Delta's domestic reductions.

[N2264J]

Re: Delta's domestic reductions

Yes, but if you are right, Exxon is literally in liquidation as we ponder the question.

What I was trying to say, somewhat inarticulately, is that 20 years from now, there will be about the same amount of oil available as there was 20 years ago.

Peak oil means we're at the top of the bell curve. But since 20 years from now is on the right side of the supply curve, the decreasing side, prices will continue to rise.

There's no new oil being mined. That's why we went into Iraq. That's why we're trying to pick a fight with Iran. No new oil source. Is it possible they'll find a great new oil field(s) to quench our growing demand plus China plus India? Yes, but it's wishful thinking.

And it not just our jobs that are in jeopardy, its our way of life. Our entire economy is based on abundant, cheap oil.

I'm lookin' to start spooning a Amish woman hoping they'll take me in.

 

[Smacktard]

...That's why we went into Iraq. That's why we're trying to pick a fight with Iran.

Is that why less oil is coming out of Iraq than before the war?

 

[IronCityBlue]

Never said that; we may see $80/bbl but thats where I see the absolute bottom being.

Oil will, inevitably, go upward of $200/bbl.

That said, I do not think it will go that high in the near future without a major terrorist attack on our nation's oil and/or financial infrastructure, or full-fledged shooting war with Iran.

Oil is high not because of a lack of immediate supply, its because of speculators betting on geopolitical unrest and the weakness of the currency that oil is traded in. Of course demand in China and India and Russia has driven up price, but supply-and-demand fundamentals DO NOT support anywhere near the current price per barrel.

And Smarta$$ I can't give you dates but all you have to do is look at, oh, the last 50 years or so of history. Things will never be the way they were but this, as everything else has, will pass.

I may not know anything, and I only have a degree in aviation, but I can watch Bloomberg and read the WSJ and figure out what is really going on. If this schumck can do that, anybody can...

Good post. The thing about the D bag speculators is the last couple years, particularly the last year, of their sport bidding price run up, is becoming a self fufilling prophecy. Trillions of petro dollars to our sworn enemies, and what do they think is going to happen?

The falling dollar should yield about 75/bbl max market price. Anything above that is no talent hack speculators dumping money into speculation because of what might happen, never mind that from 18 to 111/bbl is hasn't happened.

Now the oil companies are addicted to 9%+ profit margins and they will cut production/exploration/etc to insure it, and OPEC will make up for the rest. The Air Force wants to build a coal to oil plant, and congressman Waxman says no because global warming is a national security concern. :laugh: Makes you wonder who's on the take for big oil afterall. ALl this time I thought it was all Bush's fault! :crying:

 

[Danny040]

maybe some good news. your thoughts?

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

 

[N2264J]

Re: Delta's domestic reductions

maybe some good news. your thoughts?

Best news I've heard for a while.

It made my day until I realized it makes the disaster in Iraq even more tragic.

 

[N2264J]

Re: Delta's domestic reductions

maybe some good news. your thoughts?

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/bakken/newpostings/07272006_BakkenReserveEstimates.pdf

Although there appears to be a good oil source in North Dakota, there's a lot of controversy surrounding this deposit. The estimates of what's there are anywhere from 3 billion to 500 billion barrels. How much of that is recoverable is yet another question.

According to this paper by the US Geological Survey, it appears that Dr. Price flew in the face of some conventional protocols in the scientific method and died (2000) before his findings were peer reviewed. (there still is no peer reviewed endorsement in the last eight years that I can find).

It just seems to me that sitting on 500 billion barrels recoverable oil would be more news worthy than this has been. Wouldn't there be rejoicing in the streets as the price of oil freefalls? That's enough oil to make the US energy independant for 40 years at current usage levels.

Also, unless we nationalize that resource, wouldn't the oil companies just sell it to the highest bidder? Their only patriotic allegiance is to the dollar, not the US airline industry.

Thanks for trying to cheer me up but on further examination, I think I'll hold my enthusiasm on the Bakken formation in check.

 

[siucavflight]

maybe some good news. your thoughts?

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

That would be great, but there will be some liberal tree hugging pukes that will prevent us from drilling, just the same as they are doing in Alaska.

 

[79%N1]

That would be great, but there will be some liberal tree hugging pukes that will prevent us from drilling, just the same as they are doing in Alaska.

