Oil to go to $105/bbl?? - Page 2 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Bertuzzied · 04-01-2005, 12:33 PM

I thnk Bush will "liberate" the alberta oil sands next. Watch out Fort McMurray, i think Cheney will start planting weapons of mass destruction at Slave Lake sometime next summer.

InTheSlot · 04-01-2005, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Apr 1 2005, 11:28 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Apr 1 2005, 11:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

Originally posted by InTheSlot@Apr 1 2005, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Apr 1 2005, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bertuzzied@Apr 1 2005, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Apr 1 2005, 03:55 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Bertuzzied

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

@Mar 31 2005, 09:33 PM
Hey if Oil is at $105/barrell won't that bankrupt Bushy and the US?? we are in big trouble. If we know the US economy will crumble(they are like 5 trillion dollars in debt) so i'm sure it's bound to happen how can we "short" the US so we can make money off them? The only way i can think of is buying euros but is there any other way?

If oil goes to $105 a barrel, Bush and his buddies will make a lot of money.

Yes i'm sure of that. BUt the US economy will probably crumble.

Probably, but I doubt it would crumble badly in relation to most of the rest of the developed nations. China would be fairly screwed, as their energy demands are skyrocketing. $100 a barrel would severely cripple their growth.

In fact, maybe $100 would be great for the US strategically... its already developed a fantastic financial/industrial base while China's is still fledgeling. This would be a great time to put the breaks on Chinese growth, and this would certainly be one way to do it.

China's always got steel. That's a HUGE moneymaker for them right now. Steel prices are nuts.

Sure, and Texas has oil. I doubt high single commodity prices would be able to offset crippling energy prices. China is probably also using most of its steel, as opposed to exporting it, though I could be wrong. [/b][/quote]
Well actually I think it's pretty evenly distributed, that is, exported and used equally.

Regardless, did anyone else hear a week or so ago that they started drilling in the Alaskan Pipeline? Sure it takes about 10 years before oil can be actually used at the pumps, but it sure is a nice help.

Clarkey · 04-01-2005, 02:26 PM

Have any of you guys read "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin?

It's a great book that chronicles the impact oil has had on the world over the last 100 years or so. It's a good read.

There is also a PBS mini series based on the book.

Looger · 04-01-2005, 02:30 PM

i think people have a misguided interpretaion of import and export.

the united states is a net importer but makes quite a bit.

the alaskan oil will be going to southeast asia.

the iraq oil is not for the us, it is still for europe. but control of that market is worth more than the oil itself.

Looger · 04-01-2005, 02:32 PM

as to the topic at hand opec wouldn't allow $100 USD barrels, they are trying to do the long-term thing.

there won't be another 1973 oil crisis in my opinion, they know that alternative energy sources will start to look better with another PR mess like that.

Clarkey · 04-01-2005, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Looger@Apr 1 2005, 08:30 PM
i think people have a misguided interpretaion of import and export.

the united states is a net importer but makes quite a bit.

the alaskan oil will be going to southeast asia.

the iraq oil is not for the us, it is still for europe. but control of that market is worth more than the oil itself.

I guess it's not so much where it goes, it's how much is being produced. More production= lower prices. If the U.S. can control how much is produced in Iraq they can take some power from OPEC. Iraq is still a member of OPEC at this point though, so who is going to win out; the U.S. or OPEC?

I would think that most of the Alaska oil (ANWR) would go to the U.S. via pipeline through Canada, not asia.

Looger · 04-01-2005, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clarkey@Apr 1 2005, 08:42 PM
I guess it's not so much where it goes, it's how much is being produced. More production= lower prices. If the U.S. can control how much is produced in Iraq they can take some power from OPEC. Iraq is still a member of OPEC at this point though, so who is going to win out; the U.S. or OPEC?

I would think that most of the Alaska oil (ANWR) would go to the U.S. via pipeline through Canada, not asia.

true.

iraq is one of the largest oil exporters in the world, a good chunk of OPEC.

the US and OPEC are not diametrically opposed as far as i'm concerned.

the only reason i can think of to tap alaska is to send it to asia. piping it through canada may be a close second.

not sure but i think that decision may have something to do with all the offshore that got wiped out during the hurricanes last year, big hit to production hence a rise in price. but that supply still has to be replaced.