Gas prices this summer

[carlsbadworker]

Rich says “The recovery will continue until something blows up.”

I am getting concerned if the gas price is going to be that something.

[Aecetia]

YES! Gas (gouging) prices will go up, interest rates up, real estate prices down, Mid-East blow up, government exploding over debt, just wait for something to happen along the line of another Katrina. This is going to be a very trying year. Rich is right. Fasten your seat belt.

[Aecetia]

YES! Gas (gouging) prices will go up, interest rates up, real estate prices down, Mid-East blow up, government exploding over debt, just wait for something to happen along the line of another Katrina. This is going to be a very trying year. Rich is right. Fasten your seat belt.

[Aecetia]

YES! Gas (gouging) prices will go up, interest rates up, real estate prices down, Mid-East blow up, government exploding over debt, just wait for something to happen along the line of another Katrina. This is going to be a very trying year. Rich is right. Fasten your seat belt.

[Aecetia]

YES! Gas (gouging) prices will go up, interest rates up, real estate prices down, Mid-East blow up, government exploding over debt, just wait for something to happen along the line of another Katrina. This is going to be a very trying year. Rich is right. Fasten your seat belt.

[Aecetia]

YES! Gas (gouging) prices will go up, interest rates up, real estate prices down, Mid-East blow up, government exploding over debt, just wait for something to happen along the line of another Katrina. This is going to be a very trying year. Rich is right. Fasten your seat belt.

[Bubblesitter]

Agree, shaping up to be a wild ride. Hope it is not a repeat of 2008 financial meltdown. I’m betting it’s probably a bad repeat of that 70’s show, perhaps 1979 style stagflation.

Seems like lots of elevated risk put there,e.g. sovereign debt and muni downgrades and defaults, oil, botched Fannie/Freddie reform, etc. Not sure how private industry gonna step in without increasing borrowing costs. Isn’t F&F still funding & backing nearly all mortgages now?

Bubblesitter

[Bubblesitter]

Agree, shaping up to be a wild ride. Hope it is not a repeat of 2008 financial meltdown. I’m betting it’s probably a bad repeat of that 70’s show, perhaps 1979 style stagflation.

Seems like lots of elevated risk put there,e.g. sovereign debt and muni downgrades and defaults, oil, botched Fannie/Freddie reform, etc. Not sure how private industry gonna step in without increasing borrowing costs. Isn’t F&F still funding & backing nearly all mortgages now?

Bubblesitter

[Bubblesitter]

Agree, shaping up to be a wild ride. Hope it is not a repeat of 2008 financial meltdown. I’m betting it’s probably a bad repeat of that 70’s show, perhaps 1979 style stagflation.

Seems like lots of elevated risk put there,e.g. sovereign debt and muni downgrades and defaults, oil, botched Fannie/Freddie reform, etc. Not sure how private industry gonna step in without increasing borrowing costs. Isn’t F&F still funding & backing nearly all mortgages now?

Bubblesitter

[Bubblesitter]

Agree, shaping up to be a wild ride. Hope it is not a repeat of 2008 financial meltdown. I’m betting it’s probably a bad repeat of that 70’s show, perhaps 1979 style stagflation.

Seems like lots of elevated risk put there,e.g. sovereign debt and muni downgrades and defaults, oil, botched Fannie/Freddie reform, etc. Not sure how private industry gonna step in without increasing borrowing costs. Isn’t F&F still funding & backing nearly all mortgages now?

Bubblesitter

[Bubblesitter]

Agree, shaping up to be a wild ride. Hope it is not a repeat of 2008 financial meltdown. I’m betting it’s probably a bad repeat of that 70’s show, perhaps 1979 style stagflation.

Seems like lots of elevated risk put there,e.g. sovereign debt and muni downgrades and defaults, oil, botched Fannie/Freddie reform, etc. Not sure how private industry gonna step in without increasing borrowing costs. Isn’t F&F still funding & backing nearly all mortgages now?