Not any more! People think and vote with their wallets! At $20 barrel oil, I prefer to not destroy wildlife and undisturbed areas. At $110 - Drill away! The entire economy depends on affordable oil. The time is now to explore new sources, as well as develope new energy sources. We need to develpoe more Hyrdo-turbines. They could power any large city on a river. Think about the Mississippi. How many cities could a moving river power. More Solar and wind energy in the Southwest and West. Hydrogen for Cars to alleviate our need for oil.
What if every new home built used solar for all energy needs, with electric back-up. All cars in 10 years use hydrogen. Remember, it was early 1960's when JFK went 'off his rocker' and said we would send a man to the Moon, and return him safely to earth by the decades end. And, low and behold, in 1969 it happened. Why, because they made it a priority to accomplish that seemingly useless task.
So, why not this? There are MANY sources of renewable and cheaper energy. It's time to start developing ways for the average Joe to use them.

 

[COOPERVANE]

I say yes develop more alternatives, but in the meantime, keep our oil in the ground. Buy all we need from the arabs and keep it out of China's hands.

Save ours for US when we need it and let THEM shrink on the vine!!

 

[IronCityBlue]

I say yes develop more alternatives, but in the meantime, keep our oil in the ground. Buy all we need from the arabs and keep it out of China's hands.

Save ours for US when we need it and let THEM shrink on the vine!!

There are other ways to set up and knock China down. The way you suggest would/is putting trillions of out petro dollars into the hands of our sworn enemies. And even if we were 100% oil independant, that would only mean China would have access to all the ME oil without our competition, which would mean endless 12/bbl oil for centuries if our consumption were out of the picture.

We need increased production and conservation simultaneously, coupled with effective alternatives and a rising dollar. Much of this is caused by our fake real estate price orgy and phony money lending fools. We must now pay the price for the trillions of Monopoly money we built our economy on that never really existed. If there is any comfort in that, its the fact that Europe is right behind us. Our painful head start will put us ahead of them eventually, and hopefully will crush the unholy alliance that is the Euro.

 

[buscap]

Morons!!

Don't you realize we're saving in-ground reserves for a rainy day??!

All those early seventies movies scared the crap out of the men in black!!!!!

Costner's THE POSTMAN was just a reminder. Leave it in the ground. We may need it someday!!

​

 

[N2264J]

Re: Delta's domestic reductions

Is that why less oil is coming out of Iraq than before the war?

At this point there is no agreement with the US puppet government in Iraq about how oil revenue should be divided up between the Sunni, Shiite, Kurds and Exxon - hence no oil.

HANNITY: If we pull out too early, what do you believe the consequences would be? […]​

CHENEY: For us to walk away from Iraq I think would have at least that bad an effect, probably worse, because if al Qaeda were to take over big parts of Iraq, among other things, they would acquire control of a significant oil resource. Iraq has almost 100 billion barrel reserves, producing 2.5-3 million barrels of oil a day. If you take a terrorist organization like al Qaeda and give it that kind of revenue, there’s no telling the amount of trouble they could get into.​

The Bush administration is still trying to blame everything on al Qaeda but US intelligence sources tell us that al Qaeda only makes up about 2 - 3% of the insurgency in Iraq.

 

[IronCityBlue]

At this point there is no agreement with the US puppet government in Iraq about how oil revenue should be divided up between the Sunni, Shiite, Kurds and Exxon - hence no oil.



The Bush administration is still trying to blame everything on al Qaeda but US intelligence sources tell us that al Qaeda only makes up about 2 - 3% of the insurgency in Iraq.

I agree with you that the Al Q rhetoric is and has been overblown (in proportion, not in importance). But that's because the way the media grossly mishandeled the whole "corporate structure" aspect of it. They would have us believe that Al Q is seperate from other well funded islamofascist organizations, most with exactlyt he same adgenda. I don't buy it. Just like the MBA's of the 90's set up most airlines to consist of 5, 10, 15 or more "partner" carriers under a single brand or "team" at that point anything about them that is seperate is meaningless.

