since most alarmists claim 2030 as our peak, that puts us well into the 23rd century, maybe 2205, or so.
        • Ortheos, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1NO, peak oil does not mean when we have reached 50% of all oil available for extraction.
          It means when we have reached the magic half-way supply/demand ratio, where demand outstrips supply exponentially, and no matter how many new refineries we build or how many new wells we exploit, demand just keeps on outpacing supply by a greater margin year by year, leading to never-ending increases in oil price, shortages in areas of desperate demand and chaos to the oil-reliant world economy.

          China, India, Europe and the united states wish what you say were true, but sadly China and India an the rest are already experiencing oil shortages, even as their demand grows year by year. No matter how much they buy, there's just not enough to go around.

          At this stage it has become unrealistic and unfeasible for the major oil producers to catch up to demand with their supplies. All they can do is build a few more oil wells/refineries to increase their profits, they have no chance of alleviating the upcoming disaster.

          The ***** is flying towards the fan, don't say I didn't warn you.
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Ortheos, you are sadly misinformed.

          Peak oil really does mean when we have reached the halfway point of oil usage.

          The "magic half-way supply/demand ratio" was met many times, and then we moved away from it, and we met it again, so many times in the 20th century. Peak oil is not about supply and demand. If it were, we have been there many times, and we will be there many times again.

          Peak oil is, stay with me here, a myth created by the people who profit from oil sales. It is a supposition that we will eventually run out of oil. Once we have reached the peak, we have used 50% of the oil available, and only have the same amount of what we have already consumed available to us, any longer.


          Go and read a book about peak oil. It has nothing to do with supply and demand, it has to do with the supposition that there is a finite amount of oil available to us, and that at some point we have gone beyond the halfway point of consuming what is available to us.

          Seriously, go read up on it. You'll figure out how wrong your above comment really is.

  • fuchsm2002, on 06/20/2008, -4/+37karma is a bitch....OPEC finally understands that its a 2 way street and consumers will reduce their use of gas which will reduce OPEC's revenue for the long run!

    Green is King ;)
    • PhilLesh69, on 06/21/2008, -1/+12Saudi Arabia is just being smart (but evil).

      They are not suddenly realizing that they pushed things too far. They are simply hoping to squeeze even more money out of the oil trade by selling even more oil at the record prices.

      They know that they can do this without dropping prices, or even if prices go down a little bit, they'll still make record profits.

      Next month some other OPEC country will increase output to enjoy the amazing profits, while Saudi Arabia will go back to normal quota outputs. And the round-robin will continue through all the opec nations.

      They're all going to enjoy raping the western countries over high oil prices.
    • Charlotte_Web, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Glad to see that Saudi Arabia is feeling the pain the rest of us are feeling. I didn't know that their currency was pegged to the dollar; that's good news.

      What the Saudis fear most, I would assume, is that long-term usage of petroleum will drop because the high gas prices have forced us to seek alternative fuels and alternative technologies, and the petroleum industry will permanently become a small fraction of what it is today.

      I think it's too late, however; unless gas drops by $3/gal and pretty damn fast, I think they're screwed.
      • bipolarruledout, on 06/21/2008, -0/+0Even if it does then their "plan" still worked. At this rate you'll be wishing for $4.00 a gallon again in a few months.
        • Charlotte_Web, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1The problem for the Saudis is that we are starting to see a decline in usage in the US. If you think of demand as a curve, then there is an optimal price on that curve that will yield the maximum profit. If the price is too low, demand will be high and there will be money left on the table. If the price is too high, demand drops and fewer units are sold, again resulting in less profit.

          The world economy simply cannot sustain a drastic run-up in gas prices. Demand is falling, alternatives are being rushed to market, and the end result is that OPEC is shooting themselves in the foot, long-term. The world is beginning to shift away from oil long before OPEC has depleted their oil fields.
      • Fubarepublic, on 06/21/2008, -0/+0How can a multi multi billionaire be screwed? Its not like I can purchase a small house the size of an American Country town and but 250 Rare cars in the garage. (Including a Gold RR and another in Solid Silver ).

        Meanwhile the population around them is just as ignorant as they were 2000 years ago. No education, can't read but can drive and pass all these road signs that have squiggly lines.

        Madness!

