PDA

View Full Version : Economics Get Ready for $5 Gas This Year: Ex-Shell CEO


KILLER_CLOWN
02-13-2012, 09:03 AM
Published: Friday, 10 Feb 2012 | 12:36 PM ET
Text Size
By: Margo D. Beller

Get ready to pay $5 a gallon for gasoline this year.

John Hofmeister, founder of Citizens for Affordable Energy and the former CEO of Shell Oil’s U.S. operations, warned that there is a “better than 50 percent chance” the price of gas will spike on continued heavy demand in emerging markets and weak public policy at home.

He also sees West Texas crude prices touching “the midteens to $120 a barrel some time this year.”

“What’s really unprecedented is developing countries, particularly China and India, have this insatiable need for more oil and that has not been taken into account when we think of public policy in this country,” he said.

“So while we may be producing a bit more oil in this country, and while demand is down a bit, on a global basis I’m afraid we face a continuing onslaught of prices creeping ever higher,” he said. “I hope I’m wrong on this. I'd love to be wrong on this.”

Hofmeister, a CNBC contributor, spoke Friday, the same day the International Energy Agency cut its oil growth demand forecast for a sixth straight month because of the weak global economy. He disagreed with the IEA, saying “demand is still growing” at a time when East Coast refineries are closing because of declining margins and the uncertainty in the Persian Gulf heats up.

Hofmeister is not the first to predict rising gas prices, although others have forecast a rise to $4 a gallon.

He said while the Obama administration “is doing victory laps” about new rules to raise domestic energy production, there are still permitting delays for oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The possibly temporary defeat of TransCanada’s [TRP 41.73 0.20 (+0.48%) ] Keystone Pipeline project throws in another monkey wrench. In short, there should be more domestic drilling, not less, and the administration has done little to encourage it, Hofmeister said.

“We have not had the kind of public policy support for domestic natural resource production increases that would carry through into market prices in the United States given the global demand and geopolitical uncertainty that comes out of the [Persian] Gulf daily,” he said.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46342617

It's a good thing Ron Paul is being ignored, we don't need any kind of reform just keep doing what we're doing.

Donger
02-13-2012, 09:16 AM
Published: Friday, 10 Feb 2012 | 12:36 PM ET
Text Size
By: Margo D. Beller

Get ready to pay $5 a gallon for gasoline this year.

John Hofmeister, founder of Citizens for Affordable Energy and the former CEO of Shell Oil’s U.S. operations, warned that there is a “better than 50 percent chance” the price of gas will spike on continued heavy demand in emerging markets and weak public policy at home.

He also sees West Texas crude prices touching “the midteens to $120 a barrel some time this year.”

“What’s really unprecedented is developing countries, particularly China and India, have this insatiable need for more oil and that has not been taken into account when we think of public policy in this country,” he said.

“So while we may be producing a bit more oil in this country, and while demand is down a bit, on a global basis I’m afraid we face a continuing onslaught of prices creeping ever higher,” he said. “I hope I’m wrong on this. I'd love to be wrong on this.”

Hofmeister, a CNBC contributor, spoke Friday, the same day the International Energy Agency cut its oil growth demand forecast for a sixth straight month because of the weak global economy. He disagreed with the IEA, saying “demand is still growing” at a time when East Coast refineries are closing because of declining margins and the uncertainty in the Persian Gulf heats up.

Hofmeister is not the first to predict rising gas prices, although others have forecast a rise to $4 a gallon.

He said while the Obama administration “is doing victory laps” about new rules to raise domestic energy production, there are still permitting delays for oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The possibly temporary defeat of TransCanada’s [TRP 41.73 0.20 (+0.48%) ] Keystone Pipeline project throws in another monkey wrench. In short, there should be more domestic drilling, not less, and the administration has done little to encourage it, Hofmeister said.

