Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front Economy

Oil deepens losses to below $64

2006-09-13

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Oil extended losses for the seventh consecutive session on Tuesday, retreating to under $64 a barrel after Iran sounded a softer note on its atomic program and OPEC agreed to keep production steady for now. U.S. light crude for October delivery settled $1.85 lower at $63.76 a barrel, the lowest level since March 22, and the longest losing streak in nearly three years. London Brent crude fell $1.56 to $62.99.

"There is potential that this could go a long way, since pure supply and demand would dictate a price in the low $50s. But the geopolitical element remains," said Mike Fitzpatrick, vice president at Fimat USA.

Oil has fallen 20 percent in two months, raising questions within the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries about whether to make its first formal output cut in 2-1/2 years.

Many analysts say the extent of the decline depends on OPEC deciding what price it is ready to defend. "Fundamentally, there's more downside to go, probably to the point where OPEC decides to cut supply," said Mike Coleman, a partner with Singapore-based hedge fund Aisling Analytics.

Iran's oil minister said he wanted to see OPEC's basket of crudes holding above $60 a barrel, about $64 for U.S. crude, while other officials have in the past mooted a $50-$60 range.

OPEC, which has avoided naming a new target price, decided on Monday to maintain production limits at 28 million barrels per day (bpd), but said it could meet again before the end of the year to review the situation.

Good. Let them cut production. We can handle $55 a barrel oil. Can they handle the revenue loss? Or will they, as usual, cheat?

Posted by:Steve White

#26 $2.39 on base here at Lejeune.

Posted by: Broadhead6 2006-09-13 23:49

#25 $2.31/gal here in Atlanta metro (can be had for $2.29/gal at Wal Mart too). AND, Friday is the day we switch to that lovely "winter blend" and away from the botique blends for the Air regulations, which many speculate will drop it another $.10-$.15/gal by this weekend....YIPEE!

Posted by: BA 2006-09-13 23:38

#24 CA's is high enough, tyvm. We're paying $2.78/gal at the cheapest unleaded

Posted by: Frank G 2006-09-13 20:37

#23 $2.44 per Gallon here on the Gulf Coast (Mobile Alabama)

Posted by: Redneck Jim 2006-09-13 20:07

#22 Do you realy think that an oil import fee would do anything other than to raise costs for everyone and to raise revenue for the one element in the economy that doesn't need more money, the government?

Increase the gasoline tax. Oil production from new, risky sources such as shale oil or tar sands could be measured and the tax could be directly rebated to those producers. Over time decrease the rebate. This would have a secondary affect of indirectly paying for the military cost of securing supply lines and sources and the environmental cost of fossil fuel use.

There would be a GDP depressing affect due to increased fuel cost but that might be balanced by more of the fuel costs being spent in the US.

Cutting off petro dollars going to ME countries might make raising gas taxes politically feasible.

Posted by: Hupeger Creamble4059 2006-09-13 18:05

#21 Badanov's Federal Oil Indepedence Act provisions:

1) Kill all taxes on oil imported or otherwise all the way to the pump.

2) ???

3) PROFIT!!

Posted by: badanov 2006-09-13 13:17

#20 It would induce more investment to be made in the extraction of domestic supplies using capital intense methods, it would reduce price volitility, it would reduce expenditure of taxes on defense forces to protect Arab regimes and it could be made to be revenue neutral to the government.

Thanks you for proving my point. The oil import fee would essentially make domestic oil prices rise to meet the increased cost of imported oil; this the fee would be a subsidy for the "domestic" oil industry. And once oil oversupply takes, place, which it will, guess where the investment money goes?

Does it go to the higher return / low cost imported oil or to the lower return / higher cost domestic oil?

Nothing kills investment in any industry faster than a govenrment subsidy, especially when everyone knows the oil industry doesn't need a subsidy, they need tax reductions.

Only supply or market supported substitutes reduces price volitility of an inherently volitile commodity such as oil.

Ronald Magnus was right: government isn't the solution. Government is the problem.

Wanna ensure stable oil supply? Kill all federal and state taxes at the pump and at the wellhead, as well as any duties and let the marlet sort it out.

As it is, it appears that some just want to high prices to continue for domestic producers, but an oil import fee will keep prices high for everyone, but the producers.

I'll give you time to check it out how successful oil import fees were in controlling price and supply.

I'm telling you its a dumb idea.

