The oil crash!!!!

popinfresh

Ok, just read this web-site :eek: :eek: :eek:

click here

Appologies if this is better suited to after-hours but i reckon this is very appropriate to world politics. I'd love to hear somebody coming up with a credible dismissal of this site..... I really would

Time Magazine

Welcome to the Energy Crisis....

toiletduck

scary stuff but i've read too many dooms-day books (e.g. the population explosion etc.) to be really moved by it. I, like most people probably, will belive it when i see it happening.

ionapaul

Well, for one you need to think about the human ability to adapt and what we can achieve if we *have* to. A country sent a person to the moon and back, a massive technical achievement, simply in order to gain advantage during the Cold War. If the very same effort (000s of people working for a decade in each of the 50 states) was put into researching another fuel source, think of what would be achieved.

If it suddenly became apparent that our supply of oil was going to run out, do you think we (our governments, international organisations and multinational corporations) would sit on their hands worrying about the end of the world? I am sure that an alternative source of fuel and the necessary technical innovations would be developed in order to move forward. We don't *need* to do this right now (and it is not in big business's interest to do so right now), so it isn't happening right now.

popinfresh

Althogh that article suggests that things are gonna start turning bad (ie economys crashing) in as little as 5 years time. I don't think anyone is prepared for this.

ishmael whale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#Hubbert_theory_criticisms

The article above gives a start to sources out there. There seems to be some dispute over whether oil will run out quite as fast as he predicts, but the essential logic is irrefutable – we use oil a lot quicker than it takes to replace, so it must run out. The short answer is there’s a general expectation that alternative forms of energy will become economic as oil declines. However, this must mean there will be some economic knock-on effect as if these alternative methods were as cheap as oil we’d be using them now.

All this tends to leave to one side the environmental cost of burning all this oil. There would seem to be as much of a case for reducing oil dependence on those grounds, even if there were pools of the stuff left to use. An outside fear would be that oil would be replaced by coal and gas, meaning a continuing environmental issue.

mr_angry

This has been posted here a couple of times before. Its a little sensationalist, but the basic background to it is correct. However, the author totally disregards the adoption of alternative forms of energy production.

My major concern is the latest draft of scientific results on climate change. This is the first time I can recall seeing so many reports agreeing that the climate is changing significantly based upon human interaction. Couple this with the extreme weather conditions in North-East America, the recent flooding in the UK, last year's hurricanes in Florida, and the flooding in central Europe the previous year and you begin to get a fairly scary picture of the realities of climate change. Also - wonder why you're seeing high insurace prices at the moment? Look at the those events, and imagine who's picking up the tab.

Hopefully the adoption of Hydrogen fuel will mitigate the effects, but you have to wonder how much damage will be done by then. Of course, thats assuming Hydrogen production is based upon clean energy sources like hydroelectricity and photovoltaic arrays.

The really worrying thing is that some of the meterologists studying chaos theory like Lorenz suspect that the earth is capable of sustaining only 5 or 6 natural states of equilibria, and rather than slowly alternating between them, the climate suddenly flips between ice age / normal / dramatic greenhouse without much warning. The recent speculation on the halting of the Gulf Stream and the freezing of Northern Europe is a possible symptom of this.

pickarooney

Mine the Moon!

popinfresh

The thing I'm most concerned about is the question of whether or not the world can quietly adjust from being dependant on oil to being dependent on other reserves. I mean, there was a link to this site http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_14458.shtml

Basically the dollar is likely to plummet any time in the next couple of years, and if the USA invade Iran, which they may need to do, we might see WW3

The world economy as we know it is almost entirely dependant on oil, regardless of whether or not there'll be a credible alternative any time soon. And the reserves are getting tight now. Therefore bad times ahead..

Ardent

"The war on terrorism will last 40-50 years"! Convenient.

Moriarty

Meh.

Oil reserves aren't going to dry up overnight. There's massive reserves all over the world that haven't even been touched yet because the oil companys are still taking the 'low hanging fruit'.

A large proportion of oil useage goes towards electricity production. There's viable alternatives to that right now, with the likes of fusion plants about 20 years away. Another large proportion goes on internal combustion engines and there's all sorts of research going into finding the next big thing in that area.

