SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Rat's Nest - Chronicles of Collapse -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1409)8/1/2005 11:02:56 AM
From: Wharf Rat  Respond to of 24213
 
Oil Shock
Whiskey & Gunpowder
August 2nd, 2005 by Sean Brodrick
South Florida, U.S.A.

THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN what oil experts are saying and what oil is actually doing is widening to Grand Canyon proportions.

Recently, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries cut its forecast for growth in demand in the third and fourth quarters of 2005 by 600,000 barrels per day...the International Energy Agency lowered its fourth-quarter demand for OPEC oil by 700,000 barrels per day...and Morgan Stanley economists have flat out called oil a "bubble."

Sounds bearish for oil prices, right? Not so fast. What we can observe happening in the oil markets is actually very bullish for oil prices.

For example, bookings of supertankers for oil exports from the Middle East soared to the highest monthly level this year in July -- and shipping costs doubled along the way, according to Bloomberg. Oil production in Norway -- usually the No. 3 global exporter, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia -- has hit an 11-year-low...and China's oil-thirsty economy is humming along at 9.5% growth, shrugging off any and all efforts to slow it down.

These don't sound like the ingredients for lower demand or too much supply for me.

What's more, speaking of OPEC, the Saudis also recently told the world's leading industrial powers that OPEC will not be able to meet Western oil demand in 10-15 years. This was the first time -- ever -- that OPEC has made such an announcement.

Now consider this: What if OPEC is lowering its forecast in preparation for cutting its production quotas at its next meetings. Why would OPEC do that? Well, either it wants higher prices, or it sees difficulty in meeting current production levels starting as early as the third quarter. Either way, that's bullish for oil.

And if you think we'll be able to take care of our own energy needs ourselves without some drastic changes...think again. U.S. strategic oil reserves are equal to just 70 days of supply.

In fact, despite ratcheting back demand growth, the IEA still expects oil demand to rise to 85.9 million barrels a day by the fourth quarter of this year. That's higher than global refining capacity of about 84.5 million barrels per day. But the IEA has a history of being too optimistic -- the squeeze could come a lot sooner than Wall Street is willing to believe.

It's as if we're finally heading toward the end of the oil era. And the transition -- as we've seen at the pump recently -- may be a brutal one. The oil gauge is slowly moving toward empty...and the world's largest suppliers say they won't be able to fill us up again.

This is a core economic shift that will be an underlying trend in the financial markets -- and your daily life -- for decades. It is crucial that you understand the implications, the dangers, this shift represents.

We've seen oil crises before -- the last one most people remember is the 1973 oil embargo. But history is dotted with energy emergencies that make the oil shock of the

'70s look tame. Heck, Britain was hit hard by an "energy crisis" some 400 years ago. At the time, wood provided basic energy plus the charcoal needed to smelt iron. But the forests were quickly disappearing. Shortages got so bad that laws were passed restricting woodcutting.

Luckily, Britain made the switch to coal. Coal had been in limited use since Roman times, but when the wood shortage hit, coal was adopted to provide heat. Still, it took another century to learn how to make coke to smelt iron. The result helped spark the Industrial Revolution. In short, an energy crisis forced a seismic shift in the economy and society.

Today, we're facing another kind of energy crisis...

The largest declines in oil production last year occurred in the U.S., where output fell by 160,000 barrels a day, and in Britain, where output declined by 230,000 barrels a day. We're near the bottom of the barrel for many of America's oil fields.America imports 58% of its oil -- and we import more and more oil all the time. In fact, U.S. oil imports jumped 5.3% last year over 2003, versus a 5% rise for the world. So our dependency on oil from people who'd like to kill us is increasing, and increasing faster than the global average. The world's energy use is increasing rapidly. Global oil consumption grew by nearly 2.5 million barrels per day last year -- more than DOUBLE the 10-year average rate.Oil already pushed past the $60 mark recently, and financial markets initially plunged on the news. How will they react when oil breaks $70...$80...or Goldman Sachs' recently predicted $105 per barrel?
Most economists pull the 1970s oil crisis out as an example of how rising prices eventually crimp demand and send prices lower. But let me give you two reasons why it's different this time: China and India.

Over the last three years, China has accounted for over a third of the global increase in oil demand. As GDP increases, so does a country's oil use. And Chinese President Hu Jintao says China aims to quadruple its GDP, to $4 trillion, by 2020.

Already, China's and India's economies are roaring, and their energy use is ramping up, as their citizens are making the switch from bicycles to scooters to cars. Last year, more than 1 million cars were sold in India. Car sales there are roaring along at a 20% growth, and sales are expected to surge for another 10 years. Meanwhile, China is seeing auto sales grow by 16% a year, with 2.79 million cars and light trucks sold in the first half of this year alone. Newly mobile consumers in both countries will need oil and gas -- and lots of it.

Both these countries have roaring economies that use more and more oil every month. They are competing with the United States for global energy resources. This wasn't the case back in the last oil crunch. It could make this one drastically different.

Today's energy crisis is transforming the world -- from geopolitics to the financial markets to the gas pump to the price of 75% of everything you consume on a daily basis.

I'd like to be able to tell you that the U.S. government is doing everything it can to prepare for the coming energy emergency...but I can't. In fact, when I think about how little prepared this country is for the changes that are about to hit us, my hands automatically clench into fists.

Sincerely,
Sean Brodrick
Investment Director
The Sovereign Society

*****Here are some supplemental information links from Sean:

Seems like just last month (hey, it was last month!) that the Saudis said they'd pump all the oil we could want and then some. Now the Saudis are admitting there are limits.

Oil isn't the only energy source. Natural gas, nuclear, coal -- we'll need them all to get through the tough times ahead. We'll also need to learn from history. Here's a book that combines history and energy, Coal: A Human History.

Norway's oil output falls to an 11-year low. Norway's attitude: "What, me worry?".

The IEA says oil demand is to fall in the fourth quarter,

and to rise in 2006.

Morgan Stanley economist Andy Xie thinks oil prices may "collapse soon." He's basing it on slowing Asian demand. Good luck with that one, Andy...

Whiskey & Gunpowder is a free, twice-per-week, e-mail service brought to you by a team of rebellious brigands.
321energy.com



To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1409)8/1/2005 4:38:04 PM
From: SiouxPal  Respond to of 24213
 
This may help us to have computer access speeds that may astound us....
Publicly Owned Broadband Would Serve City Best
by David Morris and Becca Vargo Daggett
 
On June 27, the Supreme Court ruled that cable companies have the sole authority to decide who may use their high-speed communications networks. They can decide what information to transmit, and what information they will refuse to transmit.

The decision clears the way for the FCC to allow phone companies to monopolize their own information highways. And it underscores the need for communities to build their own information infrastructure.

Both cable and phone companies want to sign up as many Internet subscribers as possible because in the near future, phone, television and Internet will all be offered through the same broadband connection. The market is huge. If current trends continue, households will spend more on information services than on energy within a few years.

Since all information networks use or cross public spaces, our local governments are involved in decisions about the design and ownership of our information futures. In April, Minneapolis declared its intention to build a new, privately owned and operated, citywide broadband network. The network will create a citywide wireless cloud, and will require substantial and expensive upgrades to the city's fiber optic backbone. Within weeks, the City Council will vote on whether to enter contract negotiations with a single provider.

The city should reconsider its strategy. Minneapolis has learned from bitter experience what can happen when we depend on a single private provider for our information needs. The city's franchise agreement with Time Warner requires the company to make 25 percent of its network capacity available for city use. For more than a decade the city has asked the company to live up to that agreement. This May, the city finally filed suit.

We don't understand why Minneapolis would choose to depend on a private company for its future information system when it has suffered such grievances with private ownership of its existing one.

St. Paul is taking a more considered approach to planning a citywide broadband network. Both private and public ownership are on the table in a study to be completed later this year. The process has been open to the public and widely discussed.

More than 200 U.S. communities have chosen to build publicly owned information networks. In Minnesota these include Chaska, Buffalo, and Windom. Their citizens are overwhelmingly satisfied with the results.

Some cities sell retail services over their municipal networks. Others, like Philadelphia and Tempe, Ariz., have chosen to offer wholesale access. They lease space on the publicly owned network to many competing firms.

No city has built a network using the model chosen by Minneapolis, which resembles a cable franchise agreement.

Broadband networks are uniquely adapted to allow competition, because the infrastructure layer is easily separated from the service layer. Technology allows multiple service providers to transmit data along parallel channels in the network.

A community-owned network would not be a monopoly. The phone and cable companies would still provide their services. Because of the FCC's decisions, however, consumers will no longer be able to choose to have independent, locally owned companies deliver services over phone and cable lines to their homes. A community-owned network open to independent service providers may be the only way to ensure competition with their nationwide duopoly.

Minneapolis justifies its decision to opt for private ownership by indicating that the network will be built at no cost to taxpayers. But the system's construction cost will be paid by its customers, a significant portion of which will be city offices, police, fire, libraries, schools and hospitals. In fact, Minneapolis is offering itself as a major customer for the new private network.

The tide is turning in favor of municipal networks. Intel, Dell, Earthlink and other technology companies have come out in support of the McCain-Lautenberg Community Broadband Act, which would deny states the right to preempt local government broadband initiatives.

A community-owned system offers many benefits. The network and its services provide a yardstick against which to measure the effectiveness of privately owned networks. It keeps innovative small companies and their employees in Minneapolis. And, of most importance in the long term, it allows telecommunications customers a seat at the table as our communities elaborate their information futures.