Talk:Oil price increases of 2004-2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A story relating to the article Oil price increases of 2004-2006 (or a previous version of it) was included in the news section of the Energy Portal.

Contents 1 Cleanup tag 2 Refinery bottlenecks 3 Just a financial bubble by da boyz 4 Requested move 4.1 Discussion 5 Merge articles 6 Supply 7 Graph should be inflation-adjusted 8 The Demand subheading is absurd 9 Misuse of the NPOV tag 10 Other causes and questions 11 SUVs outsell cars? 12 Price Comparison 13 PCOD in developed countries? 14 Is this POV original research ? 15 Page move 16 Oil price increase of 2006 17 Refining capacity reduction 18 Internet Forwards 19 very US-centric 20 North Korea 21 Belated discussion of "weasel" template 22 Post to the bottom please 23 'oil prices' redirects here.. 24 Oil prices affecting store hours 25 Oil Price Increase since June 1999 26 Inappropriate image 27 Excessive use of tags 28 Page move 29 US Oil Independence 30 Insurance cost

[edit] Cleanup tag

I've tagged the whole thing for a cleanup because whole sections need to be rewritten to a higher standard. There is also a NPOV tone issue that needs to be addressed (I actually agree with the guy, it just reads like someone's blog and is unbalanced and uncited) Jmackaerospace 01:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if this isn't the right place to suggest this, but I think the word guzzling ought to be removed from the following statement,

The United States has by far the largest demand for oil, guzzling around 25% of the world's total oil production and 40% of the world's gasoline production-- with only about 5% of the total world population.

"Guzzling" is not a very professional word as well as being inflammatory and subjective. It ought to be replaced by "using" or "consuming" or "burning". I think people will get the point without relying on this kind of language.

Thanks. Astack 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

(*edit* I edited the article and replaced this word.)

[edit] Refinery bottlenecks

Do people realise that claiming the crude oil rise is due to refinery bottlenecks (which is only the case in USA anyway) is the same as saying "the price of wheat is up because of bakery problems/bottlenecks"? whereas in fact a refinery bottleneck would increase the price of refined products ONLY and actually create a glut of crude oil!

IMO the amount of misinformation spread by the media is staggering. See my other comments below please...Dhatz 20:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a financial bubble by da boyz

Although I can sympathize with people "explaining" the oil runup using the common excuses in the media, please let me assure you that this entire phenomenon of the oil bubble is taking place in the financial sphere by speculative funds, i.e. the derivatives markets of NYMEX and IPE/ICE and has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the physical market.

Unfortunately, in the oil market there is no real arbitrage between spot and derivatives, which allows the funds to drive oil to these absurd prices increasing demand for "paper barrels", despite the fact that real, physical market for "wet barrels" remains very well supplied, almost an oil GLUT.

OPEC has been stating the role of derivatives (using the term "paper barrels") since 2000. I guess if Western nations insist in driving oil price to today's highs themselves via speculation, OPEC is more than willing to take $70+/bar rather than its own target of $25-28 until a year ago.

Along with the trading desks of big investment banks (look where their profits come from, commodity trading accounts for 1/3rd to 1/2 of them), there is a tremendous wealth redistribution taking place, to the tune of $600bn/year flowing from US and EU to oil producers.

I have written a layman's article (an angry one though) in http://dhatz.blogspot.com/2006/06/oil-to-38657-per-barrel.html and http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=1707 and I can provide with lots of relevant links Dhatz 12:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the following comments in response to a fellows comments in Petroleum discussion page:

Yes, in THEORY (and in most markets like stock indices and other commodities) it'd work as you suggested, but not in PRACTICE in the oil market. Because there are so many types of physical oil, but just two types (of very low production) used in futures.

Here is last week's comment of Saudi oil minister at WSJ. They're awash in oil and have no buyers.: http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2006/06/05/the-wall-street-journal-saudis-cite-market-forces-for-lower-crude-output/

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

In an interview after a meeting here of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Ali Naimi said other cartel members are having trouble finding buyers for all the crude they are producing, at a time when global stores are near full and many refiners have closed facilities for routine maintenance. One Saudi official said an estimated three million barrels a day of refining capacity is out of action and unable to process crude, at a time when the world is using some 84 million barrels a day of oil products like gasoline and jet fuel.

"It's not just heavy oil. Even light oil is having problems" finding buyers, Mr. Naimi said, referring to premium grades of crude known as light crude that are highly prized by refiners because they have high gasoline yields.

