Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

OPEC cuts oilproduction!

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Dizel8

Douglas metal
Joined
Feb 27, 2003
Posts
2,817
"VIENNA, Austria - OPEC (news - web sites) agreed Wednesday to follow through on an earlier pledge to cut its oil production target by 4 percent starting in April despite recent high prices of crude, several oil ministers said."

Oil is trading near all time highs, OPEC stated goal was to stabilize oil prices between 22-28 dollars a barrel, lately it has been trading around 38-39 dollars a barrel. Hopefully, the spring will see decreasing prices due to lower demand, but the effect of cuts in production, could mean prices stay high.

This could potentially hinder a further recovery of the US economy and will certainly increase our trade deficit.
 
Good!!! More money for Dubyas big oil cronies. Its all Kerrys fault anyway, didn't you see the ad? He wanted to raise fuel taxes in the ninetys. I have to go now, call my local Humvee dealer and put my order in.

God help us all if Bush is reelected.
 
You're obviously well versed in politics if you can blame anything and everything on a president. :rolleyes:

*News Flash* this isn't a monarchy or dictatorship
 
"Good!!! More money for Dubyas big oil cronies. Its all Kerrys fault anyway, didn't you see the ad? He wanted to raise fuel taxes in the ninetys. I have to go now, call my local Humvee dealer and put my order in.

God help us all if Bush is reelected."



WTF? You're not serious are you? I forgot. Bush and his buddies control OPEC. LOL. I'm glad you only have one vote.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :eek:
 
If Bush wants to take the credit for all the small upticks, he has to be held accountable for the bad stuff too. No, a president does not control everything, but I believe this situation displays the administations lack of diplomacy skill.
 
<smacks own forehead>

labbats said:
You're obviously well versed in politics if you can blame anything and everything on a president. :rolleyes:

*News Flash* this isn't a monarchy or dictatorship

This is *exactly* true and I'm going to save this quote for the next right-winger that tries to blame bad weather on Bill Clinton.
 
I thought fugghedabowdit was being sarcastic, but I guess not... Anyways, I hope we aren't all driving 80 mph golf carts in 20 years...
 
How the he*ll would Bush's cronies get more money, u moron. OPEC is a foreign cartel, the saudis and everyone else get the money. Of course some doemstic oil service companies will see increased stock prices, but that would have the horrifiying effect of increasing American wealth! OH NO! People's 401k might go up!!! Jr.'s college fund, sorry that will go up too--THE HORROR!But of course, if we were allowed to drill in the vast siberian-like fields of alaska, while only impacting a plot of land the size of LAX, we wouldn't have to worry about it.
But i guess that its Bush's fault too that the freaking democratic morons in congress care more about SOUNDING like they care about the enviroment, than actually helping things here in AMERICA.
We could have enough oil to help us through this if we were drilling right now. But because some democratic PARTISAN congressmen and women screwed us out of it so they could look like they were protecting us from ourselves, we're screwed.

PS... If Bush worked at Dell would you start bashing him every time the government bought Dell computers? Or prices on computers as a sector went up? "There goes Bush with his Evil-Dell kickbacks!"
Why do you hate the American Oil companies anyway? The computer you are using right now is being powered by Petroleum energy, the composites used to build it all came from oil, the car u drive etc etc etc....
 
Although, I just hope Bush "leans" on OPEC and ask them a few pointed questions!
 
Let's be honest about the "footprint"

urflyingme?! said:
But of course, if we were allowed to drill in the vast siberian-like fields of alaska, while only impacting a plot of land the size of LAX, we wouldn't have to worry about it.

Take it from someone who earns his paycheck on the North Slope: The "footprint" is much larger than LAX--maybe not in absolute terms--but look at it like this: The pipeline network on the Slope is like a spider's body.

Prudhoe Bay is like the body and the various oil fields and pipelines are like its legs. Because one oil pad and its associated pipeline doesn't consume much territory the pro-drilling folks like to declare "minimal footprint." But the *network* of oil fields spans a region the size of North Dakota.

There is an impact. And I'm not saying drill it or not. I'm just saying let's be honest about the impact.

The North Slope may not be Yosemite or The Grand Tetons but it has a certain value and deserves to be discussed without the taint of political rhetoric.
 
It will be interesting to see if the cartel can stick together on this one. With prices as high as they are, there is an enormous incentive for any given member to cheat, pump more oil, and reap huge profits. This has been a problem in the past with the cartel. Similarly when prices are low and OPEC agrees on cutbacks, some countries have a hard time cutting production which further erodes their already weak revenues due to low prices.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if prices don't end up rising too much from this "cutback" due to cheating by some of the members which is discovered months later.
 