There's already enough technology for the world to move away from oil, it's just not cost effective yet - and that's not just because it's expensive technology, but also that there are many powerful groups around the world that are making fortunes from the status-quo. When those groups find a reliable alternative to oil, watch how quickly prices fall for those technologies.

popinfresh

That's all and well, but we need oil now.. If a country is only importing 90% of the oil needed to run the country, prices will sore and the economy of that country will collapse.. This is a reality we will see in the next 10 years. It's not about alternatives to oil, that's irrelevent. The fact is that the world is unbelevably dependant on oil. A reserve that has passed peak extraction. Even if an alternative is found, the world economy so dependent it will collapse in the changeover from oil form to another form of energy.
The people who are about to be hit the worst by this are the US, hence Iraq.

jbkenn

We have been "running out of oil in 5 years" since 1973
Ah the good old days, sucking up to the petrol pump attendant, like you do to doormen at a night club now, in the hope he would give you 2 gallons instead of one.

jbkenn

Moriarty

popinfresh wrote:

That's all and well, but we need oil now..

And my point is that we have oil now and for the next few decades.

popinfresh wrote:

If a country is only importing 90% of the oil needed to run the country, prices will sore and the economy of that country will collapse.. This is a reality we will see in the next 10 years.

I'd be happy placing money on it not happening in the next 20 years at least, if at all.

popinfresh wrote:

It's not about alternatives to oil, that's irrelevent.

LoL.. It's not irrelevant ffs, it's exactly what we're talking about. Oil isn't a magical substance that's needed for humanity to breath. Oil is pervasive in the industrialised world, but we no longer need it. The world can and will successfuly move away from oil over the next century to a plethora of other solutions. It won't require economic or social breakdown on a world scale to achieve, either.

popinfresh wrote:

The fact is that the world is unbelevably dependant on oil. A reserve that has passed peak extraction. Even if an alternative is found, the world economy so dependent it will collapse in the changeover from oil form to another form of energy.

That's plain FUD. I'm confident the world will be able to successfully migrate from oil when it decides to.

popinfresh wrote:

The people who are about to be hit the worst by this are the US, hence Iraq.

Heh. No, not 'hence iraq'. Bringing Iraq into any of this smacks of oversimplification.

popinfresh

Arf, I hate it when ppl quote everything i say. Very time consuming to reply to

And my point is that we have oil now and for the next few decades.

Yeah but, economical disaster won't happen when oil reserves run out, it'll happen when oil stops being abundant. Which we are beginning to see now.

I'd be happy placing money on it not happening in the next 20 years at least, if at all.

Maybe not to Europe, but to the US... I would make this (absurd) statement based on the fact that it's not looking at all good for the dollar..

LoL.. It's not irrelevant ffs, it's exactly what we're talking about. Oil isn't a magical substance that's needed for humanity to breath.

It is however, a magical substance that economys need to breath. (magic I tells ye!!)

Heh. No, not 'hence iraq'. Bringing Iraq into any of this smacks of oversimplification.

The US is now posed with a drastic comprehension that the world is gonna start dealing in euros as opposed to dollars (that's a likely possibility, not a conspiricy theory). One logical way to prevent this would be to invade the middle east and install puppet governments that would serve the US's need for oil regardless of the power of the dollar. That would make more sense to me than "saddam is the devil, lets get him!!" I would consider the invasion of Iraq to be a financial investment.

The world does not have the reserves necessary to continue the economic growth (stability actually) that we have generally seen over the last 50ish years. Oil produce is past its peak, therefore if (eg: China or USA) is to continue maintaining their economys there is gonna be a struggle for who gets the oil.. and the US are posed with a massive disadvantage (the weakening dollar). Guns a hoi'

Moriarty

popinfresh wrote:

The US is now posed with a drastic comprehension that the world is gonna start dealing in euros as opposed to dollars (that's a likely possibility, not a conspiricy theory). One logical way to prevent this would be to invade the middle east and install puppet governments that would serve the US's need for oil regardless of the power of the dollar.

You appear to fundamentally misunderstand the actual situation. The problem isn't that the US would have to pay for oil in euros per sè, it's that the dollar would no longer be artifically propped up by all major international oil trade taking place with the dollar. The US is busy enough in Iraq for the next number of years, it won't be invading anywhere else of great significance.

popinfresh wrote:

That would make more sense to me than "saddam is the devil, lets get him!!" I would consider the invasion of Iraq to be a financial investment.