“We have not had the kind of public policy support for domestic natural resource production increases that would carry through into market prices in the United States given the global demand and geopolitical uncertainty that comes out of the [Persian] Gulf daily,” he said.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46342617

It's a good thing Ron Paul is being ignored, we don't need any kind of reform just keep doing what we're doing.

$120/barrel doesn't equate to $5 gasoline. Not even close.

patteeu
02-13-2012, 09:19 AM
$120/barrel doesn't equate to $5 gasoline. Not even close.

It's important to start setting really high expectations so that when gas only hits $4 or $4.50 this summer, Obama will be able to play the role of savior.

dirk digler
02-13-2012, 09:22 AM
How much oil could the US produce if there was no restrictions?

Donger
02-13-2012, 09:27 AM
How much oil could the US produce if there was no restrictions?

That's a complicated question and a complicated answer.

We have a massive reserves that could be tapped: OCS, ANWR and Green River, etc.

If we went after those, how much and how soon? Probably enough to completely supply us for 50 years or so. How soon? Years away at best.

dirk digler
02-13-2012, 09:30 AM
That's a complicated question and a complicated answer.

We have a massive reserves that could be tapped: OCS, ANWR and Green River, etc.

If we went after those, how much and how soon? Probably enough to completely supply us for 50 years or so. How soon? Years away at best.

Thanks. I was basically wanting to know if we tapped all our oil reserves in this country would we be self sufficient or would we still have to import oil from the ME? It is an honest question because I really don't know.

Donger
02-13-2012, 09:33 AM
Thanks. I was basically wanting to know if we tapped all our oil reserves in this country would we be self sufficient or would we still have to import oil from the ME? It is an honest question because I really don't know.

Yes, we could. But, not for very long (big picture time frame, that is).

dirk digler
02-13-2012, 09:36 AM
Yes, we could. But, not for very long (big picture time frame, that is).

Interesting..thanks.

donkhater
02-13-2012, 10:43 AM
It's important to start setting really high expectations so that when gas only hits $4 or $4.50 this summer, Obama will be able to play the role of savior.

You know this statement is probably being taken as just witty, but it has substance that I've noticed about the way this administration does politics.

Take the HHS debacle recently. Does anyone think Obama and his team didn't know that requiring all employers to pay for contraceptives wouldn't have the Catholic Church up in arms? Of course they did. They may have even leaked it prior to announcing it so the bishops could pounce on them. Then they let the opposition ring out about protecting First Amendment rights and SURPRISE! the Obama administration changes it's policy to say that insurance companies will pay for the contraceptives, not the employer.

In that one move, he addresses the first amendment problem of religion and upsets his base for 'caving' to the religous right. However, he got what he wanted all along, which is complete universal coverage of contraceptives. Many Catholics are just grateful he didn't require them to directly pay for it, while his base still gets widely distributed contraceptives, and he comes off as being the grand compromiser.

Meanwhile the media hub-hub over this "compromise" has lost its sex appeal and the fact that this ridiculous overeach by the executive branch is requiring a private company to provide a product or service is not being talked about.

This trend plays over time and again with this administration that it can't be a mistake. He appears to overreach, gets called out, then compromises to a position that he wanted along and the oppostion is just grateful that he didn't get what he wanted (or so they think).

patteeu
02-13-2012, 10:46 AM
You know this statement is probably being taken as just witty, but it has substance that I've noticed about the way this administration does politics.

Take the HHS debacle recently. Does anyone think Obama and his team didn't know that requiring all employers to pay for contraceptives wouldn't have the Catholic Church up in arms? Of course they did. They may have even leaked it prior to announcing it so the bishops could pounce on them. Then they let the opposition ring out about protecting First Amendment rights and SURPRISE! the Obama administration changes it's policy to say that insurance companies will pay for the contraceptives, not the employer.

