There are two divergent views about future oil supply in the market in the news, the doom and gloom and the relatively optimistic. Who to believe? Does it matter? Should the view to which we subscribe change our energy policy?
International Energy Agency says that demand may outstrip supply:
The Paris-based International Energy Agency is in the middle of its first attempt to comprehensively assess the condition of the world’s top 400 oil fields. Its findings won’t be released until November, but the bottom line is already clear: Future crude supplies could be far tighter than previously thought.
…
The IEA monitors energy markets for the world’s 26 most-advanced economies, including the U.S., Japan and all of Europe. It acts as a counterweight in the market to the views of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The IEA’s endorsement of a crimped supply scenario likely will be interpreted by the cartel as yet another call to pump more oil — a call it will have a difficult time answering. Last week, the Saudis gave President Bush a lukewarm response to his plea for more oil, saying they were already adding 300,000 barrels a day to the market, an announcement that did nothing to cool prices.
Other energy market experts disagree:
many analysts are no longer so sure where oil is going, at least in the short term. Some say prices will fall as low as $70 a barrel by year-end, according to Thomson Financial.
Experts disagree over the supply of oil, the demand for it and whether recent speculation in the commodities markets has artificially raised prices.
IMO it doesn’t matter who is right. Foreign oil is a commodity whose supply and price structure is unstable. Americans should be demanding that their government immediately embark on a quest to produce far more sustainable energy – which does not include grain-based ethanol – from our own domestic resources. All of our cards should be on the table, including environmentalists’ sacred cows.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
All of our cards should be on the table, including environmentalists’ sacred cows. Amen, brother. We’re already a couple of decades behind the curve- it’s time to break out. Thus far, neither general election candidate has jumped on this as a key issue. I don’t get it.
As lucrative as oil has been, (note the past tense) and will continue to be in areas other than for powering a majority of light vehicles, the future will be in electricity production, storage and use in light and medium duty transportation. This additional electrical need will come from, for the medium term, rather traditional sources meaning an increase in solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and nuclear in combination with the coal fired plants (and improvements in that technology.) We will "feel the pain" for awhile as several things occur. Those are; 1) traditional energy companies (the ExxonMobiles’ etc.) make an effort to glean any additional profits possible (they need to for not just selfish reasons, the stockholders need to be considered too here as things like social security go away because of the huge number of retirement nest eggs tied up in these kinds of investments) 2) the time needed for infrastructure build up for those technologies chosen to provide the additional electricity (along with the NIMBY attitudes and inability of the US Congress and the Executive Branch to genuinely provide leadership which will slow things down even more.)
Many have argued that the amount of additional electricity needed can’t possibly be produced to make up for the "needed" loss of petro based fuels. To those that think this way please look up the National Ignition Facility, and READ the mission statement. Yes, this is not a "tomorrow" thing, it WILL take awhile, but not as long as believed as we already have much of the grid necessary.
PEAK OIL & OIL DEPLETION = ANCIENT OLD COW PRINCIPLE
The oil companies, governments, auto industry and news media refuse to understand peak oil and oil depletion. The best comprehendible example is the "Ancient Old Cow Principle." The old cow has been milked for too many years, but now gives diminishing milk and butter. The old cow is now relentlessly being milked to the last drop. Somehow, the oil companies, governments, auto industry and the news media find this "Ancient Old Cow Principle" incomprehensible, in spite of the fact that they have successfully milked (bilked) and shoveled huge pile of manure for decades. Force feeding (more oil depletion allowances) does not appear to rejuvenate the old cash cow any longer. The old cow is just worn out. This is not very difficult to understand, abut the oil companies, governments, auto industry and the news media still argue that the "Ancient Old Cow Principle" is simply to complicated to fathom, and desperately clutch to the old cow’s udder. For solutions to carbon dioxide emissions and hydrogen energy regeneration, please see my website: http://www.MZ-Energy.com. Thank you
With best regards,
Manfred Zysk, M.E.