      • dagamer34, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Kinda like the plot to Mobile Suit Gundam 00. Poorest countries were the ones that relied on oil for their wealth. Check it out. It's like the took the plotline right from future predictions.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gundam_00
    • bsmeteronhigh2, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3It's not the Saudis. It's the speculators who've driven up prices. It is in the Saudis' best interest to keep oil prices low enough so that alternatives are not economically feasible. The oil speculators have, in their greed, pushed oil past that point. Suddenly, the Saudis see that oil could be replaced if prices keep rising and they will be sitting on sand with a formally vital resource below. Sort of like the Horse shoe Barons of years ago when they and the Horse manure cleanup cartel thought they had the transportation market cornered--along came that pesky gasoline powered cart. And so goes the circle of getting from here to there.
      • AlbertCress, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0I think you are right about the speculators - capital moves towards where the profit is - and at the moment that's speculation, including speculation on oil (but also food - which is why the price of a lot of staples is rising). People buying into oil drives the price up and 'tis nothing to do with scarcity, or devious Arabs or war.
        It's just people, or corporations, with money wanting it to make more money.

        but

        the drive for profit can be a good thing - it builds cities and planes and transport networks and the internet and jam and a whole bunch of good things - but in recessions it tends to be parasitical and usually takes more than it gives.

        Oh yes and the green movement are pretty much wrong about pretty much everything.
      • nateking1, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1You got it absolutely right. Saudis are scared that their commodity is becoming less and less used.
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 06/20/2008, -1/+36The Saudis are worry that pricing of oil will cause a mass exodus from using oil as an energy source.
    • Dysarthria, on 06/21/2008, -3/+5With the largest shale oil reserves in the world located right here in the United states, 110 years worth, they need to be afraid.
      • bagelmaster, on 06/21/2008, -0/+7Credible source?
      • bipolarruledout, on 06/21/2008, -1/+0Oh we indeed have plenty. Except to use it will emit about 10 times more co2 deposits than the gooey stuff after refinement... no big deal... as long as you don't live on the coast.

        /Buy a boat.
    • Willforbes, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1learn yours grammar fool!
    • pappyblueribs, on 06/21/2008, -1/+1"a mass exodus from using oil as an energy source" -- you're joking, right? That's a goal, sure, but I'm gonna guess it isn't going to happen in the next decade, even if oil went to $300 a barrel.

      Face it -- right now, we're the goose in "The goose that laid golden eggs" nursery rhyme. The Saudis need to be concerned with getting as much from us as possible, without killing us.
    • warsongs7, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0What the ***** are you on about. The Saudis have no control on their petroleum resources, they are manipulated by the USA and especially the 'evil' multinational corporations. If the Saudis deviated one bit from the plans generated by the USA and friends then they will get ***** just like Iran and their economic war on the US.
  • LilBambi, on 06/20/2008, -1/+10OPEC doesn't control the price on it's own - I would go so far as to say, they really don't have much say in it. You'll see what I mean when you take a look at who is also in those meetings.
  • bluebadgerdigg, on 06/20/2008, -3/+1Good luck with that one a day thing elvenrunelord!
  • aliweb, on 06/20/2008, -7/+29Yes the oil prices are getting out of hand now. But I firmly believe it is because of manipulation and not increased consumption or low production.
    • justz00t, on 06/21/2008, -10/+4And you would be wrong and also a bit delusional.
    • DaDrake, on 06/21/2008, -1/+6Yes... because it has nothing to do with supply and demand. It seems like every year congress has their dog and pony show with oil executives only to realize there is no foul play. Oil has NEVER been associated with stability; must I remind you of how prices have surge in the past and how cheap the US has oil compare to other countries?

      We knew this would happen.... but thanks to many politicians, we decided it would be better to not diversify our fuel sources. Instead... congress went for a "quick" fix called bio-fuel which isn't energy efficient and has tons of unintentional consequences.

      Need I say... NUCLEAR energy? If the French can ***** doing it, everyone should be able to do it.
      • csw1342, on 06/21/2008, -1/+5But I don't want to surrender to nuclear energy.
      • bjornski, on 06/21/2008, -1/+7Which countries are facing gas-lines and empty tanks because the demand is so rapidly outstripping the supplies?