In that one move, he addresses the First amendment problem of religon and upsets his base for 'caving' to the religous right. However, he got what he wanted all along, which is complete universal coverage of contraceptives. Many Catholics are just grateful he didn't require them to directly pay for it, while his base still gets widely distributed concraceptives, and he comes off as bing the grand compromiser.

Meanwhile the media hub-hub over this "compromise" has lost its sex appeal and the fact that ridiculous overeach by the executive branch is requiring a private company to provide a product or service is not being talked about.

This trend plays over time and again with this administration that it can't be a mistake. He appears to overreach, gets called out, then compromises to a position that he wanted along and the oppostion is just grateful that he didn't get what he wanted (or so they think).

You might be right about how it was taken, but I was actually serious.

KC native
02-13-2012, 11:02 AM
It's important to start setting really high expectations so that when gas only hits $4 or $4.50 this summer, Obama will be able to play the role of savior.

Really? An ex-COO for Shell is setting expectations for Obama and the US? The bep-ification of patty continues.

patteeu
02-13-2012, 11:30 AM
Really? An ex-COO for Shell is setting expectations for Obama and the US? The bep-ification of patty continues.

Yeah, really. Check opensecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/search.php?cid=N00009638&name=Hofmeister%2C+John&employ=%28any+employer%29&state=TX&zip=%28any+zip%29&submit=OK&amt=a&sort=A):

Presidential Donor Lookup Results
2 records found in 0.155 seconds.
Total for this search: $5,000

Search Criteria:
Donor name: Hofmeister, John
Donor State: TX
Cycle selected: 2012
Start another search

Sort by Name
Sort by Date (Descending)
Sort by Amount

1
Candidate Contributor Employer Date Amount
Obama, Barack - Hofmeister, John - Houston,TX 77019 - Citizens for Affordable Energy - 10/28/11 - $2,500
Obama, Barack - Hofmeister, John - Houston,TX 77019 - Citizens for Affordable Energy - 10/28/11 - $2,500


I don't know for sure that he's doing this to set expectations, but you can't discount the possibility.

Cave Johnson
02-13-2012, 11:34 AM
You know this statement is probably being taken as just witty, but it has substance that I've noticed about the way this administration does politics.

Take the HHS debacle recently. Does anyone think Obama and his team didn't know that requiring all employers to pay for contraceptives wouldn't have the Catholic Church up in arms? Of course they did. They may have even leaked it prior to announcing it so the bishops could pounce on them. Then they let the opposition ring out about protecting First Amendment rights and SURPRISE! the Obama administration changes it's policy to say that insurance companies will pay for the contraceptives, not the employer.

In that one move, he addresses the first amendment problem of religion and upsets his base for 'caving' to the religous right. However, he got what he wanted all along, which is complete universal coverage of contraceptives. Many Catholics are just grateful he didn't require them to directly pay for it, while his base still gets widely distributed contraceptives, and he comes off as being the grand compromiser.

Meanwhile the media hub-hub over this "compromise" has lost its sex appeal and the fact that this ridiculous overeach by the executive branch is requiring a private company to provide a product or service is not being talked about.

This trend plays over time and again with this administration that it can't be a mistake. He appears to overreach, gets called out, then compromises to a position that he wanted along and the oppostion is just grateful that he didn't get what he wanted (or so they think).

Sounds like good strategy. And in this particular case, it may light a fire under the Santorum bandwagon

KC native
02-13-2012, 11:48 AM
Yeah, really. Check opensecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/search.php?cid=N00009638&name=Hofmeister%2C+John&employ=%28any+employer%29&state=TX&zip=%28any+zip%29&submit=OK&amt=a&sort=A):



I don't know for sure that he's doing this to set expectations, but you can't discount the possibility.

:spock: you're going to have a stroke when obama's reelected.

Oh Snap
02-13-2012, 11:49 AM
$120/barrel doesn't equate to $5 gasoline. Not even close.

