From the Financial Times:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saudi Arabia's oil minister: $100 oil may be gone forever.

If you've had any doubts about the brutal nature of Saudi Arabia's
strategy, well -

Just read this (via FT):

Opec will not cut production even if the price of oil falls to $20
a barrel, the cartel's de facto leader said, spelling out a dramatic
policy shift that will have far-reaching implications for the global
energy industry.

In an unusually frank interview, Ali al-Naimi, the Saudi oil
minister, tore up Opec's traditional strategy of keeping prices high
by limiting oil output and replaced it with a new policy of defending
the cartel's market share at all costs.

"It is not in the interest of Opec producers to cut their
production, whatever the price is," he told the Middle East Economic
Survey. "Whether it goes down to $20, $40, $50, $60, it is
irrelevant."

He said the world may never see $100 a barrel oil again.

Saudi Arabia wants to force a mental paradigm shift.

There can be no doubt… none, zero… that Saudi Arabia is trying to kill
off high-cost marginal production.

Whether ali-Naimi is right about "$100 oil gone forever" or not (and
many believe he is wrong), the point is scaring the crap out of oil
investors and oil project planners.

Saudi Arabia wants all manner of high-cost marginal production, all
across the globe, to get moth-balled.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my opinion this also has some unfortunate implications for energy
saving technologies. Industries like solar power, compressed natural
gas, electric cars and wind energy have all made great progress in
recent years. It it would be too bad if those efforts were reduced
because of lower oil prices. I hate to say this but it might be a
good time to impose some sort of sliding petroleum tax designed to
stabilize prices at the consumer level, prop up the alternative
technology businesses, fund new research and reduce the national debt.
European countries have done something similar for many years with
high energy taxes which incentivize fuel economy. It's hard to
believe that any US politician would have the stomach to back a
program like that however. Some would view it as a communist plot
similar to attitudes toward the metric system.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 19:53:00 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

From the Financial Times:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saudi Arabia's oil minister: $100 oil may be gone forever.

If you've had any doubts about the brutal nature of Saudi Arabia's
strategy, well -

Just read this (via FT):

Opec will not cut production even if the price of oil falls to $20
a barrel, the cartel's de facto leader said, spelling out a dramatic
policy shift that will have far-reaching implications for the global
energy industry.

In an unusually frank interview, Ali al-Naimi, the Saudi oil
minister, tore up Opec's traditional strategy of keeping prices high
by limiting oil output and replaced it with a new policy of defending
the cartel's market share at all costs.

"It is not in the interest of Opec producers to cut their
production, whatever the price is," he told the Middle East Economic
Survey. "Whether it goes down to $20, $40, $50, $60, it is
irrelevant."

He said the world may never see $100 a barrel oil again.

Saudi Arabia wants to force a mental paradigm shift.

There can be no doubt… none, zero… that Saudi Arabia is trying to kill
off high-cost marginal production.

Whether ali-Naimi is right about "$100 oil gone forever" or not (and
many believe he is wrong), the point is scaring the crap out of oil
investors and oil project planners.

Saudi Arabia wants all manner of high-cost marginal production, all
across the globe, to get moth-balled.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my opinion this also has some unfortunate implications for energy
saving technologies. Industries like solar power, compressed natural
gas, electric cars and wind energy have all made great progress in
recent years. It it would be too bad if those efforts were reduced
because of lower oil prices. I hate to say this but it might be a
good time to impose some sort of sliding petroleum tax designed to
stabilize prices at the consumer level, prop up the alternative
technology businesses, fund new research and reduce the national debt.
European countries have done something similar for many years with
high energy taxes which incentivize fuel economy. It's hard to
believe that any US politician would have the stomach to back a
program like that however. Some would view it as a communist plot
similar to attitudes toward the metric system.

I think your idea has some merit, especially if the taxes were used to
fund infrastructure, i.e. transportation, improvements or other
worthwhile endeavors. If, on the other hand, the money is used simply
to buy votes, as so much is right now, then I'd say let the consumers
spend the savings as they see fit.

On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 4:28:24 AM UTC-8, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 19:53:00 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

From the Financial Times:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saudi Arabia's oil minister: $100 oil may be gone forever.

If you've had any doubts about the brutal nature of Saudi Arabia's
strategy, well -

Just read this (via FT):

Opec will not cut production even if the price of oil falls to $20
a barrel, the cartel's de facto leader said, spelling out a dramatic
policy shift that will have far-reaching implications for the global
energy industry.