        There's no shortage. This is price manipulation.
        • ltethe, on 06/21/2008, -1/+7Speculation, which happens to cause price fluctuation.

          As in, people speculate, that demand will, is, or has overtaken supply, thus, price goes up.

          Nobody really knows how much oil there is, therefore, nobody knows if there is a potential shortage in our immediate future. Therefore, prices go crazy, as people SPECULATE, on how much is left vs how much the world consumes.

          Speculation. Please! Wikipedia the meaning of the word.
      • Olfster, on 06/21/2008, -2/+7Cheap compared to other countries? You mean those countries that tax gas at 100% or those countries that subsidize gas such as Mexico, India, China. We can not thrive as a free capitalist market in a global economy that does not play by the same rules. We also can not tolerate manipulation of any kind. I want to see the CEO, not the fall guy, executed, not just thrown in jail! You risk the stability of your nation through manipulation of markets for profit you DIE! Just like the Texas oil men like it. Live by the sword die by the sword. That is how it should be. Harsh but we can not have it any other way.
      • Raphae1, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3High-grade uranium ore reserves will only last a few decades

        There are large resources of low-grade uranium ores, but the fossil energy required for mining, milling and enrichment becomes so large that nuclear energy emits the same or more CO2 than an equivalent combined cycle gas-fired power station.

        http://digg.com/environment/High_grade_uranium_ore ...
        • bipolarruledout, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1I could be mistaking but I think we already have a ***** load of refined uranium... so much that we have to worry about terrorists stealing it. How many times over did we need to blow up the world again?
        • dagamer34, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4The only energy source that would be perpetual and someone reliable for centuries would be solar. Why don't we start working on THAT.
        • Raphae1, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2@bipolarruledout: You are right, we could use the Plutonium of nuclear warheads to produce energy and that might even be a good idea. The issue with atomic waste still remains though.
      • bipolarruledout, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1If you didn't see this coming you must be blind.
  • bstory, on 06/20/2008, -4/+16Well forcing the oil speculators to actually put the money up front on their futures rather than allowing margin calls might help.
    • DaDrake, on 06/21/2008, -6/+3What? You do understand that if these spectators are wrong, they also loose money.
    • bjornski, on 06/21/2008, -1/+9No kidding. Being able to buy with only 6% down is *****.

      On top of that, they should be forced to take delivery of their purchase, not just shuffle the papers around until someone pays them more for it.

      You bought it? You take delivery.
  • CryRightardCry, on 06/20/2008, -5/+10I think we'd all like to see steps to strengthen the dollar.
    We can start by getting rid of Bush and the GOP losers who supported his every stupid move.
    • AugustusOsari, on 06/20/2008, -1/+19And the Democrats who also supported his every stupid move.
      • bipolarruledout, on 06/21/2008, -3/+0Right... becuase the dems had EVERY branch of govenment sealed up when we went to war.... except they didn't! The only things you can fault the dems for is believing a tresonious LIER and corupt administration. He makes tricky dick look like mother teresa.
    • Olfster, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4And replace them with what? The democratic losers that run the show in congress? The vote to allow telecom immunity was a failure on the democrats part and shows just how close the two really are. Rub my back I will rub yours. Republican or democrat, both have and will continue to sodomize the citizens of this country.
    • martoq, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Lets not forget. One of the root causes of this problem with now are the oil speculators. Even the Saudis said this when Bush went their earlier this year and they turned him down flat. The Enron loophole (as featured on Digg a few days ago) started back with the first Bush and continued through Clinton and to Bush today. My memory is a little shaky but I know it goes back at least THAT far. So blaming it all on the current administration is wrong. Blaming it on us for allowing it to continue and turn a blind eye to it would be more appropriate. Action people. Vote out the tools....that includes more than just the president. We are talking senators, congressman, assemblyman, the whole damn lot.
  • mrzeero, on 06/21/2008, -1/+13They must be getting tired of making record profits.
    • magamiako, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2It's not that they're tired of making record profits. I mean, face it, it can't be that much money to pull oil out of the ground. They just understand that the rest of the world and even themselves are hurting financially in the long run because of the profits.

      See, when more money is in the hands of fewer people (the top OPEC nations, the investors), there's less money flowing around the economy. And other people hurt because of it.