Let's hear it for honesty....

...it's so rare these days.

Mar is right, the "footprint the size of LAX" is so inaccurate that is can only be characterized as wilfully dishonest.

Here's an analogy: suppose you had a nice half acre house lot (21,780 sq ft). a local business approached you to lease 100 sq feet for advertising. you think, no problem, a 10 foot by 10 foot square on which they can put up a sign, I can live with that. When you come home, you discover they have taken 100, 1 ft X 1 ft. squares scattered all across your yard and erected a lighted sign on each one. Oh yeah, and the power lines are strung between each one of them forming a network of signs and wires across your entire lot ... suddenly the 100 sq ft doesn't seem quite so unobtrusive does it?

Do the same with the "footprint the size of LAX". Break it up into parcels a couple hundred feet on a side. You'll get quite a few from a "footprint the size of LAX". Now start scattering them across the landscape, spaced about a half mile apart or so. hook em all up with pipelines ... Now how big is the oil field?


The "other side" isn't any better. Thier propaganda is illustrated with photos from the Arctic alpine portion of ANWR, a hauntingly beautiful landscape, in my opinion. All but the lowest of cretins would cringe to imagine drilling rigs in those photos. The thing is, the drilling isn't going to take place there, it's going to take place in the coastal plain, a flat, mosquito ridden, swampy flatland. In the winter, you can't tell where the land ends and the ocean begins. It's not nearly as photogenic as the Canning River valley, so they don't show photos of it. Yes, I've been there, on the ground, swatting the mosquitoes and wading through the swamps. It's not real pretty.

So who ya gonna believe? Like mar, I haven't made up my mind one way of the other. The trouble is, how do you decide. Neither side can be trusted to be honest. How much oil is there? the "pro's" have one number, the "anti's" have another. Both sides are dishonest, who do you believe? What is it really going to do to the Porcupine Caribou herd? The pro's say nothing, the anti's say it will annhilate it. Both sides are dishonest, who do you believe?


That's the trouble with so many debates, not just the ANWR debate. It becomes virtually impossible to penetrate the multiple layers of lies upon lies.


as for urflyingme?!, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're just repeating the "footprint the sixe of LAX" lie because, out of ignorance, you allowed yourself to be duped, not because you, yourself, are being wilfully dishonest.

Here's some guideline for sharpening your powers of discrimination. Consider how dishonest you *know* the "anti's" to be. Reflect on how they rely on lies, distortions and misrepresentations to serve thier cause. Got it? OK, now, realize that the "pros" are every bit as dishonest as the antis. You can't trust either to give you accurate information.

You said, regarding OPEC and ANWR "we wouldn't have to worry about it. " OK what does that mean? Sounds to me like more meaningless rehetoric. Tell you what, here's a way you can redeem yourself. Quantify "we wouldn't have to worry about it. " Do some research. Gather the various estimates of the oil underneath ANWR Get the numbers form the Sierra Club, get the numbers form the Oil Comapny PR departments, get the numbers from the US Department of energy, Get the numbers from the US Department of Energy 10 years ago (same raw data, different political agenda, trust no-one) Now take all those various estimates and compare them to our oil consumption numbers. Find out just how long and to what degree the oil under ANWR will reduce our dependence on OPEC oil. Post those numbers, complete with the raw data and sources and references.

What's it really going to do, best case scenario, worst case scenario. Based on who's estimates? How much will it reduce our dependence on foreign oil? 1%? 5%? 30%? 70%?. For how long? 6 months? 3 years? 20 years? for perpetuity?

If it was going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 70% for 50 years, I'd be more than happy to have them drill there. If it was 1% for 6 months, I'd lean toward just leaving it alone.

So which is it? You dig those numbers out and present them in a credible, verifiable format, I'll tip my hat to you..... or, you can just rely on meaningless rehetoric like "we wouldn't have to worry about it" The choice is yours.


Note: I really haven't made up my mind which side I'm on. I have fairly strong feelings both ways, but have not yet chosen. I am however thouroughly disgusted by the lies and rhetoric which both sides are continually spouting.
 
Last edited:
It's all Clinton's fault.
 
Yea!...what goggles said....!!
 
Drilling...

C'mon guys,

You think that even if we were allowed to drill in Alaska that the oil would EVER even sniff the USA?

Look at what happened when the U.S. Strategic Oil Reserves were opened a few years back. Did it lower prices at the pump? Marginally - but as to where the actual oil went? Yup, that's right - _it went overseas._
 
Its time our govt get serious about alternative fuels like Hydrogen for vehicles. We cant be held hostage by the middle east like this forever!
 
Ahhhhh, hydrogen, the wonder fuel......

burns cleanly, no bad combustion products, and you can make it out of water. Sounds perfect doesn't it.

