Jump to content

Talk:2000s energy crisis/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

More bias

While a number of editors have courageously tried to make this article worthwhile and neutral, I am afraid the subject itself is loaded with potential biases and edit wars, which make it a frustrating task for the editor ; still, in its current state it is interesting, from a repository POV, as it shows quite well the POV of the US citizen during this decade.

Now if you want to make it a bit more NPOV, you might look at the following items :

  • the words "Iraq" and "Gulf war" are not even present : explaining this decade oil prices without even hinting at the Gulf war is stunning, and the fact that it has not been done, in spite of the action of a large number of editors, is extremely meaningful
  • the OPEC impact is hardly explained : while this organization was instrumental in lowering oil prices in the 80s, it is now pushing prices up. When did that kick in ?
  • the general upwards trend of most commodities is hardly quoted
  • the speculation has not been properly factored in : it is necessary to pinpoint the exact time when high speculation kicked in, and its added influence on the barrel price. This can be done by simply showing the transaction numbers.
  • while the title says "since 2003", the actual explanations only start from 2005
  • from a simple look at the curves, it seems that the continuous upwards trend starts from 2001 or 2002 ; beginning the analysis in 2003 is, by itself, POV.

All constructive comments appreciated :).--Environnement2100 (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Time span

2003 ?: I agree with the need to start this article with American military actions in the golf (2001-2002),as already state. Start this aticle in 2003 seems strange to me too, and since price data on the web often just provide the 3 last years, it's possible that article start in 2003, and several graphs start in 2005 because former autors didn't found data on the web before these years. [that's a possibility]. If that's the case : it's a misleading start.
Crude oil prices, 1996-2007 (not adjusted for inflation)
Actually, throughout 2001 there was a nearly constant price drop (including throughout Q4), and prices started rising again in Q1 of 2002. Looking at the data, there's nothing really out of the ordinary until the end of Q3 2003, when the prices start a sharp upward trend not seen before (though some may make a case for Q1 2002, or even Q1 1999). I'd say it looks like Iraq may have had more of an effect than 9/11 (causal or indirect, eitherway). NJGW (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I now remember that I already seen, some where, a such graph, and I associated the Afghanistan War and 2002 Q1 as the beginning of the rise.
For this image, I think it should be include into the article. In fact, why it is not yet in the introduction ?210.203.62.182 (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I just made the image using the data from the website and Openoffice. I still can't figure out how to get the dates to show up correctly, so I don't consider the image article worthy. NJGW (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
oh... ok. You can ask help to the graphists of the Graphic Lab, and if you join this source :Oil Price History and Analysis and this image (they are other such image for other periods), graphist may produce an amazingly clear graph. ;]210.203.62.182 (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's not a photoshop problem, but a limitation of the database software I'm using to generate the image. Maybe you can pursued Jpo who made this image using the same data I used to expand it back a few years. I just don't have the right software to do it (I tried with SPSS, but it runs out of memory when I include the dates... I guess it's not meant for so many non-averaged datapoints). NJGW (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this time span makes it easier to see the events in perspective ; the graph comes in handy if you add a few numbers over it to pinpoint some geopolitical events, such as 9/11, Afghan war, Gulf war, Beginning of Lebanese war, end of Lebanese war, beginning of Iran threat, etc.--Environnement2100 (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

US dollar

US($) bias: I personally think that an US bias is "not avoidable" since oil barrel price are always and everywhere in US$.
As I said (and started to do, see sections upper : World view ; Further data need), a good thing to take down this bias is to express Barrel price in local currencies, and to look at oil barrel price rise in these local currencies.
It's need to freed this article to its too strong link to US$. 210.203.62.182 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Right now the dollar bias is addressed in theOil_price_increases_since_2003#The_effect_of_dollar_value.2C_exchange_rates_and_metals paragraph : we could separate the "metals" subject from the "dollar" subject, to me they act independently. In both cases, a good graph is worth a thousand words.This paper explains a lot in both matters, unfortunately its graphs are of poor quality.--Environnement2100 (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Speculation kick in

This graph shows that speculation started as of september 2006, and never stopped afterwards, as you can see from the level of transactions.--Environnement2100 (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

European_fuel_taxes

I just read this paragraph : Oil_price_increases_since_2003#European_fuel_taxes This part is totally away from reality, here is why. After the 1st and 2nd oil shocks, many European countries, which produced little or no oil, had to face increasing oil bills. They embarked into :

  • gas conservation policies (spurred low consumption cars, speed limits)
  • high taxes on gasoline.

The purpose of these taxes is primarily to deter the motorist from wasting gas, not to serve as a cushion against the market. Today, these taxes lead to sizeable amounts, which cannot be tampered with in the course of a fiscal year - a budget law is a budget law. Today in Europe, gas is close to an all-time high, taxes do not budge. This whole paragraph should be cancelled.--Environnement2100 (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. You did not "just read this paragraph", you read it at least a month ago and hadthis reaction to it.
  2. The facts laid out in the paragraph are directly supported by the sources, and so it shouldn't "be canceled".
  3. What you say may be relevant, but you must show sources which state your position and include the information, rather than wholesale deletion of paragraphs you don't agree with.
NJGW (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I confirm that the source present in the text does say that governments resist against lowering the taxes. The price of gasoline in the different European countries can be checked daily, and no, it does NOT go down.
Also, the Gasoline usage and pricing proves that the taxes in European countries are still way higher than anywhere else. Lastly, this part of the article, quote :
such price shocks could potentially be mitigated in the many developed countries which have
high fuel taxes by temporarily or permanently suspending these taxes as fuel costs rise
is a forward-looking statement, contrary to WP:Not A Crystal Ball
NJGW, your behavior by itself explains why this article is in the present state.--Environnement2100(talk) 13:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Have you heard the phrase "beating a dead horse"? The sources say it's been done before, some people want it done again, and other taxes are being cut. Got a source (a good one, that actually says what you're claiming), add it. Otherwise I consider this discussion over. NJGW (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Who's the dead horse ? This sentence still is false.--Environnement2100 (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal transportation

The article ended with a specific reference to teleworking as a mitigation strategy, I have put an internal link to "Transportation Demand Management" (the general term of which teleworking is a subset) upfront. I think this is consistent with the view set out below that this is a global issue, different options are viable in different situations, and value judgements are unhelpfulTravelplanner (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The following sentence :

For the working class, those whose sallaries are too low to cover inflated prices, there become several alternatives to personal transportation - public transportation, carpooling, motorcyces, scooters, bicycles or walking. When these are not viable options, families may relocate into inner city areas to find work or transportation.

is not justified. The working class, which has a house one hour away from their jobs, cannot and will not relocate closer to their offices because of the higher price of housing. Now the idea of "walking" to their office is indeed strange. This whole part has no ref.--Environnement2100 (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how it is in France, but the working class in the US don't work in offices, don't own their homes, tend to migrate towards inner cities (whether because of transportation costs or otherwise), and often walk to work (7.5 million from all incomes walk to work in the US, so it's hard to think of that as "strange"). I've seen much of the same in many other countries. If you say things are different in Paris, please give us a source. NJGW (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Recentism tag, or Why does this article exist?