      Saudi Arabia will still make huge profits, even if they charged $60/barrel. They know that the rest of the world needs cheaper oil.
      • dagamer34, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Because if we actually ever said "We are going to start a Manhattan Project that will rid the US dependence on ALL oil in 30-40 years", the Saudi's economy would tank so fast they wouldn't know what hit them.

        Oh, and Canada might be a little pissed too (our largest oil importer).
  • scoottie, on 06/21/2008, -4/+5only answer is to take oil off the open market and cap the price per barrel until we develop some other form of fuel for automobiles
    • BarriedaleNick, on 06/21/2008, -3/+2Fantasitically dumb idea - you do not and cannot control or cap the price of oil. America is just not that important or powerful anymore.
    • terryducks, on 06/21/2008, -0/+0Simple economics - capping the price of oil (like what happened in the '70s ) will cause massive shortages.
  • draterrojam, on 06/21/2008, -5/+4Why haven't we invade these clown yet?
    • mrzeero, on 06/21/2008, -3/+16Because only 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from there.
    • bjornski, on 06/21/2008, -1/+6You do realize that the House of Bush and the House of Saud are joined at the wallet, right?

      Bandar "Bush" is safe. Their family connections go back generations.
    • BarriedaleNick, on 06/21/2008, -1/+6Well if you can't even write a simple sentence then perhaps invading another country might be beyond you.
    • zeeshansyed, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4Haven't we invaded enough? I guess WE are the clowns and not the other way around. Our economy would have been far better today if we had not invaded Iraq!
  • DaDrake, on 06/21/2008, -8/+8It seems like every year congress has their dog and pony show with oil executives only to realize there is no foul play. Oil has NEVER been associated with stability; must I remind you of how prices have surge in the past and how cheap the US has oil compare to other countries?

    We knew this would happen.... but thanks to many politicians, we decided it would be better to not diversify our fuel sources. Instead... congress went for a "quick" fix called bio-fuel which isn't energy efficient and has tons of unintentional consequences.

    Need I say... NUCLEAR energy? If the French can ***** doing it, everyone should be able to do it.
  • Iztikeit, on 06/21/2008, -2/+5Finally, someone told them they were shooting themselves in the foot. Alas, it still means they have a ridiculous amount of global power.
  • kenvsryu, on 06/21/2008, -1/+8Screw oil. 300 mpg car do it. http://aptera.com
    • bjornski, on 06/21/2008, -0/+5It looks wicked-cool. I'd drive one. But, I wonder how that would handle in the snow.

      /lives in Minnesota
      • dksupremacy, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2From the FAQ

        "How will it work in the snow and cold climates, I live in the mountains in CA?

        The Aptera will initially be designed for common lower altitude conditions in California. However, extensive testing for winter conditions is planned for the future. "
      • paker, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2Hell it'll probably be over 10 years before the Aptera makes it to Florida.
    • cvrti5, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Cool, but what would happen if it got T-Boned by a Hummer?

      Mwaahhahahahahaa.
  • Shaman760, on 06/21/2008, -5/+6Saudis want us to strengthen the dollar.

    Legalize marijuana and it's collateral research potential. National deficit, poof. gone.
    Open up stem cell research so the bastards can eek out another 10 year on the planet, sucking air.

    Any takers?
    • magamiako, on 06/21/2008, -2/+5What's legalizing pot going to do? Part of the reason for pot's popularity has a whole lot to do with the "oooh" and "aahh" and "wrong" factor of it being an illegal drug. The only reason it's the most popular illegal drug is because a bunch of people THINK it's not harmful to them. (Don't ask me this, but the family I have could provide for a wonderful case study into the long term effects of marijuana use).

      This would only be a temporary way to make money off of people, because as soon as the serious case studies come out on the issue of second hand smoke and the long term health effects of marijuana, people will be forced to stop using it or it will be taxed into oblivion.

      Just look at the cigarette industry.
      • bipolarruledout, on 06/21/2008, -2/+2And I could provide a wonderful case study into the long term effects of alcohol use but that doesn't mean I'm looking to ban it. I mean... it worked out SO WELL last time.

        Just how long a study do you want? Marijuana is AT WORST as bad as cigarettes but tobaco didn't start killing on the large scale until the additives were added simply to increase it's addictive nature and move more product. Even if you don't believe the research it does in fact suggest that THC is an antioxydant with the capacity to PREVENT cancer in addition to being less toxic than any nearly any other known substance.

