Oil touches US$122 per barrel
Not only did it break the $122 barrier, it threatened the $123 barrier as well. While my long term projections, updated to last night’s closing still show $100/bbl oil arriving permanently in July, that date has stopped swinging between July and August with price fluctuations.
We are still well above the long term trend and surely some production should come on line to flatten the price growth at least? But will it?
Even the world’s oil energy agency doesn’t think the market will work.
“According to normal economic theory, and the history of oil, rising prices have two major effects,� said Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the International Energy Agency in Paris. “They reduce demand and they induce oil supplies. Not this time.�
But the International Energy Agency estimates that current investments will be insufficient to replace declining oil production. The energy agency said it would take $5.4 trillion by 2030 to raise global output. Otherwise, it warned that a crisis before 2015 involving “an abrupt run-up in prices� could not be ruled out.
Could it be that the era of cheap oil is coming to an end? Colin Campbell, the geologist who founded ASPO, the Association for the Study of Peak Oil, has just updated his projections. He said this week:
The Depletion Model, used herein, is subject to continual revision as new information, however unreliable, and insight come in. It does not pretend to offer a definitive picture but rather an evolving approximation. Nevertheless, despite the uncertainties of detail, the overall pattern can be presented with some confidence.
He has added a great deal of deepwater oil resource and says that we are very likely sitting on the peak right now.
It’s impossible to call the peak until after it has happened. Campbell continues:
The new deepwater model has the effect of advancing the date of the overall peak of all liquids from 2010 to 2007, and is actually good news insofar as the lower and sooner the peak, the gentler the subsequent decline. The precise date is of no particular significance since it is not a high isolated peak, being no more than the maximum of a fairly gentle curve. But if correct, it might carry a certain psychological impact to recognise that the Second Half of the Oil Age has begun. Certainly this is consistent with the current world financial crisis, soaring oil and food prices, deepening recession, and consequential riots and political tensions in many countries. New military threats are being made against Iran, as the consumers become increasingly desperate for access to oil supply, much of which lies in the Middle East.
Mr Malthus must be turning in his grave.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Whereas the date of the actual geological peak is open for debate, requiring significant rear view mirror activities to actually pinpoint that event, I think we’re well (ha - pun!!) beyond debating a concept like “Could it be that the era of cheap oil is coming to an end?”
May 7th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
dbuckley - yes, it was a rhetorical question really. The good news from the post and from Campbell’s perspective is that the deepwater additions mean that the steep decline that showed up in his 2005 version is a much more gentle curve this time. It won’t keep prices down but it will help ease the transition.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:48 am
cheap oil is gone! the growth economies of the west are shuddering…the need for a ‘new’ approach-economical model is long overdue. it will mean to shift from physical goods to intellectual goods, from surplus to minimalism,
from having- to being…
to teach our children that concept might save their skins…
May 10th, 2008 at 5:55 am
Oil broke $126 on friday.
The president of the US may have to declare Venezuela, Canada, Iran as a new Axis of evil and invade them all for the Oil.
I mean come on Americans have a god given right to drive SUVs and consume like crazy.
Ask your self this if Americans stopped consuming and instead woke up and realized that this whole country is a myth, that freedom and constitutional rights here in the US have been erroded away that the dream of the founding fathers has been destroyed. What do you think they’d do?
Which is why the powers in charge need to keep the bucket of consumption full no matter the cost or consquence’s
May 10th, 2008 at 10:09 am
These traditions - of pacifism, individualism and anti-fascism now meet another: anti-Americanism, not confined to the left in developed states, but most virulent on it. Inspired by powerful (among the young) prophets as Professor Noam Chomsky, sharpened by the anti-globalisation movement which tends to equate America with capitalism, the emotive force of opposition to the global superpower was gathering strength before September 11: and, ironically, has continued to gather force after it.
Some definitions are needed, particularly for those Americans who attend to European debates. Anti-Americanism is not criticism of the American government’s policies, any more than criticism of the Israeli government’s policies is anti-Semitism. But there is now a narrative of the left - complete in itself in the way such narratives are - which sees in the US an imperial predator whose actions - all actions - are conditioned by this aspect of its being.
