Current Oil Price

AutomaticEarth · Post by **AutomaticEarth** » 12 Jan 2015, 11:05

......and if we don't cut taxes the oil cos are doomed!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... oomed.html

raspberry-blower · Post by **raspberry-blower** » 12 Jan 2015, 15:31

Brent has now dropped below $48

AutomaticEarth · Post by **AutomaticEarth** » 12 Jan 2015, 22:24

price change

Brent Crude Oil Futures $/barrel 47.21 -2.90 -5.8 %

frank_begbie · Post by **frank_begbie** » 12 Jan 2015, 22:44

So if oil is unprofitable to produce for some countries, the price will go up because there's a shortage?

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 12 Jan 2015, 23:16

frank_begbie wrote:So if oil is unprofitable to produce for some countries, the price will go up because there's a shortage?

Absolutely, yes, at some point. The interesting question is when that point is reached. Basically, I think we going to see ever more violent swings from highs to lows in the market place as we head down the other side of the peak oil curve and what we are seeing right now is part of that. The thing to remember here is that we have three variables at play;

1. the physical supply

2. the physical demand

3. the money allowed to be in circulation

A good portion of the massive hikes in the oil price leading up to the crash of 08 were the result of lax monetary policy stretching back to 06. The reason the price did not fall precipitously in 08 is because of the QE that has been implemented since that time. God knows what happens next with the money supply.

I guess my point is that whilst we can say with some confidence that physical supply is going to get ever tighter, leading to eventual rises in the oil price to reflect that, in the short to medium term price volatility is as much the result of changes of fiscal policy and other political machination, as it is the result of anything else.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 13 Jan 2015, 01:00

stevecook172001 wrote: 1. the physical supply

2. the physical demand

3. the money allowed to be in circulation

4. the ability and willingness of certain players to take short-term tactical losses in an attempt to win long-term gains by forcing competitors into bankruptcy. I think the Saudis want this dip to go as low as possible to scare the shit out of the frackers.

Catweazle · Post by **Catweazle** » 13 Jan 2015, 06:35

I wonder what Salmonds sums look like now.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 13 Jan 2015, 07:25

Brent below $46 we may see a lower price than the last crash.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 13 Jan 2015, 11:41

Catweazle wrote:I wonder what Salmonds sums look like now.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/polit ... ll-4963306

ALEX Salmond is used to being a backseat driver. That’s what comes of having spent the last seven years being chauffeured around.

Yesterday, we learned that the car is staying – albeit this time paid for by the dues of SNP members – and it appears that after last week, he’s still dictating the route the SNP take too.

His party wouldn’t re-run the referendum in May’s election, he said. Instead, they’d focus on campaigning for full fiscal autonomy.

That’s left commentators puzzled and SNP party members, desperate for another referendum as soon as possible, angry.

Puzzled, because this is the First Minister who warned that if the country voted No, we would all be gifting the Tories the right to scrap the Barnett formula – that crucial link between UK taxes and spending worth £4billion to Scotland.

Now he’s the one demanding the Barnett formula be scrapped, with his demands for Scotland to raise and spend all of its taxes here in Scotland.

Whether it’s the Tories or the SNP who set out to scrap the Barnett formula – it still means £4billion
in cuts.

How do we know that? Because John Swinney, Stewart Hosie, Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond told us.

Four billion pounds. That’s the equivalent of the entire Scottish schools budget or twice the budget for the whole of the NHS in Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Gone.

Pooling and sharing the resources of the whole UK works for Scotland. That’s why we voted for it.

The crisis in the North Sea oil industry falls short of a catastrophe because we can buffer the impact on lost taxes throughout the UK.

Here’s the difference the oil price makes. The SNP based all of their sums on oil being worth $113 a barrel, bringing in between £7billion and £8billion worth of taxes a year.

A barrel price of $50 dollars – it went lower than that last week – sees the amount of tax coming in fall to £1billion each year. A fall of 88 per cent. Imagine that happening to your family budget.

Alex Salmond knows the oil crisis is a catastrophe for the SNP, that’s why he’s trying to grab the wheel from Nicola Sturgeon.

Ultimately though, when the oil price goes in the wrong direction, it doesn’t matter who is driving, the destination is a very bad place for the SNP.

OrraLoon · Post by **OrraLoon** » 13 Jan 2015, 12:14

I suppose I could take the bait and open fire on the Daily Wrecker and all who sail in her.
Instead, I'll confine myself to pointing out how the whipsawing price of oil could have a direct impact on the stability of the next UK parliament.

Independence Day has been postponed from March 2016, but it will be interesting to see what the price is round about then. (Actually doing something about setting up a Sovereign Wealth Fund would be out of the question of course -- althougfh I understand that Gideon may consider a Fracking Fund for the "North of England".)

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 13 Jan 2015, 12:29

Catweazle wrote:I wonder what Salmonds sums look like now.

Excellent point. You Brits should have let them go. Now your stuck subsidizing them.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 13 Jan 2015, 15:15

vtsnowedin wrote:You Brits

Geography for Americans: 'Brits' includes those Scotland. Perhaps you meant English?

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 13 Jan 2015, 15:43

biffvernon wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:You Brits
Geography for Americans: 'Brits' includes those Scotland. Perhaps you meant English?

He really means Londeners: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news ... untry.html

According to which Scotland does pretty good in the subsidising table.

Of course, its a stupid thing to say and totally ignores the MASSIVE contributions these regions have made in the past.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 13 Jan 2015, 16:01

You better ask the Scots if they want to be lumped in with you Brits. or perhaps more precisely Sassenaches .

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 13 Jan 2015, 16:58

OrraLoon wrote:I suppose I could take the bait and open fire on the Daily Wrecker and all who sail in her.
Instead, I'll confine myself to pointing out how the whipsawing price of oil could have a direct impact on the stability of the next UK parliament.

The next UK parliament is likely to be very unstable whatever happens to the price of oil.