Total Motorcycle Community Forums

$US56.46 a barrel!!??!#$#@$@#$

OMG!

That is a huge in crease over 2 years ago* or even last year! Is there an end to it?

Do you know what this will do to society if it keeps increasing? Forget about the price of gas, think about the price of EVERYTHING that uses oil as a bi-product! Plastics, food, and other stuff.

*World oil prices have now more than doubled since early 2002.

Mike.




--------------------------------
Oil prices hit record as markets ignore OPEC

Oil prices soared to new records as traders poured more cash into the market on fears of a supply crunch, despite a pledge by the OPEC cartel to increase production.

On the New York Mercantile Exchange, the April contract hit a record closing price of $US56.46 a barrel, up $US1.41.

The price earlier in the session hit an all-time record of $US56.60 a barrel.

The surge broke the record set last October of $US55.67 a barrel.

In London, the price of Brent North Sea crude oil for delivery in April jumped $US1.10 to reach also a new intraday record of $US54.95 a barrel, before settling at $US54.80, a gain of 95 cents.

The Brent price beat the previous record of $US54.30 reached March 9.

The rally began on Wednesday after the Energy Department released its data on US inventory levels.

It said US crude inventories rose by 2.6 million barrels for the week ended March 11. However, gasoline supplies dropped by 2.9 million barrels, and distillate stocks fell by 1.9 million barrels.

The surge in prices came despite a move by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to hike its output quota.

OPEC, meeting in Iran, agreed to raise its crude oil production ceiling from 27 to 27.5 million barrels per day, and said in a statement it would consider raising quotas by a further 500,000 barrels per day if oil prices remain high.

"This decision is a reaffirmation of OPEC's commitment to ensuring adequate supplies consistent with robust economic growth, in particular in the economies of the developing world," OPEC said.

"The conference decided to increase the production ceiling to 27.5 million barrels per day effective immediately.

"The conference further authorised the (OPEC) president, after consultations with fellow heads of delegations, to allow an additional 500,000 barrel per day increase in the ceiling by its next meeting (June 7) should prices remain at current levels or continue to further rise."

Meanwhile, US President George W Bush expressed concern about the surge in costs.

"I am concerned about the price of energy," Mr Bush said at a White House press briefing.

"I'm concerned about what it means to the average American family, when they see the price of gasoline going up. I'm concerned what it means to small businesses."

World oil prices have now more than doubled since early 2002.

Adjusted for inflation, however, they remain far below levels reached in the wake of the 1979 Iranian revolution when prices surged to upwards of $US80 a barrel in today's money.

-AFP

is there even the remotest possibility that the U.S. oil companies have purposely let the oil situation get like this so congress will vote to let them drill in a wildlife preserve.probably just foolish thinking on my part.

9000white wrote:is there even the remotest possibility that the U.S. oil companies have purposely let the oil situation get like this so congress will vote to let them drill in a wildlife preserve.probably just foolish thinking on my part.

That is SO weird, you must of just read the news right? (SEE BELOW)

Mike.


-----------------------------------------

Senate votes to approve oil drilling in Alaskan wildlife refuge
By H. Josef Hebert ASSOCIATED PRESS 3:01 p.m. March 16, 2005



WASHINGTON – A closely divided Senate voted Wednesday to approve oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge, a major victory for President Bush and a stinging defeat for environmentalists who have fought the idea for decades.

By a 51-49 vote, the Senate put a refuge drilling provision in next year's budget, depriving opponents of the chance to use a filibuster to try to block it. Filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome, have been used to defeat drilling proposals in the past.

Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who has fought for 24 years to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil companies, acknowledged it still could be "a long process" before a final drilling measure clears Congress. Lawmakers must agree on the final budget, something they failed to do last year, or Wednesday's vote would have been for naught.

Also, the House did not include an Arctic refuge measure in its budget, a difference that will have to be worked out in future negotiations.

Nevertheless, the Senate made clear by Wednesday's vote that a majority now supports tapping what is believed to be 10.4 billions or more of barrels of oil within the refuge's 1.5 million-acre coastal plain, said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. Two years ago, a similar attempt to use the budget process to open the refuge failed by three votes.