Bubblesitter

[Arraya]

http://www.postcarbon.org/article/260011-how-markets-may-respond-to-resource
The standard economic assumption is that, as a resource becomes scarce, prices will rise until some other resource that can fill the same need becomes cheaper by comparison. What really happens, when there is no ready substitute, can perhaps best be explained with the help of a little recent history and an old children’s story.

Once upon a time (about a dozen years past), oil sold for $20 a barrel in inflation-adjusted figures, and The Economist magazine ran a cover story explaining why petroleum prices were set to go much lower.[1] The U.S. Department of Energy and the International Energy Agency were forecasting that, by 2010, oil would probably still be selling for $20 a barrel, but they also considered highly pessimistic scenarios in which the price could rise as high as $30 (those forecasts are in 1996 dollars).[2]

Instead, as the new decade wore on, the price of oil soared relentlessly, reaching levels far higher than the “pessimistic” $30 range. Demand for the resource was growing, especially in China and some oil exporting nations like Saudi Arabia; meanwhile, beginning in 2005, actual world oil production hit a plateau. Seeing a perfect opportunity (a necessary commodity with stagnating supply and growing demand), speculators drove the price up even further.

As prices lofted, oil companies and private investors started funding expensive projects to explore for oil in remote and barely accessible places, or to make synthetic liquid fuels out of lower-grade carbon materials like bitumen, coal, or kerogen.

But then in 2008, just as the price of a barrel of oil reached its all-time high of $147, the economies of the OECD countries crashed. Airlines and trucking companies downsized and motorists stayed home. Demand for oil plummeted. So did oil’s price, bottoming out at $32 at the end of 2008.

But with prices this low, investments in hard-to-find oil and hard-to-make substitutes began to look tenuous, so tens of billions of dollars’ worth of new energy projects were canceled or delayed. Yet the industry had been counting on those projects to maintain a steady stream of liquid fuels a few years out, so worries about a future supply crunch began to make headlines

[Arraya]

http://www.postcarbon.org/article/260011-how-markets-may-respond-to-resource
The standard economic assumption is that, as a resource becomes scarce, prices will rise until some other resource that can fill the same need becomes cheaper by comparison. What really happens, when there is no ready substitute, can perhaps best be explained with the help of a little recent history and an old children’s story.

Once upon a time (about a dozen years past), oil sold for $20 a barrel in inflation-adjusted figures, and The Economist magazine ran a cover story explaining why petroleum prices were set to go much lower.[1] The U.S. Department of Energy and the International Energy Agency were forecasting that, by 2010, oil would probably still be selling for $20 a barrel, but they also considered highly pessimistic scenarios in which the price could rise as high as $30 (those forecasts are in 1996 dollars).[2]

Instead, as the new decade wore on, the price of oil soared relentlessly, reaching levels far higher than the “pessimistic” $30 range. Demand for the resource was growing, especially in China and some oil exporting nations like Saudi Arabia; meanwhile, beginning in 2005, actual world oil production hit a plateau. Seeing a perfect opportunity (a necessary commodity with stagnating supply and growing demand), speculators drove the price up even further.

As prices lofted, oil companies and private investors started funding expensive projects to explore for oil in remote and barely accessible places, or to make synthetic liquid fuels out of lower-grade carbon materials like bitumen, coal, or kerogen.

But then in 2008, just as the price of a barrel of oil reached its all-time high of $147, the economies of the OECD countries crashed. Airlines and trucking companies downsized and motorists stayed home. Demand for oil plummeted. So did oil’s price, bottoming out at $32 at the end of 2008.

