Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oil is at a 12-year low

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • i'd rather not see such a shock at all, not that i think it will happen again.

    it effectively means trillions of dollars going to autocratic regimes and trickle-down to terrorist groups. innovation on renewables would be sped up, but there's an upper limit to that, plus the issue with infrastructure.

    on the contrary, i want to see a shock in the other direction: collapse back down to the $30-35 level, which was the low in February 2016. even current prices, which have roughly stabilized around $50, is rather too much for my taste-- Russia's budget can tolerate $40-45, but not much lower than that.

    unfortunately, don't think that will happen soon either. my guess is that if anything, prices will go up, probably back to the $60 range over the next year.

    status quo, more or less. well, unless we get into a major war...
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

    Comment


    • With astralis (sadly) again on this. Nor do I think high oil prices increase investment in alternative forms of energy. I have moderate investments in the meerkats and if I am advised or think that oil is going to go to $200 per barrel I am going to invest in an oil company or oil futures or something. When the price is low I look for alternatives and that may hydro, wind or geothermal or solar companies. Personally I do not know the energy markets well and distrust the political side of them so tend to steer clear but if I were another investor who is interested in energy markets that would be how I would view it.

      Comment


      • to derail the thread for a bit, ah, snapper, you do realize that by this point in time you likely agree with me more on the political issues of the day than you disagree with me? :-)
        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

        Comment


        • Originally posted by astralis View Post
          i'd rather not see such a shock at all, not that i think it will happen again.

          it effectively means trillions of dollars going to autocratic regimes and trickle-down to terrorist groups. innovation on renewables would be sped up, but there's an upper limit to that, plus the issue with infrastructure.

          on the contrary, i want to see a shock in the other direction: collapse back down to the $30-35 level, which was the low in February 2016. even current prices, which have roughly stabilized around $50, is rather too much for my taste-- Russia's budget can tolerate $40-45, but not much lower than that.

          unfortunately, don't think that will happen soon either. my guess is that if anything, prices will go up, probably back to the $60 range over the next year.

          status quo, more or less. well, unless we get into a major war...
          I should clarify - I'd rather not see such a sudden shock where the price goes from $40 to $300 overnight. If $300 were to be reached over 5 or 10 years - that would leave a lot of time for people to adapt their oil consumption habits, for technology to be researched and developed, and so on. With regards to the shot in the arm autocracies and terrorist orgs would get - we'd have to grin and bear it. Human history isn't going to stop because Putin and the Ayatollah made billions of dollars over the course of 5 years - hopefully history will continue for many thousands of years to come. These oil-based states might gain limited geopolitical ground for several years or even 15-20 years - but when we've gotten over the hump - check and mate against all the oil dictatorships.

          In an Absolut™ world, we'd be taxing gasoline at the rate many European countries do, and funneling the money into mass transit, R&D, and tax breaks for affordable mass-market efficient/alternative energy vehicles. But since the late 1940s, we've thrown so much good money and political capital after bad with truly enormous federal subsidies for freeways and suburban development via the FHA, GI programs, Fannie/Freddie, and so on.

          We were not that different than Europe in 1900, or even in the 1940s. Our cities had tram lines and trolleys, the tracks for which have since been paved over. The suburb was rare and usually had rail links to the city. Then we went all in on freeways, the automobile, and the suburb, and we're just starting to correct this problem, in a half-assed way. The conventional "wisdom" of the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s is still playing out in the burgeoning metropolises in the Sunbelt where the most urban growth is taking place, unfortunately, while the northeastern, northern, and western metropolises are consolidating their urban cores and investing in alternative transit options. I see these Sunbelt metropolises as a house of cards - they have little margin for error with regards to economic conditions, oil prices, etc. before it all falls down.

          For anyone who wishes to criticize the taxing of gasoline and funding of transit, R&D, and tax breaks for energy efficiency - I would point to the fact that our entire society as it is currently structured with regards to the suburb and automobile dependency is also federally subsidized to the tune of trillions upon trillions of dollars. A sudden rise to $200-300 would be an enormous shock to the extremely inefficient society and infrastructure we developed with federal subsidies from 1945-today.

          Obama had the right ideas and was able to prevail some of these his first two years, only to be obstructed by the contradictory national security hawk/national security hole (pro-oil) Republicans - but he is, obviously, no longer the President. We have gone from a deeply intellectual, generally good ideas, semi-black President to our first Orange-American president, as I'm sure everyone watching TV on January 20th is aware of, with the largest attendance, if Mr. Spicer is to be taken at his word, of any inauguration of history, even larger than the inauguration in Nuremberg in 1933.

