PDA

View Full Version : US Oil Consumption Down 3.2%


Donger
03-19-2008, 10:08 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080319/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices;_ylt=AhMkaTPI3d8EY5TKz3TfLjWs0NUE

NEW YORK - Oil prices pulled back sharply Wednesday after the government reported data that suggested that the high price of oil and gasoline are depressing demand for petroleum products.

Light, sweet crude for April delivery fell $4.41 to $105.01 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, extending a decline that began before the report was released. The market was backtracking from a big advance on Tuesday.

In its weekly inventory report, the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration said overall consumption of oil and refined products fell by 3.2 percent over the last four weeks compared to the same period last year. Demand for gasoline fell by 1 percent over the same period.

xbarretx
03-19-2008, 10:12 AM
so Donger, is "this" the quarter when fundamentals catch up to the oil bubble to make it burst?

Donger
03-19-2008, 10:15 AM
so Donger, is "this" the quarter when fundamentals catch up to the oil bubble to make it burst?

I'm really on the fence, but my gut says, "Yes."

xbarretx
03-19-2008, 10:21 AM
I'm really on the fence, but my gut says, "Yes."

:clap: :toast:

what ... or better yet where do you think market fundamentals would set a correct or more accurate price point?

do i feel oil should be 20? no....

do i feel oil should be anywhere near 100? no......

so where does that leave it for the time being given global slowdown and decreased demand? along with increased reserves?

Donger
03-19-2008, 10:25 AM
:clap: :toast:

what ... or better yet where do you think market fundamentals would set a correct or more accurate price point?

do i feel oil should be 20? no....

do i feel oil should be anywhere near 100? no......

so where does that leave it for the time being given global slowdown and decreased demand? along with increased reserves?

I would say $60-$70.

Brock
03-19-2008, 10:27 AM
Wake up, it's never going back.

xbarretx
03-19-2008, 10:33 AM
Wake up, it's never going back.

LMAO brock always there for the comic relief :thumb: you get Rep brock b/c you must have oil stock.

let it stay high....in fact let it get higher. lets it ruin the global economy with inflation and let the capitalists put their monies is alternatives and renewable for once. :clap:

the good news is with oil this high...OPEC only gets a % of the price due to ex rate loss and inflation. so the higher it gets the less they make.

alanm
03-19-2008, 06:52 PM
I would say $60-$70.
I would prefer anywhere from $35-45.

ClevelandBronco
03-19-2008, 06:56 PM
I would prefer anywhere from $35-45.

Then your consumption should be down considerably more than 3.2%.

Discuss Thrower
03-19-2008, 08:40 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080319/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices;_ylt=AhMkaTPI3d8EY5TKz3TfLjWs0NUE

NEW YORK - Oil prices pulled back sharply Wednesday after the government reported data that suggested that the high price of oil and gasoline are depressing demand for petroleum products.

Light, sweet crude for April delivery fell $4.41 to $105.01 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, extending a decline that began before the report was released. The market was backtracking from a big advance on Tuesday.

In its weekly inventory report, the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration said overall consumption of oil and refined products fell by 3.2 percent over the last four weeks compared to the same period last year. Demand for gasoline fell by 1 percent over the same period.

In a related story, OPEC cuts production and spikes the average cost of gasoline at 3.95$

xbarretx
03-19-2008, 08:44 PM
In a related story, OPEC cuts production and spikes the average cost of gasoline at 3.95$

shhh dont give OPEC any ideas....

alanm
03-19-2008, 09:12 PM
Then your consumption should be down considerably more than 3.2%.
My consumption is down more than 50% :)

ClevelandBronco
03-19-2008, 10:35 PM
My consumption is down more than 50% :)

Well done, then.

Donger
03-20-2008, 08:41 AM
Crude is now below $100.

Donger
03-20-2008, 08:41 AM
My consumption is down more than 50% :)

That's great. Congratulations!

xbarretx
03-20-2008, 08:49 AM
Crude is now below $100.

yep let it keep falling and i hope that it doest drop and people forget this. the need to be off oil is paramount. (by off i mean have many more alts and greater efficiency)

bkkcoh
03-20-2008, 09:55 AM
50 Cent Gas tax wanted by MI dem (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339589,00.html)


A Michigan congressman wants to put a 50-cent tax on every gallon of gasoline to try to cut back on Americans' consumption.