But that was before Republicans last November expanded their majority, adding a number of GOP senators who favor drilling. Only seven Republicans, all moderates, bucked their party Wednesday and voted with most Democrats against opening the refuge.

The oil industry has sought for more than two decades to get access to the oil. In 1980, Congress said the oil could be developed, but only if lawmakers specifically authorized the Interior Department to sell oil leases. Repeatedly Congress has failed to do so.

Environmentalists for years have fought such development, contending it would lead to a spider web of drilling platforms, pipelines and roads that would adversely impact the calving grounds of caribou, polar bears and millions of migratory birds that use the refuge's coastal plain.

"The fact is it's going to be destructive," Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said during debate on an amendment that would have stripped the drilling language from the budget measure. Democrats fell two votes short of the 51 needed.

Kerry and other drilling opponents argued that more oil would be saved than ANWR could produce if Congress enacted an energy policy focusing on conservation, more efficient cars and trucks and increased reliance on renewable fuels.

Drilling supporters countered that the refuge's oil can be pumped while still protecting the environment and wildlife.

Modern technology, drilling techniques and environmental restrictions would dramatically limit the industrial footprint that would be left on the tundra and protect wildlife, said Murkowski. "We know we've got to do it right. ... It's a fragile environment."

One GOP senator after another argued that with foreign imports accounting for more than half of the oil the country uses, every available barrel should be pursued. The Alaska refuge represents the largest potential onshore oil find in the country, they said.

"Some people say we ought to conserve more. They say we ought to conserve instead of producing this oil. But we need to do everything. We have to conserve and produce where we can," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

But drilling opponents rejected the suggestion that ANWR's oil would have much impact on global markets, today's high oil and gasoline prices, or the continued U.S. reliance on foreign producers.

"We won't see this oil for 10 years. It will have minimal impact," argued Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. It is "foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist."

Cantwell and other Democrats accused Republicans of trying "an end run" by attaching the refuge provisions to the budget, saying the question of drilling in an ecologically pristine refuge – a "special place" as many environmentalists called it – should be debated as separate legislation or as part of a broad energy bill.

"It's the only way around the filibuster," countered Stevens, defending the use of the budget process. He said that approach is justified for issues that have special importance such as getting at ANWR's oil, something he characterized as a matter of "national security."

While Democrats led the opposition to drilling, three Democratic senators voted with the GOP majority: Sens. Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye of Hawaii and Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

The seven Republicans who voted against drilling were Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island; Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine; Mike DeWine of Ohio, John McCain of Arizona, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Norm Coleman of Minnesota.

Its all speculation by the traders. The Saudis (specifically the company I work for) agreed to increase production. Price goes up. Hours before the vote came up in the Senate the price spiked again. They have been beating that drum of getting drilling started in ANWR for years. Trying to feed the public a load of bull___ about how it will make us less dependant on foriegn oil. Won't even make a dent.



Karl
FJ1200

This just in....

Stock markets mixed as crude oil prices approach US$57 a barrel

A lot of Somebodies are sure making a lot of money off selling oil.

Mike.

I think anything we can conceive as a reason for this may have at least some basis in truth. It may be multiple reasons. Oil companies, however, are showing record earnings. I would like to see some high government officials' stock portfolios. Bet they're loaded with oil.

when the oil companies pulled the oil shortage in the 80's it was found that their profits had doubled--congress investigated and the oil companies explained it this way--"well last year we only made $1.00 profit,this year we made $2.00, so you see we still aint making no money"

Good news for investors in the OilSands.......if oil price consistently stays high (which is likely), they will make a killing once they start producing in northern AB.

glad i have a motorcycle. i enjoy laughing at the people at the gas station complaing on filling up there big SUV's and for what? because its safer than an economical Saturn 1.9 Liter? oh... almost forgot i got a exploder. dodo.

My big ol' Chebby pickup has not moved from the garage in over 2 weeks. It has about 35 gallons of gas in it. The gas is appreciating in value while the truck depreciates. I am afraid to start it, because I won't be able to afford to buy replacement gas.
I figure eventually whiskey will be cheaper than gas, so I'll just burn that.