        Newsflash: Marijuana has a street value dozens if not hundreds or times higher than tabaco and may cost less to produce. In sheer dollars it is by far the largest agricultural industry estimated to surpass the GDP of several states combined. For the most part all that money is falling into the hands of drug dealers and it's untaxed. The profits alone dwarf all existing "sin" taxes by a wide margin.

        I don't see anyone smoking less cigarettes because they cost too much but that could be becuase they are widely considered to be more addictive than heroin. Marijuana on the other hand may be less addictive than chocolate.
      • elvenrunelord, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3Actually legalizing hemp would be a great boon to this country, I'm not going to bother going into all the uses of help because I don't have a pro-hemp agenda. However if even half of the things about hemp are true it is a real issue that it was made illegal so cotton and rayon would dominate the market here in America. It is high time that protections such as these go the way of the dino and let quality and consumer choice dominate the market place. lobbyist manipulation of our choices has got to come to an end. Their agenda is not providing the best product for the human race...its protecting their profit margin.
  • Jenadae, on 06/21/2008, -7/+8Abolish the federal reserve and let us handle our own money. Problem solved.
  • Khanvalescent, on 06/21/2008, -2/+20It will be lovely when oil runs out and these Princes driving diamond-encrusted cars have ***** to show. All these middle-eastern countries are essentially time-bombs (hmm...poor use of words maybe) that solely rely on their oil reserves to run their economy. I don't see much urgency to diversify their economy and look to a post-oil future.
    • Dysarthria, on 06/21/2008, -2/+6A lot has been written about how relatively few Saudi men hold degrees that are actually useful. A huge proportion of them hold degrees in Islam. They are killing the goose laying the golden eggs, and one day the rest of the world will own the mile-high buildings and man-made islands; and the Princes will look at their starving people calling for death to America and wonder how they blew it.
    • ltethe, on 06/21/2008, -1/+4No disagreement, with the notable exception of United Arab Emirates.
      • Dysarthria, on 06/21/2008, -2/+1How do you figure? Their economy is 90-99% oil.
      • dagamer34, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3UAE, especially Dubai, has been smart enough to start diversifying their assets now so that when the oil spicket runs dry, they sill have a useful economy.

        And according to Wikipedia, their capitcal city Dubai, only generals 6% of their $35 billion economy from petroleum and oil revenues.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai
    • Olfster, on 06/21/2008, -4/+3Suidis are not friends of the USA. If you can not make that connection after 9/11 and the run up on oil you are a fool and a half. They essentialy employ African slaves (low wage laborors) to build their country. Heck I bet the slaves wipe their asses too.
    • BarriedaleNick, on 06/21/2008, -0/+7Dubai and the UAE are in fact taking huge steps in other industies - tourism and large industry for example
      • Damien79, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1"Come and see the sand and possibly be kidnapped and beheaded while we stone some bitch to death for showing some ankle" - Any arab tourist agency brochure
  • digghasnoethics, on 06/21/2008, -2/+7We know that Saudi and OPEC can't really raise production. They are pumping flat out and the only increases come as and when new fields are bought online. The latest 500,000 from Saudi Arabia precisely matches the 500,000 from a new field. Since there is no megaproject from Saudi due until 2009 at the earliest, no further increases can be expected.

    So this meeting, that they called, must be for something else. Likely it is to read the riot act to consumer countries. First there is some sour, heavy crude lying around that can't find a buyer, so they will be telling countries to revise their refining capacity. Second they don't want to get paid in a worthless currency, so either they change instruments at this event, or they tell the US to support the dollar with interest rate rises and sane economics. Lastly, they tell the countries that the only way is down in production numbers, so they have to invest in efficiency. OPEC will apportion exports on the basis of needs and its up to the countries to deal with the outcome. Rationing by producers.