As somebody who wandered into this from Category:2008, I have to wonder why this article exists. I could understand it if this were one of a series of articles that discussed oil prices by era, but this seems to be unique and arbitrary. (The closest analogue is Oil price increase of 1990, a stub with no sources and dubious reasons for existing). From the history, it appears to have started out to document a specific "crisis" in 2005 but has since spiralled out of control. I suggest that it either 1) be scaled back to it's original purpose or 2) a whole series of articles be created to deal with the full history of the price of petroleum. As it now stands, the very premise, existence and title of this article appear to be POV. Pairadox(talk) 18:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles discussing oil prices by era

1980s oil glut, 1979 energy crisis, 1973 energy crisis, Category:History of the petroleum industry --NJGW (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Each of the articles you point out are a about a specific "crisis" that existed in a specific point in time, my first suggestion "on how to improve this article." That appears to be the way this article started. The category (which this article isn't in, BTW) has articles that cover specific periods of time; a year (1985 world oil market chronology), a decade (1990-1999 world oil market chronology), my second suggestion. It's interesting to note that the annual articles STOP about the time this article was created. Pairadox (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll quote you "I could understand it if this were one of a series of articles that discussed oil prices by era." Looks to me like it is. Maybe we should put them together in a portal, give them better names, do some fact checking... I just don't see how that equates to needing to delete this article. NJGW (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I didn't find that category when I was looking for similar articles. (Don't get me started on categorization schemes.) To be fair, I didn't advocate for the deletion of the article; my suggestions were to alter/improve it. Bringing it into line with the existing naming scheme, limiting it's focus and/or expanding it would do that. Pairadox (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we definitely agree that a lot of work remains to be done. I can't think of a good naming scheme for the articles in this series though. Any suggestions folks? NJGW (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Title POV? and other POV questions

POV in what way? What view point do you have a problem with? That's an easily addressed issue if we know more about the problem, but I don't see what problem you could possibly have with saying the price of oil went up from 2003 'til now. When the price stops it's 5 year trend, then some one will move the article to the proper title. NJGW (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
POV in that, by virtue of it's title, it presents the hypothesis that something started in 2003 that has led to oil pricesonly going up. That's not even an accurate claim, if the graphs in the article are to be believed. Why not "oil price fluctuations" or "oil price timeline?" Those are neutral terms, even if they don't fit the annual or decade naming schemes.Pairadox (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Prices fluctuate, true. They go up and down by a fairly predicable pattern throughout the year, they sometimes follow sometimes lead the stockmarket, and are subject to other factors as well. However, looking at the image on the right, there's a trend that'shard impossible to ignore. It's going up at a fairly steady and quick pace, not seen since the 73 and 79 energy crisies. People naturally want to know why, so this article tries to address the issue. Because it's a fact that prices are going up, it's neutral to call the period of prices "price increases". NJGW (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
But why start with 2003? Why not 1999? It's the starting date more than anything else that seems arbitrary and POV. Looking just at that graph, a strong case could be made that it started four years before the article begins it's accounting. But I see that as an easy fix; change the name of the article to 2000-2010 world oil timeline (to match the other by-decade articles), adjust the text to match and voilà! problem solved. Pairadox (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually it was 2004 until the beginning of this month. I think the strongest case can be made for Q3 2003 as the beginning of an UNUSUAL trend, though I did point out the 1999 issue to someone a few weeks ago. The problem with 1999 is that it's followed by a very familiar looking down-cycle, which 2003 doesn't have. Because of that I think 2003 (or maybe 2004) is OK to leave until the the media or public consciousness provides a better name for it (which might take a few years). At that point it won't be a current event, and we can understand it better from an historical perspective. As far changing the name to fit the "world oil timeline" series (those are lists by the way, not articles), would you make the same suggestion for the "73 crisis", which is on the same scale monetarily (can't say what the ultimate economic effects are because a. governments are reacting differently and b. industries are reacting differently and c. even that "crisis" took years to fully unfold). NJGW (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Recentism

WP:Recentism "is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." The "ability of Wikipedia to record and synthesize the events of the day may be valuable to those in the future who seek to understand the history of this time period. In other words: 'if we don't make sense of it today, someone else will struggle to make sense of it tomorrow.'" "[T]he excessively detailed new articles also serve a valuable "honeypot" purpose in attracting readers and attention to Wikipedia." NJGW (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
"Allegations of recentism should prompt consideration of proportion, balance, and due weight. Material may need to be moved, removed, or added." "Recentism in the first sense—established articles that are bloated with event-specific facts at the expense of longstanding content—is usually considered one of Wikipedia's faults." "When editing articles dealing with contemporary subjects, Wikipedians ought to carefully consider whether they are regurgitating media coverage of an issue, or actually adding information which will remain salient over time. Unneeded content may be eliminated later, but a cluttered approach to article development may degrade article quality and a coherent orientation may not always be salvageable." Pairadox (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It can't be both a current event and an historical event. This article happens to be a current event, so I really don't see what the point of calling it "too recent" is. It's not a regurgitation of the media coverage (as Heath_ledger#Death orResults of the 2008 Republican presidential primaries are), but an attempt to contextualize the current trend in the most important commodity in the world. I'm sure the article will change greatly over the coming years, but for now it's useful in the types of information it tries to bring together. NJGW (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to have been started as a result of dramatic increases that started in 2005, and the lede and history sections still reflect that. In this respect it has a legacy as a "current" event, but, the way it has morphed over the years, it now attempts to cover a historical trend that began before 2005. This is why I say that it should be scaled back to it's original intent, to cover the sudden deviation from the rate of inflation, or be expanded to cover the entire decade.Pairadox (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
There are definitely valid arguments above to include more context from the rest of the decade and around the world. Once we have some decent historians begin to look at the decade in that way, it will be much easier to frame this article better. Right now we're stuck with current events or WP:OR. NJGW (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This article was created to take the "recentist" slant out of the Price of petroleum article. How well it has succeeded is apparently an issue in your eyes. NJGW (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup, the price of petroleum article has problems also; from a straight read of that article, petroleum didn't have a price until the 1967 Oil Embargo. Pairadox (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, looking at the 100 year history of oil prices shows that it only changed with the value of the dollar until the early 70s, but if you want you can add that information to the article. I just don't see how anything more than a sentence or two that would give any information more useful than the graph already gives. Also, that graph shows 3 historical price increases worth noticing: 1973, 1979, and 2003. NJGW (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, discussions about that article should take place on it's page, but a brief overview of pre-1973 prices could only be a good thing. Pairadox (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed and agreed. NJGW (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the intention of the "slanted toward recent events" tag (which I just removed), my first response to it was to laugh. It's an article...titled "Oil price increases since 2003"...and it's slanted toward recent events? You don't say! The editor who placed the tag and another main editor of the article seem to be in communication, so they don't need the tag. It did serve as a flag to readers in general that something about this article doesn't meet Wikipedia ideals, but what exactly that shortcoming is was not at all clear. Maybe there's a better tag? Eleven even (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Currency comparison needed

Given the substantial change in the value of the US dollar over this period, this article really needs a graph showing the price of oil in dollars, euros, and yen, for comparison.
—WWoods (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed quite a bit above. The main problem is factoring in purchasing power of each currency over the same time period. I tried to get some economists in here to comment, but had no luck. If you can figure out a way to display the issues accurately go ahead, but please read the previous discussions first. NJGW (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This section keeps getting attacked. Here is the text that was just removed by an anon IP first time editor with no edit summeries:

The 'price of oil' refers to the value of two inputs - oil and the US Dollar. Since 2001 the US Dollar has seemed to lose value against most heavily traded currencies and commodities, however the purchasing power of the dollar has not decreased proportionately.[1] This means that the amount (of electronics or food for example) that a dollar buys has not changed significantly in relation to the amount a euro or pound will buy. In addition, by comparing the price of oil in various currencies to the fluctuations in the exchange rates of those currencies it is clear that oil price is no more significantly correlated to the value of the dollar than to any other currency. This also holds true for the in a comparison of oil price to gold price.[2] Similarly, since the early 1970s, the price of oil has been negatively correlated to the value of the dollar, suggesting that the price of oil has more of an effects on the value of the dollar than visa versa. As developed economies are heavily dependent on oil for industrial purposes, this correlation would affect most currency values.[3]

It was exchanged with:

The 'price of oil' refers to the value of two inputs - oil and the US Dollar. Since 2001 the US Dollar has lost value against most heavily traded currencies and commodities. Although oil has risen against the Euro since 2001, it has risen more against the US Dollar during that time. For example, from July 2006 to October 2007, although oil rose against the US Dollar, it declined against the Brazilian Real and the Australian Dollar. [4]

Given that this is an issue that keeps coming up, and comes up in various other articles as well, I don't see why sourced material is being removed. Folks keep asking the questions that the removed material tries to address. Do people think that the removed material misrepresents the actual situation, or that it shouldn't be in this article? In my opinion, it addresses what many try to claim is one cause of the change in oil price (which seems a simplistic answer as some of the erased sources point out). NJGW (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Iran

There has to be some mistake in this text, if you compare it with "oil reserves". Contradiction!!: oil reserve says: "Iran had the world's second largest reserves of conventional crude oil at 136 gigabarrels as of 2007, although it ranks third if Canadian reserves of non-conventional oil are included. This is roughly 10 percent of the world's total proven petroleum reserves. Iran is the fourth largest oil producer in the world and is OPEC's second-largest producer after Saudi Arabia. As of 2006 it was producing an estimated 3.8 million barrels per day (bbl/d), equal to 5 percent of global production.[22] At 2006 rates of production, Iran's oil reserves would last 98 years if no new oil was found."

this text says: Particularly significant are Indonesia, which no longer exports oil, Mexico and Iran, where projected demand will exceed production in about 5 years, and Russia, which is growing rapidly.

Iran cannot exceed production in about 5 years if it has still oil reserves lasting for about 98 years.85.3.141.240 (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)LA

See Export Land Model. Iran is not an uninhabited wasteland that exports all the oil it pumps. Instead Iran has a large and growing population. Iranians want to consume more oil like everybody else. All petroleum-exporting nations have their own internal demand growth. That's why their exports must fall if their production does not increase. This already happened in Indonesia, where demand growth exceeded production and turned the country from a net exporter to a net importer of petroleum. One by one this will occur in every oil-exporting country. That's why the world's biggest importer of oil - the United States - is in avery precarious position. And yet most people in the U.S. want to keep living (i.e. driving) as if it's still the 1950s when the U.S. was the world's biggest oil exporter. --Teratornis (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It would then be logical for the U.S. government to encourage and assist oil-exporting nations to spend their windfall oil profits on renewable energy and energy conservation projects which could decrease their domestic demand for oil, leaving more for the export market. Instead, we try to sell them the suburban U.S. lifestyle, with superhighways, shopping malls, automobiles, etc. --Teratornis (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted

Some clown changed 'oil to 'poop' in the intro - fixed and reworeded intro to suit the title better.217.35.93.182 (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:DENY. --Teratornis (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

OPEC

why is their barely any reference to OPEC in this article? when disucssing (what's supposed to be) a free trading commodity would it not make sense to include the impact of the cartel who controls the vast majority of world production? They have been for years known to be driving the price of oil up with cooperation from Big Oil in the USA. remember the target price of $30/barrel just 4 years ago? Whats the most recent target? >$75? OPEC is probably the single largest factor in the current price of oil by their reluctance or refusal to add additional capacity to the system. How much has the output capacity of this group increased in the last 10 years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macutty (talk • contribs) 14:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

See 1980s oil glut and Matthew Simmons. OPEC lost much of its cohesiveness and thus its market power in the 1980s due to the rise of non-OPEC oil producers such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Mexico. However, the U.K. and Mexico have peaked and are in decline. Matthew Simmons and other petroleum analysts doubt that OPEC nations are able to increase production much. One OPEC nation - Indonesia - has actually become a net importer of oil. Since we know petroleum is going to run out eventually, as long as demand keeps going up, the price must go through the roof at some point. If OPEC were to pump their remaining oil faster, the eventual petrocollapse would only be more catastrophic, as the inevitable production decline would be steeper, and from a position of higher world oil dependence. The more oil humans use, the more they want to use next year. It has been this way since the modern oil industry started in the 1800s. World population has exploded, enabled by cheap petroleum which lowered food prices until recently. All that growth was based on an unsustainable illusion of unlimited fossil fuel. Now we have a serious problem, and it's too big for Saudi Arabia to magically pump us out of. Note that OPEC cannot just come right out and admit that they are unable to increase production; for a variety of political and business reasons they must pretend to be in control of their fate. In any case, the article probably does not over-emphasize OPEC because OPEC has not been in charge of oil prices since the 1979 energy crisis. OPEC did not engineer the price rise, although the boom in OPEC oil wealth creates a positive feedback loop: as incomes rise in OPEC nations, their citizens tend to spend more money on fuel and products that take petroleum to manufacture and ship. This decreases the oil surplus in OPEC nations which they can export to importers like the U.S. See: Export Land Model. In any case, Hubbert peak theory is to the oil market like Neo-Darwinism is to biology: nothing in the respective domains makes sense except in light of the respective theory. That is, to someone who doesn't know anything aboutevolution, biology is a very confusing subject, but everything fits as soon as we learn what Darwin discovered and several generations of biologists have since extended. Similarly, people who don't understand Peak oil will just end up talking nonsense about oil markets and prices, as they tend to mistake the many effects of peak oil for causes of each other. --Teratornis (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
OPEC still produces about 36% of the world's oil and 2/3rds of its oil reserves, or at least they claim to. More importantly, compared to the US, the North Sea etc, they have relatively low production to reserve ratios, suggesting (if they aren't hugely inflating their reserves) that they are relatively young oil provinces, capable of not only producing more (with further investment) but producing for a considerable time into the future. Saudi Arabia, for example, is expected to pump 1.24% of its claimed reserves this year, while the US is expected to pump 8.5% of its reserves. The US is able to do this because of a huge number of "stripper wells" pumping very low volumes. Saudi Arabia doesn't rely on such a system and instead produces out of a relatively small number of very productive wells. In his book, Simmons claims that Saudi Arabia is unable to increase its production through increased infrastructure. For all I know he's right, but the fact that America can produce 1.8 billion barrels of oil per year with 21 billion recoverable barrels in the ground makes me suspect is is possible for Saudi Arabia, with reportedly 260 billion recoverable barrels in the ground, to produce more than 3.2 billion barrels per year, as they do now. The big question seems, to me, if OPEC members are significantly overstating their reserves, which is very possible, and to what degree. No comment on the comparison to evolution... TastyCakes (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Peak_oil#Concerns_over_stated_reserves (suggesting that OPEC reserves are highly overstated), Talk:Oil reserves (LONG discussions about reserves, lots of issues discussed), one important post to answer to some of your questions:[1]. 98.235.103.32 (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember having any questions, at least not ones I think can be answered by Wikipedia (or anyone with authority) and the edit you point to says pretty much what I did above. But yes, other pages contain much more in depth discussion on the matter. But I think my point stands: Simmons is not necessarily correct, and there are certainly people that doubt his assertions for credible reasons. And I doubt even Simmons would disagree that even if Saudi Arabia only has a half or a quarter of their booked reserves, with a US level of infrastructure they could probably boost their production, at least for a while. TastyCakes (talk) 05:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought "The big question seems, to me, if OPEC members are significantly overstating their reserves, which is very possible, and to what degree," looked like two questions. The discussions linked to also point out that SA may not be in as a good a position as many people think (according to Rocky Mountain Guy). 98.235.103.32 (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Didn't mean to be catty... I would consider those questions unanswerable. The world just doesn't have the data to confirm or deny the reserves of those countries, so although we can find the increases highly suspect we can know nothing for sure. In some cases, the countries may not know themselves. Rocky Mountain Guy points out that the US production is possible because of the preponderance of stripper wells, which I completely agree with (I was taught that using pump off switches was undesirable because it puts more stress on the pump jack and rods and is just done because people are too lazy to gear down the pump jacks to a slow enough rate, but that's not really relevant). Note that US oil production peaked at about 3.5 billion barrels per day around 1970, a higher rate than Saudi Arabia has ever achieved despite it having huge reserves (and no one questions that they are huge, just how huge). TastyCakes (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed some external links and removed the word "sources" from the section title. If anyone thinks some of the links were important sources to the article, here is the list before I got to it:

NJGW (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Are we right with the causes ?

This section has been touched quite a few times recently, and seems to state with total confidence, that we know a) that there is increased demand in the world, due to use by China and India, and b) that OPEC is deliberately holding short on production it could activate instantly.

Given in the sections above we are v. careful to say that various commentators suggest, rather than condone any view point, it seems odd to dive in with such a simple pair of causes for what is actually a very murky matter. Sources I have seen, and tried to quote before they are were deleted suggest 1) world crude oil consumption, and therefore the demand, as constrained by price, is no longer rising more or less flat, and has been for at least a couple of years, rising far more lowlyt that world population. (supply equals demand minus perhaps stores layed by, of course if it were free then demand would rise to be infinite, but that is not the point.) (and be aware that some " all liquids' graphs are conflated by biofuels and other non-traditional sources, correct for predicting the price, as alternatives can be burnt too, but wrong for assessing the trend for traditional oil field production.) 2) Historically the OPEC producers have never been constrained by their official quotas, preffering to make a quick buck if the price is right. Now to suggest they are holding back when the price has never been higher, as if that is what they always do, and so not worthy of comment, is misleading in extremis..

I think to suggest they may be either "unwilling or unable" to supply more is more accurate, as it gives the possibility that actually, they may be close to max flow already, with little room to open the taps any wider - or you need to explain a very sudden change of heart in the face of a chance to make a killing. In either case, some more explaining is needed, or move it to the ' some commentators suggest' category. Also as of recently Russia seems to be the worlds no 1 supplier by volume, if you allow for its internal market, Saudi is only the no1 exporter - a subtle change of position, and a distinction that maybe shows the way things are going -the traditionally strong OPEC clique may be losing the ability to set the pace, whatever they may want - this too needs to be captured. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 213.123.216.147 (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You raise some very good points. With your question, "Are we right about the causes?" how can we know? All we're really allowed to do is repeat what's in reliable sources. That said:
  1. Here's data from IEA showing steadily increasing demand from 2004 to 2008 (you'll see the past two years of quarters show the annual winter rise-and-fall). What specific liquid (conventional, non-conventional, bio-fuel) this demand is filled with I don't think matters as much (oil is a commodity, and the source doesn't change the end product).
  2. China and India are the big examples of oil market growth held up by lots of sources. Their populations apparently want to emulate the Western lifestyle, and this means lots of cars and throw-away plastic.
  3. It's according to OPEC that they are choosing not to raise their production. They actually claim they could if they wanted. Some commentators do point to this and suggest it proves they're running out of oil, but then again if they think we'll keep paying $130 vs. $50 if they cranked out 4% more each day...
All this being said, I agree with what you're saying, but care needs to be taken to keep out original research. Let's try to work something out here to fix the article. What text do you suggest? NJGW (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Very Fair points - I'm wary of Opec's own data on its own, some opec members have recently suggested that OPEC doesnt really control the price as much as they used to, which could be interpreted to say " we don't have much slack" more generally in the past some of its memebers have done very funny things with quotas and published production figures, and have had an elastic agreement with the truth, that cannot be reconciled with other data, as reported by other observers like petrologistics (who themselves answer ot their paymasters, so its not all that clear that they are impartial either.) In any case, they have been happy to over produce and undercut each other, and a collective action not to, for the first time in many decades, seems perhaps less likely than at least the possibility that they are actually having problems filling the tankers. In the absense of a solid second source, I'd still suggest something like "unwilling or unable to increase production", indicating the doubt that surrounds this. Actually, as ofJune 2008, the cuases section seems to have dissappeared, and been mergen in line in a much more readble way. - As I see it the problem is fixed, as it no longer gives the weight of a sepoarsate heading to suggest that china and OPEC as being sole causes. Mike, coming back after a few weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by213.123.201.126 (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is little doubt that Chinese import more oil than they used to, and this affects the global price, particularly, as it now means a recession in the west is no longer guaranteed to bring world demand down. I'm not sure this is the dominant cause for the price to rise however- if resources were not stretched, more would be pumped to match their new consumption. As it appears to me however, the price appears to rise, and two things happen, smaller countries get priced out, and non conventional oil is subsituted where it can be, until demand for conventional oil falls to meet whatever can be pumped this month. China is a factor, sure, because supply is not there to meet what its demand would be if unconstrained, but not a cause. I'd say the main cause of rising prices is an apparent inability of supply to rise to meet potential demand. Contributing factors are increasing demand from the expanding economy in China, and the ever expanding population in India, and similar effects in many smaller countries. I do think Biofuels are something else, and are useful to separate out in the figures, as requiring a longer manufacturing process. Arguably crude oil, which, in places like the middle east at least, you just inject water and it bubbles up, and can be separated from the sands and water mixed in is just easier.. The point being that biofuels involve more raw material and labour, and are inherantly more expensive - or put otherwsie, at different price steps will take over more or less of the load from conventional oil. Something similar is true of tar sands. However, OPEC make neither biofuels or tar sand oil in any quantity, so if we want to say something meaningful about OPEC, we probably ought to look at figures for conventional crude (and condensate)production, rather than "all liquids". regards Mike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by213.123.201.126 (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to find a reliable source that tries to compute how much biofuels are keeping down the price of petroleum. It's popular to blame biofuels for the 2007–2008 world food price crisis, but higher oil prices also drive up the cost of food, since modern agriculture is, in a sense, a system for using soil to convert petroleum into food. It would be interesting to see how high food costs would go in the absence of biofuels, due to even higher oil prices. I think the Wall Street Journal had something about this. Perhaps I will study these Google search results later: biofuels oil price food and biofuels oil price food Wall Street Journal. --Teratornis (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's one that gives a clue:
  • Johnson, Keith (2008-05-23). "Cereal Killer: Don't Blame Biofuels for Food Prices, New Study Says". blogs.wsj.com (Wall Street Journal). Retrieved 2008-06-06.
--Teratornis (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory developing world statements

The following two statements appear to be contradictory:

"Noted peak oil proponent Matthew Simmons predicts a rise to $300 a barrel or higher by 2013 as oil production continues to uncontrollably fall and demand continues to remain high, especially in China and India, which are not as affected by higher oil prices as the developed world.[72]"

"High oil prices are likely to first affect less affluent countries, particularly the developing world, with less discretionary income." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.3.62.227(talk) 00:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. The second part of your first quote is never addressed in that source, so I removed that portion of the sentence. Looks like it got garbled along the way, or someone was messing around with us. NJGW (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the "not as affected" comment refers to fuel subsidies in India and China. See: Gasoline and diesel usage and pricing#Countries with subsidised gasoline. The effect of fuel subsidies would be to partly shield end-users of fuel from higher oil prices, but the governments providing the subsidies would of course feel the price increase. If oil prices rise high enough, eventually those governments will be unable to continue the subsidies, and the backlash from their citizens may be that much worse, as the citizens conditioned to artificially low fuel prices will not be as efficient in their fuel use habits as citizens of other countries who felt the price increases sooner. --Teratornis (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Some references about fuel subsidies:
--Teratornis (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Seasonal references

This article is full of seasonal references being used to describe time periods. This is a violation of the Manual of Style (see:Wikipedia:SEASON). The price of oil is of global significance, and is NOT a phenomenon that is exclusively linked to the Northern Hemisphere. The use of Northern Hemisphere seasons in this article is therefore contraindicated by the MOS.

Specific issues (including those seasonal references that are OK but just need clarification):

  • surpass $75 in the summer of 2006 - prefer "middle of 2006"
  • The early and mid-summer 2006 runup - prefer "mid-2006"
  • including continuing supply disruptions from the summer 2005 hurricane season - OK, but may need to be clarified, eg:northern summer or North Atlantic.
  • anticipation of higher summer demand. Where is this demand?
  • the winter of 2004/2005 Different wording is recommended here, unless there is a clear link to the winter season that is explained in the article.
  • due to rising stockpiles of crude oil and an abnormally warm winter. Best to clarify this to "northern winter". It may also be prudent to mention where the winter was warmer than usual - USA? Canada? Europe? East Asia?
  • the spring of 2008 - Prefer "early 2008"
  • The early spring 2006 runup in prices - A specific month may be better here (March?)
  • 18% of Gulf Coast supplies were still off-line in spring '06 A statistic like this requires citation so it can be checked and the wording of the article adjusted to comply with MOS. Otherwise delete "spring" or substitute a month name from primary sources. Also, there is no need for "'06" because there is no pressing need to abbreviate the year here. Prefer "2006".

-- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 06:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Northern Hemisphere View?

"This article or section deals primarily with the Northern Hemisphere and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject". Petroleum is creating problem also in the southern hemisphere, including world food crisis , high fertilizers prices.... One would create an article about 2008 World Petroleum Crisis --Mac (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Effects" has subsections for all geographic regions, so if anyone wants to chase up data from Korea, India, etc, it can go right there. Mporter (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
See previous section for the reason why the article was tagged as being northern-centric. Not only did the article have few perspectives outside of North America and Europe, it had nothing south of the equator even though fuel prices are risingeverywhere. In particular, the article was using seasonal references in place of dates, which for an event of global significance is strongly contraindicated by the MOS, see WP:SEASON. I have modified or removed the remaining contentious dates. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 05:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Really it is recognized as a world petroleum crisis. So, if you have removed the contentious dates, I am going to remove the tag. --Mac (talk) 06:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I have removed what looked like the last Northern-centric season word and then I removed the tag. If there are others please give details.-84user (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)By remove, I meant add "northern" to it.-84user (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Length of article

The article is getting rather long. Should we split it, and if so, how should this be done? -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 05:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree - it never was particularly readable, and it sems to serve two distinct masters,
  1. Those who like the economic view and want a blow by blow account of the oil price every time it rises and falls by a cent, and the funny things various commentators said and predicted the price would do at the time, (and prices in countries coould go there too/) and
  2. those who wish to discuss in broader terms the changes in the behaviour of oil prices in the last few years, trying to put this in to a historical and social context, and to discuss the general effects this is having on societies around the world, and the casues mitigations thereof.
As I'm probably in the second camp, I'd support a breakaway of Oil and Petrol (gasoline) Prices - A more detailed record(perhaps keeping the history graph and the 2003 and latest few prices in with the discussion in main article.) Its clearly not going to get shorter any time soon except by doing sometihng like this.
What do you reckon? I'm happy to be shot down - it usually happens. Mike —Preceding unsignedcomment added by 217.35.93.182 (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I definitely agree with this. The whole history part goes in an article similar to 1990-1999 world oil market chronology, while the rest should eventually become Energy crisis of 20XX. NJGW (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
We could easily split this into two articles: Oil price increases since 2003 (or History of oil price increases since 2003)and Consequences of oil price increases since 2003, maybe even something so simple as Causes of oil price increases since 2003 and Effects of oil price increases since 2003 .--Loodog (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

$ 141.71

Prices on June 27, 2008 however, touched $141.71 / barrel, for August in the New York Mercantile Exchange (after the recent $140.56 / barrel), the highest since 1988, amid Libya's threat to cut output, and OPEC's president predicted prices may reach $170 by the summer.bloomberg.com, Oil Is Little Changed After Falling as Investors Sell Contractsbloomberg.com, Oil Rises to Record Above $141 as Investors Buy Commodities -Florentino floro (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)--Florentino floro (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"Since 1988" is a typo should be 1868 if we mean inflation adjusted price, and as absolute, it's an all time record

I'll take it out until we get the right year - mike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by213.123.216.147 (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible agenda

At the risk of sounding paranoid, I've noticed a number statements of declining oil production keep getting inserted with no source. I just removed a sentence saying there was evidence Venezuela's production had dropped 5% when no source had been provided. Now I'm not saying anything explicit, but if I wanted to instigate speculation in the commodities markets, push an alternative fuels agenda, or attempt some sort of political change that depended on oil prices or production, this would be the way I'd do it... Please be on the lookout for this kind of stuff; no high-profile additions like that stay without a source.--Loodog (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is pretty low on the financial news food chain. If any rumors are being pasted in here, they probably come from believers, not originators. e.g. the 5% Venezuelan decline likely originates from some version of this[3]. (edit: which has its own page: Export Land Model)
It may be better just to add "[citation needed]" rather than delete, unless it's obviously bogus. Mporter (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Fossil fuels price increases

This is a more correct name. NATURAL GAS TO CONVERGE WITH RECORD OIL, QATAR AND ALGERIA SAY. --Mac (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Financial speculation section

I have removed a statement that does not seem to be related to financial speculation[4]. This information is more about the price which Saudi's sell their oil for and the grade of oil they have available. This may have a place in another section, or a new section on grades of oil and their availability could be created... but it does not belong in the financial speculation section. NJGW(talk) 18:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Bogorm and Presstv.ir

For the fifth or so time, I have corrected this editors mistakes [5], by which I mean their tendency to change the names of sources to ones not used at the source, their insistence on using time sensitive language, their misunderstandings of sources (eg. a lot of Saudi oil is more difficult to refine to gasoline, so refiners don't want to pay the same as they would for sweet crude... in other words it's the wrong grade), and their tendency to use needlessly awkward wording (eg. "as over priced" vs. "because of augmented price"). I also feel this source (presstv.ir) might not be a good source as it has an agenda/coi in this news topic. If someone can find an independent source for the claims made by the 3 presstv.ir articles quoted here, please change the sources... I will look around if I get a chance. NJGW (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I have corrected these mistakes another time. Bogorm, please come discuss this. When you say what refineries "are" doing, you are using time sensitive language which could have already changed since the article was written in mid-June. I don't know why you are using the words "augmented price" when this is not stated by the article (augmented implies there is a price, and the Saudi's are selling for an even higher price) while the article clearly says that the Saudi's are selling a less attractive grade of oil for the same price as the more attractive grades (presumably sweet crude). I would hope you could come here to discuss your feelings on continuously reverting back to your version instead of just reverting again. NJGW (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Enfin I behold some explication and not the usual reverting from NJGW - well, in medias res, I am not as versé as you (forgive me the Gallicismes, I hope most readers comprehend fr.) in distinguishing the different species of oil, but I am quite sure, that in the source there is no mention of "sweet", "crude" was in contrast thereto... there it is stated mot à mot "in favo(u)r of cheaper sources elsewhere."(u is from me, I find favor insipide in contrast to favoUr) - that does not imply sweet, since it has no relation to "where" and any argumentation with sweet or whatever is nothing but figment...! I would dissuade from and prey you for not blaming PressTV as POV because most speculators are not Iranians and it is beyond La Manche where the quest for speculative and POV sources should proceed! Bogorm (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
So I think what you're trying to say is that we've got a language difficulty here ;) First, I have to tell you that assuming most English Wikipedia readers/editors speak French is a mistake. Second, I think you should take a second look at what I actually put in the article vs. what I wrote above... nothing about Saudi's not having sweet crude (which is a bonus aside for those who read the talk page), but rather that Saudi oil was "of the wrong grade." The ref says "It's not an issue of whether they offer extra barrels, but of whether they meet our request for an increase in the share of medium and heavy crudes,” which is obviously saying the Saudi oil grades are not the ones the refiners want. If you're unsure what an oil grade is, you can check outPetroleum#Classification and benchmark (crude oil), as well as this BBC article which explains:

Because there are so many different varieties and grades of crude oil, buyers and sellers have found it easier to refer to a limited number of reference, or benchmark, crude oils. Other varieties are then priced at a discount or premium, according to their quality.

As for the POV'ness of presstv.ir, according to the wiki Press TV article, the news outlet is funded by the Iranian government, and so I have to say that they do have a heavy conflict of interest in reporting on the oil market. Of course they're going to say that the market is flush and that it's not an oil producer's problem... they're one of THE major oil producers. Heck, I would say the price of crude was just right if I had an oil well in my back yard too, but then I would have a conflict of interest on that wouldn't I! NJGW (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputing financial speculation claim

I have added a dispute template to the financial speculation section. This article is listing speculators as a cause of the price increase, rather than a possible cause. However, most economists say speculation is NOT a cause of the price increases. As CNN points out, "There's no question money from investment banks, pension funds, hedge funds and others that don't ultimately use oil has been pouring into oil markets over the last few years. But whether they are chasing a trend — and actually helping keep prices lower by adding liquidity — or driving up prices in their own right is a matter of debate. So far, most experts say speculators are not to blame for the high prices, but many of them agree that the system is very opaque."[6]

The EconoSpeak blog points out, "The strategy of choice right now seems to be 'blame the speculators' ... Not a good idea, in my opinion, for two reasons. First, there’s not much evidence that speculators are the cause of this price runup. Second, high oil prices—in fact, much higher oil prices—are good. They will combat climate change."[7]

Princeton University economist Paul Krugman has pointed out that speculators are NOT responsible for rising oil priceshere, [8], and here. Vince Farrell has pointed out that speculators are NOT responsible here. The New Yorker did the samehere and Newsweek did ithere. Furthermore, Fortune Magazine did it here.

Unfortunately, politicians and the press love to look for scapegoats, and the public falls for it. The problem with blaming speculators is that they never actually take possession of the oil, so they have no direct affect on supply and demand. As for the indirect effects, read Krugman's articles. --JHP (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you should put the CNN story and Krugman in the section, and make "possible cause" changes you mentioned too. We are merely reporting what is being said after all. NJGW (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course, specelators are a valuable and irrefutable reason for the price increases. You should take not only CNN in consideration, but Press TV and the Islamic Republic of Iran's position too. There are innumerable Press TV documentaries elucidating the pernicious ramifications from the actions of speculators which are not to be disparaged. Bogorm(talk) 14:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There is another putative financial cause, distinct from speculation and dollar devaluation, which is sometimes mentioned, namely increase in the money supply by central banks, i.e. that this is a case of price inflation being caused by monetary inflation. I cannot find a source that I am happy with, but this is illustrative:[9] Note the first chart.

I think it warrants a mention, but I'm unwilling to add it myself until I have a much better idea of who advocates it, how it relates to economic orthodoxy, and so forth. Mporter (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the debate over speculation, it is certainly a debate with two sides. I do get the sense that most economists, or at least western economists, are against this explanation, on grounds of economic common sense (basic facts about futures markets); and the most articulate exponents of the speculation theory, e.g.[10][11], are not tenured economists. However, they often appeal to technical details of how the oil markets work which are not taken into consideration by their opponents. It may be impossible for Wikipedia editors to adjudicate the debate decisively, so perhaps the best we can do is indicate who says what, some of their arguments, and some of the counterarguments.Mporter (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff says the reason for rising commodity prices is that the global economy is growing too fast.[12] --JHP (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

And the OPACOPEC governor of Iran blames the speculators. I see no reason for belittling either of both opinions nor to admit anyone's supremacy over the other's stance. Bogorm (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
That's not the argument, the argument is that it should be given as a possible cause rather than, definitively, part of the cause. Also, do you mean OPEC? TastyCakes (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, OPEC, my mistake. I am not knowledgeable about governmental posts in the Islamic Republic, but "OPEC governor" sounds authoritative and important. And if he thinks that it is cause, then that should be expressed. Besides, you see how right he was by considering that by the time of his statement the price was spproximately 145 USD, now it is 115 USD and there are no reports of demand diminishing, eo ipso the speculators heve loosened a bit their grasp. Do you agree? Bogorm (talk) 07:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the "OPEC governor of Iran" has a special interest in blaming speculators. It's like asking the Bush administration why they invaded Iraq, and why they're still there. Of course the answers they give will not be the true ones. Now if there were economists agreeing with the Iranian government (and not ones who can be influenced by that regime), then you might have a quotable source. And by the way, US petrol demand is dropping at a very fast pace. I'm sure it is dropping everywhere that prices have risen proportionally to oil price rises (i.e. not China where petrol companies are not allowed to raise prices). 98.235.103.32 (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

US driving

I think it would be useful to have a graph of passenger miles driven by Americans over the past couple decades to show the drop because of the pike surge... Not sure where to find that data though. TastyCakes (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits

I changed this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oil_price_increases_since_2003&diff=233640551&oldid=233609858) because Wikipedia can't be a source to itself. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, needs sources fro m outside to have credibility. This edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oil_price_increases_since_2003&diff=233643517&oldid=233641617) was updated for 2 reasons. 1. was a copy-edit, 2. the word alleged was removed because it comes from a reliable source with actual figures. It is not hear-say.

the contentious wiki reference removed ..the cia reference quoted just a few words earlier also supports the population statsitics..so the stat is verifiably true.. hence, the verifiable content reverted (without wiki ref)..Cityvalyu (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Dude, you edits are perfectly valid, given. But the sources should not have other wikipedia links. I presume on the other page there are other valid sources. Those are better citations than the wikipage. You should cite those and use the wikipages as see also if need be. Lihaas (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oil Speculation and Price Increases.

First I think someone should take the two recent articles published in Time and Washington Post that provide more information to how and who is speculating in the oil futures market. Also the CFTC has recently charged a Dutch company for Price Manipulation in the Oil Futures Market. Not sure how people in the CFTC don't agree with all these prominent people that say speculation is not driving up the costs. I have added the two external articles to the external links section of the page for reference. From the Washington Post article you can reference the CFTC charging the Dutch company for the manipulation. But incase those get edited for whatever reason here are the links...

Time: Are Oil Prices Rigged?[5] Washington Post: A Few Speculators Dominate Vast Market for Oil Trading[6] CFTC Charges Firm With Manipulating Oil Prices[7] Gwydion5 (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

  1. The first link is already integrated. Feel free to integrate the other two.
  2. Links in External Links to articles which could be references violate wp:EL. That section is for links to information beyond the scope of what the article should contain were it FA. Please remove those links. 98.235.103.32 (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see any material where the Time article was referenced. Could you please highlight the areas where my external link would be redundant to the article? I've also looked through the External Link guidelines and see a lot of validation for using the links and none of the negatives you refer to, could you please cite specific sections you feel these links violate of the EL? I mean what it seems like your saying is because my links "could be references" to the wiki, I should remove them? But in numerous spots does Wiki say that external links should be used for further research. Which until these external links are appended to the wiki article (if relevant and credible of course), I see no reason to remove them, especially considering no external links or sources in the article cover the topic as detailed and informatively as the ones I listed. Lastly I would love to add the 3 articles to this main article and make them relevant, the problem is that I am at best a dabbler of Wiki and not the best person to debate the points on where and what they should be. It seems I can't even post links without getting them edited so I don't want to bother with entire paragraphs and such. :) 04:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwydion5 (talk • contribs)
Please see rule #1 at wp:ELNO. Lihaas makes a great point below about wp:bold. EVERYONE is encouraged to edit articles, as long as they are being constructive and understand that others can edit them. The Time article was placed in the article in a poor spot and poorly worded, I reworded and moved it, another editor reworded further and provided more information... that's how it goes here, we all work together. But you can't claim ignorance of a rule as an excuse for not following it. 98.235.103.32 (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I never claimed ignorance. I didn't see the material referenced. Forgive me, I see now that one line was used out of that 4 page article from Time on how speculation could work in the future markets if done by OPEC. Though I think you are missing the bigger picture with the fundementals of the Futures Market being layed out in that article.Gwydion5 (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:Bold, you are encouraged to put the links in where you see fit. Either that or discuss it here first, and then using WP:Consensus or even WP:SILENCE you can go ahead and add your links in the article. But also, "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." Lihaas (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Lihaas, but citing all of EL was not sufficient for the first removal of the links, which is why I added them back. Also I know there are some subjective things in which you could apply or argue as violation. But at the same time there are many more things in the EL where those links pass with flying colors. I do not violate the "Restriction on Linking", nor do I violate "Links Normally to Avoided". The reasons given so far have been insufficient, according to how I understand the EL Guidelines. Those links are relevant to the article and currently non-existent in the article outside the External Links. —Precedingunsigned comment added by Gwydion5 (talk •contribs) 12:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Before we start getting into edit conflicts let's discuss here whether it should or should not go on, then we can put it on or keep it off later. There's no hurry.
Now what grounds do you say validate this edit? We can then say why its invalid and move to debate this. (I must say, despite all this disagreement, but we are ALL being entirely civil. Good show! Other talks leave a lot to be desired) Lihaas(talk) 17:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. This article is about the oil price increases from 2003 to present. The Time Article explains how the futures market could be manipulated giving a 4 page background of how the market works and one way it could be manipulated rather easily. The Washington Post Article indicates official accusation that price manipulation is going on in the Market with the amount of trading of a dutch company and then goes on to provide evidence such as the growth of the futures market in 2003 was 15 billion and today is 260 billion.
Be careful with this as it is not news but an OP-ED. See policies like wp:CRYSTAL and WP:PSTS. Also, don't go beyond the scope of this article. Consider starting article named oil market manipulation. 98.235.103.32 (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. This article is also a redirect of "Oil Speculation". Both Articles discuss that topic. One thing this article does need is a part about how and what determines the prices of Oil in the Oil Futures Market in its own category. Supply and demand economics work, but the real pricing is determined by consensus of buyers in the futures market. In addition the methods of cornering and inflating prices in the commodity market should be disclosed as this is relevant in understanding the claim that the market is/or could be manipulated.
A redirect can be changed, especially when it doesn't really make sense. This article is about specific events, not how to manipulate oil markets. 98.235.103.32 (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. From a pure Wiki view according to the EL: Both Articles are Relevant, Accurate, On Topic and Meaningful to the discussion. Washington Post and Time are both credible and reliable sources that will allow the links to exist for quite some time.
  2. I do not have the time to cite the links as sources in the article because I do not wish to do this, to discuss, edit and debate. This material I feel is relevant in a lot of ways. If you do not and don't feel it should be used then fine. Wikipedia says I can choose to include the links as source, not that I have to.
  3. The EL Violations I think are completely unfair, there is no magical number or hard number per article to say what is too many for EL's. I think these are important to the discussion and should be linked until incorporated, how is that not a fair compromise? Also how is it that my links violate #1? They are unique, there are no sources in the article that actually talk about the price manipulation in great detail, nor any links in the EL that take it to the level that these two do. Gwydion5(talk) 22:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Not having time to "cite, discuss, edit, and debate" may mean you are in the wrong place. Consider starting a blog instead, or simply making suggestions in the talk pages here. Edits to mainspace must be cited, will be edited, and most certainly are open to discussion and debate. Believing that the EL policies are unfair is a topic to bring up at the [[[Wikipedia:Village pump]], not here. For now the policy is that: if it fits as a ref, it doesn't fit as an EL. 98.235.103.32 (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Speculation section in Supply section

I think there should be a "Speculation" bookmark right after "Supply" detailing how the price of oil is determined on the future market. How different exchanges have different margins for oil commodities and circumvent regulation in home markets. How journalistic / media sensationalism creates artificial price increase and changes general consensus on what prices should be by having "prominent" economists or consultants weigh in on subjective or potentially future events. And how the vast majority of oil consumed is actually negotiated in private deals and priced later according to the market speculation at the time.Gwydion5 (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Speculation is addressed to a degree in the Financial speculation section, but you seem to be addressing a broader issue. What you are describing is however sounds like a charged and somewhat speculative discussion. Any wp:RS and wp:NPOV sources you could provide in this discussion section would be helpful in understanding what exactly you have in mind, and they can best be worked in to the article. 98.235.103.32 (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is a method to how the futures market works and how it determines the prices. If the CFTC is charging price manipulation to a foreign company, don't you feel that there is some information missing from this article? The Time article even states that "The futures market has become the public driving force in pricing oil. But the vast majority of oil consumed in the world is purchased through private deals, given the massive undertaking of physically delivering millions of barrels. However, a series of private deals cannot establish a market price.". But the lack of adequate explanation of the futures market and speculators role in this market, I can not determine what happens when a dutch company has 11% of the futures market shares and how the CFTC determined they were manipulating the price without adequate source material to tell me. Like the Washington Post and Times article that I'm trying to link here. Gwydion5 (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely, the article is missing information. Wikipedia is always missing information. Feel free to add it according to the proper Wikipedia conventions (or ask for help if you're not sure what that means), or to suggest the text here before you add it. Be prepared to be edited and re-edited by countless others (or maybe just a few people). Just keep in mind, information about how the futures market works in general is best added to futures market with a link in this article.98.235.103.32 (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Source

The following source was removed by a recent edit (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/14/bush.offshore/index.html). While the edit was fair, no grounds for dismissal. The info here is pretty good, I think it would be worthwhile to add it in. Either tag to tag on the source or to create some subsection about the effects of offshore drilling (its perception, and why it wont lower the price). Lihaas (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fact: Bush lifted offshore drilling ban. original research/synthesis: lifting of ban caused a drop in oil prices in mid 2008. The former can be in this article; the latter can't.--Loodog (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Im not disputing your removal, I said above it was fair. Just saying something in this regard ought ot be here too, perhaps in a different section. Lihaas (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Financial speculation?

Do we need two financial speculation sections, and why is John McCain (who admits he doesn't know much about economics) quoted in the second section when we have a line earlier on that states most many economists believe financial speculation has nothing to do with the current oil prices?

John McCain said that [he's no economic expert]. Period. Therefore he's not a good person to quote about an economic issue. We already have a better financial speculation section, therefore a second one is unnecessary. What does the CFTC inquiry have to do with having two sections? 98.235.103.32 (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, what have "the Energy Price Gouging Prevention Act (H.R. 1252), No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels (NOPEC) Act of 2007 (H.R. 2264), Repeal Profit‐Rich Big Oil Companies, Invest in Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency (HR 5351), Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act (HR 6074), Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act (HR 6022), Energy Markets Emergency Act (H.R. 6377), The Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act (H.R. 6251), Saving Energy Through Public Transporation Act (H.R. 6052)[208]" to do with financial speculation? 98.235.103.32 (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To me, the implication of those bills to the futures market is obvious in the title alone. You ask, "Also, what do these bills have to do with financial speculation?" Have you looked them up? Check out "[Energy Markets Emergency Act]". Gwydion5(talk) 17:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It does seem a little weird to have a paragraph on John McCain considering he does seem a little irrelevant to the issue. However, I'm not sure what you see is wrong with the other paragraphs. Also, please stop reverting. ~a (user •talk • contribs) 19:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I just have this weird idea that a list of bills passed by congress that have nothing to do with price speculation shouldn't be in a section about price speculation. It was started as a POV section, and Nukeless scooped up an unrelated list and plopped it down there to make the section doubly questionable. 98.235.103.32 (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
So it looks like you have two problems with the section. Lets settle the harder problem first: neutrality: it looks like a neutral presentation of facts to me (except the McCain paragraph) so I'm not sure what NPOV issues you have. Please explain. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The POV issue is the McCain issue. The list of bills came latter. The problem is we had a section called "Political action against financial speculation" containing a list of bills addressing oil company taxes and profits... nothing to do with speculation or market manipulation. I'm pretty sure that's straight forward. 98.235.103.32 (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

98.235...you have reverted many times in short succession. You should have come to talk and waited instead of reverting over and over trying to get your version on display and then come to discussion. (with a 24 hours span youve reverted probably something like 6rr). Anyhoo, as for the content, I was previously of the same idea that mccains words had nothing to do with "political action" but was simply his opnion of either whats going on or what he would go for should he be prez. (Even those words would not be compelling for action b/c a prez can't pass any legislation he wants, its not a dictatorship). The legislation is to do with a response to a [perceived] speculation that drove the prices. Energy Price Gouging Prevention Act, No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels (NOPEC) Act of 2007, Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act, Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act, Energy Markets Emergency Act. Obviously some of the acts are wrong to be here in the first place.

gouging = "to subject to extortion or undue exaction." now if you have speculation to raise the prices unnaturally, then there you have gouging.. Lihaas (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that you feel my edits must be vetted but yours are not subject to this process. You removed an Obama quote for the same exact reason I removed a McCain quote. They should both be removed by the way, I'm just pointing out the double standard. Please don't bring up that unfortunate revert issue, because those users were mistaking my edits for vandalism, and have still not come to discuss the content despite being invited back in my edit summaries and having edited many other articles since.
As for price gouging legislation, please cite a source showing a connection to market speculation. I think there is none (none is mentioned at price gouging), and that you are presenting OR/SYN. The link to price gouging in the see also section is along the same lines, but more POVish. 98.235.103.32 (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Energy Markets Emergency Act of 2008 in the list addresses market speculation. That one obviously is a political action because of price speculation. Are there any others?
So that's one bill that is connected to the futures market/speculation and SEVEN that aren't. Oh, and the one that is connected is actually just a statement "CFTC, you need to do your job" and not a new law. Does that one Congressional bill deserve own section? No, it can be mentioned in the earlier section. Are the others even connected to the article at all? HR 2264 and 6074 (expanding Sherman act to oil cartels) could be mentioned in some place in the article, perhaps 6022 (stop filling Strategic Petroleum Reserve) as well. But without a source that says "Congress passed such-and-such bill because oil prices were high", the other four are OR/SYN to keep around.
So we agree the McCain part can go (right?) and we see that 7 of those bills can go (if someone wants to mention them somehow, they have the list here to draw on). Is there any argument to keep the section itself, given that it will only mention one lonely bill, or can we move that out and do away with the section? 98.235.103.32 (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

CFTC action

It seems to me with your "most economists believe" comment, while the CFTC is charging a dutch company for price manipulation, along with the loop holes regarding foreign exchanges and margins in the purchase of futures. Gwydion5 (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The claim that most economists said X is debatable. Furthermore the CFTC is contradicting that statement by taking action for something you say has nothing to do with oil prices. Please, logically explain to me how the statement "most economists" can be credible when the institution created to regulate this market is taking action on the very thing they say is not affecting prices?Gwydion5 (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I said "most" at first, but amended my comment to "many" to match the text of the article.
  • Just because someone (allegedly) does something illegal does not contradict an economist saying that action does not have a significant effect on the market. At best you are implying that correlation implies causation, but once again you don't even bring any links to the discussion.
  • Saying that X must be true because Y is investigating it is like saying there must have been WMD in Iraq because we were looking for them. Might be true, might not me... we need some more evidence than your analysis can provide.98.235.103.32 (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Improvement suggestion

This article needs help as it isn't very informative about how prices are determined in the real world of the market, nor any supporting theory / evidence on how the market would be manipulated. But I refuse to participate in a serious or meaningful way for the reasons I just stated.Gwydion5 (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

the external links on this page go beyond wikipedia's guidelines. According to wikipedia, "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum." and "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." Then, "A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." They should also be directly related to the material and not "indirect" references. Lihaas (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The deleted links, in case anyone wants to use them as refs:

- 98.235.103.32 (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Article title change

Should we change the article to "Oil price changes (fluctuations?) since 2003"? With the current name the price decreases are completely irrelevant. Lihaas (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but the notable thing about oil prices during this time period is the increases.--Loodog (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems pretty ORish to say the trend is over or changing. When the economic experts start saying that, then we can split the article (as mentioned above) into Oil price history 1999-2009 and Whatever the experts decide is a good name for this period of energy price increases. NJGW (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we address these questions?

Which prices besides gas are affected by the rise in the price of oil? Are there any positive effects of higher oil prices? What can individuals do to hold down their own spending on gas? Does Barack Obama or John McCain have a better position on energy?

The price of gas was above $3.00 a gallon for 10 years, and the greatest change is happening to us since the year 2000. In 1980 the price was just a dollar twenty a gallon, but now the price is $3.20 a gallon. Since 1984, gas prices have started going up.

Kenny11514 (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Which prices besides gas are affected by the rise in the price of oil?
A valid question for this article.
  • Are there any positive effects of higher oil prices?
A loaded question, and a value judgment as well. More difficult to source, but approachable in the context of fully examining all effects.
  • What can individuals do to hold down their own spending on gas?
Not a valid question for this topic. Better addressed at hypermiling and similar pages.
  • Does Barack Obama or John McCain have a better position on energy?
Not a valid question for this topic, or for Wikipedia to try to address. Totally POV area, and only partially addressable (by raising the facts of what they have stated only, and perhaps analysis by renowned experts) in the pages related to those two and the current campaign. NJGW (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
"Are there any positive effects of higher oil prices?"
So, if you consider a reduction in highway violence to be a "positive effect" of higher oil prices, there you go. --Teratornis (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Article title should be changed

Original title is too date-specific for a current, ever-changing topic like this. The article appropriately talks about oil prices prior to 2003. The first chart (which is a good one and should be kept) shows oil prices from 1996 to 2008. Suggest the title should be more generic, perhaps simply "Oil Price Increases". —Precedingunsigned comment added by J Cricket (talk •contribs) 22:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points:
  1. First, the issue of the article's title has been addressed several times, so check out those discussions above and in the archive... I won't rehash those though because you're bringing up a slightly different point than they make (although I'm pretty sure the solution to those discussions would make your issue with the title moot).
  2. Second, if you have a look at the graph at the right, you'll see that there is a clear rise in prices since 2003 (an argument could be made for 1999 as well, but that would involve some pretty dense speculation and analysis which would most certainly bewp:OR with out a really good source). Before 2003, the price of oil had been below $30 for 20 years, and since then oil has been mostly above $40.
  3. Oil price increases is a pretty general title. Would we include the oil price increases of 1973? 1979? 1991? The late 1800's? How about all the mini blips that pop up in the market, or the seasonal cycle? In fact, 1973, 79, and 91 all have their own pages with appropriate names (easier to do as those events are in the past and have been well analyzed). As the prior discussions will show, once this current even has been well understood by economic and historic experts, then we can pick a better name and split off the horrendously long play-by-play.
In the meanwhile, if you have any wp:RS sources which suggests a good name for this period of increased petroleum prices, we'd all be glad to entertain it. NJGW (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
How about 2000s Oil Price Escalation? TastyCakes (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is gi-normous, folks!

I flagged it with the "long" template. Perhaps someone who knows a bit more about all this than I do can fix it, but, as the article stands right now, it's almost too long to be usable. That said, I have utterly no idea how to go about breaking such a complicated issue into subsections. Any ideas? --Roman à clef (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ideas? Sure, we got ideas: Talk:Oil price increases since 2003#Length of article, Talk:Oil price increases since 2003#Article title change, and Talk:Oil price increases since 2003#Article title should be changed. NJGW(talk) 01:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, so I got tired of seeing these threads. See what you guys think of all that. NJGW (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ According to calculations at Measuring Worth, $100US in 2000 has the same purchasing power as $120US in 2007. Thus, the US dollar's decrease in purchasing power during that time period was less than inflation, which can be calculated at the Westegg Inflation Calculator.
  2. ^ The Oil Drum: Europe | Oil Prices around the World: Do Exchange Rates Matter?
  3. ^ Menzie Chinn (October 31, 2007). "Does Dollar Weakness 'Cause' High Oil Prices?". Econbrowser: Analysis of current economic conditions and policy.
  4. ^ The Oil Drum: Europe | Oil Prices around the World: Do Exchange Rates Matter?
  5. ^ http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1834888,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
  6. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/20/AR2008082003898.html?hpid=topnews
  7. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/24/AR2008072403831.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000s_energy_crisis/Archive_2&oldid=1233063538"