Crude Prices Skyrocket: $11 Rise in One Day

  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Rise
In summary, analysts are predicting that the current trend of gas prices rising 10 cents every day will lead to an $11 dollar rise in one day. If this trend continues, it is predicted that the price of gas will reach $150 by the end of the year.
  • #1
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,142
1,756
It is the largest single day rise ever recorded for crude prices; I think they said it is an $11 dollar rise in one day.

Some analysts are predicting that we hit $150 by July.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I flew back here from Pennsylvania on Sunday and in the next four days, gas prices at the closest station to me went from $4.17 to $4.27 to $4.37 to $4.47 for 87 octane, rising by exactly 10 cents every single day. It was the most insane thing I've ever seen. I'm afraid to go look today.
 
  • #3
If it keeps going on up like that then it will $200 by the end of this year.

I wasn't around in the '70s when people had to ration gas, but for folks that remember that time, is the current trend going to lead to a same event?
 
  • #4
This doesn't look very good guys. One question: what causes all these rises? I'm pretty much a noob on this but I'd like to know.
 
  • #5
Right now the price of gas is driven partly by a limited refining capacity. The price of crude is driven in part by the weak dollar. In the 70's we experienced severe supply shortages. So at this point it seems to be a different situation. But increasing demand from India, and in particular from China, is also a significant factor.

Noteworthy: For about 15 years the price of crude hovered around $20 a barrel. It hit a low of $10 a barrel just before Bush began his run for office in 2000. It has pretty much skyrocketed ever since. Since Bush showed up on the scene, the average price of crude has risen by about 600%
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Thank you for the explanation, Ivan. Do you think a new administration will be able to lower the price of oil or is that near to impossible?
 
  • #8
Ivan Seeking said:
Right now the price of gas is driven partly by a limited refining capacity. The price of crude is driven in part by the weak dollar. In the 70's we experienced severe supply shortages. So at this point it seems to be a different situation. But increasing demand from India, and in particular from China, is also a significant factor.

Noteworthy: For about 15 years the price of crude hovered around $20 a barrel. It hit a low of $10 a barrel just before Bush began his run for office in 2000. It has pretty much skyrocketed ever since. Since Bush showed up on the scene, the average price of crude has risen by about 600%

But capacity issues and raw material costs can't explain the oil companies' enormous profits. Are the oil companies truly competing with each other for customers, or are they colluding by not undercutting each other so that they can milk us for all they can get?
 
  • #9
I really don't know what to think. IMO, there is an argument to be made that supplies are manipulated. And the Bushes are best buddies and business partners with the Saudi Royal family [and the Bin Ladens].

I do think that this is how we fix it.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=211274
 
Last edited:
  • #10
lisab said:
or are they colluding by not undercutting each other so that they can milk us for all they can get?
Well, if I were an oil company about to lose out on my #1 money making resource, and the cost for me to continue to get that resource is becoming more expensive, I would keep raising the prices so that I sell less, but make the same profit and extend my resources so I stay in business longer. So, yes.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
I'm really not sure how the price is determined either. But I do wish we had starting waning our oil usage a long time ago.
 
  • #12
Note that recently when Bush went to Saudi to ask for an increase in supply, the response was that their customers all have oil that they need, so there is no reason to increase the supply. Bush said that he was happy with their response.

The last time I checked, it is an excess supply that drives down the price, not just that all supply needs are met. So the answer was meaningless, which likely explains why Bush was satisified.
 
  • #13
Guys not too familiar with Peak Oil are ya?
 
  • #14
DT_tokamak said:
But I do wish we had starting waning our oil usage a long time ago.

Everyone was too busy scorning liberals, linking sound energy policies to liberalism, and paying for their SUVs.
 
  • #15
I've read up on Peak Oil. But I never know how credible things like that are. I tend to believe it, but I couldn't prove it or say I was 100% sure of its credibility.
 
  • #16
We are approaching peak oil, but no one knows precisely where the line may lie. For now, we are pumping more crude than ever before, so peak oil is not the issue.
 
  • #17
Ivan Seeking said:
Everyone was too busy scorning liberals, linking sound energy policies to liberalism, and paying for their SUVs.

Yeah, we really should have switched to solar power 40 years ago!

What's really too bad is that we haven't managed to bring a SINGLE nuclear power reactor online in 40 years! Thanks libs!
 
  • #18
Well, you might guess by my screenname the method of power generation that I support. I really believe a commercial reactor could have been running by now if people were aware enough of the progress of the technology, and if they cared enough about its benefits. It just doesn't get the funding it deserves... not even close
 
  • #19
Ivan Seeking said:
We are approaching peak oil, but no one knows precisely where the line may lie. For now, we are pumping more crude than ever before, so peak oil is not the issue.