In an unusually frank interview, Ali al-Naimi, the Saudi oil
minister, tore up Opec's traditional strategy of keeping prices high
by limiting oil output and replaced it with a new policy of defending
the cartel's market share at all costs.

"It is not in the interest of Opec producers to cut their
production, whatever the price is," he told the Middle East Economic
Survey. "Whether it goes down to $20, $40, $50, $60, it is
irrelevant."

He said the world may never see $100 a barrel oil again.

Saudi Arabia wants to force a mental paradigm shift.

There can be no doubt... none, zero... that Saudi Arabia is trying to kill
off high-cost marginal production.

Whether ali-Naimi is right about "$100 oil gone forever" or not (and
many believe he is wrong), the point is scaring the crap out of oil
investors and oil project planners.

Saudi Arabia wants all manner of high-cost marginal production, all
across the globe, to get moth-balled.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my opinion this also has some unfortunate implications for energy
saving technologies. Industries like solar power, compressed natural
gas, electric cars and wind energy have all made great progress in
recent years. It it would be too bad if those efforts were reduced
because of lower oil prices. I hate to say this but it might be a
good time to impose some sort of sliding petroleum tax designed to
stabilize prices at the consumer level, prop up the alternative
technology businesses, fund new research and reduce the national debt.
European countries have done something similar for many years with
high energy taxes which incentivize fuel economy. It's hard to
believe that any US politician would have the stomach to back a
program like that however. Some would view it as a communist plot
similar to attitudes toward the metric system.

I think your idea has some merit, especially if the taxes were used to
fund infrastructure, i.e. transportation, improvements or other
worthwhile endeavors. If, on the other hand, the money is used simply
to buy votes, as so much is right now, then I'd say let the consumers
spend the savings as they see fit.

Illinois has plenty of tax on it's gasoline, and that's not counting all the special taxes gas suppliers are forced to burden the people of Cook (Chicago).

Anyhow, the 'road use' tax was to be used for highway repair and maintenance. When gasoline was over $4.00 a gal, there was more road use tax collected than Illinois had never seen. Funny it kept being siphoned off to go into the general fund to pay the states debts.

Odd, now due to total mismanagement, the state is still broke, a lot of the roads and bridges are junk, and now half the tax coming in to feed it.

On 12/24/2014 12:04 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 19:53:00 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

From the Financial Times:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saudi Arabia's oil minister: $100 oil may be gone forever.

If you've had any doubts about the brutal nature of Saudi Arabia's
strategy, well -

Just read this (via FT):

Opec will not cut production even if the price of oil falls to $20
a barrel, the cartel's de facto leader said, spelling out a dramatic
policy shift that will have far-reaching implications for the global
energy industry.

In an unusually frank interview, Ali al-Naimi, the Saudi oil
minister, tore up Opec's traditional strategy of keeping prices high
by limiting oil output and replaced it with a new policy of defending
the cartel's market share at all costs.

"It is not in the interest of Opec producers to cut their
production, whatever the price is," he told the Middle East Economic
Survey. "Whether it goes down to $20, $40, $50, $60, it is
irrelevant."

He said the world may never see $100 a barrel oil again.

Saudi Arabia wants to force a mental paradigm shift.

There can be no doubt… none, zero… that Saudi Arabia is trying to kill
off high-cost marginal production.

Whether ali-Naimi is right about "$100 oil gone forever" or not (and
many believe he is wrong), the point is scaring the crap out of oil
investors and oil project planners.

Saudi Arabia wants all manner of high-cost marginal production, all
across the globe, to get moth-balled.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my opinion this also has some unfortunate implications for energy
saving technologies. Industries like solar power, compressed natural
gas, electric cars and wind energy have all made great progress in
recent years. It it would be too bad if those efforts were reduced
because of lower oil prices. I hate to say this but it might be a
good time to impose some sort of sliding petroleum tax designed to
stabilize prices at the consumer level, prop up the alternative
technology businesses, fund new research and reduce the national debt.
European countries have done something similar for many years with
high energy taxes which incentivize fuel economy. It's hard to
believe that any US politician would have the stomach to back a
program like that however. Some would view it as a communist plot
similar to attitudes toward the metric system.


