Oil Hits Fresh Record as Iraq Output Cut

CVX · Post by **CVX** » Tue Aug 10, 2004 12:43 am

LONDON (Reuters) - Oil prices hit fresh record highs on Monday after a Shi'ite Muslim uprising forced Iraq to shut down its southern oil production, reinforcing concern over tight international supplies.

U.S. light crude hit $44.98 a barrel in late New York trading, the highest price since the New York Mercantile Exchange launched oil futures in 1983 and the seventh straight trading session in which crude posted a new high. September WTI closed 89 cents higher at $44.84 a barrel.

London Brent crude also jumped over a dollar to a record $41.70 a barrel, before closing at $41.56.

More:

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/57 ... uters.html

xlt66 · Post by **xlt66** » Tue Aug 10, 2004 8:23 am

Oil crude hit its highest price ever this morning. $45 per barrel.

I am finally thinking that we really do need an alternative to this oil slavery.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 6:08 pm

switching to solar and fuel cells is a huge leap - if the desire is to make any more than a itsy-bitsy dent in fossil fuel consumption. fuel cells are very costly, as is solar. the net energy input to create both is pretty significant. and the net energy output is inky-dinky-eeny-weeny-tiny compared to the energy we need to replace fossil fuels.

now, there's nothing wrong with making an itsy bitsy dent in overall energy usage. but for us to replace fossil fuels will take a complete restructuring of our entire societal and physical infrastructure, and mammoth cost. eventually, we'll get there. probably not before the petroleum reserves give out however. thank god for coal!

some info on the scales involved, to whet your appetite:

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/ ... rces.shtml

illuminati · Post by **illuminati** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 6:28 pm

anastrophe wrote: switching to solar and fuel cells is a huge leap - if the desire is to make any more than a itsy-bitsy dent in fossil fuel consumption. fuel cells are very costly, as is solar. the net energy input to create both is pretty significant. and the net energy output is inky-dinky-eeny-weeny-tiny compared to the energy we need to replace fossil fuels.

now, there's nothing wrong with making an itsy bitsy dent in overall energy usage. but for us to replace fossil fuels will take a complete restructuring of our entire societal and physical infrastructure, and mammoth cost. eventually, we'll get there. probably not before the petroleum reserves give out however. thank god for coal!

some info on the scales involved, to whet your appetite:

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/ ... rces.shtml

You know what I like best about ForumGarden? You all are introducing me to all these great new links and sites! Thank you! I also like the feature that the window opens a new window - versus - taking me away from my forums.

Anyways - yes, I agree with all of you. Short term, long term, near term, we need to begin the process of figuring out a way to tell the shieks that enough is enough.

Anastrophe, this "USS Clueless" site is great!

Speaking of that - and speaking of coal - I'll be back to post more later - my coals are burning and ready for some meat.

Serenity · Post by **Serenity** » Sat Aug 21, 2004 2:03 am

I've often wondered myself, why the concern of the environment isn't more important to capitalists.

Sure we have great demand for fossil fuel.....but surely the technology's available to attain the same power source through alternative measures.

The point about it being more to do with the way our societies have based economic infrastructure around oil, is terribly valid; yet wouldn't Hydro be suffice? ...along with whatever power sources were to be adopted.

I do understand the bigger picture and the money game. I just have a hard time digesting why the game isn't played more environmentally friendly.

Serenity · Post by **Serenity** » Sat Aug 21, 2004 9:55 am

jwolf7722 wrote: if diesel cars get better gas mileage and are cleaner then why dont we the united states make more cars that are diesel. i know they are making them slowly but you would think they would sell like hot cakes with the gas prices being so high.

Being a Diesel Mechanic , i can honestly answer your question with full confidence.

The reason Diesel cars haven't replaced gas engines is largely of two considerations. They are- Cost of repair, and comfort.

I often hear from clients that they can rebuild their entire gas motor, for the cost of what a diesel injection pump is! The components on diesels require more strengthened compounds to handle the high compression outputs, that are the sole reason Diesels are effecient to such standard.

As for the "Comfort".....people being who they are, we tend to whine and get used to luxuries once they've been tasted.

With diesels many people aren't willing to put up with the SMELL, the vibration, the clacking of injector fire and on and on.........Though Diesel vehicles today are starting to overcome all these issues, unfortunately each year of production is still "too little , too late" for most consumers.......and with the average cost of a Diesel car being 8 grand higher then a gas, and the repair costs and comfort...well...i think you get my point.

Don't kid yourself though...throughout europe Diesel's are HUGE!!! lots of people have switched to diesels and have done for years.

Technology is far superior in europe then what us N. Americans have here right now.....oh! and guess what.....costs of parts in europe tend to be less then HALF of what we pay here.

hope that helps.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Aug 21, 2004 10:40 am

Serenity wrote: I've often wondered myself, why the concern of the environment isn't more important to capitalists.

