Display:
we could easily have a 2-3 year lull in price advancement.  Refinery expansion plans are huge.  Those $15 mogas cracks are just too tasty so refiners will add capacity until they kill their margins again.  Just like the early 80's.

There's an odd little website promoting oil market analysis that has some interesting graphs.  

check this one out:

http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/PAPRPNT.gif

and this one

http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/PAPRPNT.gif

showing non-opec and open production for the last 30-35 years.

 looking at the two you can see just why Saudi want to get prices down to prevent conservation and alternatives.  They got destroyed in the early 80's by conservation.  You can see how the Saudi's cut and cut their production to hold the price up until they couldn't stand it anymore.  

You can see how the high price stimulated exploration and production elsewhere once oil wasnt just going to be $4/bbl based on stripping out the Middle East reserves.

IF (repeat IF) there are deposits to be exploited elsewhere, there will be big efforts to grab these prices.  My gut feel is we will get world production up in the next few years and demand will ease. Add in the recession when the Bush bubble bursts and we could be back in the 30's briefly.   but I've been wrong before.

One good political event in the Mid East though and up we go.  

by HiD on Sun Sep 17th, 2006 at 03:14:45 AM EST
everything is pretty logical up to here:
Add in the recession when the Bush bubble bursts and we could be back in the 30's briefly.
Was it the Clinton bubble that burst in March 2000 when the technology indices plummeted?  Give me a __'ing break.  Of course not!  Look at the issues around technology and the Internet!!  The American economy just has so little to do with the president in power.  There will be no "Bush" recession that will take us back to the '30's.  there was no Clinton boom, that 10 year period of golden economics that began 18 months before Clinton took office (Clinton should get very little credit for it).  the recession that started 30 days after Bush took office had nothing to do with Bush (you think he started the recession after 30 days in office?  and though the US economy is great right now, Bush should get very little credit for it.  You're clouding your vision with this political BS.

Stick with the basics regarding oil supply and demand, alternative sources, and the risk profile of the world after 9/11 and imho you'll have a clear picture of the future.  On the other hand, if you're one of the wacko's that thinks Bush plotted 9/11,,,,well, then you should believe that today's risk premium is due to Bush.  Otherwise, stick with your vey logical analysis of the energy markets, and imo you'll be pretty accurate.

by wchurchill on Sun Sep 17th, 2006 at 04:27:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just flat don't agree

Bush's bubble is based on tax deferments that have added $3+ trillion to our debt.  That piper has to be paid.  the 90's had growth that was underpinned by a balance sheet that was steadily improving.  This mediocre expansion is mostly credit driven, both at the government level and from people leveraging their housing.  I can and do blame Bush for the hangover we'll have when sanity returns.  Just as I blame Reagan for blowing out our balance sheet for 8 years in the 80's.

I don't give Clinton complete credit for the 90's, I'd give it to Rubin and the peace dividend and good fortune.  I don't blame bush for the 2001 recession.  any more than I blame him for 9-11.  He's still an incompetent wanker that could have done more though instead of focusing on Star Wars from Jan to Aug 2001.  Please don't put words in my mouth.  

As for putting me in with 9-11 conspiracy whackos -- my first reaction is "kiss my ass".  Or are you too busy kissing GWB's???

Your description of the 90's is classic limbaugh.  Give all credit to Republicans and shift all blame to Clinton.  You've dropped about 1000% in credibility in my book.  Offgefucken

by HiD on Sun Sep 17th, 2006 at 05:35:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
right, I say stick to the facts and forget the politics and you're pissed off.  my point is to not give the credit or debit to the politicians, so check the mirror and you'll see the wanker.  <crying because my credibility has dropped 1000%>
by wchurchill on Sun Sep 17th, 2006 at 05:47:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
perhaps you should stick to facts as well and avoid offering advice on what others should have opinions about.  Not to mention fingerpainting about their opinions they've yet to express.

that post was proof that

the # of assholes is > the number of heads.  

by HiD on Sun Sep 17th, 2006 at 06:05:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, you are right here.  I do disagree with your comment on short term impacts of politicians, positive or negative.  But my comments went far beyond that, due to some pent up anger from other comments on other threads related to 9/11.  You had nothing to do with that, of course, and it was foolish of me to carry on as I did with my comments to you.
by wchurchill on Sun Sep 17th, 2006 at 06:38:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd give that one about a 3/10.  But I give every dog one bite.  
by HiD on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 04:39:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series