I've seen many others say that too, but the specific arguments have never stood up to scrutiny.

popinfresh wrote:

The world does not have the reserves necessary to continue the economic growth (stability actually) that we have generally seen over the last 50ish years.

Care to share how you know that?

popinfresh wrote:

Oil produce is past its peak, therefore if (eg: China or USA) is to continue maintaining their economys there is gonna be a struggle for who gets the oil.. and the US are posed with a massive disadvantage (the weakening dollar). Guns a hoi'

No, certain people are claiming that oil production is past it's peak. Afaik oil industry analsysts or the companies themselves are saying nothing of the sort. I'd be inclined to believe the oil industry/analsysts when I see so much oil still being discovered to this very day.

popinfresh

From the site I posted a link to earlier

Oil will not just "run out" because all oil production follows a bell curve. This is true whether we're talking about an individual field, a country, or on the planet as a whole.

Oil is increasingly plentiful on the upslope of the bell curve, increasingly scarce and expensive on the down slope. The peak of the curve coincides with the point at which the endowment of oil has been 50 percent depleted. Once the peak is passed, oil production begins to go down while cost begins to go up.

In practical and considerably oversimplified terms, this means that if 2000 was the year of global Peak Oil, worldwide oil production in the year 2020 will be the same as it was in 1980. However, the world’s population in 2020 will be both much larger (approximately twice) and much more industrialized (oil-dependent) than it was in 1980. Consequently, worldwide demand for oil will outpace worldwide production of oil by a significant margin. As a result, the price will skyrocket, oil-dependent economies will crumble, and resource wars will explode.

Graph: Dr. C.J Campbell (1996)

The issue is not one of "running out" so much as it is not having enough to keep our economy running. In this regard, the ramifications of Peak Oil for our civilization are similar to the ramifications of dehydration for the human body. The human body is 70 percent water. The body of a 200 pound man thus holds 140 pounds of water. Because water is so crucial to everything the human body does, the man doesn't need to lose all 140 pounds of water weight before collapsing due to dehydration. A loss of as little as 10-15 pounds of water may be enough to kill him.

In a similar sense, an oil-based economy such as ours doesn't have to deplete its entire reserves of oil before it begins to collapse. A shortfall between demand and supply as little as 10-15 percent is enough to wholly shatter an oil-dependent economy and reduce its citizenry to poverty.

For instance, during the 1970s oil shocks, shortfalls in production as small as 5% caused the price of oil to nearly quadruple. The same thing happened in California a few years ago in regards to natural gas: a production drop of less than 5% caused prices to skyrocket by 400%.

If you can rubbish this please do...

Moriarty

Well, world production is still increasing when that graph says we should be on a swift downward slope by now.



Then there's this

Oil for the Future
From time to time, pundits predict that the world will soon run out of oil. In reality, proved oil reserves have doubled over the last 30 years from 500 billion barrels to over one trillion barrels. How can we use so much oil and still increase remaining reserves? The answer is that we keep finding more oil than we consume.

and this..

A primary source for worldwide reserves estimates is the Oil & Gas Journal (OGJ).[1] OGJ estimates that at the beginning of 2004, worldwide reserves were 1.27 trillion barrels of oil and 6,100 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. These estimates are 53 billion barrels of oil and 575 trillion cubic feet of natural gas higher than the prior year, reflecting additional discoveries, improving technology, and changing economics.

The countries with the largest amounts of remaining oil reserves are: Saudi Arabia, Canada, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Russia, Libya, and Nigeria.[1] The largest reserves of natural gas are found in: Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, United States, Algeria, Nigeria, Venezuela, and Iraq.[1] The maps illustrate the distribution of remaining reserves around the world.

At 2003 consumption levels [2], the remaining reserves represent 44.6 years of oil and 66.2 years of natural gas. Does this mean that the world will be out of fossil fuels in 50 years or so? That theory has been around since the 1970s. In fact, the figures for years of remaining reserves have remained relative constant over the past few decades as the industry has replaced consumption with newly discovered oil and gas deposits and has developed technologies to increase the amount of oil and gas that can be recovered from existing reservoirs.