What data sets from which oil fields are you using?

Most people say we either are AT or PAST peak. The peak hit about six years ago, which would coincide with the evil emperors arrival!
 
  • #20
After spending a lifetime working to be a part of the energy solution, I will say that IMO, you have the Republicans to thank for his. Democrats have been pushing for alternatives since the 60s. And for doing so, they were scorned and ridiculed by the right-wing. The biggest offenders of all are the neo-cons, who turned scorn to hate.

The attacks on Al Gore are perfect examples. Even winning a Nobel prize only drew contempt from the neo-cons.

Maybe people will finally stop listening to these idiots. Vote for Obama.
 
  • #21
seycyrus said:
Yeah, we really should have switched to solar power 40 years ago!

Solar power wasn't viable 40 years ago. It is barely a viable option today.

What's really too bad is that we haven't managed to bring a SINGLE nuclear power reactor online in 40 years! Thanks libs!

We still don't have viable electric cars. Nor do we have an electric infrastructure that could support a nation of electric vehicle. That wouldn't solve the problem.
 
  • #22
This is precisely why Mccain should not be voted for. I think if Obama wins the elections, he can talk with and have better relations with whole world, which is ruined by the current administration. Us Egyptians never really had so much trouble in our relations with the US as much as we had during the Bush years.

sorry wrong section
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Ivan Seeking said:
After spending a lifetime working to be a part of the energy solution, I will say that IMO, you have the Republicans to thank for his. Democrats have been pushing for alternatives since the 60s. And for doing so, they were scorned and ridiculed by the right-wing. The biggest offenders of all are the neo-cons, who turned scorn to hate.

The attacks on Al Gore are perfect examples. Even winning a Nobel prize only drew contempt from the neo-cons.

Maybe people will finally stop listening to these idiots. Vote for Obama.
Ivan, it was the Democrats that opposed nuclear power in the 70's. And they're still opposed to it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/washington/23nukes.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
 
  • #24
But the "libs" have been pushing for higher fuel efficiency all along.
 
  • #25
Ivan Seeking said:
After spending a lifetime working to be a part of the energy solution, I will say that IMO, you have the Republicans to thank for his. Democrats have been pushing for alternatives since the 60s.

Show me the nuclear power legislation that they proposed.

Ivan Seeking said:
And for doing so, they were scorned and ridiculed by the right-wing. The biggest offenders of all are the neo-cons, who turned scorn to hate.

Uh yeah...

Ivan Seeking said:
The attacks on Al Gore are perfect examples. Even winning a Nobel prize only drew contempt from the neo-cons.

Oh, let's turn this into another GW debate. but but but...how can there be a debate? Haven't we been told time and time again that the entire scientific community is in entire agreement on this issue? *scoff*

Ivan Seeking said:
Maybe people will finally stop listening to these idiots. Vote for Obama.

Oh yeah, Obama's "We need to look for energy alternatives plan" is SOOOO much betterthat McCain's "we need to look for energy alternatives" plan.
 
  • #26
Evo said:
Ivan, it was the Democrats that opposed nuclear power in the 70's. And they're still opposed to it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/washington/23nukes.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I addressed that point. Nuclear power wouldn't solve the problem. What's more, there are still plenty of viable objections to nuclear power, just as we thinkers have argued for more fuel efficient vehicles all along.
 
  • #27
Ivan Seeking said:
Solar power wasn't viable 40 years ago. It is barely a viable option today.

That was my sarcastic point.

Ivan Seeking said:
We still don't have viable electric cars. Nor do we have an electric infrastructure that could support a nation of electric vehicle. That wouldn't solve the problem.

So, since we are not capable of perfection, let us not build a SINGLE nuclear power reactor!
 
  • #28
seycyrus said:
What data sets from which oil fields are you using?

Most people say we either are AT or PAST peak. The peak hit about six years ago, which would coincide with the evil emperors arrival!

The most vociferous "peak-oilists" have said the peak has past already. James H. Kunstler, for example, professes the belief that the Saudis are outright lying about the quantity of reserves they have. Rumors are leaking out of that country that a lot of salt water is coming out of the wells (salt water is pumped into get the oil to rise out; when the water starts coming out, you know the well is nearly finished).

The analysts for the oil companies are professing the "plateau" that will last for 30 or 40 years. THe rosiest prediction (I'm searching for the link) stated that we wouldn't even hit the plateau for another 20 years.

Edit: Here's the link to CERA, the oil company's friend in DC
http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx?CID=8444
The article is two years old. Compare it to some of the more updated articles here
http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/plateau
Truth, as always, lies in the middle. Regardless, the prices are never going to fall. As I keep telling everyone, stop blaming the "other guy."