This point totally overlooks wall street, and their affect on future stocks. They could easily push oil up and past the $120/barrel just like they did in 08.

patteeu
02-13-2012, 11:51 AM
:spock: you're going to have a stroke when obama's reelected.

Why would you say that instead of admitting that you were wrong to doubt me?

KC native
02-13-2012, 11:52 AM
This point totally overlooks wall street, and their affect on future stocks. They could easily push oil up and past the $120/barrel just like they did in 08.

Yes, and they're putting the pressure on as we speak. Bullish commodities plays are coming back. With the greece deal, everyone is rushing to push the market up.

KC native
02-13-2012, 11:54 AM
Why would you say that instead of admitting that you were wrong to doubt me?

The guy is a no body. You're getting as bad as hcf when it comes to spurrious correlations. Confirmation bias is a bitch, isn't it?

oldandslow
02-13-2012, 11:57 AM
Thanks. I was basically wanting to know if we tapped all our oil reserves in this country would we be self sufficient or would we still have to import oil from the ME? It is an honest question because I really don't know.

We will NEVER be self sufficient. The math just doesn't add up. As long as we continue to burn 25% of the world's oil we will always be importing.

Further, Donger is very optimistic with his projections (50 years supply). You also have to take into account that many other sources of oil have or are nearing peak.

Cornucopians kept telling us that there was/is no problem and that there is plenty of oil. Back in 2000 oil was selling for 20 bucks a barrel. I'm sure that its only speculation that has driven it to 100 or better - even in recessionary times.

Donger
02-13-2012, 11:58 AM
This point totally overlooks wall street, and their affect on future stocks. They could easily push oil up and past the $120/barrel just like they did in 08.

There is a direct correlation between crude and gasoline. $120/barrel crude does not equate to $5.00 gasoline.

Calcountry
02-13-2012, 11:59 AM
How much oil could the US produce if there was no restrictions?What? You mean, a FREE MARKET? Noooo, perish the thought. Potentate Obama knows better. Time to ban more offshore rigs.

Donger
02-13-2012, 11:59 AM
We will NEVER be self sufficient. The math just doesn't add up. As long as we continue to burn 25% of the world's oil we will always be importing.

Further, Donger is very optimistic with his projections (50 years supply). You also have to take into account that many other sources of oil have or are nearing peak.

Cornucopians kept telling us that there was/is no problem and that there is plenty of oil. Back in 2000 oil was selling for 20 bucks a barrel. I'm sure that its only speculation that has driven it to 100 or better - even in recessionary times.

Wrong. If we tapped our shale oil, we'd be more than self-sufficient.

Bowser
02-13-2012, 11:59 AM
Hey Donger. Can I borrow ten million so I can keep my cars full for the next five years?

Donger
02-13-2012, 12:00 PM
Hey Donger. Can I borrow ten million so I can keep my cars full for the next five years?

No.

Bowser
02-13-2012, 12:00 PM
And yeah, if we're not going to put serious effort into weening ourselves off of our oil addicition, we need to drill our reserves.

Mr. Flopnuts
02-13-2012, 12:02 PM
It's important to start setting really high expectations so that when gas only hits $4 or $4.50 this summer, Obama will be able to play the role of savior.

you sound like a Ron Paul supporter.

Calcountry
02-13-2012, 12:02 PM
There is a direct correlation between crude and gasoline. $120/barrel crude does not equate to $5.00 gasoline.You do realize that 48 % of the populace approves of Obama right now. How do you figure they can understand "direct correlation"?

Donger
02-13-2012, 12:02 PM
And yeah, if we're not going to put serious effort into weening ourselves off of our oil addicition, we need to drill our reserves.

I haven't looked at present figures, but our demand has dropped over the years. Something like 3%. Now, the question is how much of that is the recession and how much is more people driving more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Calcountry
02-13-2012, 12:03 PM
Hey Donger. Can I borrow ten million so I can keep my cars full for the next five years?The elite doesn't want you to, they want you to go green and ride a bike.