Asked if the kingdom was easing up on supply because of concern about the buildup of inventories in the U.S. and other importing countries, Mr. Naimi rejected such a motive, replying: "At $70 a barrel?" Mr. Naimi suggested that producers will sell all the oil they can at such high prices.

The implication of Mr. Naimi's remarks is that Saudi Arabia would again open its oil spigots when buyers ask for more oil. For the past two years, the Saudis say, their policy has been to sell as much oil as buyers want, to the limit of the kingdom's production capacity.

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

Otherwise one would just buy those extra barrels from Saudis (or the extra 2 million barrels/day they offered back in Oct05) and bring the oil price down via arbitrage between spot and futures (as it happens for copper, or stocks or wheat etc)! Dhatz 18:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Oil price increases of 2004 and 2005 to 2005 Energy Crisis. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. –Hajor 19:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The reasons for move copied from the entry on the WP:RM page: Oil price increases of 2004 and 2005 to 2005 Energy Crisis because it is a shorter, simpler, more acurate term that is being used internationally. It aligns with the 1973 energy crisis and the 1979 energy crisis. Americanus

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support - International media and common sense make this an optimum title for this article. Americanus 00:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is not clear or universally believed that the current situation is indeed a "crisis." Claiming that it is a crisis thus violates NPOV. - SimonP 01:07, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. We already have Oil price increase of 1990; what is happening now is largely a natural market reaction to higher demand - indeed the price increase may be preventing a crisis. --Henrygb 00:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - more time/perspective is needed before usage of language like 'crisis' can be justified. Nae'blis 00:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not sure if you can really call it an Energy Crisis. As far as I know it is not called an energy crisis here in Australia, just an oil price increase. – AxSkov (☏) 09:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is no way that this is a crisis yet. At this point, I think 'crisis' is a large overexaggeration of the situationpaullb Paullb 21:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - When we look back at this a few years from now, we may be able to call it a 'crisis', but not now. --Tmandry 00:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Might there be a way we could rename the artice to "Oil Price Increases from 2004 through 2006"? VexedTechie 01:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Support the above. Pacific Coast Highway • ^blah 21:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge articles

If this is considered part of the same phenomenon, then this could be very reasonably be merged with Oil price increases of 2005 into Oil price increases of 2004-2005.--Pharos 20:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the United States, for instance, each $1000 dollars in GDP required 1.43 barrels of oil in 1970. In 2000 this number had fallen to 0.74.

What about inflation ? 1000 2000-dollars are worth much less than 1000 1970-dollars, so maybe the economy is actually more dependent on oil, not less.

I was wondering this exact same point also... I added the thought to the article C. Nelson 21:04, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, the late 70s had inflation in the high teens and relatively high inflation continued well into the 80s. On these oil pages, they list the highest spike as $90 in todays dollars but in the $30 range then. Also, the world economy is more suseptible to supply fluctuations (see below) because supply is so tight i.e. no easy excess capacity. Perhaps it is also true that the oil traders are becoming skeptical and don't see a glut in the market any time soon.

No economist would publish such figures without adjusting for inflation. Both figures use 1996 dollars. - SimonP 19:04, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Supply

"Low supply of crude oil"?

Production has never been faster. It came in at 83 million barrels a day during 2004. ([1]).--Jerryseinfeld 19:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How much supply was lost because of the problems mentioned? Iraq (0.5 million barrels per day (mbpd)?), hurricane disruption to offshore oil platforms in the Caribbean (0.1 mpd?), Yukos (0 mbpd), OPEC spare capacity (1 mbpd?), civil unrest in Nigeria (0.5 mbpd?), problems with oil production in Norway (0.01 mbpd?)?

Uhhhh, well, supply may be larger than ever before, but so is the other side, DEMAND. Demand is rising faster than non-OPEC can keep up with and OPEC may not be able to help much either. With demand in China growing at 20% and India a close second, and good ole USA at 6%, this should be no surprise.

[The CAUSES section might need editing. The overall page discusses crude oil prices, and this section discusses high gasoline prices. On a slightly separate topic: I've never understood how anyone could suggest that lack of refinery capacity drives up the price of crude oil.]

[This problem definitely shows up later in the article in the SPRING & SUMMER 2005 PRICE INCREASE section. There is no logical reason why refinery problems which prevent the consumption of crude oil would cause crude oil prices to rise. The EIA shows in its weekly analysis of crude oil, that oil inventories in the U.S. are extremely high for this time of year.]