          If only someone were able to make the Republicans see the light with regards to how much of dangerous national security threat our oil dependency is. I'm not sure how they deal with this contradiction internally - it is truly impressive mental gymnastics on their part to somehow believe being pro-oil and pro-national security as consistent and compatible positions, despite their being polar opposites.

          Being pro-oil and pro-national security is a mental delusion, in my opinion. Being self-sufficient in domestic production is not even a half-measure, it's a half-baked hundredth-measure. It only mitigates 1% of the dangerous problem that oil represents.
          Last edited by Ironduke; 29 Apr 17,, 14:41.
          "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post

            For anyone who wishes to criticize the taxing of gasoline and funding of transit, R&D, and tax breaks for energy efficiency - I would point to the fact that our entire society as it is currently structured with regards to the suburb and automobile dependency is also federally subsidized to the tune of trillions upon trillions of dollars. A sudden rise to $200-300 would be an enormous shock to the extremely inefficient society and infrastructure we developed with federal subsidies from 1945-today.
            ( thought process a bit fuzzy. Still on first cup of coffee)

            I see us going away from a sales tax on gas to a usage fee. Florida s already looking at this. Gas tax revenue is falling. Feds have a $0.184 tax per gallon, Florida adds $0.368, the county adds another $0.01 as does the city. But because of vehicles getting better gas mileage, helped by getting rid of old gas hogs with the Cash for Clunkers program, tax revenue has fallen almost 14%.

            The plan/idea now going through the Florida DoT is to take odometer readings when you register your vehicle each year and charging a usage fee based off miles driven. This in addition to the taxes already in place. The State wanted to implement that 2 years ago. The big snag was trying to decide who gets what part of the money. How do you decide how much time was spent driving on City roads, county roads state roads or Fed roads by an individual.
            Plus we wouldn't get money from tourist.

            I understand their problem. My old vehicle averaged 22 mpg city and 30 mpg highway. The car I now drive gets 40 city and 60 highway.

            Comment


            • So, when do you go to Mexico to kick the odometer backwards?
              No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

              To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                So, when do you go to Mexico to kick the odometer backwards?
                When you go to Mexico, you might get your odometer kicked backwards, among other things, such as your head or life. You might not come back with car or life if you go to Mexico to get your odometer rolled back. Best to stick to the resort cities further south.
                "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                Comment


                • Fact is 'alternative energy' is payed for mostly as a surplus tax on already existing fuel bills. If you raised oil based prices 4-6x millions would not be able to afford heating. Old people would die in winter more, some no doubt would save on cooking and end up mal nourished (not that many aren't already though in a different way), there would be mass unrest due to these hardships and if a Government did not withdraw the premium on the costs (or subsidise the hardest put) electoral disaster would loom. All spare wood be ripped up too most likely and illegal 'forestry' rocket.
                  Last edited by snapper; 30 Apr 17,, 04:05.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                    When you go to Mexico, you might get your odometer kicked backwards, among other things, such as your head or life. You might not come back with car or life if you go to Mexico to get your odometer rolled back. Best to stick to the resort cities further south.
                    Click image for larger version

Name:	gettyimages-81745858.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	986.1 KB
ID:	1470842
                    ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
                    Suicide squad?

                    ~25m tourist from US visit Mexico each year.
                    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                    Comment


                    • 25 million tourists may visit Mexico each year from the US, but when you go to a country such as Mexico with criminal intent, it's easy to get caught in something of a slippery slope and find yourself in a place you never intended. :-)

                      You may have simply showed up for an odometer rolled back - but one thing after another happens, and then all the sudden you find yourself barbecued, hanging upside down from an overpass, and thus you're the next breaking news alert on CNN. Or simply targeted for a 24 hour kidnap and ransoming.

                      I'm sure there are plenty of places to go in the US if one really wants an odometer roll back. I'm sure there's 10,000 guys in Florida doing it every day. ;-)

                      I'm not sure what exactly the breakdown of where tourists enter and leave from is - but I'm pretty sure most fly into cities such as Mazatlan or Acapulco, or other destinations. Much of the cross-border traffic by car and foot is simply Mexicans who work in America by day and sleep and eat dinner at home in Mexico at night, and obviously, imports/exports via truck, and people simply visiting their families.

                      I've been to the San Ysidro border crossing in San Diego, on the border with Tijuana. I was there during the evening rush hour. During rush hour it's tens of thousands of pedestrians with green cards/work permits entering the US to go to work in the morning, and heading back into Tijuana to go home in the evening. No different than any other rush hour, just that it's on foot and an international border is crossed. The pedestrian traffic was 100% Mexicans, the only gringo for two hours on the 100 meter ramp leading to the border crossing gates was me. I didn't see a single other gringo/gringa crossing the border in the entire time I hung out in San Ysidro.