Calcountry
02-13-2012, 12:04 PM
I haven't looked at present figures, but our demand has dropped over the years. Something like 3%. Now, the question is how much of that is the recession and how much is more people driving more fuel-efficient vehicles.And growth of demand in places like Brazil, India, and China.

patteeu
02-13-2012, 12:25 PM
The guy is a no body. You're getting as bad as hcf when it comes to spurrious correlations. Confirmation bias is a bitch, isn't it?

The guy is a nobody who contributed the maximum to Barack Obama's re-election campaign. That actually makes him a somebody, even if he's not David Axelrod. Less than an hour ago, you didn't think it was possible that a former Shell Oil exec would be supportive of Obama. Now you know better even though you don't admit it.

InChiefsHell
02-13-2012, 12:28 PM
It just seems to me if we would tap all our own stuff, including shale, build a shitload of nuclear plants, and start doing more Bio Deasel, we'd be pretty self sufficient. Ad to that the fact that I don't mind buying oil from the UK and Canada, and we'd be in good shape for a long long time, plenty of time to figure out how to "get off of oil".

You don't get off of oil until you have to anyway, ie, when it's all gone. It's not all gone by a long shot.

KC native
02-13-2012, 12:36 PM
The guy is a nobody who contributed the maximum to Barack Obama's re-election campaign. That actually makes him a somebody, even if he's not David Axelrod. Less than an hour ago, you didn't think it was possible that a former Shell Oil exec would be supportive of Obama. Now you know better even though you don't admit it.

I didn't say it wasn't possible that a former oil COO could support Obama.

In the grand scheme of authorities on the subject this guy is a nobody.

Like I said confirmation bias is a bitch.

patteeu
02-13-2012, 12:41 PM
I didn't say it wasn't possible that a former oil COO could support Obama.

In the grand scheme of authorities on the subject this guy is a nobody.

Like I said confirmation bias is a bitch.

Get out of here with your "grand scheme of authorities". If he has the clout to get his statements published on CNBC's website, he has enough authority to influence the public.

InChiefsHell
02-13-2012, 12:43 PM
Get out of here with your "grand scheme of authorities". If he has the clout to get his statements published on CNBC's website, he has enough authority to influence the public.

Exactly, else they wouldn't have quoted the guy. If his opinion was meaningless, why bother having him featured at all?

chiefqueen
02-13-2012, 12:45 PM
Based on the summer of 2008, when gas hit $4/gal, if we see $5/gal gas oil would probably get to $160-$170/barrel, which is not out of the range of possibilities, especially if the mideast sistuation explodes into war.

KC native
02-13-2012, 02:24 PM
Get out of here with your "grand scheme of authorities". If he has the clout to get his statements published on CNBC's website, he has enough authority to influence the public.

First off, CNBC is the worst of the business press.

Second, just because someone was available for a quote doesn't make them a respected auhority.

I understand you aren't as familiar with the financial press as I am, but this guy is a nobody.

KC native
02-13-2012, 02:26 PM
Exactly, else they wouldn't have quoted the guy. If his opinion was meaningless, why bother having him featured at all?

Because CNBC is terribe.

A standard article like this has a set up and a couple quotes from some random people. It's a click whoring article. Huge headline that will drive clicks and ads but not have any real substance.

jd1020
02-13-2012, 02:31 PM
Not really worried about it. I have 2 really good bicycles and I'm sure there is enough stuff I could sell to come up with 1-2k for a nice used Ruckus and get 110+ mpg.

oldandslow
02-13-2012, 03:13 PM
Wrong. If we tapped our shale oil, we'd be more than self-sufficient.

BS

http://oilandglory.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/02/12/is_there_really_so_much_shale_gas_in_the_ground

Probably somewhere between 10 and 30 years at best. Your 50 year scenerio is out of whack with reality.

And that is if the tech can happen.

