<p>Gs prices won't stay up forever, they'll go down eventually.</p>
<p>Gas prices are already down. In PA its about $2.30 currently. Gas prices are not governed by Bush. Its all economics and politics. One reason why gas prices are high is because morons like Nancy Pelosi and other Ca moonbats (take a hint, futurebjustudent)..oppose drilling in ANWAR and offshore. No new rig has been built for many years, because it takes a lot of money and red tape just to get the project started. And then you have people guzzling gas when there are shortages. Do the simple economics. </p>
<p>
[quote]
if you do I'll slap you in the face and tell you to jump off a bridge because you're a moron
[/quote]
Hah what an ironic statement.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One reason why gas prices are high is because morons like Nancy Pelosi and other Ca moonbats (take a hint, futurebjustudent)..oppose drilling in ANWAR and offshore.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>MAYBE. ANWR in particular is a case that would be extremely unlikely to really cause supply to increase enough to cause any movement on the S curve. Furthermore, without knowing the price elasticity of supply, it's hard to say much. Really, I'd say that without having more data, the largest determinant of price increases right now is probably increasing demand, particularly China and India.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Gs prices won't stay up forever, they'll go down eventually.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Beyond a certain point...doubtful.</p>
<p>Yes gasoline is pretty inelastic. Hence the consumption staying at similar levels despite rising prices. However I think the extra supply would shift a curve, even by just a bit. We really won't know until we tap it. Most cases of gas drills I read produced much more product than was originally predicted.</p>
<p>P.S..I was researching into corn ethanol for a paper recently. My prediction is that ethanol as a major fuel source is a bit unfeasible at least for another five years. The sheer amount of farmland that corn would take up is going to be a bit much. There were also concerns of negative energy regarding ethanol. Hence, I believe we are 'stuck' with petroleum as the major source for quite a while.</p>
<p>Extra supply won't shift the curve, just make us move up and down on the curve. And yes, it may supply more than predicted, but it's unlikely to do much to market prices. I'm not necessarily against it, but I don't think it's the manna from Heaven some seem to think.</p>
<p>Ethanol's a joke.</p>
<p>First off, the idea that gas prices are determined by supply and demand more than government interference is ridiculous. You people would be absolutely amazed at how much "hidden costs" it takes to achieve the prices we get right now. The fact that that Europe pays $2.00-$4.00 a litre and North Americans don't isn't a matter of taxes or supply and demand (per capita, Europeans probably use less oil than we do) it comes down to which government subsidizes the oil industry more.</p>
<p>Second, FutureNYUStudent stop trying to sound like a badass on the internet.</p>
<p>ICrisis,</p>
<p>Yes, it is a factor. However, prices WORLDWIDE will shift at times. Heck, when I lived in Japan, I was able to chart my gas prices and watch them rise the same percent as they did in the US last year.</p>
<p>However, supply changes CAN and DOES affect prices, ceteris parabis. And really, that's the key concept here: ceteris parabis. For a moment, I was merely ignoring the other factors and just worrying about what makes supply shift. Increased supply doesn't. That's all my point was.</p>
<p>Believe me, I know all about government interference.</p>
<p>oil producing countries should just increase output to make prices fall. if supply surpasses demand, or at least catches up with it, then there wouldn't be a problem.
Didn't they find a new source of oil in canada recently? I think it was the 3rd or 4th biggest world wide. The increase in the reserves should have done something to decrease prices.</p>
<p>stuck-on-1700,</p>
<p>Since when is it in the interest of cartels to increase supply?</p>
<p>I'm saying..if they did it. I know that it's in their best interest to keep the supply low because prices go up. I'm suggesting a solution. (which will never happen, I KNOW)</p>
<p>Well... then you're no fun.</p>
<p>what? excuse my ignorance, but what does that have to do with anything?</p>
<p>I'm teasing you.</p>
<p>lol okay.