Posted by: badanov 2006-09-13 13:09

#19 Last I looked (a few days ago), $2.27 at Wa-Wa and Sheetz in Chesterfield County, VA (outside Richmond). The Exxon I pass each morning on my way to work has come down a few cents since then, so I suspect the Wa-Wa is below $2.27 now.

I'll find out when I fill up this weekend, :-D

Yesterday I heard on the radio about a price war between 2 stations in Norfolk (VA) - $1.78/1.79.

Woo-hoo!

Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-09-13 13:08

#18 O.K. Here's Bobby's plan, a sure-fire way to never hold public office:

Pass the law that says the tax on gas will go up ten cents a gallon, for the next twenty years.

Folks get a chance to plan for higher costs and slowly get away form S.U.V.'s

All the tax has to go to rapid transit, energy independence, wind farms off Cape Cod, and related topics.

In the event of an embargo, the tax could be temporarily reduced to steeady the price.

Brilliant.

Simple.

Impossible.

Posted by: Bobby 2006-09-13 13:02

#17 Do you realy think that an oil import fee would do anything other than to raise costs for everyone and to raise revenue for the one element in the economy that doesn't need more money, the government?

It would induce more investment to be made in the extraction of domestic supplies using capital intense methods, it would reduce price volitility, it would reduce expenditure of taxes on defense forces to protect Arab regimes and it could be made to be revenue neutral to the government.

How was our country able to prosper for 125 years on only import fees but suddenly they're evil incarnate?

Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-09-13 12:57

#16 Pandering whores, yes, but how far-seeing! They predicited W would cut the price of gas in time for his re-election. But Rove knew it would be better to wait until the mid-term election, when the war was nearly lost. Cheney, of course, wanted no reduction in gas, ever, since his Halliburton shares, and other secret holdings, depend on screwing the average American that only the Democrats can save....

Whew! Paranoia's not that hard.

Posted by: Bobby 2006-09-13 12:56

#15 Heh, Mullah Richard, that comes close to what I was thinking:

Yet another Dhimmicrat Talking Point Bites The Dust, LOL.

As if they would have the first clue what to do about market forces, other than fuck things up and make everything MUCH worse. Pandering whores.

Posted by: flyover 2006-09-13 12:50

#14 This drop in gas prices is an outrage! Congressional Hearings are called for!

Posted by: Mullah Richard 2006-09-13 12:46

#13 An oil import fee that keeps the price stable and high enough to stimulate supply.

Oil import fees were a dumb idea in the 70s and they are an even dumber idea now.

Only supply keeps prices stable. An oil import fee would not stop an overproduction by OPEC nor will it stop OPEC from constricting production for the kind of prices they want.

Remember Port Arthur Texas? Bringing oil into Port Arthur to be reexported to Mexico only to be reimported into the US all to escape an oil import duty.

Do you realy think that an oil import fee would do anything other than to raise costs for everyone and to raise revenue for the one element in the economy that doesn't need more money, the government?

Posted by: badanov 2006-09-13 12:37

#12 Still $2.80 - $2.95 in Chicago, home of Da Mayor and high taxes ...

Posted by: Steve White 2006-09-13 11:08

#11 Gasoline is still around $2.75/gallon for regular in Anchorage, Alaska. Some gasoline is refined in North Pole and in Nikiski, but the majors are still barging it up from the west coast. Hopefully, there will be just a time delay and we will see a price decrease. When I was in NW Alaska last August, the price of gasoline at the Shungnak Native Store was $8.00 per gallon. High crude prices, coupled with large surcharges in barge rates, plus once-a-year deliveries on a river barge, after being lightered from offshore, make the costs astronomical. Heating oil was $5.00 per gallon up there.

Posted by: Alaska Paul 2006-09-13 10:06

#10 I hold wall Street and the oil speculators partially to blame for this. They ride and inflame the market allowing every burp in the middle east to equate to a 50 cent per gallon increase. I hope they are choking on their losses.

I hope the oil companies, in light of the dropping prices, continue with the jack wells in the Gulf of Mexico and with the canadian projects. Then we could close the US market to Arab oil. I would be happy to pay 3 buck a gallon if we are free of using Arab oil. Send these OPEC countries and leaders back to living in tents.

Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-09-13 09:16

#9 $2.34 at the Sunoco in Prince William County, VA, 25 miles south of the White House. $2.45 on the PW Parkway, half a mile from the Sunoco, however, and some still over $3.00 in DC, according to the radio.