This narrative has ceased to be critical, but become predestinarian: rather as predestinarians divided humanity into those whose actions could never be wrong and those whose actions could never be right, so this strain of left critique arrogates to itself the first and confers on the US the second. It is important not to confuse this grand, totalising critique with criticism, from left or right. The latter is essential for governments, most essential for governments with such awful power as the US commands. But the totalising critique is an intellectual construct, derived from the techniques of 19th century philosophy, which bends all facts to fit the ideological line.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/mar/17/world.comment
PS Back Off Watermelons; deliver your own pamphlets.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:26 am
How anti-Americanism betrays the left
The left is right to always question the need for war. But a blind anti-Americanism risks betraying the left’s anti-fascist heritage
[heading above post]
………………………………
Shell pulls out of big wind farm
Shell suggested its decision was based on economics and said it was still committed to wind power.
“We constantly review our projects and investment choices in all of our businesses, focusing on capital discipline and efficiency,” Shell said.
The Financial Times said the cost of the project had increased from £1bn in 2003 to at least £2bn today as the price of turbine components had increased.
[apparently the ships needed to build them off shore and the whole industry is so busy prices are going balistic……….which fits in with predictions re how we should act to mitigate ASAP]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7377164.stm
May 10th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
JH posted:
“Some definitions are needed, particularly for those Americans who attend to European debates. Anti-Americanism is not criticism of the American government’s policies, any more than criticism of the Israeli government’s policies is anti-Semitism. But there is now a narrative of the left - complete in itself in the way such narratives are - which sees in the US an imperial predator whose actions - all actions - are conditioned by this aspect of its being.”
I’ll take your word for it that this prejudice is a problem internationally, but I don’t think it’s common in New Zealand. I think New Zealanders are actually more prone to an all-consuming hatred of things French than of things American (though I may be overly conscious of this because of my French ancestry).
This stemmed from rational opposition to French Nuclear Testing, and understandable outrage at the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior. But it very soon grew into boysots of French products, even bias against restaurants and bakeries whose only connection with France was as a source of recipes. People were boycotting buying Croissants and French Bread Sticks because of this. I don’t recall anyone reacting to the invasion of Iraq by refusing to buy bagels, or large-fries-and-coke. Sales of French cars dropped, not because of anything to do with their engineering or styling, but simply because of the country they came from.
In contrast, I think reaction to US government policies and actions has been well-focused on those issues, and hasn’t carried over to encompass all things American. I think New Zealanders who decide not to buy American products have done so solely on the basis of the actual characteristics of those products.
May 10th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Not true Kahikatea:
My girlfriend who is an American has had many negative reactions from NZ’rs and europeans.
The first time she met a NZ;r the NZ girl said that she couldn’t be friends with her because she was American.
We were in London a couple of weekends ago and this nz guy introduced my girlfriend to his girlfriend with the line.
“Hey this is Aimee she’s american” to which the girlfriend replied “I hate americans but you seem ok”.
Am i anti-american, yes. Do I hate americans, no. However I hold americans accountable for the actions of the american government. When you live in a democracy it is the responsiblity of the citizens to keep the government honnest.
I have also come to understand after living in the US how ignorant the american people are and how blinded they are to the world around them.
I believe only 25% of americans have passports so that means a large number of them have never left the country and have never seen the world.
These days I kind of feel a pity towards Americans in that they are ignorant of both the rest of the world and that they are ignorant of their own history. Are New Zealanders any different with regards to our ignorance.
An American once asked me why did 9/11 happen. I told her it was blowback. Her friend called me a left wing crazy and proceeded to tell me that 9/11 happened because the muslims hate american freedom. Note calling me left wing is really funny since i’m a libertarian.
I told this story to a muslim once in Bahrain, he laughed at the womens friend and thought she was stupid. Then he asked me are they all like this.
I said yeah most of them.
Note has anyone ever met the scary Americans. I’m talking about the ones high on Jesus juice. Hope they don’t get large enough to actually control the US. Those people are insane enough to launch nuclear weapons.
Why does the world stop Iran from possessing nuclear weapons yet we have no problem with the US having them. Nothing scares me worse than a Christian fundementlist USA with enough nuclear weapons to bring about the end of the world. Shouldn’t NZ be lobbying at the UN for the USA to get rid of all its WMDs.
I am very happy that NZ has started to adopt a more neutral position towards american foreign policy. NZ and Australia are sheep dogs they both used to follow their master Britian where ever she went they followed.