    This meeting is Saudi Arabia and OPEC gently attempting to take charge.
    • mlavergn, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Yep, but notice how the media spun that to make it sound like the Saudis are dipping into their vast spare capacity to add 500k barrels to the market. Like you said, reality is that there's no spare capacity, but saying that would cause oil to rise even higher. As it stands, we're in for some serious ***** once $100+ oil filters finally finishes working it's way through the economy in 3-6 months. Here's a beaut graph showing the kind of mess we're in: http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
      • olenick, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1That graph stops below $100 and it still looks like a classic bubble. If it wasn't late I may even plot it against the dot-com and housing bubbles. I don't have the capital or the craziness to try, but somebody's gonna' make a LOT of money shorting oil futures.
  • Barackalypse, on 06/21/2008, -3/+6The question is, will Congress:
    "Senate panel retains oil-shale moratorium"
    http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/15/ ...

    "The oil shale re-sources of the Nation total 2 trillion barrels."
    http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr ...

    Go go government interference causing shortages and artificially high prices!
    • elvenrunelord, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3Oil shale is very common around the world but its probably not an answer to the problem. First off its very dirty oil that will require advanced processing methods to clean and that will drive the prices up. Plus no source of oil is going to drive the prices down because there is no incentive to lower prices when the market will purchase at the current price. That is why i laughed when i heard about congress open up domestic drilling. Lol now America's resources will end up being sold to the highest bidder like OPEC's is. Do you think the average American will benefit from this move? Nope. However corporate fat cats just had a new all you can eat buffet style resturant open up in thier home town
      • Barackalypse, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Yes. the average American will benefit from this. Ever hear of the Alaska Permanent Fund? Every permanent resident of Alaska who has resided in the state for at least one year received a check for $1,654.00 in 2007.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
        The taxes on these resources generate considerable revenues for oil and gas producing states such as Texas, Oklahoma, etc.
        Further, the average American can buy stock in any of these companies, approximately 60% of my yearly income is oil company dividends. The oil industry employs millions of people worldwide, and at fantastic wages.

        As far as not having incentive to produce those fields, that totally flies in the face of how publicly traded corporations operate. The current price run up has caused massive increase in drilling and exploration activity. Every oil and gas company I own has expanded production output every year for the last 2 or 3. Perhaps you would have to live in a place like Alberta to see what's going on, but trust me, everyone up there is ramping up to produce more..
  • computershack, on 06/21/2008, -1/+4What a surprise. They've finally cottoned on to the fact that all the high prices are doing is making people actually think whether or not they need to do a journey, have their homes as hot as the Sahara in winter and look at alternative fuels. This is more about protectionism than anything else. If I were a Saudi, I'd be banking as much money as possible for when the inevitable happens.
    • spawnfree, on 06/21/2008, -1/+2more money for their spoiled kids to piss away.
  • spekesel, on 06/21/2008, -2/+4I am actually glad that oil prices are so high, I actually hope they continue to rise to fuel the anger towards OPEC and the oil producing countries as well as the cockbrained politicians that are complicit in this whole mess.

    I mean, peoples confidence in their government is already low, people want it out of their lives but one of the ways they could have restored some smidgen of confidence back would be to support the people and properly regulate the energy market. I mean, free markets, capitalism and all that but at the end of the day, people need energy to survive and make a living and I feel its the governments duty to make sure that these people are protected from these predators.

    Still, as the prices rise and anger grows, we will find alternatives, the shift will happen and just like how a 100 years ago the middle east wasn't relevant, in another 100 years if things keep going how they are now, they won't be relevant again, having gotten their free ride.

    So bring on the price rises cause like any medicine, it always tastes bad before it does any good.
  • gllopc, on 06/21/2008, -1/+2I won't believe any article regarding the price of oil until I see a lower price at the pump.
  • proliance, on 06/21/2008, -2/+4I say we just drill through the Earth and suck it out from under them.
  • bb5999, on 06/21/2008, -2/+3F&#K 'em

    Individually, you can make such a difference in your lives, your environment and the future of society. Ride that bike, walk, ride a motorcycle, you are empowered! Install solar, conserve, recycle, plant a garden, such simple principles, don't sweat the details, EVERY LITTLE bit is good for you, your kids and your neighbor.

    The incredible wave of alt energy start ups gives me a high. Invent, discover, encourage others, be independent. Why continue to shift world wealth to the hands of a few? Anyone who has ever spent more than a year outside of the US understands that most nations have two classes, the elite and the rest. Why keep putting your money in the hands of that elite class?

    It is time for American and other country's citizens to start looking out for their own.

    Be passionate about it.

    Be a patriot.