Stop blaming liberals, stop blaming conservatives, stop blaming oil companies, stop blaming environmentalists, stop blaming Hummer drivers, stop blaming Bush (...no, keep blaming him, the twat!) and learn how to live with the "new economy."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
Ivan Seeking said:
I addressed that point. Nuclear power wouldn't solve the problem. What's more, there are still plenty of viable objections to nuclear power, just as we thinkers have argued for more fuel efficient vehicles all along.

Nuclear power wouldn't solve ALL of the problem, just like more fuel efficient vehicles wouldn't solve ALL of the problem.

Nuclear power would certainly reduce our dependence.

Those *viable* objections simply do not cut the mustard in explaining why we have not built *ONE* power reactor in 40 years!
 
  • #30
Well, I don't really see any good short term solutions. But ITER is a promising step.
 
  • #31
seycyrus said:
Those *viable* objections simply do not cut the mustard in explaining why we have not built *ONE* power reactor in 40 years!

Of course you meant to say 20 years, right? It's only been forty years since the first plant went on line.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
Chi Meson said:
Of course you meant to say 20 years, right? It's only been forty years since the first plant went on line.

If you've got some dates, please give them. I don't mean to sound hostile, but I'm not at my home computer, and I don't have my references. of course, 40 years is not the correct number.

Edit: It might be correct acutally. the first plant went online in '57. 50 years ago.

I'm talking about plans being drawn up and ground broken for a new plant, not finishing up construction that was started earlier.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Chi Meson said:
Stop blaming liberals, stop blaming conservatives, stop blaming oil companies, stop blaming environmentalists, stop blaming Hummer drivers, stop blaming Bush (...no, keep blaming him, the twat!) and learn how to live with the "new economy."

Blame is not the point. We have an election coming up, and it is time for everyone to recognize that the Republicans have always been the problem. Enough is enough. The crisis that we have worked so hard to avoid for forty years may finally be upon us.

As for the other comments made: I'm not a liberal nor a Democrat. I consider myself more Libertarian than anything, and I am an Independent. I don't like Obama because he is liberal, I like him because he is the right man for the time, and he is extremely smart, if not brilliant. We need someone as smart as him in times like these.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
DT_tokamak said:
Well, I don't really see any good short term solutions. But ITER is a promising step.
The building of ITER won't get underway until next year, and it was take several years to get it up a running, and then it may or may not prove feasibility of fusion for electrical energy. Tokamak assembly starts 2012, and first plasma is anticipated in late 2016. http://www.iter.org/a/n1/downloads/construction_schedule.pdf

It takes about 5-6 years to construct a nuclear plant - if all goes well.

To be fair to the anti-nuke and skeptics, the nuclear industry got sloppy in the 70's and 80's, and the accident at TMI-2 didn't help instill confidence in the industry, nor the fire at Browns Ferry in which a work lit insulation on fire with a candle while trying to look for air leaks. The fire burned the cables to the reactor control systems.


Most of the natural gas fired plants built since 2000 lose money with gas much above $3/MBTU. They were budgeted on low cost natural gas.


As for oil supply, the non-OPEC nations are holding back. They don't have to produce more, but instead they can sit back and watch the price of oil increase.

Then there are the speculators on the commidities exchange who keep bidding up the price, based on speculation that oil may not be available, e.g. if a hurricane hits the Gulf of Mexico again.

The oil companies don't have to compete for customers, so they can pass on the cost to consumers, and their production divisions can rake in the money.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
Ivan Seeking said:
Right now the price of gas is driven partly by a limited refining capacity. The price of crude is driven in part by the weak dollar. In the 70's we experienced severe supply shortages. So at this point it seems to be a different situation. But increasing demand from India, and in particular from China, is also a significant factor.

Noteworthy: For about 15 years the price of crude hovered around $20 a barrel. It hit a low of $10 a barrel just before Bush began his run for office in 2000. It has pretty much skyrocketed ever since. Since Bush showed up on the scene, the average price of crude has risen by about 600%

While I agree with you that gas has rise dramatically over the past 8 years since Bush has been in office, the price of gas hasn't only risen up in the United States. It is extremely worst in other parts of the world as well. The average price of gas in the past 8 years has when from 3.00 per gallon , to 9 dollars . I find that kind of ironic because you think the price of gas in Europe would be extremely low compared to the price of gas in the United States. The reason is because there is not a high demand for cars in Europe vs. the number of cars in Europe since most people do not drive in that part of the world. When their is a high supply of cars vs. a low demand for cars , you think the price of gas would go down. Go figure
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
910
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
858
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
788
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
1
Views
833
Replies
9
Views
1K
Back
Top