Here's the rub: You don't get any more energy out of burning it, than you use up by making it out of water. Can't do it, not possible. No more possible than getting more energy out of letting a rock roll downhill than it took to roll it up the hill. There is no free lunch. In theory you would get *exactly* the same amount of energy from combining hydrogen with oxygen to make water, as you would use up splitting water molecules apart to get hydrogen and oxygen. In reality, both process will never be 100% efficient, so there will always be a net energy loss in producing hydrogen and using it. If you need X amount of energy to drive your hydrogen powered car from a to b, it will take X amount of energy in electricity, plus the process loss to produce that hydrogen. That electrical energy has to come from someplace. Currently our options for producing that energy are burning fossil fuels, hydroelectricity, or nuclear power all of which have drawbacks and environmental implications.

If you have to burn a gallon of dead dinasaurs to make the electricity to run the electrolysis to make enough hydrogen to run your hydrocar 40 miles, how is that beter than a car which just burns a gallon of dead dinasaurs to go 40 miles? You've still burned a gallon of petroleum, with the same amount of sulphurdioxide, carbon monoxide, carbondioxide, and various incompletely burned hydrocarbons.

That's not to say there is no advantage hydrogen. It would provide a medium to store and transport energy which would allow us to utilize non-fossil fuel energy, like nucear or hydro power to propel cars. Sort of like a battery, a lot like a battery, in fact. But, like a battery, you can't get more energy out of it than you put into it, and that energy has to come from somewhere.
 
Yup, more hydrogen vehicles! Bring back the Hindenburg at Lakehurst , NJ. But let's add to that, about 50 million 'leaking' hydrogen fueled, four wheeled hydrogen fuel cell vehicles parked in our tuck under garages, or in ordinary fender benders that just 'explode' and blow up on the corner of Hollywood and Vine. By the way, do most of you know...... that it requires "energy" to produce hydrogen? Ya can't just snatch it out of the air! If safety isn't your concern, this idea is not going to save you money. Not until gasoline is WAY more expensive than it is now.
 
THe technology is available and we just cant coming back to fossil fuels. Car manufacturers already have hydrogen, electric etc cars that are being made. Maybe they arent a 66 Mustang, but neither was the Model T when it came out. My point is, we need to put in the effort, and work through difficulities, or we will always be chained to the middleeast.
 
The technology may be available, but the economics are not.
You need both to make it fly.
 
OPEC.....

We need to put some serious and I mean SERIOUS research into developing our own fuel and energy sources so we can tell OPEC and their Arab cartel to keep their oil and shove it up their ass. If we don't then they will always have us by the balls. But with this administration in office (and any administration funded by special interests for that matter) funded by big oil that'll never happen. Bush and his cronies are very happy to have OPEC keep a tight squeeze on America's scrotum.
 
ok....I'm open to that SERIOUS effort. Got any ideas? Got a way to pay for the ideas?
 
Sure, 160 billion that went to Iraq that could've went to help end our oil dependence on OPEC. And thats just for starters.
 
sweetea,

It appears that you've copmpletely missed the point of my post.

Hydrogen is not an energy *source*, at least not on this planet. It takes just as much energy to make hydrogen as you get from burning it. Hydrogen is no more an energy *source* than coil springs are an energy source, or wet cell batteries are an energy source.

Even if we developed cheap, efficient, high performance hydrogen powered cars which fulfilled everyones transportation needs. You are still left with the question of where are you going to get the energy to make the hydrogen to power the car. To make 100 BTU of hydrogen fuel, you need 100 + BTU of energy from some other source. There is no free lunch. until you figure out where that 100+ BTU of energy is going to come from, hydrogen power is just a silly fantasy.

If we lived on a planet with vast hydrogen gas reserves underground, and you could just drill a hole and it would flow out, hydrogen would be a good deal. We don't, so it has to be manufactured in a process that has a net energy loss.
 
Capt Tex,

Assuming your number of $160 billion is accurate, how would that money have found more oil, or other energy sources?
 
What ever happened to that dude who invented an engine that ran on urine? I think he was really on to something with that....
 
To me, this one's easy. E85. 85% Ethanol made from good old corn.

Seems to me that this would open a huge market for farmers and seriously ease our energy crunch. E85 would require the smallest and least expensive changes to our current fuel delivery infastructure and automobiles.

Until then, a universal blend of fuel would help a little. Right now, oil companies raise their rates to recoup the costs of seasonal blend changes required by the Feds. Different areas of the country require different blends different times of the year. If one part of the country runs low on fuel, they can't just ship it in from the nieghbors.....they have make more than planned and that gets expensive, fast.
 
