The growing international crisis over Iran’s nuclear programme could trigger a catastrophic oil price spike, sending crude prices over $100 a barrel, senior Wall Street analysts are warning.
Paging Jimmy Carter…
P.S. For the record, $100 per barrel would be worse, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than the 1979-80 oil crisis. The peak back then was just over $90 in 2006 dollars, according to Wikipedia. (Nifty chart here.)
I wouldn’t say “considerably worse”, although it would, finally, be worse than we had under Carter. Er, than I experienced under Carter, you young whippersnapper.
It’s not there yet, though! And the up side to this (and there is one) is that at that price, a lot of alternative petroleum sources (oil sands and shale, IIRC are profitable above $70 a barrel) are economically viable. Since we’ve got a lot of those, and so do our buddies to the North, tapping those resources would reduce our reliance on foreign oil!
Not to mention the pressure for alternative source research.
That graph is interesting. Looks like the lowest point in real dollars was the second half of the 60s, where (presumably) the supply of oil was mostly uninterrupted, and perhaps because of that, people were worried that world oil supply would run out within the 20th century.
Also, a time when the Baathist party was coming to power in Iraq, with a young lawyer, name of S. Hussein, taking a VP post in which he convinced his fellow Arab OPEC states that maybe the oil glut wasn’t in their interest.
You’re right, the “considerably worse” language is incorrect. I wrote that when I thought the number was $80, not $90. I then corrected the number but didn’t remove the word “considerably,” as I obviously should have. Will do that now.
Many of those oil alternatives are profitable when oil reaches $40-$50 a barrel. The problem is, projected oil costs must remain ~$50 or so for an extended period of years before companies will feel safe taking the plunge and investing in those alternatives.
Still, that is neither here nor there. There will be confrontation with Iran. The positive: We won’t be occupying, and we’ll lose far fewer lives as a result. The downside: This war, once the nuke sites are taken out and the regime is toppled, will be about oil; the consumers will feel the temporary economic impact, the world will collectively shit their pants, and the military forces will do their best to occupy and protect the oil fields and terminals.
It just COULDN’T be blood for oil….There’s just NO WAY Bush would be pursuing a policy that might help oil companies in part because they help oil companies.
I just don’t believe it, said the naive little blogger.
April 30th, 2006 at 1:06:33 am
I wouldn’t say “considerably worse”, although it would, finally, be worse than we had under Carter. Er, than I experienced under Carter, you young whippersnapper.
It’s not there yet, though! And the up side to this (and there is one) is that at that price, a lot of alternative petroleum sources (oil sands and shale, IIRC are profitable above $70 a barrel) are economically viable. Since we’ve got a lot of those, and so do our buddies to the North, tapping those resources would reduce our reliance on foreign oil!
Not to mention the pressure for alternative source research.
April 30th, 2006 at 1:15:50 am
Doc,
The Canadian Oil Sands are quite profitable already
http://www.oilsands.cc/
April 30th, 2006 at 1:24:19 am
That graph is interesting. Looks like the lowest point in real dollars was the second half of the 60s, where (presumably) the supply of oil was mostly uninterrupted, and perhaps because of that, people were worried that world oil supply would run out within the 20th century.
Also, a time when the Baathist party was coming to power in Iraq, with a young lawyer, name of S. Hussein, taking a VP post in which he convinced his fellow Arab OPEC states that maybe the oil glut wasn’t in their interest.
And that, as they say, was that.
April 30th, 2006 at 1:46:35 am
You’re right, the “considerably worse” language is incorrect. I wrote that when I thought the number was $80, not $90. I then corrected the number but didn’t remove the word “considerably,” as I obviously should have. Will do that now.
April 30th, 2006 at 2:28:30 am
I thought oil peaked in 1990 with “Blue Sky Mining”–wait, that was Midnight Oil…
April 30th, 2006 at 4:05:49 am
Many of those oil alternatives are profitable when oil reaches $40-$50 a barrel. The problem is, projected oil costs must remain ~$50 or so for an extended period of years before companies will feel safe taking the plunge and investing in those alternatives.
Still, that is neither here nor there. There will be confrontation with Iran. The positive: We won’t be occupying, and we’ll lose far fewer lives as a result. The downside: This war, once the nuke sites are taken out and the regime is toppled, will be about oil; the consumers will feel the temporary economic impact, the world will collectively shit their pants, and the military forces will do their best to occupy and protect the oil fields and terminals.
April 30th, 2006 at 12:26:53 pm
It just COULDN’T be blood for oil….There’s just NO WAY Bush would be pursuing a policy that might help oil companies in part because they help oil companies.
I just don’t believe it, said the naive little blogger.
April 30th, 2006 at 4:17:24 pm
eh, between my stock in exxon mobile, my hybrid car, and my cool social indifference, i remain UNeffected…
May 1st, 2006 at 8:39:56 am
unaffected…you are not affected by it.
“Uneffected” is not a word.
jar jar, if I may use your first names, please srtick to your native tongue, whatever that may be! ;-)
May 1st, 2006 at 11:37:58 am
can’t blame a Gungan for trying! I assure you, his native language is far more gramatically incorrect…
May 1st, 2006 at 11:48:37 am
you two are just jealous of my hybrid car.
May 1st, 2006 at 3:43:38 pm
Kristy - I thought his local form of speech was much more politically incorrect ?
May 2nd, 2006 at 6:05:27 am
Grammatically correct or not, I DO want his hybrid car!