But with prices this low, investments in hard-to-find oil and hard-to-make substitutes began to look tenuous, so tens of billions of dollars’ worth of new energy projects were canceled or delayed. Yet the industry had been counting on those projects to maintain a steady stream of liquid fuels a few years out, so worries about a future supply crunch began to make headlines

[Arraya]

http://www.postcarbon.org/article/260011-how-markets-may-respond-to-resource
The standard economic assumption is that, as a resource becomes scarce, prices will rise until some other resource that can fill the same need becomes cheaper by comparison. What really happens, when there is no ready substitute, can perhaps best be explained with the help of a little recent history and an old children’s story.

Once upon a time (about a dozen years past), oil sold for $20 a barrel in inflation-adjusted figures, and The Economist magazine ran a cover story explaining why petroleum prices were set to go much lower.[1] The U.S. Department of Energy and the International Energy Agency were forecasting that, by 2010, oil would probably still be selling for $20 a barrel, but they also considered highly pessimistic scenarios in which the price could rise as high as $30 (those forecasts are in 1996 dollars).[2]

Instead, as the new decade wore on, the price of oil soared relentlessly, reaching levels far higher than the “pessimistic” $30 range. Demand for the resource was growing, especially in China and some oil exporting nations like Saudi Arabia; meanwhile, beginning in 2005, actual world oil production hit a plateau. Seeing a perfect opportunity (a necessary commodity with stagnating supply and growing demand), speculators drove the price up even further.

As prices lofted, oil companies and private investors started funding expensive projects to explore for oil in remote and barely accessible places, or to make synthetic liquid fuels out of lower-grade carbon materials like bitumen, coal, or kerogen.

But then in 2008, just as the price of a barrel of oil reached its all-time high of $147, the economies of the OECD countries crashed. Airlines and trucking companies downsized and motorists stayed home. Demand for oil plummeted. So did oil’s price, bottoming out at $32 at the end of 2008.

But with prices this low, investments in hard-to-find oil and hard-to-make substitutes began to look tenuous, so tens of billions of dollars’ worth of new energy projects were canceled or delayed. Yet the industry had been counting on those projects to maintain a steady stream of liquid fuels a few years out, so worries about a future supply crunch began to make headlines

[Arraya]

http://www.postcarbon.org/article/260011-how-markets-may-respond-to-resource
The standard economic assumption is that, as a resource becomes scarce, prices will rise until some other resource that can fill the same need becomes cheaper by comparison. What really happens, when there is no ready substitute, can perhaps best be explained with the help of a little recent history and an old children’s story.

Once upon a time (about a dozen years past), oil sold for $20 a barrel in inflation-adjusted figures, and The Economist magazine ran a cover story explaining why petroleum prices were set to go much lower.[1] The U.S. Department of Energy and the International Energy Agency were forecasting that, by 2010, oil would probably still be selling for $20 a barrel, but they also considered highly pessimistic scenarios in which the price could rise as high as $30 (those forecasts are in 1996 dollars).[2]

Instead, as the new decade wore on, the price of oil soared relentlessly, reaching levels far higher than the “pessimistic” $30 range. Demand for the resource was growing, especially in China and some oil exporting nations like Saudi Arabia; meanwhile, beginning in 2005, actual world oil production hit a plateau. Seeing a perfect opportunity (a necessary commodity with stagnating supply and growing demand), speculators drove the price up even further.

As prices lofted, oil companies and private investors started funding expensive projects to explore for oil in remote and barely accessible places, or to make synthetic liquid fuels out of lower-grade carbon materials like bitumen, coal, or kerogen.

But then in 2008, just as the price of a barrel of oil reached its all-time high of $147, the economies of the OECD countries crashed. Airlines and trucking companies downsized and motorists stayed home. Demand for oil plummeted. So did oil’s price, bottoming out at $32 at the end of 2008.

But with prices this low, investments in hard-to-find oil and hard-to-make substitutes began to look tenuous, so tens of billions of dollars’ worth of new energy projects were canceled or delayed. Yet the industry had been counting on those projects to maintain a steady stream of liquid fuels a few years out, so worries about a future supply crunch began to make headlines

[Author]

Posts