There are plenty of liberal democrats frothing at the mouth for an
excuse to slam a carbon tax on oil, wiping out any savings we see from
lower oil prices. I might even go along with some of that if they
simply used the money to buy back some of our debt but they will not
do that., They will just spend the money and keep borrowing more.

I do agree the Saudis are dumping oil on the market to squeeze out
higher priced competition, whether that is renewables, natural gas or
shale oil.


Ever since the 70's the US has been see/sawed by the countries that have
low cost oil production.
When oil prices get high enough, US producers make a large profit,
this allows them to develop more energy reserves. But the cost to pump
our reserves is higher than other producers (not sure why). When we
are doing well in our production, they cut oil prices, meaning US
companies must cut back, all the side companies that make everything
needed for research and developing wells get cut back or fold.
Our lack of production cause prices to rise, the cheap producers help
that by cutting their production and we are back to high oil prices
again. Then the US producers start... and we are see/sawed again

I have no problem with taxing imported oil in an effort to keep the US
energy independent. This would allow the energy companies to keep prices
high and profit enough to continue research and development. The taxes
collected should go back to those being protected with the taxes, that
being the energy producers. Yes, give money to the oil companies, (the
effect of this is an over all reduction of the end price)

There are huge problems with this.

Government can not be trusted to keep the policy the same long enough
for CEO's to commit their funds.

Depending on the which producers get the windfall from the taxes
collected, there will be a Solindra or two.

The public would not like to see tax money go to those dirty rich oil
companies.

see/saw

Mikek

On 12/24/2014 8:30 PM, amdx wrote:
On 12/24/2014 12:04 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 19:53:00 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

From the Financial Times:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Saudi Arabia's oil minister: $100 oil may be gone forever.

If you've had any doubts about the brutal nature of Saudi Arabia's
strategy, well -

Just read this (via FT):

Opec will not cut production even if the price of oil falls to $20
a barrel, the cartel's de facto leader said, spelling out a dramatic
policy shift that will have far-reaching implications for the global
energy industry.

In an unusually frank interview, Ali al-Naimi, the Saudi oil
minister, tore up Opec's traditional strategy of keeping prices high
by limiting oil output and replaced it with a new policy of defending
the cartel's market share at all costs.

"It is not in the interest of Opec producers to cut their
production, whatever the price is," he told the Middle East Economic
Survey. "Whether it goes down to $20, $40, $50, $60, it is
irrelevant."

He said the world may never see $100 a barrel oil again.

Saudi Arabia wants to force a mental paradigm shift.

There can be no doubt… none, zero… that Saudi Arabia is trying to kill
off high-cost marginal production.

Whether ali-Naimi is right about "$100 oil gone forever" or not (and
many believe he is wrong), the point is scaring the crap out of oil
investors and oil project planners.

Saudi Arabia wants all manner of high-cost marginal production, all
across the globe, to get moth-balled.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In my opinion this also has some unfortunate implications for energy
saving technologies. Industries like solar power, compressed natural
gas, electric cars and wind energy have all made great progress in
recent years. It it would be too bad if those efforts were reduced
because of lower oil prices. I hate to say this but it might be a
good time to impose some sort of sliding petroleum tax designed to
stabilize prices at the consumer level, prop up the alternative
technology businesses, fund new research and reduce the national debt.
European countries have done something similar for many years with
high energy taxes which incentivize fuel economy. It's hard to
believe that any US politician would have the stomach to back a
program like that however. Some would view it as a communist plot
similar to attitudes toward the metric system.


There are plenty of liberal democrats frothing at the mouth for an
excuse to slam a carbon tax on oil, wiping out any savings we see from
lower oil prices. I might even go along with some of that if they
simply used the money to buy back some of our debt but they will not
do that., They will just spend the money and keep borrowing more.

I do agree the Saudis are dumping oil on the market to squeeze out
higher priced competition, whether that is renewables, natural gas or
shale oil.


Ever since the 70's the US has been see/sawed by the countries that have
low cost oil production.
When oil prices get high enough, US producers make a large profit,
this allows them to develop more energy reserves. But the cost to pump
our reserves is higher than other producers (not sure why). When we
are doing well in our production, they cut oil prices, meaning US
companies must cut back, all the side companies that make everything
needed for research and developing wells get cut back or fold.
Our lack of production cause prices to rise, the cheap producers help
that by cutting their production and we are back to high oil prices
again. Then the US producers start... and we are see/sawed again

I have no problem with taxing imported oil in an effort to keep the US
energy independent. This would allow the energy companies to keep prices
high and profit enough to continue research and development. The taxes
collected should go back to those being protected with the taxes, that
being the energy producers. Yes, give money to the oil companies, (the
effect of this is an over all reduction of the end price)

There are huge problems with this.