Polls show that a majority of Americans support policies that would reduce greenhouse gases. But when it comes to paying for it, it's a different story.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., wants to help cut consumption with a gas tax but some don't agree with the idea, according to a new poll by the National Center for Public Policy Research.

The poll, scheduled to be released on Thursday, shows 48 percent don't support paying even a penny more, 28 percent would pay up to 50 cents more, 10 percent would pay more than 50 cents and 8 percent would pay more than a dollar.

"I don't want to pay more, I don't think anyone wants to," said Karen Deacon, a motorist.

"I think that wouldn't make any sense," said Frankie Hoe, a motorist. "Ugh ... who's making the money from all this and where is that money going? Is it going to go green? I don't see any green things anywhere."

The automobile is the nation's biggest polluter; Americans use more gas than the next 20 countries combined.

Some environmentalists and economists say pain at the pump may be bad for Americans, but good medicine for a sick planet.

But others say it wouldn't change much. Even if Americans abandoned their cars, global emissions would fall by less than one percent.

"A tax on gas is a way to reduce dependence on import oil, reduce traffic congrestion and reduce carbon emissions," said Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute.

The Earth Policy Institute proposes raising the gas tax 30 cents per gallon each year over a decade and offset with a reduction of income taxes, Brown said.

David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, said the proposal wouldn't help long term.

"I think when you are talking about raising gas prices, there may be short-term reduction, put off vacations, but bottom line is over long term, that isn't going to have much of an effect," Ridenour said.

While Dingell's idea will likely lie dormant until after the 2008 election, the idea of carbon taxes is not. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain all support some type of system that either directly or indirectly will raise prices to penalize polluters.



How damaging would this be to the economy if this get passed?

To me, it doesn't make any difference as to what the reason is for the tax increase, it will be crippling, very crippling to the economy.

xbarretx
03-20-2008, 11:56 AM
How damaging would this be to the economy if this get passed?

To me, it doesn't make any difference as to what the reason is for the tax increase, it will be crippling, very crippling to the economy.

QFT, just think.... look US public you have 4 dollar AVG cost per gallon of gas.. oh wait lets chock 30 - 50 cents on top of it.... :clap: wooot wOOt! :shake:

its the same reason the econ smokes pole atm....inflation hurts b/c no matter how low the rates on barrowing money are... if you cant afford to spend or buy food theres no point to it.

on the other hand..a reduction in income taxes would be nice :clap:

alanm
03-20-2008, 12:29 PM
50 Cent Gas tax wanted by MI dem (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339589,00.html)



How damaging would this be to the economy if this get passed?

To me, it doesn't make any difference as to what the reason is for the tax increase, it will be crippling, very crippling to the economy.
It would probably make more people abandon a dying state like Michigan a little faster. It actually sounds like something California would do. Pass a feel good tax with disastrous results. :shake:

Bowser
03-20-2008, 01:24 PM
WHy again don't we have hydrgoen powered cars?

Donger
03-20-2008, 01:38 PM
WHy again don't we have hydrgoen powered cars?

Because hydrogen is perhaps the least efficient and most expensive replacement of gasoline.

And that Hindenburg thing.

xbarretx
03-20-2008, 01:38 PM
WHy again don't we have hydrgoen powered cars?

for the exact same reason everyone and there grandmothers took out ARM's trying to flip this house.....

they couldn’t see past there own snout as realize that rates couldn’t be this low "forever"

What’s that have to do with hydrogen cars?

the same sort of thinking is why we don’t have them. people assume there’s an infinite supply of oil and that it will be cheap "forever" auto makers are getting a taste of there own medicine. Serves them right for making excursions/suburban’s/hummers......................

maybe when people realize the inherent risk of ignoring this situation then and only then will we see a serious answer to oil bound transportation. the answer may or may not be hydrogen but there needs to be a REALISTIC alternative other then f'ing hybrids that only get 20 - 30 something per gallon...................

xbarretx
03-20-2008, 01:40 PM
Because hydrogen is perhaps the least efficient and most expensive replacement of gasoline.

And that Hindenburg thing.

p.s. wanst the hindenburg caused by the painting on the skin and not the hydrogen?

p.s. thank you mythbusters for that bit of info ;)

Donger
03-20-2008, 01:41 PM
p.s. wanst the hindenburg caused by the painting on the skin and not the hydrogen?

p.s. thank you mythbusters for that bit of info ;)

That was a joke.

