| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front Economy |
| OPEC chief: Oil prices may fall to $70 |
| 2008-07-27 |
| (Xinhua) -- Oil should be trading at between about 70 U.S. dollars to 80 dollars per barrel if the dollar strengthens and the Iranian nuclear crisis is defused, Chakib Khelil, rotating president of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), said here Saturday. He made the prediction in his brief remarks to reporters, noting "there could be volatility ... but normally long-term oil prices should move in that lower direction without the interference of geopolitics or of the U.S. monetary policy." He said the recent meeting between senior U.S. diplomat William Burns and Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili in Geneva and the strengthening of dollar were the main factors that helped push the oil prices down rather than changes in supply and demand. "I do not see a fall in demand ... (and) supply is the same," said Khelil who is also Algeria's Minister of Energy and Mines. The OPEC head also voiced dissatisfaction with some European countries' insistence on promoting bio-ethanol energy. Oil prices for September delivery fell to 123.26 dollars per barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange and to 124.52 per barrel on the ICE Futures exchange in London on Friday, the lowest in seven weeks. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #17 I propose that we tax all imported oil to where it sustains a price of $100/bbl, annually adjusted. This provides a price floor for US domestic production, and gives the oil and refinery companies a bit of incentive to invest. Pay it back with an excise tax on the oil extracted when prices exceed $100/bbl. Makes perfect sense. Problem with oil is that the ME has lower costs of production. This allows them to periodically drop prices low enough to clear out competition. A price floor takes away that ability. Of course it only works if US companies are legally permitted to develop domestic sources. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2008-07-27 22:35 |
| #16 For instance, put money into this: High efficiency thermoelectric (click). You can put these to take the "waste heat" from engines, and turn it into electricity. Couple that with a diesel-electric, or dual-fuel(petrol/cng)-electric or hybrid vehicle. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-07-27 19:06 |
| #15 Include NAFTA as exempted, however, encoruage the Canadainas to enter into an agreement guranteeing a price floor floor and taxing appropriately. Its simply a matter of national survival. We invest heavily in things like armor, jet engines, stealth technology, ballistic missile defense technology. Why not fuel and energy technology? Place the tax. Rebate parts of it to the Canadian and Mexican companies under NAFTA so they get a given amount of profit. Tax all oil over $100/bbl with an import or excise tax. To get enough of the Dems on board, direct half the remaining tax to "renewable energy", and the rest to defense related fuels research and development, like developing and deploying the USAF program for coal to jet fuel. Its simply a matter of national security. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-07-27 18:26 |
| #14 .5mt: that's easy to fix. You have the tarrif in place for countries besides NAFTA countries (and, IMHO, Columbia). Although Mexico is under-investing its oilfield into irrevelancy these days, or so I hear. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2008-07-27 17:47 |
| #13 If the Volt arrives in '11, I'd expect to see base at $39,995 advertised and pay $45-50K+ for a nice one. And there will be a line. If they can do it in'11. Big if. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-07-27 17:27 |
| #12 I'm a big Volt proponent. Even if it isn't perfect, even if the range on battery leaves me wanting more, even if it still uses some gas. I'll pay $25,000 for an American car that will make the Saudis squeal. If this country can decrease its oil demand another 2-5% we could make a huge impact on the oil market. Look at what the decrease in demand in the last year has recently done to the oil market. If it isn't a total gang rape the investors bail out on you apparently. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-07-27 16:38 |
| #11 Maybe I'm wrong but I think this time it's different. In the past there has always been the idea that we would just find more oil and continue on as usual after another "blip" in normality. Now, I think a LOT of people have woken up to the realization that "normality" means we give huge sums of money to people who hate us and inspire others to fly loaded airplanes into tall buildings. If GM will make the Volt and enable Americans to drastically cut back on the gasoline addiction, there will be a lot of people who will take advantage of that opportunity. If the Chindians want to continue sucking on the oil teat, that's their business. I don't care if our drop in demand means they pay less; it means the oil ticks GET less, no matter who is paying it, and it brings us closer to energy independence. Anything which gets us closer to that is a very good thing. I suspect we would have a much different foreign policy if we had the freedom to tell the Saudis and the rest of those M.E. characters to pound sand. Get the U.S. off the oil addiction and their influence in our affairs will be tremendously diminished. |
| Posted by: Jomock Platypus9662 2008-07-27 14:48 |
| #10 Sadly, Doc, you can count on Congress to immediately spend any new revenue. Energy-targeted "trust funds" will simply become big piles of IOU's, just like Social Security or the Highway Trust Fund. Plus, most of our political class appears to be in the pockets of the Saudi's, and, short of "angry mobs at the gates," will continue to obstruct alternatives while claiming the opposite. Before any progress is possible on energy, the current crop of weasels in D.C. need to get thrown out en masse. |
| Posted by: PBMcL 2008-07-27 14:12 |
| #9 A tarrif is gonna kinda trash NAFTA of course, seeinging as most imported oil is from the frozen north and them damn messicans. Better just to lay down a tax on gasoline towards the same end and same result. |
| Posted by: .5MT 2008-07-27 14:09 |
| #8 I'm with OS on this one, as long as the new tariff money is impounded and can't be spent by Congress for a minimum of say, ten years. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-07-27 12:11 |
| #7 And we should use the Arab oil import tariff to subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-07-27 11:08 |
| #6 bingo. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-07-27 11:07 |
| #5 Sounds as if OPEC is desperately trying to fill up Obama's tank. |
| Posted by: Woozle Unusosing8053 2008-07-27 11:01 |
| #4 My guess is that its 80-90 once we start drilling. And for once, I support a tax /shock. I propose that we tax all imported oitl to where it sustains a price of $100/bbl, annually adjusted. This provides a proice floor for US domestic production, and gives the oil and refinery companies a bit of incentive to invest. Pay it back with an excise tax on the oil extracted when prices exceed $100/bbl. This keeps shale, OCS and nukes competitive, and can be seen as a strategic defense energy initiative - we need to become self sufficient on fuel, and for economic reasons as well. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-07-27 10:37 |
| #3 If it does drop to $2/Gal - look for the Democrats in congress push for [at least] a $1/Gal tax -- for alternative |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-07-27 09:53 |
| #2 They'll make it happen. They want to see the Volt fail. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-07-27 08:29 |
| #1 ...Which would put it down to about, what - $2Something a gallon? I wouldn't be crazy about it but I could live with it. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2008-07-27 07:13 |