Then we both got a new master the USA and we followed that master. Since the 80’s NZ has started to think for herself and has stopped being a sheep dog, Australia still likes to follow wagging its tail in the hope of some reward. I only hope the national party if it takes power doesn’t turn us back into the sheepdog. It just doesn’t sit well with me being somebody else’s bitch.
May 10th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
(let us not forget simon ‘all the way with bush’ power..
and let us not forget that national would have taken us into that evil war..)
and with american ‘ignorance’..there are historical factors/forces involved..
america was settled by/made up of the ‘dregs’ of other cultures..
(the ‘huddled-poor’..)
..so..basically..cr*p in..means cr*p out..
and cultural advances there have been on an individual level..not as a society as a whole..
therefor..aside from pockets/ghettos of ‘culture’..
..the lowest common denominator still rules..
and their ignorances of so much is as wide as it is long..
basically..they are feckin’ doomed..
their empire is gone..
and the financial takeover by chinese/’oil’/russian oligarchs will continue apace..
..as their infrastructures crumble..and social unrest spreads..
that’s the pessimists view..
the optimist view is that obama will bring/herald a ‘new dawn’ for america..
all together now..!..
hold your breath..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 10th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
> america was settled by/made up of the ‘dregs’ of other cultures..
> (the ‘huddled-poor’..)
> ..so..basically..cr*p in..means cr*p out..
and New Zealand wasn’t?
Many New Zealanders (myself included) have ancestry from people who were sent to Australia as prisoners.
May 10th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
really..!..prisoners of mother england..you say..!
aussies..!..you say..!
(another (strong) thread in the argument australia is nought but a wannabe-state of imperial america..eh..?
and yes..they/their descendants are still amongst us..
(c.f…parking/prison wardens..(it’s a karma-thing..!..)
and speak for yourself..
my ancestors were victims of english imperialism..
and..your point..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 10th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
and hey..!..i’m not saying we’ve done any better..
in the very short space of about 150 yearswe have well and truely f*cked this place over..
and we will face our own ‘backwash’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 10th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
and hey..!..i’m not saying we’ve done any better..
in the very short space of about 150 yearswe have well and truely fecked this place over..
and we will face our own ‘backwash’..
in due course..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 10th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Turnip - “What do you think they’d do?” Go to the mall for retail therapy, derh!
May 10th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
# phil u Says:
May 10th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
and hey..!..i’m not saying we’ve done any better..
in the very short space of about 150 yearswe have well and truely fecked this place over..
ts?
and we will face our own ‘backwash’..
in due course..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
……………………….
As in “very disturbing activities” that didn’t happen but if they did we’d understand?
May 10th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
That is the sort of stuff that keeps people away from the Green Party (when they dig beneath the surface, that is).
May 10th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
what sort of ’stuff”..?
you surely aren’t denying we in new zealand have an environmental ‘chit’ we all have to pay..?
do you really think we can just keep on wrecking this place..and that there will be no ‘price to pay’..?
if so..you can go and stand over there..with all the others who are in denial..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 10th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Sorry I didn’t think that was what you were getting at. Turnip talked about 9/11 “blowback”.
May 11th, 2008 at 2:15 am
oh so jh you are in denial about the causes of 9/11 I see.
May 11th, 2008 at 2:19 am
Kevyn - There is no going to the mall for any retail therapy here in the US right now since the US consumer has run out of money. Our government handout checks are starting to arrive but $600 isn’t going to last long.
Obama can talk but their is no substance behind him.
May 11th, 2008 at 7:56 am
No but I thought Phill was referring to the same thing happening here, as there are Green Party members who see that as understandable and inevitable (unless we recognise Tino Rangitiratanga).
May 11th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Playing the Iraq Oil Card
If anyone had any doubt that Iraq was a lot about oil, they shouldn’t after the recent Capitol Hill appearance by our ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker. In a closed House hearing, Crocker put the fear of god in Congress. His message: If we leave Iraq, Iraq will destabilize the Gulf, and
With oil bumping pushing past $120 a barrel, you can bet you could hear a pin drop in the room. But what exactly was he talking about? Iraqi Shi’a militias invading Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, burning their oil fields, driving the price of gasoline up to $10 a gallon and us into a depression? Crocker wouldn’t elaborate on his vague warnings, preferring to leave it at a sense of dread.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1738883,00.html
May 11th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Good point jh, I myself don’t understand the Green parties commitment to Tino Rangitiratanga.