He drowned in his own pee.
 
Hi!

To start with, oil is a dead-end energy source. What I mean by that, is it's going to run out, and it won't sell for $25/barrel down to the last barrel. The cost will rise and continue to rise until it's impractical for use as a transportation fuel.

1964 was the peak of oil discovery. We now have very advanced scientific tools to discover oil, and they aren't working, as there basically is no more oil to be found. The last 2 major finds were the North Sea and Alaska, and those both happened years ago.

The other problem for us (the US), is that we import over half of the oil we use, and that percentage is going to go up drastically until we stop using oil as a fuel.

If we drill everywhere in Alaska, and get out all of the oil that we can, that will provide the US with about 6 months worth of oil. It is a very short term solution, and we need long term ones.

Our trade deficit is VERY high, and it's because of oil. It doesn't matter what party is in power, or who is president, it won't be solved until we quit using oil. I hate buying gas for my car, knowing how much of that money is going to corrupt rulers in the Moslem countries.

One situation we have is that we don't pay for our gasoline when we pump it into our cars. Our gasoline prices have been artificially low for years, and even now, in fact, gasoline costs very little when compared with historical pricing.

American consumers will change their driving and buying habits when gasoline costs about $4+ at the pump. When consumers pay this amount at the pump, they will buy gasoline-efficient cars, or alternative fuel cars, they will drive less, and they will use public transportation more.

The problem that is delaying our transition to alternatives to oil, is that, while gasoline actually costs us between $5-$15 per gallon, we aren't charged that price at the pump.

One of the actual costs of gas, that we don't pay at the pump, is the cost of military spending to protect our oil. We pay a variety of taxes, including income tax, that pays for military spending. What's worse, is we're also adding to the deficit to pay for these gasoline costs.

If we had to pay the actual cost of gasoline at the pump, it would be easier for us consumers to see how much we're actually paying for our gas, and it would speed our transition away from oil.

What's worse, we, the US taxpayers, are subsidizing the cost of gasoline in other countries. I read an article in the past year by a British politician, who said that we are subsidizing British gas to the tune of $1 a gallon. He said that $.70 of that dollar is our tax money spent on our military to protect the oil supplies. I assume that if British gasoline is being subsidized, we are also helping to pay the oil costs of a lot of other countries.

The reason that OPEC is increasing their capacity, is that the value of a US Dollar is down 30% against the Euro, so the OPEC countries need to pump more oil to keep their buying power up. Luckily for us, OPEC is still using the US dollar as a standard instead of switching over to the Euro, which would be devastating to our economy.

As for hydrogen as a potential fuel, it could work out very well. We could use wind turbines in the plains states, and solar power in the high-sun states to break water down into hydrogen, and then use our existing pipeline technology to ship the hydrogen to market, just as we do with oil now. The wind and solar power could replace ALL of the electrical production capacity in the US as well.

We could develop larger hydrogen fuel cells for those solar and wind locations which would, in addition to providing hydrogen for transportation fuel, provide electrical power when the wind turbine or solar cell wasn't producing electricity. They would produce the hydrogen in the fuel cells when they were working, and then the fuel cells could use the hydrogen to make electricity at night or if the wind slowed down at that location.

My brother believes that a biodiesel fuel engine, coupled with a plug-in hybrid setup would actually be better than a hydrogen fuel cell car. When the car was parked, the electrical power provided by the sun and wind power, would recharge the battery in the vehicle. If, while you were driving, for example on a long trip, and the battery needed charging, the biodiesel engine could then charge the battery, just like our current hybrids do.

One problem with using biodiesel, is our farm productivity is based on buring oil in the farm machinery. However, if we converted the farm machinery engines to biodiesel, that would solve that problem.

The US currently has the #1 solar energy potential of any country on earth, and the #1 wind energy potentil of any country.

Let's develop these sources of energy, available here, on our land, paying US companies to make the equipment, and paying US citizens to run this operation. This would make our country much stronger economically, make us less able to be blackmailed by other countries with control our energy supply, and our military wouldn't have to be running over to the Arabian peninsula every few years.

I fought in the Persian Gulf War, and I don't want my kids to have to go back there to protect our access to dwindling supplies of oil in 15-20 years.

I think spending $20 bill/yr, starting this year, and ending whenever we can get a viable renewable energy source in place to serve our countries needs for the long term.

Cliff
ELP

PS-About 100 years ago, we used horse power as transportation, and many people said that the automobile would never amount to much. As proof, they pointed out that there were no roads, no stations to refuel the cars, and no places to get them fixed. It would cost the country too much money to build these facililties, which is why the "fad" of the auto would die out, and horses would continue to be the transportation vehicle of choice.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom