>I'm leaning towards the promise of a good supply from the Gulf just announced. Not sure how real that is (so much is all smoke and daggers in the news and politics these days), but it sure sounded good. Add to that everything you mentioned...
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/05/oil.discovery.ap/index.html
>
Yes, I've heard about that and it does sound helpful... years from now.
And 270 miles out into the gulf may mean ownership "difficulties". What if it's in someone's territoril waters?


>I'm sure some countries are worried about it. Probably even in discussions behind the scenes in an attempt to slow the process down. In the past some projects never left the ground due to political pressure. Oil has been held over the U.S. as a bargaining chip since we became reliant on it from external sources. If the U.S. needed 50% less oil when production begins, some countries would be in sore shape - especially those whose wealth is based on oil exports...

Well I just don't believe that the oil companies share ANY objective that has anyone reducing their dependence on oil. Not in the least.
And this idea that poor but oil rich countries would worry is just a canard. They'll happily relent to pressure from oil companies to reduce their royalties if it ever came to that. And they don't get a whole lot as it is. Flowing oil is always preferable to 'it looks like it's there' oil.

The oil companies, I am convinced, are worried that the current (until a month ago) price of oil has justified investments in other sources of energy and motivated many smart people to work toward alternative energy sources. So they make the simple move of lowering prices and POOF - the justifications for these investments are out the window (i.e. defenestrated < s >) again. Exactly as happened at least tice before, in the early 1970s and again in the late 70s.

Because they wield this club so successfully it actually is folly for any enterprise to base its future success on a higher cost of crude. That can ONLY work for the oil companies themselves and then only when it comes to more oil.

I don't know what that new billions of barrels would mean if brought to production. But I do remember statements that the ANWAR oil discovery actually amounted to well less than 1 year's oil requirements for U.S. consumption at them prevailing consumption rates.


>
>http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34449
>http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2003/03/eife.htm
>
>
>
>>I think the more interesting question is WHY is the price of gas down (about a buck less per US gallon here than a month ago)!
>>
>>Being an oil conspiracy theorist I believe it has to do with too much pressure, with REAL ACTIONS being contemplated, to get away from oil.
>>There is too much danger that too much money will be poured into projects to REPLACE oil, so big oil has to get the pressure off.
>>
>>If we take into account all of the poor poor reasons of the past for raising the price THERE IS NO LOGICAL REASON WHY THE PRICE SHOULD BE LOW NOW.
>>- Prudhoe Bay is still at half capacity;
>>- Iraq is not producing as needed;
>>- Iran's supply is in jeopardy because of various factors;
>>- gulf coast refineries are still below pre-Katrina capacities;
>>- etc.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I'll say. They're down 40-50 cents/gallon around here. And I heard on the radio today that the price of crude oil dropped over a dollar today.
>>>
>>>Of course, that all goes out the window if we are dumb enough to attack Iran, which the hawks in the administration want to.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Well, gas prices ARE coming down.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It's simple really. Don't wait, just buy a HUMMER NOW. :o)