O.T.-OPEC:High prices have nothing to do with supply shortages.

Share this page

dashoe

dashoe

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
2,351
Reaction score
27
Points
48
Location
CHUMPIONAPOLIS, INDIANA
OPEC believes oil prices are too high: delegate

DUBAI (Reuters) - OPEC believes oil prices are too steep, after setting a fresh record high above $70 a barrel, and the rise is not justified by market fundamentals, a senior OPEC delegate said on Tuesday.

The delegate said there was no shortage of crude oil supply and that OPEC giant Saudi Arabia and other producers had pledged in the past to keep markets well supplied.

"OPEC believes strongly that prices are too high and nobody wants to see these prices," the delegate told Reuters. "(But) it has nothing to do with fundamentals."

U.S. crude set a fresh record high on Tuesday on concern that Iran's nuclear row with the West could affect oil exports from the world's fourth-largest producer and as a major Nigerian supply outage dragged into a third month.

May crude was up 46 cents at $70.86 a barrel at 0805 GMT, 1 cent higher than the previous record for a nearby contract, reached in August 2005 as Hurricane Katrina battered the U.S. Gulf Coast. IPE Brent hit a record high above $72 a barrel.

"Geopolitics are riding the price," the OPEC delegate said, stressing that there was no shortage of crude in the market.

Ministers from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) are expected to gather informally this weekend during an International Energy Forum meeting in Doha.

Qatari Oil Minister Abdullah al-Attiyah said on Monday the cartel was already producing at maximum levels and was expected to maintain its current output for the rest of the year if demand levels hold and with the current level of prices.

Attiyah said he was confident there would not be any supply disruptions from Iran, which pumps around 5 percent of the world's oil.

A senior OPEC delegate said on Monday crude oil markets were expected to remain well balanced for the rest of the year and that there were enough crude stocks and spare capacity to meet any unexpected supply shortage or increase in demand in 2006.

The delegate also said the prolonged shut-in of more than 500,000 barrels per day in OPEC-producer Nigeria had resulted in "some distortion" in some refineries but was not a global issue.

Saudi Arabia has the lion's share of OPEC's spare capacity. Riyadh has repeatedly said there is not enough demand from refiners for the medium and heavy crudes that constitute the bulk of its unused output capacity.

04/18/06 05:12 © Copyright Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of Reuters Ltd.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0002/20060418/0512430251.htm
 
Not much new information there.

This seems like a good place to post this though:

In a Washington Post editorial Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, now says he was wrong about opposing nuclear power 30 years ago. In the article he addresses common myths about nuclear power, and puts forth the position that nuclear power is the only feasible, affordable power source that can solve today's growing environmental and energy policy issues. From the article: "Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html


And I agree...let's build them....and use some of their capacity to produce hydrogen and switch to hydrogen powered vehicles. Screw OPEC.
 
Can I file that one under "No Shit Sherlock".

If not for the no nukes cooks our national energy policy would be in a whole lot better shape if 1 or 2 Nuclear Power Plants had been coming on line each year for the last 30 years.

There was a similar article in "National Geographic" last month. It was telling that utilities consider the Nukes as great cash cows despite the level of regulation that has resulted in 1 moderate incident (Three Mile Island) in 40+ years.

Less pollution, less reliance on oil & natural gas. Pretty nice upside.
 
Benign Despot said:
Can I file that one under "No Shit Sherlock".

If not for the no nukes cooks our national energy policy would be in a whole lot better shape if 1 or 2 Nuclear Power Plants had been coming on line each year for the last 30 years.

There was a similar article in "National Geographic" last month. It was telling that utilities consider the Nukes as great cash cows despite the level of regulation that has resulted in 1 moderate incident (Three Mile Island) in 40+ years.

Less pollution, less reliance on oil & natural gas. Pretty nice upside.
Click to expand...


Great! Then you wouldn't mind a nuclear power plant being built next to your neighborhood.
 
dashoe said:
Great! Then you wouldn't mind a nuclear power plant being built next to your neighborhood.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind at all. Too many damn trees around here anyway.
 
dashoe said:
Great! Then you wouldn't mind a nuclear power plant being built next to your neighborhood.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't mind one either.

BTW, I thought this was an interesting quote in the article:
What nobody noticed at the time, though, was that Three Mile Island was in fact a success story: The concrete containment structure did just what it was designed to do -- prevent radiation from escaping into the environment. And although the reactor itself was crippled, there was no injury or death among nuclear workers or nearby residents. Three Mile Island was the only serious accident in the history of nuclear energy generation in the United States, but it was enough to scare us away from further developing the technology: There hasn't been a nuclear plant ordered up since then.
Click to expand...
Although it's not true that nobody noticed that Three Mile Island was a success story. I can remember debating that very thing back when it happened. It's unfortunate that too many of the tree hugger types make decisions based upon emotion, rather than on rational arguments.

It only took 30 years for some of them to get a clue.
________
Special Vehicle Team
 
dashoe said:
OPEC believes oil prices are too high: delegate
Click to expand...

Got to love any "news" story which contains these two phrases within two paragraphs of eah other: :spock:

"no shortage of crude oil supply"

"as a major Nigerian supply outage dragged into a third month. "

:LOL:



Aside: this is Dashoe's third "oil is bad" political thread on the main board in the past few days, if anyone else is counting.

Ban?
 
Benign Despot said:
Can I file that one under "No Shit Sherlock".

If not for the no nukes cooks our national energy policy would be in a whole lot better shape if 1 or 2 Nuclear Power Plants had been coming on line each year for the last 30 years.

There was a similar article in "National Geographic" last month. It was telling that utilities consider the Nukes as great cash cows despite the level of regulation that has resulted in 1 moderate incident (Three Mile Island) in 40+ years.

Less pollution, less reliance on oil & natural gas. Pretty nice upside.
Click to expand...

There have been a couple of close calls in the nuclear industry in just the past few years that haven't received as much press as 3 Mile did. See Davis-Besse, "nuclear reactor vessel heads," for reference.

Deregulation of the electric utility industry has had some unpleasant side effects, in particular, the lack of focus on long-term maintenance of many of the nuclear plants.
 
Wandering Athol said:
There have been a couple of close calls in the nuclear industry in just the past few years that haven't received as much press as 3 Mile did. See Davis-Besse, "nuclear reactor vessel heads," for reference.

Deregulation of the electric utility industry has had some unpleasant side effects, in particular, the lack of focus on long-term maintenance of many of the nuclear plants.
Click to expand...


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12368859/

Chernobyl death toll still a heated topic
Greenpeace issues report countering U.N. estimates

KIEV, Ukraine - Greenpeace said Tuesday in a new report that more than 90,000 people were likely to die of cancers caused by radiation from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, countering a United Nations report that predicted the death toll would be around 4,000.

The differing conclusions underline the contentious uncertainty that remains about the health effects of the world’s worst nuclear accident as its 20th anniversary approaches.

A reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine exploded on April 26, 1986, spewing radioactive clouds over much of Europe. The fallout was particularly severe in northern reaches of Ukraine, western Russia and Belarus....................
 
Near misses are OK when you're dealing with first downs, free throws, and penalty shots...not so good when dealing with nuclear meltdowns.

The nukes, because of the possible disastrous externalities of poor maintenance due to the bottom-line focus of deregulation, would be better left under the "regulated" monopoly umbrella of old-world utilities IMO.

I'm mostly pro-nuke BTW. I just worry that the short-term focus of many public companies sets nuclear plant operations upon precarious footings....the results of which, we are now only beginning to see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top