The "Terror Team Alliance" has many partners and subsidiaries, many of which offer AQ "code shares" and "seamless connections" on their AJZ, HMS, MEK, IJG, ANO, PLF, PFL, etc. partners, including the use of eachother's "lounges". In a relentless attempt to discredit Bush in specific, and anything Republican in general, the left will stop at nothing to try to cloud the issue with the asinine implication that AQ is some seperate, isolated organization run almost exclusively by OBL and anything and everything else in the world is completely unthreatening to us or our allies and should be embraced with the historically effective stratedgy of pacifisim, apeasement and containment.

So is the Bush administration trying to blame everything on Al Q? Sure they are, and that is technically inaccurate. But they are doing so because the debate has sucessfully been framed in such a way that Al Q is the only "brand" of terror that many people think is even the slightest threat to us. Most people haven't heard about 80% of the terrorist organizations out there, much less understand or appreciate their "cooperate-graduate" philosophy.

 

[Flybet3]

I personally think that Olrando Bloom can't act worth a sh***. Have you seen how he talks in movies? Terrible, just terrible.

 

[rickair7777]

At this point there is no agreement with the US puppet government in Iraq about how oil revenue should be divided up between the Sunni, Shiite, Kurds and Exxon - hence no oil.



The Bush administration is still trying to blame everything on al Qaeda but US intelligence sources tell us that al Qaeda only makes up about 2 - 3% of the insurgency in Iraq.

The REALLY hard fact to deal with is that the Iranians are behind a large percentage of it...if we confront THAT head-on, then we would be obligated to start launching alpha strikes on Bandar Abbas.

 

[siucavflight]

Doubt it. The market will adjust to the current fuel prices. Once the oil bubble pops, the industry will be wide open again unless the unthinkable happens again.

How is that oil bubble doing?

 

[siucavflight]

How about now?

 

[DashTrash400]

Siucavflight--

I agree with you that over time, demand will outstrip the supply of oil, and prices will go up. I'm not convinced we're truly at peak production yet (Dec 06 was only the latest in a string of "peaks" stated by post-peak theorists), but absent some fairly huge discoveries of recoverable oil, peak production will happen sooner rather than later and prices climb.

However, that does not mean there is not a pretty significant bubble at the moment. Global demand is pretty flat this year (decreasing demand in US & Europe cancelling out growth in Asia) and reserve stocks - especially in the US - are significantly up. US refineries have been cutting back on gasoline production in an effort to bolster their crack spread, which incidentally has been instrumental in sending the price of distillates like diesel & jet fuel skyrocketing. Essentially, the current fundamentals do not support the current price of oil, whatever the macro trend.

Here's an interesting number: Shell's CEO recently stated that investment in oil futures went from $450M/week at the beginning of the year to $3.5B/week in April. I fail to see how you can have that sort of money poured into any investment vehicle without creating a significant bubble. When it pops, no, we won't see $20 oil, probably not $60 and perhaps not even $80. But it's sure as he!! not gonna stay at $120.

BTW, those of you pinning the price of oil to the decline of the dollar... the dollar has declined 30% against worldwide currencies over the last 8 years while oil has gone up nearly 500% ($25/bbl to $120/bbl). There's more going on than the weak dollar.

PS - Those asking for a prediction of when the bubble is gonna pop...if such a thing was possible, *everyone* would be shorting oil futures and you'd see the bubble pop almost immediately. The problem with market irrationality is that it's, well, irrational. The evidence is there for all to see, it's pretty hard to guess when investors will choose to take off the blinders and see it (echoes of 1999/2000...)

 

[~~~^~~~]

At this point there is no agreement with the US puppet government in Iraq about how oil revenue should be divided up between the Sunni, Shiite, Kurds and Exxon - hence no oil.

I've always liked the Alaska plan. Every resident of the State gets an equal check. It would give the locals a reason NOT to blow up the pipes.

The problem with this plan is that it fails to keep Iraq's oil off the market. The Saudi powers who have the ear of our White House are pleased with the current supply / price equation.

Arguably, the reason we are in Iraq is that Saddam's inability to play with OPEC resulted in his selling too much oil and driving down prices. Our Saudi "friends" wanted him out.

I do not know what the answer is, but IMHO US foreign policy is under too much influence from Saudi Arabia. Read this:

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html

Better news is this:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/11/08/brazil.oil.ap/index.html

 

[ttuite]

just got hired by ASA, guess that means I'm screwed.

The reduction in flying of the Mesa 50 seaters will meet the required 50 seat reduction.