http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6080734.stm

They are still at historically high prices. The article says this: This led to speculation that some of Opec's 11 member nations did not want the short-term loss of revenue, despite the cut being agreed in an attempt to stabilise prices.

Stabilise? How will they be stabilized at even $68 before the lift to $59?

Who knows? They will grow increasingly less stable.

Who knows? They will grow increasingly less stable.

How so? Is it the uncertainty with alternative fuel sources, or instability of producing countries?

Is it right for OPEC to CONTROL the price of energy sources? Isn't that a bit to tyrant-like?

Opinions?

answering the thread's question:

Down, until after 7 November. (Saudi familly financially, and in every other way possible, supports GWB.)

Funny! When the price of oil went sky-high, everyone blamed President Bush, but now that the price is low and falling, ......??? ...LOL!

Baron Max

Funny! When the price of oil went sky-high, everyone blamed President Bush, but now that the price is low and falling, ......??? ...LOL! Baron Maxneither funny nor strange. GWB's desires are sensitive to the calendar. Right now (near elections) he and his friends are willing to give up some short term (month time scale) profits for longer term profits.

For example, if they loss control of Congress, they may not be able to lead US down the alcohol from corn path. (GWB actually floated the idea of raising the 54cents / gallon gift to the alcohol producers about a month ago, but was told by political advisers it was not a good idea now). Most of the university (especially Cornell and Berkley) and other disinterested studies show that the net effect of producing alcohol from corn in US will slightly increase the consumption of oil. (The agri-business sponsored studies show a slight decrease, but say little about the associated increase in your food costs.)

Thus, it is their (government's / big oil's i.e. the same people) interest to give up some immediate income with lower cost gasoline just before the election to gain much more for years. Also big oil is now getting support from the agri-business groups with this corn- to-alcohol approach to BOOSTING oil consumption.

I look at it differently, I think that the oil prducers (OPEC and others) are allowing the drop in prices to compete against the upcoming ethanol energy source, which is anticipated to be vastly cheaper.

Or the reality of continually increasing inventory numbers is reflected in the price.

It seems obvious. The Republicans are doing something, I don't know what, but something to change the oil prices. They have already failed in Iraq, and in alot of other stuff (Foley scandal, etc.), and they see this as soemthing that might get them reelected. But as soon as they are, expect a high raise in prices, trust me.
I don't know though how they would be able to get that low prices on the oil market. I guess OPEC had some boost, but prices are sure to rise, so save up!

Most of the university (especially Cornell and Berkley) and other disinterested studies show that the net effect of producing alcohol from corn in US will slightly increase the consumption of oil. (The agri-business sponsored studies show a slight decrease, but say little about the associated increase in your food costs.) Doesn't Brazil use ethanol?

Doesn't Brazil use ethanol?Yes, quite a lot as at filling station as it is now slightly less than half the cost of gasoline and more than 75% of all cars sold last year can use any mixture from 100% gas to 100% alcohol. For more than 30 years cars that were limited to 100% alcohol have been sold in Brazil. Some years they captured more than 90% of the new car market (and for nearly 10 of those 30+ years had only about 25% of the market because the price of sugar was unusually high. Sugar cane growers suppy both sugar and alcohol market, mainly which ever is most profitable.)

If alcohol is produced from tropical sugar cane you get approximately 8 units of energy in the alcohol (captured sunshine) for every one unit of fossil energy consummed (Truck transport is still only diesel and some fossil fuel is used to make the fertilizer, but little is used in the tropics.)

Iowa's short growing season requires a lot of fertilizer to stimulate quick growth and corn's sugar yield is much lower and more complex sugar to convert to alcohol, etc. so alcohol from Iowa corn is probably yielding slightly less than one unit of energy for each unit of fossil energy used to produce it.

The efficiency of biofuels depends greatly on where they are grown. To make the point very clear: It is possible with artificial lights and heated green houses to grow coffee in Alaska, but very expensive in both dollars and energy. Economic nonsense, same as biofuel crops grown in cold Iowa with less than half the sunshine to capture.

In Brazil, it is too hot and humid to grow wheat well. More than 80% is imported and part of the bread often has a flour made from dried roots to keep cost down. The advantages of an alcohol-for-wheat trade to both countries are very obvious, but will not make a few politically well conected rich people in US even richer so expect to continue paying twice what you should to drive your car as their protective tariffs and subsidies will remain in place.

Corn prices are already near, or at, all time highs - your food costs will be going up rapidly as more and more crop land in US is converted to biofuel production.

More, especially related to alcohol REDUCING atmospheric CO2 and making urban air cleaner, etc. is in my thread "How DUMB can US voters be?" Think about this when you go to the polls. Who is the current government serving?

Chairman of finance comitte, Sen. Glasser, is from Iowa and strong supporter of using your tax dollars to provide corn the largest of all farm subsidies and the 54cent per gallon gift to alcohol produced from it and the tariff that makes none of Brazil's cheap alcohol economically feasible to import - He, and Republicans in general, want to keep their rich supporters getting richer and sending dollars to fund the terrorist with ever increasing oil imports etc.

How DUMB, except for his rich supporters.

The question is:
Oil Prices: Where Are They Headed?

I figure up some and down some. Likely more one than the other.

If we (US and freinds) are succesful in Iraq, they will drift down a little more. If we fail, or cut and run, they will go sky high. But then that may be the least of our problems.