As noted above, three factors affect the amount of oil or gas that can be recovered from a known reservoir — rock properties, technology, and economics. While the industry cannot change the properties of the rock, it can develop new techniques to remove more oil from the rock. The industry has made significant advances to enhance recovery from known reservoirs, adding to the reserves base. When prices rise, marginal reservoirs can be developed economically, adding to the reserve base.

Reserves will also grow as more oil and gas deposits are found around the world. Continental North America and much of continental Europe have already been explored heavily, and any new discoveries are likely to be small. But many areas of the globe are largely unexplored and many large new deposits are waiting to be found. Companies have experienced major success in discovering significant new oil and gas reservoirs offshore Brazil, the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, off the western coast of Africa, Russia, and many areas of Asia and the Pacific. These are just a few of the current areas of growth. Most observers agree that significant deposits of oil and gas remain undiscovered in the Middle East.

No one can know for certain how much oil and gas remains to be discovered. But geologists sometimes make educated guesses. For example, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducts periodic assessments of U.S. mineral resources. In its most recent assessment (1995), the USGS estimated that the onshore U.S., including Alaska, has undiscovered, technically recoverable resources of 112.3 billion barrels of oil and 1,074 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In a separate assessment of offshore resources completed in 2000, the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) estimated that 75 billion barrels of oil and 362 trillion cubic feet of natural gas underlie the areas off the coasts of the U.S. The USGS and MMS resource assessments make clear that, despite being a very mature producing area, substantial resources still exist in the U.S.

World oil resources to 2025 may be more than two times current reserves, based on an estimate from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) using USGS data. Reserve growth of 730 billion barrels accounts for new discoveries and the expansion of what can be recovered from known reservoirs due to advances in technology and improvements in economics. But EIA estimates that in 2025, countries around the globe will still have more than 900 billion barrels of oil remaining to be discovered. EIA estimates total world oil resources at more than 2.9 trillion barrels of oil.

Oh, and this from shell..

How long are these reserves expected to last?

Although common sense says that reserves are finite and must come to an end, they have in fact been increasing throughout the history of the oil industry.

Technology improvements are likely to outpace rising depletion costs for at least the next decade, keeping new supplies below twenty dollars a barrel. The costs of biofuels and gas to liquids should both fall well below twenty dollars per barrel of oil equivalent over the next two decades, constraining oil prices.

Oil production has long been expected to peak. Some think this is now imminent. But a scarcity of oil supplies – including unconventional sources and natural gas liquids – is very unlikely before 2025. This could be extended to 2040 by adopting known measures to increase vehicle efficiency and focusing oil demand on this sector.

popinfresh

Fair enough, although another factor that has to be taken into consideration is that China and India (a lot of other countrys aswell) are in the process of industrailation. Meaning the world needs to produce more oil. Oil extraction is not able to keep up with this worldwide trend. The thing I was worring about was the rate at which we are accelerating towards the point whereby there's not enough oil for everybody's economy. (Which let me remind you is an inevitability) Ah well, I HOPE you're right

mike65

I'd be careful about quote anything from Shell as they did'nt even know what reserves they had last year...as for the oil - ITS GONNA RUN OUT!

We'll get by though because we will have to, the development of hydrogen cells is leaping onwards you can now power mobile phones with 'em. Plenty can be done on the efficency and savings front. How many lights are on in your house right now and how many do you need? How many devices are on standby which could be turned off fully without causing problems? I bet the thermostat could be notched back a degree or two...well its a start.

Mike.

Ardent

Moriarty

With all due respect, I'd take any facts or figures from ExxonMobil or Shell with a very large pinch of salt!

Moriarty

I'd take the above at face value.. if they were seriously wrong, they wouldn't publish it freely and openly on their corporate website. They have no real reason to lie about world oil reserves when it would be so easy for others to contradict it.

Magnolia_Fan

could be possible that this is a ploy by crude oil to make the prices rise, a theory floating around is that the earth has a limitless supply of oil in the earths crust as it is constantly being produced...who's right?...guess we'll no sooner rather than later huh?

popinfresh

I'd take the above at face value.. if they were seriously wrong, they wouldn't publish it freely and openly on their corporate website. They have no real reason to lie about world oil reserves when it would be so easy for others to contradict it.