[edit] Graph should be inflation-adjusted

A graph of nominal prices is not particularly useful. Does anyone have inflation-adjusted numbers for historical oil prices? --Delirium 17:53, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

How about these?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/fsheets/petroleumprices.xls

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chron.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chron_march2005.xls

Lower than possible supply is the only reasonable explanation for the price hikes: 1) According to www.eia.gov the pipeline system of Irak (if operational)

  would be capable of exporting 6million b/d of crude.

2) The USGoverment of the day has invaded Irak thus preventing our friend

  Saddam from using this potential.This means that around 4million b/d
  of potential supplies are missing from world markets.

3) Enter the "Allies" i.e. the UK and Norway. High and recently increased taxation of about 80%

  of the salesprice of oil means that many companies are shying away 
  from the highproductioncost area and so production is falling. Another
  1,5 to 2 million b/d so is not reaching world markets. Of course the
  officail reasons are maintenance work, industrial action,difficult
  waters etc. Maybe one they the cooling of the gulfstream will come 
  up as well!

4) I see no way out of this situation unless of course the Eurepean

   Union would tax norvegean fish and shrimp exports fo the EU with 
   the same 400% the norvegeans tax their energyexports to the EU.
   

Helmburger22800@yahoo.com

[edit] The Demand subheading is absurd

It's grossly misleading to lead this article with those percentages under a heading called "demand". What is important in the Demand category is primarly absolute levels of consumption and its relationship to speculative demand in the commodities market. Relative growth in demand per annum without reference to absolute levels is emphasizing a tiny factor totally out of proportion. The same method would show a teenager who just started driving a hybrid "spurring" demand more than the trust-fund baby who's been driving a hummer since the first Iraq War.

As a result, I'm slapping an NPOV tag on this article.

Are the numbers that you require the ones that can be found here from the link right above the percentages? The percentages give more of an idea of how the world has increased it's demand- looking at the data could be much less meaningful- harder to realize how much of a difference.

Also, I'm not sure exactly how missing data makes the article POV. It doesn't represent one side more than the other, as the data is already there, in a way. The article currently represents all views fairly, as far as I can tell. Loggie 01:04, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, parts of the article may be missing important information. But there is no way that represets a NPOV. If one more person agrees, I will remove the NPOV tag.paullb.

I'll be that person. This article is far from perfect, but I don't think it needs the NPOV header. - SimonP 00:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

agreed, I have issues with the article, but missing data ain't a biased view. Feel free to get rid of the NPOV header. IcycleMort 11:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

As discussed, I remoevd the NPOV tag paullb.

You all should be ashamed of your grasp of NPOV. The misuse of statistical data is commonly known as an easy way to establish a misleading and seemingly authoritative POV. Reinforcing this POV in the "Demand" subheading was the conspicuous absence from the written explanation of any mention of U.S. contribution to increases in demand. In spite of my corrections in this regard, the article is still POV toward the language and assumptions of neo-classical economics. It's not enough to list Hubbert's Peak in the "See Also" heading; an NPOV article on this topic should include an explanation of the possibility that these price increases are the result of market failures. I suppose it will be my responsibility to come up with that work as well. Linkspro 06:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Misuse of the NPOV tag

The articule is in no way NPOV related you just disagree with the way the article is layed out. Therefore you should get the numbers that should be posted and put them up yourself. Consequently I am removing the NPOV tag.

user:paullb

LMAO! I "just disagree with the way the article is layed out"? How about I disagree that the layout is NPOV? Nice semantic hairsplitting.

The solution to every NPOV issue is to get better material and use it better. Just because I noticed the failings of the article doesn't mean I'm required to do all the work.

So instead of whining about it, why don't you fix it.

Does he have to? Isn't the question: Is this article NPOV?

[edit] Other causes and questions

Has the decline in the value of the us dollar against Euros and Gold played a role at all?

Is the US military consumption in Iraq significant enough to drive US demand higher than normal?

Its above $60 a barrel now, a doubling in two years can not be the result of the same old supply and demand sob story. Whats going on?

--Uncle Bungle 20:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The US has just finished filling its Strategic Petroleum Reserve, in response, others are doing the same; China, in particular. There is a showdown looming over Iran. Will the US invade? The probability seems nonzero. Also, regime change in Iraq is having political consequences in surrounding nations. In particular, Saudi Arabia has become less politically stable. By all accounts Saudi Arabia is the only producer with excess capacity. Uncertainty = risk = high prices. --noösfractal 17:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SUVs outsell cars?

"Sport utility vehicles outsell passenger cars in the United States and Canada "

This doesn't seem right...

I don't think this is right, I think the statistic is that trucks outsell passenger cars. Vans and pickup trucks are included in trucks, so not only SUVS, paullb

[edit] Price Comparison

The article starts out with "While oil prices are about 40 percent higher than a year ago, they would need to surpass $90 a barrel to exceed the inflation-adjusted peak set in 1980." I have been researching this claim all morning and it is everywhere. At least a dozen major news organizations state this figure and no one has a source or citation for this data.

From my reasearch the global price of oil reached a peak of $39 in October 1981 using 1981 dollare [2] and [3]. Using CPI inflation calculators [4] the cost of a barrel of crude at its peak was $83.45 in 2005 dollars. Or using a GDP deflator calcualtion [5] the cost is $67.98 in 2005 dollars. There is no infaltion index other than Employer Cost Index (ECI) that has grown fast enough to account for the $90 figure and clearly the ECI should not be used to discuss oil prices.

Can anyone justify the $90 figure? If not, it should be changed.

Also, can someone explain to me why the CPI is used to measure inflation of the cost of oil? Are not oil prices included as a major component of the CPI and doesn't this make an CPI an innaccurate measure of the actual cost impact of purchasing oil? --Ksturgis 17:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

You might have just answered your own question. It seems logical that the $90 figure might come from a CPI basket without oil. The price of oil increased at a rate well below inflation for most of the intervening period, so it makes sense that 2005 dollars would be worth less when oil is removed from the equation. - SimonP 18:38, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about "Truth". Nor is it about original research. Quoting respected sources and using respected sources wikipedia presents the research done by OTHERS. Don't delete a quote just because your original research questions it. Especially original research into 1981 prices when the quote is about 1980 prices. I have been unable to verify the existence of God. By your logic, I should delete all the articles that quote sources about God. Wikipedia doesn't do "TRUTH", we present what reputable sources say and let the reader decide. WAS 4.250 16:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The AP, and newspapers in general, are not expert or respected sources on oil economics. Newspapers journalists are not economists and very frequently make basic errors. Until we are sure they did not in this case we should remove the information. All information in Wikipedia has to be verifiable. In this case two users have tried, and failed to verify the information. It seems almost certain that the AP used a non-standard inflation calculator. Until we can tell our readers how this number was derived the information is misleading and useless. As to your God analogy the equivalent to what we currently have would be quoting Genesis 1:26 as proof that man was created in God's image while provinding no context, explanation, or alternate views. - SimonP 17:57, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw" [6] I think your deletion was unreasonable, but in the end we have a better quote and source. Do I thank you or ask that you not delete every quote in Wikipedia from a less than perfect source? 4.250.168.241 18:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[Thank him, and then remove the new quote and source. Note the current graphic from the EIA of inflation adjusted dollars does not exceed $80 during the 1980's. So, the text and graphic are inconsistent, which suggests poor journalism on the part of the wikipedia.]

If inflation is 10% in 2005, do we now say that the 1980 peak price was an "inflation adjusted" price of 99$? There is inflation (and I emphasize) BECAUSE oil prices rose. Things are more expensive because oil rose and now people want to put lipstick on a pig. --35.10.47.197 01:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PCOD in developed countries?

What is the justification for "While developed countries have continued to steadily decrease oil consumption per capita..." (PCOD: Per Capita Oil Demand)? This page says that "We can note that US oil demand is currently increasing faster than US population growth, raising US per capita average oil demand."

Without verifiable references, I'm afraid we can't do more than say: "Some people say blah, some others say blah."

LionKimbro 20:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Your right, I'm pretty sure that the article is incorrect. The decrease is in consumption per dollar of GDP, not per capita. - SimonP 21:09, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is this POV original research ?

"The most direct short term effect of oil price increase is to increase the cost of USA oil imports and oil dependant imports. This directly leads to a growing trade deficit. At some stage, there will just be insufficient capital from the rest of the world to finance these deficits, which will lead to a fall in the USD. And since oil is currently quoted in USD, this wil in turn place further pressure on oil prices to continue accelerating upwards. Needless to say, this is a vicious circle which if it is not avoided, will lead to a collapse of the current global financial system."

i think it is a known fact and stakeholders are trying to address this problem in a coordinated way, whether it is the G7, the asian countries as part of the unofficial return to Bretton Woods system or OPEC themselves.