Government can not be trusted to keep the policy the same long enough
for CEO's to commit their funds.

Depending on the which producers get the windfall from the taxes
collected, there will be a Solindra or two.

The public would not like to see tax money go to those dirty rich oil
companies.

see/saw

Mikek


I'm disappointed, I didn't create any disagreement :-)

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

On 12/26/14 4:28 PM, amdx wrote:
On 12/24/2014 8:30 PM, amdx wrote:
On 12/24/2014 12:04 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 19:53:00 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

From the Financial Times:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Saudi Arabia's oil minister: $100 oil may be gone forever.

If you've had any doubts about the brutal nature of Saudi Arabia's
strategy, well -

Just read this (via FT):

Opec will not cut production even if the price of oil falls to $20
a barrel, the cartel's de facto leader said, spelling out a dramatic
policy shift that will have far-reaching implications for the global
energy industry.

In an unusually frank interview, Ali al-Naimi, the Saudi oil
minister, tore up Opec's traditional strategy of keeping prices high
by limiting oil output and replaced it with a new policy of defending
the cartel's market share at all costs.

"It is not in the interest of Opec producers to cut their
production, whatever the price is," he told the Middle East Economic
Survey. "Whether it goes down to $20, $40, $50, $60, it is
irrelevant."

He said the world may never see $100 a barrel oil again.

Saudi Arabia wants to force a mental paradigm shift.

There can be no doubt… none, zero… that Saudi Arabia is trying to kill
off high-cost marginal production.

Whether ali-Naimi is right about "$100 oil gone forever" or not (and
many believe he is wrong), the point is scaring the crap out of oil
investors and oil project planners.

Saudi Arabia wants all manner of high-cost marginal production, all
across the globe, to get moth-balled.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In my opinion this also has some unfortunate implications for energy
saving technologies. Industries like solar power, compressed natural
gas, electric cars and wind energy have all made great progress in
recent years. It it would be too bad if those efforts were reduced
because of lower oil prices. I hate to say this but it might be a
good time to impose some sort of sliding petroleum tax designed to
stabilize prices at the consumer level, prop up the alternative
technology businesses, fund new research and reduce the national debt.
European countries have done something similar for many years with
high energy taxes which incentivize fuel economy. It's hard to
believe that any US politician would have the stomach to back a
program like that however. Some would view it as a communist plot
similar to attitudes toward the metric system.


There are plenty of liberal democrats frothing at the mouth for an
excuse to slam a carbon tax on oil, wiping out any savings we see from
lower oil prices. I might even go along with some of that if they
simply used the money to buy back some of our debt but they will not
do that., They will just spend the money and keep borrowing more.

I do agree the Saudis are dumping oil on the market to squeeze out
higher priced competition, whether that is renewables, natural gas or
shale oil.


Ever since the 70's the US has been see/sawed by the countries that have
low cost oil production.
When oil prices get high enough, US producers make a large profit,
this allows them to develop more energy reserves. But the cost to pump
our reserves is higher than other producers (not sure why). When we
are doing well in our production, they cut oil prices, meaning US
companies must cut back, all the side companies that make everything
needed for research and developing wells get cut back or fold.
Our lack of production cause prices to rise, the cheap producers help
that by cutting their production and we are back to high oil prices
again. Then the US producers start... and we are see/sawed again

I have no problem with taxing imported oil in an effort to keep the US
energy independent. This would allow the energy companies to keep prices
high and profit enough to continue research and development. The taxes
collected should go back to those being protected with the taxes, that
being the energy producers. Yes, give money to the oil companies, (the
effect of this is an over all reduction of the end price)

There are huge problems with this.

Government can not be trusted to keep the policy the same long enough
for CEO's to commit their funds.

Depending on the which producers get the windfall from the taxes
collected, there will be a Solindra or two.

The public would not like to see tax money go to those dirty rich oil
companies.

see/saw

Mikek


I'm disappointed, I didn't create any disagreement :-)



That's not a scientific conclusion. What you didn't generate was much
comment.