The first thing that springs to mind is that maybe they're painting the picture that everything is OK, to please investors.

leeroybrown

Magnolia_Fan wrote:

could be possible that this is a ploy by crude oil to make the prices rise

No. If the 'big' oil companies (Exxon-Mobil, Shell, BP, Chevron-Texaco, Statoil and Petrobras) were to set an ideal price for oil it would be constant around the $28 to $30 dollar mark. Given that it costs approx $1 to get a barrel out of the ground in Saudi-Arabia (rising to about $18 in places like Sweden) that's one hell of a profit margin as it is.

Despite all the scare mongering the oil industry (many would say unfortunately) is in great shape. Exxon-mobil posted profits ($21Bn) last year that could buy small countries and Shell despite having to re-state their reserves (they had oil they would not be able to recover in them) are in great shape.

amp2000

Lads, sorry to tell you all but were ****ed, where do I start....

For a start, Peak Oil is very real & it's coming alot sooner than most of you think. If you open your eyes & stop watching the TV & follow current events worldwide you would realise we are on the edge of a major energy crisis!!

mr_angry wrote:

This has been posted here a couple of times before. Its a little sensationalist, but the basic background to it is correct. However, the author totally disregards the adoption of alternative forms of energy production.

The fact is there is no viable alternatives to do what were doing the way we are now.
Hydrogen is bull**** in energy terms. What you need to focus on is the EROEI (EROEI = Energy Returned on Energy Invested)

Moriarty wrote:

I'd take the above at face value.. if they were seriously wrong, they wouldn't publish it freely and openly on their corporate website. They have no real reason to lie about world oil reserves when it would be so easy for others to contradict it.

You have a lot to learn about the real world. I'd quote you & try put you wide but I can see your pretty stuck in your ways believing politicians & the media so I wont try, you'll probably think I'm mad.

I was going to type out a load of stuff here & try convince yous but I'm lazy so I'm just gonna quote something from somebody else.
I know what this person is saying & I'm in agreement, I'm anybody wants to refute some of the points on it I'm all open to debate.

Peak Oil, 9/11, and World War III

Peak Oil, its a subject that has been discussed before on this board and a fact that has been proven. Peak Oil reprsents the future peak of production of oil, and its decline thereafter. This event represents a turning point in mankind, where less net energy will be availible every year, and soceity will no longer be able to grow, but the opposite will occure. This is not a myth, or a theory, but its a fact, based on scientific proof by oil geologists, scientists, and many high members in our government. The facts point to a peak soon before 2010.

Peak Oil is here, it is now. You will experiance its effects within your lifetime, you are experiancing its effects right now. It will change and effect every aspect of your life, the only way to prepare is to arm yourself with the knowledge of survival.


"Crossing the Rubicon identifies key 9/11 suspects - finding some of them in the highest echelons of American government - by showing how they acted in concert to guarantee that the attacks produced the desired result.

To understand whats going on in this world, and the depth of its world picture - you need to review petroleum, geopolitics, narco-traffic, intelligence and militarism - without which 9/11 cannot be understood.

In reality, 9/11 and the resulting "War on Terror" are parts of a massive authoritarian response to an emerging economic crisis of unprecedented scale. Peak Oil - the beginning of the end for our industrial civilization - is driving the elites of American power to implement unthinkably draconian measures of repression, warfare and population control. Crossing the Rubicon is more than a story. It is a map of the perilous terrain through which, together and alone, we are all now making our way."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=books&n=507846

-Amazon review of Crossing the Rubicon, this book provides 600 pages of facts, evidence and proof of the US's planning, supession and involvment in the attacks. And also addresses the economic and human ramifications of the Peak Oil event, which is due to happen before 2010.



To understand just how big of a problem we have right now, lets understand the Saudi Arabian feild of Ghawar. This is the worlds largest oil feild, it produes about 4-5m/b per day and produces about 5% of the worlds crude.



Saudi Arabia’s promise to increase production to meet US and world economic needs was the hot topic. Much discussion and hard data was devoted to the fact that Ghawar, the largest field in the world, along with all of Saudi Arabia’s other large fields, was old and tired. In recent years both water injection and so-called “bottle-brush” drilling have been employed to maintain production and both of these techniques tend to accelerate decline and damage the reservoirs. They are desperate measures.