    New energy, cleaning up the world, improving our own futures by building new businesses and becoming independent of others is our great moment in history. The true entrepreneurial and pioneering spirit that is America is resurfacing

    This is how our great nation was built, there is a spark, now let us fan the flames.

    Collectively, taking action, amazing things are happening, we are entering into an epic era.
    • secrity, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2It will be interesting to see if any of these alt energy startups actually produce anything useful in the next five years.
  • DiggCrusher, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Aren't WE (the USA) one of the largest consumers of oil in the World?
    Then we should just say, "we're only going to buy oil from you at $30 dollars a barrel like we did 5 years ago. If you don't like it, find somewhere else to offload 18 million barrels a day."
    • Zanarkand, on 06/21/2008, -0/+6with other countries developing they will find others to unload the oil....believe me.
    • dagamer34, on 06/21/2008, -0/+5China and India would like to talk to that seller!
    • terryducks, on 06/21/2008, -0/+0Who's going to say this and will anyone obey it ? Citgo / Chavez / Argentina can ignore that accord. " well mr bush - those stations are ours to do with as we please. while the rest of you wait in lines on your designated day - we welcome anyone to pay our wonderful prices and get service, immediately"
    • DiggCrusher, on 06/21/2008, -0/+118 million extra barrels a day on the open market would crush the price of oil. China and India can't absorb all that extra supply.
    • greensky, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Because we have NO current alternative to oil. If we did we would move over to it today.
  • salazarmark, on 06/21/2008, -7/+1You ***** racist rednecks, the price of oil is not to be blamed with the Saudis, Indians, or Chinese; it's your own greedy stupid Caucasian speculators. Own up to it stupid Americans.
    • secrity, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4Lose the 'tude *****.
    • chrispr, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2Pro Tip: Oil speculators on wall street come in all races. Wall street for the most part doesn't care about race, only returns.
  • bb5999, on 06/21/2008, -2/+1We are the largest consumer, yes.

    "we should say...." Not reasonable. It is about supply and demand.

    We are far from energy independent, so we demand, oil producers supply. They hold the cards.

    If we further develop our own energy supplies, oil, gas, coal, nuclear and develop alternatives, then we hold the cards, our demand for their oil weakens, or in the best scenario, doesn't exist. We hold the cards.

    If you ride your bike, you hold the cards, you do not demand what others supply. I am not suggesting you only ride your bike, just using it as an example. But ride it once per week, support local farmers whose crops do not have large transport costs built into their prices. Now you are demanding less. Demand nothing and their supply becomes worthless.
  • gkiltz, on 06/21/2008, -0/+5Remember, they're not fundamentally at fault here, and can only influence things so much!
    The biggest problem is the Wall Street traders who aren't making any money right now in real estate, and are looking for something else! This whole situation makes Enron or World Com look like a couple of kids stealing candy from 7-11!

    The Saudis are as trapped on that one as we are!

    A second problem, that the Saudis can't solve either is the fact that we have not built a refinery in the US since 1977, we are completely unable to refine ANY Alaskan oil, and VERY LITTLE Canadian oil!

    We have to build our OWN refineries, the Saudis can't be of much help there!

    The next problem is that production is down in the former Soviet Union! The Saudis can help this to a certain extent, but only so much. Other places have to produce oil as well, they can only supply so much!

    Our own government is fully aware that this "China Argument" is complete hogwash, and won't explain to these idiots that it is about as believable as alligators in the sewer!

    That, for better or worse is something the Saudis can't help us with either!!
    • ManoWar, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2Yup it's important to remember that America runs an bubble bust economy. I bet financial stocks are next.
    • greensky, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1"we have not built a refinery in the US since 1977"

      That's not the issue. Oil prices are high, not just gas prices. If gas was really expensive, and oil was really cheap, then it would be an issue of not enough refinery capacity.
  • zeeshansyed, on 06/21/2008, -3/+1I found an interesting read! It's about saving money and well, with all the food prices, all prices on the "up", I just thought I should share it here with you guys! Oh hey, maybe I should digg it as well?