now I'm wishing I had deleted my previous post :p</p>
<p>Now you're fun. :D</p>
<p>Lol :) .</p>
<p>I thought we were talking about Bush? :confused:</p>
<p>oil prices are related to the topic.....</p>
<p>
[quote]
No new rig has been built for many years, because it takes a lot of money and red tape just to get the project started.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uhhh, no. There are dozens being built every year. <a href="http://www.worldoil.com/magazine/magazine_link.asp?ART_LINK=05-10_Utilization-Berkman_T1.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.worldoil.com/magazine/magazine_link.asp?ART_LINK=05-10_Utilization-Berkman_T1.htm</a></p>
<p>As far as I know, there is no red tape with building new rigs. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Most cases of gas drills I read produced much more product than was originally predicted.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You'd have to look at when those fields were found. If they were found a long time ago (>20 years) then you're almost always going to be right. They used very conservative methods and technology wasn't that great for predicting.</p>
<p>However, today is a different scenario. Companies tend to think that technology will save them so they can make very high estimates when in fact they are completely wrong. The Caspian Sea comes to mind. It was supposed to be the next Middle East and have at least 200 billion barrels, but when they finally got their analysis done with, ultimate reserves are only going to be about 50 billion barrels, of heavy sour crude. Thunderhorse is another project that is a dud when it was supposed to be grand. Anybody remember Shell a few years back reducing their reserves by 25%? </p>
<p>
[quote]
And yes, it may supply more than predicted, but it's unlikely to do much to market prices.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The price of crude is largely inversly proportional the of spare capacity in the world. The greater the spare capacity, the lower the price. This is because in case there is a disruption, there is plenty of capacity elsewhere in the world to make up for the shortfall, thus there would be little worry of a shortage. If there is no or little spare capacity and then a disruption such as Katrina or Rita occur then...</p>
<p>If ANWR were to bring 1 mpd of new capacity online, then it would likely make a major drop in the price of oil. Katrina took off 1 mpd and added an initial $10 and then a constant few dollars due to damage to rigs in the Gulf. ANWR would likely have the opposite effect.</p>
<p>
[quote]
oil producing countries should just increase output to make prices fall.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They won't simply because they can't. Oil reserves is different from oil production capabilities. People tend to think that oil just sits in a pool. It's actually in rock, from which we suck it. The surrounding rock and the water beneath it (and occasionally natural gas above it) give the oil pressure. Higher pressure means a greater force which means its easier to bring it out of the rock structure. However, as you pump oil out, there is less and less pressure, thus a lesser force. This forces production of oil down. There are ways at combating this, but it only works so much. After a point, every well, every field, every region, every nation and ultimately the planet will reach a peak of production, after which it can only decline. </p>
<p>At least 3/4 of the world's oil producers are producing less oil than they were at their peaks. This isn't because of some conspiracy or lack of effort or red tape, it's simply science. Even those nations that aren't past peak (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Russia, Canada) have very little ability to increase their current production. There simply aren't enough large, highly permeable fields to produce to set off declines in older fields and increase production to meet new demand.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Didn't they find a new source of oil in canada recently?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They didn't, they simply reclassified dirt as oil and voila! They are the Saudi Arabia of the Americas because Americans are dumb enough to believe it. </p>
<p>What Canada has is tar sands. Tar sands was oil which top layer of rock was worn away overtime, thus evaporating the lighter oils. All that is left is heavy, thick oil consumed in sand. A massive process has to occur to get the oil out. They use vast amounts of water and natural gas to convert it to oil. Given that these two (water and NG) are becoming scarcer in the region, they are turning gold into lead. </p>
<p>It's a very very energy intensive process and is extremely expensive. Due to the magnitude that is required, the production rate won't come close to being proportional to its size. Instead, it will stay very small for a long time, if they can even keep it going.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They are the Saudi Arabia of the Americas because Americans are dumb enough to believe it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because I'm sure it's only the Americans that are dumdums.</p>
<p>:rolleyes: Oy, what a world we live in where it's chic to take any and every stab at Americans. </p>
<p>But tar sands = oil = dumb, I agree.</p>