What drives me nuts are all the crazy New Zealanders who look to the treaty as some kind of founding document or constitution upon which we can establish a New Zealand State. The Treaty of Waitangi is an exclusive document which excludes most New Zealanders since it was signed by the crown and Maori in what way does it include non-Maori New Zealanders. They were never represented during the process and they were never asked to ratify the document. So the crown that signed the treaty didn’t have the moral authority to do so just as the Maori chief who signed it also didn’t have any moral authority. Enough with the stupid treaty most New Zealanders are sick of it.
The only “blowback” we are ever going to see in NZ will be from the majority finally getting pissed off with this whole process.
In order for New Zealand to be a true state no ethnic group under the law may have any other privilleges than any other group. I have always felt that New Zealand can’t call it self a representive democracy as long as it has racial seats in parliment. How come people who are 1/8 Chinese don’t get their own seats in parliment as well. The MMP system frees the need for having the Maori seats. If Maori people feel the need for representation in parliment then they can vote for a Maori party using their party vote.
May 11th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Countdown to $200 oil (4) - It’s scheduled for 1/20/09
by Jerome a Paris
Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:22:46 AM PDT
/ /
In addition, the economy will be in full meltdown mode by then, and oil and other commodity price increases are a large contributing factor - whether they are seen as a consequence of global world growth, or of the loose monetary policies of the past few years, they reflect inflationary pressures that have long been visible in asset prices and made tolerable to our policy makers because they did not translate into wage increases, thanks to global corpocratic/kleptocratic neoliberal economic policies. (In turn, wage stagnation was made tolerable by turning houses into ATMs and making everybody believe they could turn into a millionaire one day).
Oil price increases are just a real life manifestation of the precept that you cannot have your cake and eat it - real wealth - for the whole economy - needs to be created, not just shuffled around or looted (that only works for a few, and only for some time)*. Oil, and commodities, represent real wealth, and their price increases suggest that the rest of the economy is no longer producing as much actual value as it used to - a general depreciation of money.
I’ve already said that we’re actually lucky to have a recipe that can take care of both the economy and the energy crisis at the same time:
* launch a massive plan to subsidize home energy efficiency improvements - that will help the devastated construction sector, create lots of jobs, and help reduce the energy bill massively;
* reinforce efforts to build renewable energy plants. The current support system works, and needs not be changed, but massive investment in the grid, and in working but still-too-expensive technologies like solar power should be done or supported by government. Again, this will create plenty of jobs locally, and will help move away from oil and climate-deadly coal.
* massive investment in infrastructure - in particular focusing on intercity rail and local transit networks and a large scale would also appear to provide excellent bang for the buck.
[Sounds inflationary?]
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/9/114946/4807/1003/512592
* http://www.richmastery.com
May 11th, 2008 at 9:17 am
>>The only “blowback� we are ever going to see in NZ will be from the majority finally getting pissed off with this whole process.
Hear, hear.
May 11th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Yeah, the Greens act like a bunch of 16 year olds. Time to grow up.
The Daily Kos* is taking care of the US, we don’t need Peace Justice Aotearoas help. Better not to miss the boat at home and ask what we have achieved in attaining a sustainable [Green] economy, healthy lifestyle and Values.
http://www.dailykos.com/
May 11th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Sorting The Treaty out is simple.
The Treaty is between Tangata Whenua and The Crown.
Tangata Whenua= all born New Zealanders.
Problem solved.
May 11th, 2008 at 10:59 am
turnip28
“Treaty of Waitangi is an exclusive document which excludes most New Zealanders since it was signed by the crown and Maori in what way does it include non-Maori New Zealanders. They were never represented during the process and they were never asked to ratify the document. So the crown that signed the treaty didn’t have the moral authority to do so just as the Maori chief who signed it also didn’t have any moral authority. Enough with the stupid treaty most New Zealanders are sick of it.”
um thats only, because most “New Zealanders” are only here, because the colonial stole Maori lands and sold them to European settlers.
“I have always felt that New Zealand can’t call it self a representive democracy as long as it has racial seats in parliment.”
We can’t call our “nation” a representative democracy, because “we” AREN’T one! We’re a constitutional monarchy with an ad hoc basis in law, which is neither codified nor entrenched.