                      Obviously, I had no interest in entering northern Mexico solo myself from the southern border crossing if I had no business going there. Like Moscow or West Philadelphia, I consider it a no-go area if I have no compelling reason to go there. I simply reached my arm through the gate to touch the concrete on the Mexican side for Cinco De Mayo. I traveled only elbow-deep into Mexico that day. I mean, after all, there is a major narco-war playing out and it's easy to find yourself caught up in something you don't quite expect.
                      Last edited by Ironduke; 30 Apr 17,, 14:30.
                      "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by snapper View Post
                        Fact is 'alternative energy' is payed for mostly as a surplus tax on already existing fuel bills. If you raised oil based prices 4-6x millions would not be able to afford heating. Old people would die in winter more, some no doubt would save on cooking and end up mal nourished (not that many aren't already though in a different way), there would be mass unrest due to these hardships and if a Government did not withdraw the premium on the costs (or subsidise the hardest put) electoral disaster would loom. All spare wood be ripped up too most likely and illegal 'forestry' rocket.
                        There were pains similar to what you've described, in Europe a few hundred years ago, during the transition to coal, after they had chopped down almost all of their forests to manufacture charcoal.

                        We can nitpick about the specifics, the time tables, what the ideal price of a barrel of oil should be, what effects price rises and declines would have, and the rate at which technology and research and development is able to move us past the Age of Oil.

                        I think this is getting lost in the weeds, or missing the forest for the trees. Oil and our continued reliance on it is extremely dangerous in many different ways. The capability exists to move on, as a world we simply need to find the willpower to do so. The debate taking place these last several pages is mostly regarding the specifics about how something we all agree on should occur, but otherwise nobody except the most ardent charcoal, I mean oil, fanatic would fail to see the common sense in that progressing to a new energy age is the only true path forward.

                        Fun fact: stir-fry was only invented in China after they had chopped down almost all of their own forests to manufacture charcoal. Cutting your food into small pieces and cooking it for just a few minutes was how the Chinese initially adapted to the charcoal/wood shortage. Prior to this the Chinese cooked like Europeans traditionally have, with long cook times, albeit with different spices, herbs, and flavor profiles. Europe discovered vast seams of coal, but fortunately in China the shortage lasted long enough that there are perhaps 100,000 Chinese restaurants or more in the West with food offerings that are indirectly the result of the 18th/19th century Chinese charcoal/wood shortage.

                        Not so fun fact: the desertification in Africa and the Middle East was partially the result of natural climate change over the last several thousand years, with Ice Age maximums and minimums and climate regions changing latitude as a result, but also the result of humans chopping down all the forests and overgrazing the grasslands. Even Saudi Arabia had vast tracts of forest, lakes, and rivers in the historical period.
                        Last edited by Ironduke; 30 Apr 17,, 16:33.
                        "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                        Comment


                        • There's still plenty of oil and when scarce will price itself out of the market without any help from taxes, and even Gavin Schmidt puts Sahara's current condition down to orbital fluctuation. (he's a 'tipping point' advocate for obvious reasons)
                          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                          Leibniz

                          Comment


                          • [QUOTE=TopHatter;1024330]Not true. High oil prices drive development and public awareness of fuel efficiency and renewables.


                            They also crush hiring and modernization in any field that relies on vehicle fuel. It really hurts people on a fixed or low income budget. It is also death to rural denziens who must commute even to buy staples let alone get to work.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                              We can nitpick about the specifics, the time tables, what the ideal price of a barrel of oil should be, what effects price rises and declines would have, and the rate at which technology and research and development is able to move us past the Age of Oil.
                              I do not disagree on the need to change to 'renewables' but precisely what we disagree on is the "specifics" - which effect the ordinary person - of where it is better have low oil prices (circa $50pb or lower) or higher ($300pb). In my view oil at $300pb would shrink the whole economy and cause hardships unknown.

                              EDIT reply to asty:
                              Originally posted by astralis View Post
                              to derail the thread for a bit, ah, snapper, you do realize that by this point in time you likely agree with me more on the political issues of the day than you disagree with me? :-)
                              I am not hardcore 'right wing' or 'left wing' which are out of date thinking imv. Just looking for the best solutions to the many problems we are experience and can foresee.
                              Last edited by snapper; 01 May 17,, 04:55.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                                Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                                Not true. High oil prices drive development and public awareness of fuel efficiency and renewables.

                                They also crush hiring and modernization in any field that relies on vehicle fuel. It really hurts people on a fixed or low income budget. It is also death to rural denziens who must commute even to buy staples let alone get to work.
                                No argument here. Which is exactly why I wouldn't want to see price shocks like we did 10 years ago.
                                “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X