babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » Fillerup, and throw in a quart, willya pal?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Fillerup, and throw in a quart, willya pal?
fuslim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5546

posted 13 October 2004 05:58 AM      Profile for fuslim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A report in the Globe & Mail Report On Business (Saudi Arabia set to tap virtually all spare oil capacity – Report On Business Mon, Oct 11/04 Patrick Brethour).

From the report:

“OPEC keystone producer Saudi Arabia moved to rein in surging oil prices yesterday, saying it is prepared to “immediately” gear up nearly its entire spare capacity to boost global supplies...

…Saudi Oil Minister Ali Naimi said the kingdom is prepared to inject another 1.5 million barrels a day of crude into the market. This action would leave OPEC essentially producing at full capacity…

…The drop in the cartels spare capacity – which stood at 20 million b/d in 1980 but is as little as 1.5 million b/d currently – has been cited as a factor in the current bout of high oil prices. Virtually all of that spare capacity is found in Saudi Arabia.”

There are two very important bits here.

1. Total production capacity is much unchanged over the last twenty years.

In 1980, total capacity was 63 mb/d plus the spare capacity of 20 mb/d to equal roughly 83 mb/d.

In 2004, total production capacity is 81.5 mb/d, plus spare capacity of 1.5 mb/d, to equal 83 mb/d.

2. In 1980, spare capacity - 31.7 % of total demand. In 2004, spare capacity - 1.8% of total demand.

No one really knows what total possible production per day is, but it’s a safe guess that it’s not much higher than current total production.

It’s also a safe guess that demand will equal supply sometime in the very near future.

When that happens, the oil wars will break out for real. At that point, any country wanting to increase it manufacturing output will have to take oil from someone who is already using it.

Hmmmmmmmm……


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 14 October 2004 02:39 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
According to a stock trader interviewed by the producers of, "The Corporation", traders and investors could hardly hold back their enthusiasm for the bombing of Baghdad or for Saddam to set the oil fields on fire in 1991 as oil prices skyrocketed. It's a great time to be fabulously wealthy and enjoying the windfalls of no-bid contracts in Iraq.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 19 October 2004 03:01 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Greenspan: Current Soaring Oil Prices Less Painful Than 1970's Oil Shocks

quote:
World oil prices hit a new record high in Friday's trading in New York.

Crude oil for future delivery was as high as $55 a barrel before easing slightly at the close of trading.

The all-time-high price came just hours after the head of the U.S. central bank said high energy prices are likely to have less impact on the economy than the oil shocks of the 1970's.


Incidentally, oil prices are now at 1973 levels after adjusting for inflation.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
fuslim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5546

posted 19 October 2004 08:18 PM      Profile for fuslim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Incidentally, oil prices are now at 1973 levels after adjusting for inflation.

It has always amazed me how cheap oil is, given its value to industrial economies.

The very low price may be a result of the huge military expenditures required to maintain supply (and which are not added into the price.)

However, all that is about to come to an end, Greenspan or no Greenspan.

Right now, China uses about 6 mbbls/day, which translates into a per capita use of 3.8 bbls/day per 1000 people.

By comparison, per capita use in the United States is 67.8 bbls/day per 1000 people.

If China consumed oil at the same per capita rate as the US, their consumption would be about 67 mbbls/day.

Given the total supply is 80 mbbls/day, it doesn't take much to realize one of four things are going to happen.

1. Daily oil production increases to 120 mbbls/day in order to accommodate increased demand.

2. The United States cuts its consumption by 11 mbbls/day in order to end the requirement for importing oil.

3. The United States increases its military presence in the Middle East, and threatens other countries (China) with nuclear weapons if they try to take the oil.

4. The free market prevails, and oil is sold to the highest bidder.

Which of these do you think is most likely?


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca