Nicole Elliott was on CNBC Europe in her usual time slot today.She believes that Brent Crude will go to $82 "quite quickly." I added the think red line across the top, so forgive the angle but I think there is some serious resistance that needs to be overcome before she can be correct.
Perhaps the support at the bottom of the channel is what is more important.
If she turns out to be correct we should expect some real problems with US stocks. Also this could mean severe weakness from the dollar from the standpoint of oil up/dollar down to maintain a global equilibrium. If the dollar goes up as well world stock markets that import a lot of oil, like Japan, could be worse off.
14 comments:
Japan is a world leader in energy efficiency with the U.S. only a little behind.
China is energy inefficient. They are going to get hurt.
Fred
The US has to embrace Diesels for trucks and Diesel/Hybrid/Plugin for cars. All the other technologies are too far off IMHO.
To avoid the problem, we'd have had to start investing like we are today 10 years ago. As a consequence, we will suffer high energy prices for at least the next 10 years. This is what happens when our government manages their elections rather than our best interests.
If I were President, there'd be a mandate to tear down the HQ of the EPA and build a refinery on that site. Iran would be an attraction similar to the grand canyon. Why I'm not running. ;)
My advice as a former GM design engineer... buy Diesels and high mileage gas engines. Buy plug-in hybrids if they service your driving range. Hydrogen and fuel cells are a pipe deram. Ethanol sounds good but keep in mind there is only 75% the energy in a gallon of Ethanol vs gasoline. Diesel is even better, as there is more energy in a gallon of Diesel fuel than a gallon of gasoline, and a Diesel engine runs on a non-stoichiomertric process meaning it uses more air than fuel and is again more efficient. Gas engines have been crippled in terms of mileage by the EPA, requiring a stoichiometric operating point to make the catalytic converter happy. They have in effect, pee'd away our oil to make it burn cleanly. We could have gotten another 50% out of our oil reserbes if the EPA hadn't limited emissions unnecessarily. I have seen and experienced the data personally. Thanks Uncle Sam!
So Dave, as a GM design engineer you bear at least partial responsibility for GM being the company it is today?
I don't remember cars of the pre catalytic converter days getting particularly good mileage.
The car I would like to see is a gas turbine hybrid with all electric drive. The gas turbone drives a generator. The generator and the battery power an electric motor. Doable and better than Diesel.
Go ahead and run on your record.
Fred
In other words...
The EPA mandated catalytic convertes that require the ideal mix of air and fuel that can be chemically converted to neutral gases. 14.7:1 air to fuel by mass.
Had they not meddled, we could have used 17:1 for mileage and 12:1 for power, and instead have had the goal as a minimal use of fuel. Now they sniff your pipes to make sure you are wasting fuel, and make you pay for the test.
I hope in the annals of history this monumental fraud that has been bestowed upon the public is exposed. Is the need to pee away oil somehow related to the ownership of oil companies? Hmmm who would that be?
Again my rant; can't see the forest for the trees. MTBE will contaminate our soil for decades. Mandated by the EPA. Mandated ethanol will raise our prices for decades. The govt is going to have to kabosh the EPA or we will be on bicycles and on foot. I agree in theory but you can't have beaurocratic morons at the helm. The supreme court has ruled the EPA does not have to take cost into account. What sounded good is going to be our downfall. They are not our friends and should be opposed at every turn IMHO.
:you bear at least partial responsibility for GM being the company it is today?
Maybe, but I left in '82 so don't hold feet to fire. Eliminated the Carb and permitted serious OD ratios for the first time.
:I don't remember cars of the pre catalytic converter days getting particularly good mileage.
True. But what we could have done with the use of microprocessor technology is optimize fuel economy and driveability (which in some measures was accomplished) instead of fighting the Don Quixote of misguided emissions policy. The EPA killed us in the 70's with NOx standards, lowering compression ratios. You need decent CRs for mileage.
:The car I would like to see is a gas turbine hybrid with all electric drive. The gas turbine drives a generator. The generator and the battery power an electric motor. Doable and better than Diesel.
I don't know much about gas turbines other than they make great Batman vehicles. But I never thought they were very efficient. If you like turbines, look at CPST.
:Go ahead and run on your record.
The national guard would be on the borders.
We need some more engineers who can recognize zinc and copper veins on the side of a crater.
And there would be a new branch chartered to save the dollar from collapse.
Menwhile, lets pee away a few more billion in expenses while GB flies around trying to make his case. Glad I sent in that check!
Wow
Ultimatly the market will sort this out. Although I for one would favor a tariff on imported oil. Each dollar spend on oil from the Islamic World is ultimatly spent on things that are detrimental to US interests.
IMHO the best thing going is Nuclear power combined with a massive upgrading of the energy grid to make it more effecient. A further buildout of railroads is also necessary.
Retrospectively, the EPA has been the root of most of what haunts us today. The voters approved this mess, and they got what they deserved. What will it take to undo this disaster?
The sooner people realize what a fraud the EPA is, the better off we all will be. You can reduce emissions by reduction of fuel consumption. That's what we need, not increased fuel consumption in the name of lowered emissions.
Their previous approach of reducing emissions at the disregard of fuel consumption only shows the simple minded, unqualified, rediculous standards that we have aurthorized our officials officials to implement. It's a total joke. The results speak for themselves. We should be ashamed we never took the time to understand what they were doing, and we never understood the chemistry and physics needed to make these decisions.
I hope all those CA folk liked paying all that money, and they still have air quality like %^+#.
Go to Shanghai fo a fresh breath.
CA is a joke.
Govt frisks grandmas at the airport; ignores militant border crossings from Mexico. How much of a joke of Fed Policy is needed?
I feel like a jackass for voting for them. What a fraud. Not to be repeated.
When ya get done calling me an idiot, you will realize this all is true.
Cramer warning:
Lately his recommendations are pure junk.
I'm dying from diabetes and I know.
What he's said is out of ignorance. Lets let the Cramer feel the pain and then I'll believe.
Do what you want. PR vs investment research.
db
See you in Hell!
Attempting to assign blame to the EPA for poor energy policy displays a remarkably poor grasp of governmental and regulatory fundamentals: EPA does not set policy, they are charged with implementing it based upon directives and leadership they are assigned.
Very short quiz:
(a) who sets federal policy?
(b) Who establishes directives and assigns leadership?
(a) Congress
(b) Executive branch
Vote smarter next time and quit blaming the peons.
I worked for an auto company in the early/ mid '70s as an engineer in vendor quality control. I got to see the ins and outs of lots of parts plants and processes. Fun times.
A little history for the non-automotive reader: When the emission standards first came out, the engineers said there was no way to meet those standards with an internal combustion engine and they were right.
So, it wasn't done with the engine; It was done with electronic controls. There wouldn't be ECUs without the emmissions requirements to drive the controls development and we would all still be doing our yearly tune ups of points and other fiddly bits. Cars are much better today.
Fred
People have gotten use to gasoline prices at current levels. But since we're ramping here in April, the driving season is still in front of us. I don't know if folks will squawk at $4 gasoline, but it could be coming.
Of course, if you put 12 gallons of fuel in your car every week this is just another $50 a month. How will folks adjust? Well... One example, parking at Pac Bell park is $25 a car. And the games are on TV.
The simplest way is to stop buying gas guzzling american cars. Hence the problems at GM and Ford.
For example the suzuki aerio gets 25/31. There is just a huge inventory of GM SUV's and misc guzzlers that no one wants to buy.
If ethanol has 75% of the energy of gasoline then cars just need bigger gas tanks. The problem of cellulose ethanol is nearly being solved.
The main reason that ethanol gets an explicit subsidy, is that oil has an implict subsidy from our foreign policy of ensuring cheap oil at any cost.
Different perspective here. What if we use a ton of oil until reserves in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia are depleted. How valuable would Alaska then become. By making cars more oil efficient, we prolong our dependence on people we don't trust or control.
Post a Comment