    http://www.creditandmortgageindex.com/money-saving ...
  • BillE3, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3It is so funny to see this nonsense from the Saudies. First they are not our friends and never really have been. They agreed to let us have military bases on their soil as long as we would buy a certain amount of oil. We kept it to a minium because of the cost and distance to deliver to us, they sell us just over 15% of our consumption. We buy the bulk of our foriegn deliverd oil from Canada, Mexico, and South America because the price was better and the cost of delivery is much lower. The Saudies know that Clinton allowed BP and Dubai into our oil trading market so they could make money, they just did not expect the 8,000% increase in oil contract trading. They all are making so much more money, they can cut production and still make the cash flow requirement. The Saudies do realize that if we start our own production and refining buildup, they will lose the market share. So they act like concerned friends and neighbors. I am not fooled.
  • rmeddy, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4Time to build a stargate.
  • Eric3k, on 06/21/2008, -0/+0I think that just about everyone is right to some extent on every reason oil is high and why it shouldn't be right now. I don't agree with the conspiracy about personal wealth for Bush and Cheeney. They are not getting wealthy over this... and are far less wealthy than the super rich of the world. Both had a earning potential much higher outside of politics. That is a childish view of the situation and far too simplistic. We have had oil problems before Bush ever had a job at all.
    • bsmeteronhigh2, on 06/21/2008, -0/+0Oh, yeah, as the head guy for the Texas Rangers! Yeah, I forgot about that! My bad.
  • 911cartoon, on 06/21/2008, -1/+2attention idiots who can put 2 and 2 together: oil prices are high because the federal reserve prints too many fxcking dollars
  • webguy52, on 06/21/2008, -0/+0I want an electric SUV. Thanks to the price of oil, I bet in 3 years a I get one.
  • Chip53, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Drill here, drill now, pay less.
    We're the only country on the planet that won't use its own resources.
    Remember, the Eskimos think Alaskan caribou is mighty tasty, plus you get to wear the skin.
  • lateralus, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Doesn't the US only get like 22% of it's oil from Saudi Arabia?

  • bsmeteronhigh2, on 06/21/2008, -0/+0Remember Enron? This article is about how speculators have driven up the price of oil, just as prices for electricity were driven up. The Saudi's realize they're getting the bum rap on oil prices. Thank our government for leaving the Enron loophole in place. They're the ones who've profited from your pain.
  • exomni, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2The higher oil prices get, the more likely we'll invest in clean and alternative energy. The oil producing nations need to keep us oil-dependent for as long as possible, and the way to do that is cheap gas, or a friendly president who will oppose progress in the White-House.

    What we need to do is stop driving ***** SUV's even when the gas is cheap. We need to invest in alternative energy and transportation because we are looking forward to the FUTURE, not because we are already hurting.

    We need to be responsible, invest in new technology, and plan ahead. It's as simple as that. It shouldn't take $4 gas to wake the hell up and do something about peak oil.


    And in the long run, that will also help the oil-producing nations, because the less we use oil, the longer it will last for them. Sure, the super rich kings won't be as rich, but it will end up with an evener source of revenue and less conflict.
  • adamd35941, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0Gee I really wish people would get off the "developing nations" bandwagon as a cause for the increased demand for refined fuel. China and India are still developing - not developed!

    There are few developed roadways linking major cities and provinces in China. This a great scare tactic though to hype up the fear factor - the major cause for the spike in fuel prices. India only has approximately 40,000 miles of developed roadways - compare this to 3,000,000 (million) miles in the US. And as many in the US know roadways are not quick or inexpensive to build let alone maintain.

    Am all for conservation - but to hell with speculation! I do want to continue conservation efforts - 80% of my work day commutes are on a 60mpg motorcycle and I am fortunate to be able to shop mainly by foot since I live in the city.
  • itchie, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0I really wish the media would stop with the whole supply-demand thing because the public may start believing it. The main factors here are our currency and speculation. Once they put the leeches on the speculation the prices will begin to lower. Its just a handful of people and companies that are benefiting from this while the rest of the world suffers. You do know that if they lower the price of oil people will be more inclined to spend their cash in other places, thus strengthening our economy which will raise our currency.....

    But in the same token thanks to this little crisis, it is the push that was needed to explore other avenues for energy creation. Thanks to the shear greed which is a negative human nature trait it was just the thing that we needed to look for other ways to power the world. So thank you greedy scumbags for managing to do something that no one else was capable of doing.
  • bb5999, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0They already have. Look at the price drops in solar.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.