| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Tech |
| Oil Hits $50.38 (so far) in Overnight Trading |
| 2004-09-28 |
| Crude oil futures continued to rise in electronic premarket trading in New York early Tuesday, passing the psychologically important $50 per barrel mark, to a new all-time high of $50.35, up $1.47 from Friday. Worries of supply shortages intensified following reports of unrest and violence in oil-producing countries such as Nigeria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, prompting U.S. and European investors to snap up crude futures, traders said. Concerns of lower oil production in the Gulf of Mexico due to hurricanes also drove up prices, traders said. The U.S. government began tapping into emergency oil reserves last week to cover Hurricane Ivan's disruption to oil supply. Traders said prices may rise further. In London, Brent North Sea crude oil for November delivery briefly hit a record $46.28 in Monday's trading. |
| Posted by:Mark Espinola |
| #17 To repace the raw energy content of all US oil imports (10M bbls/day), my calculations say it requires about 600 nuclear reactors (1000MW each). But since the nuclear power is output as electricity, the net reactor count required is about 300, assuming 45% net oil to electricity generation efficiency. This is definitely doable, but requires almost all new passenger cars be electric powered. Depending on electricity-battery-electricity conversion efficiency (wihich I don't know), the net reactor count could be as low as 200, assuming gas engine efficiency is 25-30%. Economically, I think this is a long term winner, not only saving oil import cost, but also defence costs, and allows us to tell the Arabs to go pound sand. The problem is there is a HUGE up front cost of building reactors and retooling the auto industry, but once done, operating costs are very low. Only a national initiative with government mandates can overcome the initial capital barrier. FYI, about 100 nuclear power reactors are in US operation accounting for about 20% of electical power. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-09-29 1:39:12 AM |
| #16 If you want genuine alternatives, they are nuclear Which I have advocated all along. Remember folks, the oil will run out. Maybe not soon, but the wells will run dry some day. The sooner we begin investigating efficient alternative modes of propulsion, the better off we'll be. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-09-29 1:17:54 AM |
| #15 No problem WA.Me,the old lady,16 year-old son,dog,cat and 2 aquiriams will move in with you next week.(lol) |
| Posted by: Raptor 2004-09-28 7:42:33 PM |
| #14 If people could see how close to $100 per barrel the true cost of oil is they might be a lot more willing to support federally funded alternative energy and vehicle transportation initiatives. I have non-federally funded alternative vehicle transportation! It's called a "motorcycle". |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-09-28 6:23:56 PM |
| #13 As long as you'll be back. Miss your stuff, bro. Not always enough spade-callers around, lol, if you know what I mean... Good luck with your project and stay close! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-09-28 5:51:04 PM |
| #12 .com, moved back to OZ. I weaned myself off RB posting cos I'm minmizing my distractions until I finish a writing project. Still read RB once a day though! |
| Posted by: phil_b 2004-09-28 5:47:31 PM |
| #11 Weird Al is a genius! You'd also get a foo load of current if we could find enough frog tongues. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-09-28 5:36:41 PM |
| #10 Cover Arizona with aluminum foil and flood it underneath with sea water. The resulting heat energy will power the whole planet. And nobody will miss Arizona. |
| Posted by: Weird Al 2004-09-28 4:28:14 PM |
| #9 phil_b - Where you been, brother? Catching |
| Posted by: .com 2004-09-28 4:18:48 PM |
| #8 Zensters right about the problem, but wrong about the solution. Most 'alternative energy' sources consume more energy than they produce, i.e. they make the problem worse. Fuel cells and 'hydrogen power' being a case in point. If you want genuine alternatives, they are nuclear, coal and maybe (imported) gas. Thats it until we get cold fusion working. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2004-09-28 4:08:31 PM |
| #7 But oil is a national asset! Don't I get a piece of the action? Yeah them Mom and Pops are going to be started up big time. Watch for Jay Florida to boom! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-09-28 4:04:19 PM |
| #6 Don - BP bought up literally thousands of stripper wells during the 80's and is the largest US oil producer. 'Tis true. The primary benefit will be to the oil rights owner, BP. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-09-28 3:20:13 PM |
| #5 The better target is when it becomes economical for the US energy companies to take the cap off the existing pumps and restart extracting oil from domestic fields once again. |
| Posted by: Don 2004-09-28 3:15:05 PM |
| #4 Difficult to figure the real cost. What's the real cost of a Carribean cruise? Should it include part of the cost of the CVN Ron Reagan? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-09-28 1:26:45 PM |
| #3 Just once I'd like to have the American people shown what the real price of oil is when you factor in all of our military expenditures or other taxpayer expenses required to secure the Persian Gulf and other overseas petroleum interests in general. Iraq does not have to be included in this, although it does represent an ancillary issue. For the nonce, we can leave out any offset for the enormously expensive complications, both health-wise and environmental, that result from pollution due to burning of fossil fuels. For the sake of argument, we can even omit any impacts of global warming. If people could see how close to $100 per barrel the true cost of oil is they might be a lot more willing to support federally funded alternative energy and vehicle transportation initiatives. Considering the technological might available at our fingertips, America's unwillingness or inability to wean itself off of the oil teat is a national disgrace. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-09-28 11:57:42 AM |
| #2 It is REALLY the highest, or have the once more failed to adjust for inflation? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-09-28 11:09:45 AM |
| #1 I don't believe that $50 is "psychologically important" to crude oil buyers. It's just $0.01 more than $49.99 and $0.01 less than $50.01. Crude oil buyers are not small investors who play the market like the lottery, and they are considerably more number-savy than the morons who write these hyped-up articles. "Traders say prices may rise further." Who would have guessed! Great journalism, isn't it? |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-09-28 11:08:07 AM |