Sully
03-20-2008, 01:43 PM
I think it'd be fun to drive a blimp to work.


"Goodyear, Frank?"
"No. The worst."

xbarretx
03-20-2008, 03:12 PM
That was a joke.

never can tell with you Donger ;)

tiptap
03-20-2008, 03:17 PM
Because hydrogen is perhaps the least efficient and most expensive replacement of gasoline.

And that Hindenburg thing.

Per pound Hydrogen 3 times the energy. Hydrocarbons oxydized to CO 2 doesn't match up to Hydrogen to water. The Hindenburg's skin was the culprit in the burning of that blimp, the hydrogen being lighter than air would disperse and not burn in place. As far as expense, will I haven't seen enough resources throwned at that question to believe that we can't match the success that light driven biological systems demonstrate.

Donger
03-20-2008, 03:24 PM
Per pound Hydrogen 3 times the energy. Hydrocarbons oxydized to CO 2 doesn't match up to Hydrogen to water. The Hindenburg's skin was the culprit in the burning of that blimp, the hydrogen being lighter than air would disperse and not burn in place. As far as expense, will I haven't seen enough resources throwned at that question to believe that we can't match the success that light driven biological systems demonstrate.

Three times the energy but only 1/10 the density in liquid state, even less as a compressed gas, right?

xbarretx
03-22-2008, 11:12 AM
Three times the energy but only 1/10 the density in liquid state, even less as a compressed gas, right?

Dong, what may i ask is your profession?

banyon
03-22-2008, 11:37 AM
Why Exxon won't produce more oil

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/WhyExxonWontProduceMore.aspx?page=1

The energy giant is being managed to achieve an acceptable investment return for shareholders, not for the benefit of consumers. Less supply of crude oil means higher prices -- and record profits.

March 20, 2008 -- 16:20 ET

Reports of slackening demand sent oil down another 2.5% on Thursday to $101.84 per barrel. Crude prices have declined 7.6% since the beginning of the week. Not long ago, that would have been an astonishing plunge that shook the trading establishment. These days? Nah, that's just the ho-hum volatility in the oil market. But how is it that crude can still trade above $100 a barrel, three times what it sold for at the start of the decade, despite a very wobbly economy?

If you want to understand that, it helps to listen in to ExxonMobil's (XOM, news, msgs) presentation to analysts in New York City in early March. Halfway through the three-hour meeting, Exxon management flashed a chart that showed the company's worldwide oil production staying flat through 2012.

Ponder that for a minute. Exxon is the largest publicly traded company in the energy business. In fact, it's the most profitable company in the history of capitalism, earning a record $40.6 billion last year on sales of $404 billion. Yet even with crude oil prices near all-time highs, Exxon isn't planning on producing any more oil four years from now than it did last year.

That means the company's oil output won't even keep pace with its own projections of worldwide oil demand growth of 1.3% a year.

Imagine a chief executive of another growth company making a similar announcement to that of Exxon Chairman Rex Tillerson. What if Steve Jobs said Apple (AAPL, news, msgs) wasn't going to sell any more iPhones than it did in 2007? What if Howard Schultz said latte production at Starbucks (SBUX, news, msgs) would stagnate, at least until the next U.S. president embarked on his or her re-election campaign? Shares of both companies would plummet.

After the management presentations, Tillerson took questions from the audience. The first hand that shot up was that of Deutsche Bank (DB, news, msgs) oil analyst Paul Sankey, who wanted to know why the company wasn't showing any volume growth.

"We don't start with a volume target and then work backwards," Tillerson explained. Instead, he said, his team examines the available investment opportunities, figures out what prices they'll likely get for that output down the road and places its bets accordingly. "It really goes back to what is an acceptable investment return for us," Tillerson said. In other words, producing more barrels just to ease prices for consumers is not part of the company's calculations.

Last year, ExxonMobil led the industry with a return on capital of 32%.

Exxon chief sees growth opportunities

As production costs escalate, ExxonMobil is forced to significantly boost capital spending just to maintain oil and gas reserves near existing levels.Exxon's flat oil forecast was even more surprising because it came during a meeting when the company was trumpeting a big increase in capital expenditures -- to at least $25 billion a year going forward, up from $21 billion last year.