Adam Smith, indeed.

Posted by: Bobby 2006-09-13 09:13

#8 ...$2.10 a gallon for regular at some of the independent stations here in Georgetown SC, topping out at around $2.29 at the major chains - and they say by the weekend they may have no choice but to be down around $2.10 or even $2.00.

Somewhere, Adam Smith smiles.

Mike

Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2006-09-13 08:49

#7 I just hope the 'speculators' who bought oil futures at $70 a barrel eat it. Burn their means to manipulate the market.

Posted by: Jort Chitle9044 2006-09-13 07:45

#6 There will be more cheating this time around too. SA has lost the ability to enforce quotas by threatening massive overproduction.

Posted by: 6 2006-09-13 07:43

#5 The result, as we've seen over the last thirty or so years is that oil represents a shrinking percentage of the economy.

But that may be over. Thirty years ago we generated electricity from oil. Oil has been removed from every non-transportation use possible, except extruded plastic lawn chairs, and transportation.

And there's plenty of folks willing to drive bigger vehicles farther more often, especially the farther down the international economic ladder one goes. People will buy the un-economic Prius for now to feel good, but when battery replacement time comes, along with $20 per barrel oil, they'll be happy to pick up an SUV.

DMFD has identified the critical steps neceaasry to deflate OPEC. The key is keeping the price high enough to reward the capitalists willing to make the large investments necessary to bring these sources to market. An oil import fee that keeps the price stable and high enough to stimulate supply.

Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-09-13 07:41

#4 High oil prices result in more exploration, which leads to more production and lower prices. Plants to convert Canadian tar sands in Alberta are on-line and production is growing. The tar sands represent more oil than the reserves of Saudi-occupied Arabia. And conversion is economic above $20 / barrel. Imagine what would happen to prices if we got off our collective butts and started to drill in ANWR and off the east / west coasts.

Posted by: DMFD 2006-09-13 06:57

#3 Excellent summation, Baba Tutu. *kudos*

The loudly ticking demographic time bomb will make the Saudi Minister's realization, or whatever the context was, a mere confirmation of the reason for their particular demise: classic greed and stupidity. The "boom" there is coming, visible to anyone who's paying attention. They, all of the oil-tick "states", will probably dissolve into "instability", LOL. The UN and the Arab League and the OIC and the GCC and all of the other wanky wonk clusters of thieves will be beside themselves, hold lots of pointless hand-wringing conferences, assign blame to everyone but themselves, and keep the MSM busy reporting their "brave" attempts to figure out how to relieve the pressure before it consumes them all. It will be low comedy.

The only mitigating factor, IMO, will be the fact that Saudi Arabia and Iran, fracturing for differing reasons, represent such a huge percentage of the oil export business that the others will actually amount to little more than a footnote.

If we fear (or whatever level of discomfort we wish to assign) the economic effect of kicking the shit out of Iran will have on the world, we need only recognize this looming Muzzy BSOD (LOL) will be equally "destabilizing", and should consider how we will protect ourselves. If that means taking their goodies away from them, then so be it. If we can't accept that brazen act without getting all squishy about it (LOL), then we can put the assets "in trust" - just not allow any of the UN-type schemers to have anything to do with administering it, of course. We'll steal it fair and square, we should administer it. This, alone, is sufficient reason, IMO, to go ahead and cut our ties with the UN.

To paraphrase, "Something ass-kickingly wicked, this way comes." :)

Posted by: flyover 2006-09-13 04:41

#2 The Mullahs and Emirs are screwed in the long run, and in their saner moments they know it. When the price of oil goes up, market economies react by restructuring themselves to use less of it. When the price goes down, many of those efficiencies remain in place. The result, as we've seen over the last thirty or so years is that oil represents a shrinking percentage of the economy.

Meanwhile, the states of of the mid-East continue to buy what social cohesion they have with payouts from their johnny-one-note economies. They have nowhere to go, no plan B. Rationalizing their economies, like their politics, will be a monumental undertaking.

One of the smartest things I have heard from a Saudi was an oil minister who observed that the stone age did not end because we ran out of stones. At one time, sitting on a pile of flint would have made you rich and powerful. Now its just a rock.

Posted by: Baba Tutu 2006-09-13 03:46

#1 Ya, but what will the Mullahs use to buy the Hezbos new toyz

Posted by: Captain America 2006-09-13 00:48

00:00