With bottle brush drilling, a shaft is drilled horizontally over long distances with a number of brush-like openings. As water is forced under pressure into the reservoir, the oil is forced upwards toward the well heads and extraction is thereby increased. However, when the water table hits the horizontal shaft, often without warning, the whole field is virtually dead and production immediately drops off to almost nothing. This comes as surprise in most cases. As several at the conference noted, this is exactly what had already happened in Oman, Syria and Yemen.

As William Kennedy, a UK observer at the conference noted afterwards, “For the record, Ghawar’s ultimate recoverable reserves in 1975 were estimated at 60 billion barrels – by Exxon, Mobil, Texaco and Chevron. It had produced 55 billion barrels up to the end of 2003 and is still producing at 1.8 billion per annum. That shows you how close it might be to the end. When Ghawar dies, the world is officially in decline.”


See the problem water extraction, is that it does not experiance typical decline slopes. Normal wells, which were used in the United States and Russia, pumped the oil from the groud. This was realiable, but it could only produce a certain ammount per year. The invention of the water-injected method does not get more oil out, just increases the ammount you can pump at one time. It increases the pressure in the well and pumps oil, as well as water, to the surface. This extraction technique has experianced different decline slopes then compaired to the traditional wells. It dropped off a cliff. One day the well produces fine, 2m/b a day, and then the next day the water table raises and bam, the feild is dead. This is expected to happen to Ghawar within the comming year.



No one, not even from the major oil companies or the economic camp rose to defend Saudi Arabia’s claim that it could increase production rapidly. The BBC’s Adam Porter nailed the International Energy Agency’s chief economist Faith Birol over his confident assertion that there was still plenty of oil.

In public, Mr Birol denied that supply would not be able to meet rising demand, especially from the buoyant economies in the USA, China and India.

But after his speech he seemed to change his tune.

"For the time being there is no spare capacity. But we expect demand to increase by the fourth quarter (of the year) by three million barrels a day."

He pinned his hopes for an increase in production squarely on troubled Saudi Arabia. "If Saudi does not increase supply by 3 million barrels a day by the end of the year we will face, how can I say this, it will be very difficult. We will have difficult times. They must invest."

Can Saudi deliver?

But even Mr Birol admitted that Saudi production was "about flat".

Three million extra barrels a day would mean a huge 30% leap in output in just a few months.

When BBC News Online followed up by asking if this giant increase in production was actually possible rather than simply a desire he refused to answer. "You are from the press? This is not for you. This is not for the press."

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fr...erlin_peak.html

Our current world spare compacity is about .5%, now if Ghawar suddenly died, like is to be expected, that would take 5% off the market. Where would the extra crude to replace it come from? Well there is none, once Ghawar dies, the world is officaly in decline. The scary part is, it could happen any day. We are depending on Saudi Arabia to make up for the declines everywhere else in the world, and to stablize oil prices. But the fact is Saudi Arabia cant do much more then "promise, and pretend that the world is not heading towards the worst disaster in history".

If instead some of you want some up to date news check out www.peakoil.com they have some pretty active forums there too if you want to debate with people that really know what they are talking about.


Also check out
www.peakoil.net
www.fromthewilderness.com
www.energybulletin.net

Please read the reviews for Crossing the Rubicon at amazon before dismissing what I'm saying here.

P.S. A little hint for anyone that has a variable interest rate mortgage, change it to a fixed rate quick!

Moriarty

amp2000 wrote:

you'll probably think I'm mad.

Probably a fair chance of that, yeah.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Moriarty

In any case, hydrogen isn't being mooted for energy production, it'll be for energy storage and distribution.

amp2000

Moriarty wrote:

Probably a fair chance of that, yeah.

If the sun or the herald don't tell you about it then it's not true eh?

The truth is that it isnt in the media or the politicians interest to tell you. If people knew the truth there would be chaos, you wouldn't see idiots building shopping malls or motorways. Look at the NYMEX exchange today for example, it's still at over $50 a barrel since yesterday http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/

Do you really live in a bubble moriarty or do you realise that China, Russia & Iran are doing big energy & weapons deals with each other in the past couple of months ?? Guess what Moriarty,,, the american economy is about to go bang, they are about to invade iran with israel & then the **** hits the fan. Watch that happens when the chines float the yuan, there is going to be a massive run on the dollar.
Have a guess why were about to enter WW3, I have 2 words, "Peak Oil"

daveirl

This post has been deleted.