The company also outlined a slew of big projects, 12 of which are starting up this year. These include the 600 million barrel Kizomba C development off the coast of Angola that began producing on New Year's Day and another in a string of giant liquefied natural gas facilities in Qatar. Unlike oil, Exxon's production of natural gas -- much of it liquefied and shipped in tankers to Asia and Europe -- is projected to climb over the next four years.

But how could oil production be flat? Peer into Exxon's historical numbers and you see the problem Tillerson faces. Since 2000, Exxon's oil output from two of its largest regions, the United States and Europe, declined a startling 37%. That's 500,000 fewer barrels a day in just seven years.

Exxon reported 100,000 fewer barrels per day last year alone due to the nature of the contracts big oil companies sign with countries such as Angola and Nigeria. In such contracts, foreign companies put up the capital to fund new projects, and they are paid back in barrels. If oil prices rise above certain levels, Exxon gets to keep fewer of those barrels as profit for itself.

Exxon plans on bringing new fields online in Russia, the Middle East and Africa over the next four years, but they won't be enough to generate growth beyond what the company is losing due to the maturation of its fields in the North Sea and Alaska, the nationalization of its fields in Venezuela and volumes lost due to those production-sharing agreements with other countries.

"It has always been a challenge to grow volumes when you are working off of a base as large as ours," Tillerson told the analysts.

Indeed, Tillerson got more bad news Tuesday when a British judge freed up the foreign assets that Exxon had sought to freeze in its ongoing dispute with the government of Venezuela.

Exxon's flat forecast was, in a way, an admission of what's been an open secret for the industry. Big oil companies almost always forecast production growth but they rarely make their own targets.

In 2002, shortly after its big merger with Texaco, Chevron (CVX, news, msgs) was producing nearly 2.7 million barrels per day of oil and natural gas worldwide, and Chairman David O'Reilly said the company would increase its volumes by as much as 3% a year by 2006. Last year the company produced an average of just 2.6 million barrels per day. A spokesman for the company says it, too, lost barrels to production-sharing agreements and changes in contract terms in Venezuela. The company is maintaining a 3% annual growth target through 2010, however.

Could Exxon spend more and generate more growth? Probably. Even with its increased capital spending, the company still spent 70% more on dividends and stock buybacks last year ($38 billion) than it did reinvesting in its business. Tillerson noted that share buybacks in the past have boosted the average stockholder's share of the company's oil production by 20% over the past five years.

In other words. even though the company's volumes haven't grown, fewer shares outstanding mean more barrels per share for each remaining shareholder.

Lysle Brinker, who follows Exxon for the research firm John S. Herold, figures that given the company's capital outlays, Tillerson can keep replacing the oil and natural gas he sells. That way the company won't shrink, even if it doesn't grow.

Big oil companies can continually miss their targets or even target no growth and still shine on Wall Street due to the peculiar nature of commodity businesses. Less supply of a commodity means higher prices. Higher oil prices mean more profits for the oil companies.

Exxon shares have risen 18% in the past year -- and even closed a bit higher on March 5, the day of its analysts meeting.

This article was reported and written by Christopher Palmeri for BusinessWeek

patteeu
03-22-2008, 01:19 PM
This statement is pretty generally true and unremarkable, IMO:

"The [business enterprise of any kind] is being managed to achieve an acceptable investment return for shareholders, not for the benefit of consumers."

Donger
03-24-2008, 09:19 AM
Dong, what may i ask is your profession?

Sales.

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 09:37 AM
This statement is pretty generally true and unremarkable, IMO:

"The [business enterprise of any kind] is being managed to achieve an acceptable investment return for shareholders, not for the benefit of consumers."


True. While you can argue that employees are a constituency with some rights/stake in the company, it's tough to argue that consumers are owed anything beyond a safe product that is capable of performing as advertised, etc.

xbarretx
03-24-2008, 09:49 AM
Sales.

:hmmm: pharm sales? im just trying to guess where you get all this insight sometimes :)

Donger
03-24-2008, 10:27 AM
:hmmm: pharm sales? im just trying to guess where you get all this insight sometimes :)

Technology.

xbarretx
03-24-2008, 06:12 PM
Technology.

i used to do that for SNS. (sprint north supply for those that dont know SNS)i have since moved on to my Forté Logistics