Sure we have great demand for fossil fuel.....but surely the technology's available to attain the same power source through alternative measures.

The point about it being more to do with the way our societies have based economic infrastructure around oil, is terribly valid; yet wouldn't Hydro be suffice? ...along with whatever power sources were to be adopted.

I do understand the bigger picture and the money game. I just have a hard time digesting why the game isn't played more environmentally friendly.

well, taking it point by point -

i think it's an unfair generalization to say that the environment isn't important to capitalists. For one thing - if you're a united states citizen, your life depends upon capitalism! we're all capitalists to one degree or another. some capitalists don't care about the environment, some do. i don't think capitalism is the deciding factor.

sadly, there is not sufficient technology available to replace fossil fuels yet. this is a fact set in stone, frankly. if the technology were there - setting aside the consipiracy theorists - don't you think it would be far more widespread? please see the link i posted earlier in this thread regarding the scale necessary to replace fossil fuels. we are a long, long way away.

hydro definitely will not suffice -- without massive damage to the environment. looks like a tradeoff to me, one kind of damage for another. that's not progress. plus, there aren't enough rivers in this country to be dammed up to provide all our electrical needs. here in california, hydro accounts for about 12% of our electrical generation. i believe in oregon/washington it amounts to maybe 40% - but then, take a look at the population of those two states combined compared to california, and you can see why they're able to satisfy their electrical needs to a greater extent - there are simply lower demands due to lower population.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Aug 21, 2004 10:42 am

jwolf7722 wrote: if diesel cars get better gas mileage and are cleaner then why dont we the united states make more cars that are diesel. i know they are making them slowly but you would think they would sell like hot cakes with the gas prices being so high.is that indeed a fact, that diesel is cleaner than gas? my understanding is that studies are finding that it's as bad or worse in many respects. diesel is a 'dirtier' fuel than gasoline.

i'd hate to see a world full of diesels if only for the noise. i cannot believe how noisy all the neighbors trucks are in the morning when they start up and drive away. it's horrendous, practically as noisy as when the garbage trucks come around each week!

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 6:56 am

jwolf7722:

if diesel cars get better gas mileage and are cleaner then why dont we the

united states make more cars that are diesel. i know they are making them

slowly but you would think they would sell like hot cakes with the gas prices

being so high.

"Gas prices so high" - hollow laugh. Petrol here in Britian is about $5.5/US gallon,

approximately.

Serenity:

The reason Diesel cars haven't replaced gas engines is largely of two

considerations. They are- Cost of repair, and comfort.

[ 8< ]

Don't kid yourself though...throughout europe Diesel's are HUGE!!! lots of

people have switched to diesels and have done for years.

The car I get next will be diesel. Fuel is slightly dearer in Britian, but the MPG

is about 20% better. A diesel car costs maybe 5% more than a similar petrol

engined car. It's also easy to convert to run on vegetable oil, indeed some

cars can run on it with no modification.

CVX · Post by **CVX** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 7:40 am

BRUSSELS and DUBAI - As the neo-conservative dream of a "liberated" Iraq came true in April 2003, who would have predicted that 16 months later oil would become the ultimate time bomb for the Bush administration?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Eco ... 4Dj01.html

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 7:51 am

plazul wrote: I had a diesel vehicle back in the 70s and the clacking did get to me. I soon realized that driving comfort was more important to me than fuel economy.

Today's diesels are less noisy and cheaper (than years ago) to maintain. But Americans are set in their ways and will only change when the internal combustion engine becomes obsolete.

Surely a diesel engine *is* an internal combustion engine?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:30 am

[QUOTE=Bill Sikes]jwolf7722:

if diesel cars get better gas mileage and are cleaner

the latter is not an established fact. there is much evidence that diesel pollution is worse than gasoline pollution.

[QUOTE] then why dont we the

united states make more cars that are diesel. i know they are making them

slowly but you would think they would sell like hot cakes with the gas prices

being so high.
another problem is that a 42 gallon barrel of oil yields less than half as much diesel as it does gasoline (less than 9 gallons of diesel per barrel, to 19 gallons of gasoline, though some of this is a function of how much is produced in distillation based upon demand)

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:51 am

anastrophe wrote: another problem is that a 42 gallon barrel of oil yields less than half as much diesel as it does gasoline (less than 9 gallons of diesel per barrel, to 19 gallons of gasoline, though some of this is a function of how much is produced in distillation based upon demand)

Doesn't this depend also on the qualities of the oil in question? Brent light

has a high proportion of the lighter fractions than some of the oil from

Arabia, for instance.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:09 am

Bill Sikes wrote: Doesn't this depend also on the qualities of the oil in question? Brent light

has a high proportion of the lighter fractions than some of the oil from

Arabia, for instance.
the figures i quoted are in the mean - taking into account lighter and heavier. on average, that's what's produced.