It can be argued that the 1986 Constitution Act usurped the sovereignty of New Zealanders by not subjecting it to the people’s mandate through a referendum.
May 11th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
STP,
“because most “New Zealandersâ€? are only here, because the colonial stole Maori lands and sold them to European settlers.”
Reminds me of DR Cullens famous words after the last election.
“We won, you lost, eat that”
Or words to that effect.
The world and New Zealland has moved on from the 1870’s.
May 11th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Gerrit,
I’m merely responding to turnip’s statement that, “They were never represented during the process and they were never asked to ratify the document.”
As a left-libertarian, I’m pretty ambivalent about the whole question of sovereignty, whether its held by the elected government or Maori chiefs.
Nationalism’s nothing more than a means to subordinate ones individuality for the “universal” group ethos. Pretty convenient for by those who stand to gain from determining what that group ethos is, whether its American neo-conservatism or neo-tribal capitalism.
May 11th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
“As a left-libertarian, I’m pretty ambivalent about the whole question of sovereignty, whether its held by the elected government or Maori chiefs.”
As in the political compass which has the Greens in the libertarian -left outlier position.
May 11th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Sleepy is quite right. If the colonial government hadn’t stolen Maori lands and sold them to European settlers British investors wouldn’t have lent the capital for Vogel’s immigration and public works program. Aotearoa would have ended up with one-fifth of it’s current population and one-tenth it’s current standard of living. ie most “New Zealander’s” wouldn’t want to be here if the land had remained in iwi ownership with it’s lack of the “single” owner needed for mortgages.
May 11th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Well the thing is Sleepy I don’t disagree with you about the land being stolen from the Maori by the colonial government. However you can’t change the past and its impossible to correct these mistakes fully.
Why doesn’t the green party call for a constitution convention in New Zealand so we can finally sit down and talk about creating a nation that sets out to include all New Zealanders.
the 1986 Constitution Act is a joke along with the New Zealand Bill of Rights. Most of the legislation was created to avoid the constiution crisis created by Muldoon. Parliment can’t legislate a constitution since one purpose of such a document is to limit the power of parliment, its like leting a fox guard the chicken hut.
JH sovereignty is never held by the government a Queen or a Maori Chief, it is held by the people.
May 11th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
jh
You call Sue Bradford, Sue Kedgely, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Keith Locke, Russel Norman and that lot, left-libertarian!? The mind boggles! They’re social democrat “progressives” who profess a concern for the environment in contrast to Labour who’ll profess anything that will appeal to the middle-class, with a few bones thrown to the disadvantaged and thus get them votes.
Kevyn,
Thats more of the fault of the British dominated global finance system at the time not the Maori. Actually if you read James Belich’s books you’d know that the Maori were actually rather successful well before the Maori Wars. They dominated both Trans-Tasman and coastal trade. timber processing, flour milling, etc. It can be argued that Vogel’s expensive (government financed) railroad building scheme was designed to supercede the Maori’s command over coastal shipping facilitated commerce.
May 11th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
turnip28.
I’m not a member of a Green Party myself as I’m probably too radical for them. lol My advice for the Greens would be to distance themselves from Labour’s ETS and focus the campaign on Fonterra’s destruction of the country’s waterways, local government’s poor investment in sewage processing and water quality, and issues that will help every day Kiwis deal with the economic crisis that we’re going to find ourselves in next year such as its Universal Basic Income scheme that is one of its policies.
Like Lord Keynes before them, the Greens recognise the flaws in the capitalist (not free market) economic system, but believe that its their duty to ensure government regulates it in order to save it from its natural tendency to destroy itself, for altogether different reasons I’m sure.
tinyurl.com/3g3zez
I’m from the school of thought that realises that if not for the special privileges that governemnt has provided to the capitalists (especially corporations) we wouldn’t be witnessing the scale of environmental degradation and destruction as have occured over the last 150 years.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:20 am
Sleepy, I didn’t mean to imply the Moari were at fault. Merely pointing out the reality of raising capital in an Anglocentric world. You could be right about Vogel’s motivation bearing in mind it was the Immigration and Public Works Act that made him famous. If I understand the situation correctly most of the chiefs has a cautionary approach to immigration. Not forgetting the battle between the colonialist’s capitalist economy and the native communist economy was alsways going to be won by whichever side “owned” the most land.