Donger
02-13-2012, 03:21 PM
BS

http://oilandglory.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/02/12/is_there_really_so_much_shale_gas_in_the_ground

Probably somewhere between 10 and 30 years at best. Your 50 year scenerio is out of whack with reality.

And that is if the tech can happen.

Errr, that refers to gas, not liquid. IIRC, the estimate for Green River is 1.5 trillion barrels. We use ~7.3 billion barrels/year. That's 20 years just from that. Throw in the rest, and you can see why I saw 50 years.

Amnorix
02-13-2012, 03:22 PM
This trend plays over time and again with this administration that it can't be a mistake. He appears to overreach, gets called out, then compromises to a position that he wanted along and the oppostion is just grateful that he didn't get what he wanted (or so they think).


Soooo....he's an incredibly brilliant politician on domestic matters and an inept buffoon on foreign affairs? Is that what the Right thinks these days?

Amnorix
02-13-2012, 03:24 PM
There is a direct correlation between crude and gasoline. $120/barrel crude does not equate to $5.00 gasoline.


But why does the price at the pump go up so quickly when the price of oil per barrel goes up, but then takes so long to come back down when the price per barrel sinks?!?


















:p

Amnorix
02-13-2012, 03:29 PM
Errr, that refers to gas, not liquid. IIRC, the estimate for Green River is 1.5 trillion barrels. We use ~7.3 billion barrels/year. That's 20 years just from that. Throw in the rest, and you can see why I saw 50 years.


Didn't think shale oil extraction was commercially viable (yet, at least), no?

Donger
02-13-2012, 03:30 PM
Didn't think shale oil extraction was commercially viable (yet, at least), no?

It wasn't when crude was at $25/barrel, no. At $100? Yes, absolutely.

Donger
02-13-2012, 03:31 PM
But why does the price at the pump go up so quickly when the price of oil per barrel goes up, but then takes so long to come back down when the price per barrel sinks?!?


















:p

FUcker.

:grr:

Calcountry
02-13-2012, 05:01 PM
But why does the price at the pump go up so quickly when the price of oil per barrel goes up, but then takes so long to come back down when the price per barrel sinks?!?


















:pThe answer is due to rational, self serving vested interests in inventory holders. The economic term for it is "The ratcheting effect."

patteeu
02-13-2012, 06:22 PM
First off, CNBC is the worst of the business press.

Second, just because someone was available for a quote doesn't make them a respected auhority.

I understand you aren't as familiar with the financial press as I am, but this guy is a nobody.

Spare me your faux-elitism. The fact that it was re-posted here with the "ex-Shell CEO" emphasis and that you admit the article can "drive clicks" proves that it has some level of PR power. No one is claiming that markets are going to move on this guy's proclamations alone or anything.

patteeu
02-13-2012, 06:25 PM
Soooo....he's an incredibly brilliant politician on domestic matters and an inept buffoon on foreign affairs? Is that what the Right thinks these days?

Not just foreign affairs, but yeah, he's a good campaigner. That doesn't mean he's more brilliant than the next guy (e.g. Karl Rove), but when he has the kind of money and friendly press available to him, a little brilliance goes a long way.

suzzer99
02-13-2012, 11:12 PM
A libertarian crying hyper-inflation just around the corner? No. Way.

HonestChieffan
02-14-2012, 11:28 AM
http://www.mcall.com/business/mc-gas-prices-20120214,0,2776477.story?track=rss


another $5 story

KC native
02-14-2012, 11:30 AM
Spare me your faux-elitism. The fact that it was re-posted here with the "ex-Shell CEO" emphasis and that you admit the article can "drive clicks" proves that it has some level of PR power. No one is claiming that markets are going to move on this guy's proclamations alone or anything.

It isn't elitism. It's about accuracy. CNBC is, has been, and will be terrible.

Just google the guy they quoted, go to his website, and then tell me if you think his opinion matters.