Anyway, those of you with econometric models can run through the numbers and see what happens if oil hits USD100, like some analysts ( eg. Goldman Sachs ) are suggesting.

That would consistitute original research in that form. It isn't a fact, it's a theory even if it's an econometrically modelled theory. The quoted passage doesn't currently appear in the article. MLA 13:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

If it is a "known fact" you will have no trouble finding and quoting a source. Then you can place the quote and source citation in the article. If you can't find a quote, maybe it's not true. And even if you do find a reputable source for such an opinion, a contradictory quote might be found and added to the article to show some experts think this and some experts think that. What non experts think about such things belongs in blogs and not an encyclopedia. WAS 4.250 16:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Let me just point out that the effects sections starts with this line : "There is controversy regarding the potential effects of oil-price shocks."
2. Also, all the other potential controversial effects would consistitute original research and not even econometrically modelled theory. If we were to apply that as the standard test for inclusion or exclusion.
3. And perhaps they should all be deleted if quotes cant be found, since maybe it's all not true. As has been said, what non experts think about such things belongs in blogs and not an encyclopedia.
4. On the side of inclusion, let me point out that we are trying to predict the future, by predicting effects. None of them can be certain of happening. Also, short term effects are much easier to predict than long term. Price hike leading to higher deficit is real time and captured in data within months. New innovations or change in behavior could take years, and is much less certain. -unsigned
5. With the benefit of hindsight, the tipping point is USD60 which was reached in June, which had the domino effect of pushing China and Malaysia to decouple their currencies in July with little warning. Since July neither central banks has had to intervene as much to buy dollars to weaken their currencies, further placing downward pressure on USD.

[edit] Page move

I have reverted the move of this page to 2005 Energy Crisis. Please do not move this page without discussion. Controversial moves should be brought to Wikipedia:Requested moves, not performed unilaterally. Personally I oppose adding the word crisis to the title of this page. Currently it is far from clear this situation is a "crisis," the global economy remains quite healthy and the shortages and domestic effects of earlier energy crises have not yet manifested themselves on any large scale. At the moment this is far more like the Oil price increase of 1990 than the crises of 73 or 79. - SimonP 00:27, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oil price increase of 2006

seems like oil is on the rise again in this time of year. Stocks are falling. Can an expert comment on this rise and create a new article? thank you. {anonymous}

[edit] Refining capacity reduction

Ok, I don't know if this would fully fit in with the article, as it blends in a little too much with internal U.S. politics, but there was a brief point where Congress was investigating a paper trail left by primarily U.S. oil companies whereby they were deliberately buying up and thus shutting down smaller refineries. The idea was that when refining capacity was insufficient to meet needs, the oil companies would ask the U.S. government for incentives.

This brief summary, I'm sure, sounds very conspiracy-theory-ish. It's handled in far more detail in Senator Ron Wyden's (D-Ore.) reports, which state that this activity on the part of oil companies dates back to about 1995 (?) or so. I haven't been able to dig up the old PDF I read about this, though. However, maybe it should be mentioned as a possibility, since there is documentation to this effect?--King V 19:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Forwards

Hey guys, what do you think about the plans like "don't buy gas day" or "don't buy from Exxon or Shell for the rest of the year" ploys? Will they work? I've tried to find a discussion of them here but to no avail. --StevenL 21:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Look for them under 'dumb internet hoaxes', 'urban myths' or possibly 'distructive meme' Jmackaerospace 01:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard of them but they're unlikely to work by themselves. You need to actually do stuff like car free days or car rationing (as I believe was practiced in some countries in the 1980s crisis). I.E. You need to reduce consumption rather then simply choosing not to buy petrol on one day. Buying petrol from BP or whatever instead of Esso or Shell isn't going to help either Nil Einne 17:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] very US-centric

Much of this article is very US-centric, especially the focus on gasoline prices, which have not moved nearly as much (proportionally) in the rest of the world due to there being higher gasoline taxes in the first place. The crude-oil-related part is of course global, though. That raises the question of what to do to make this a useful article. One possibility is to split off US-centric material to a specific article like Effects of oil prices increases of 2004-2006 in the United States. Another is to cut down the amount of unnecessary use of US-centric examples and focus more on global oil prices and commodities. --Delirium 07:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It definitly needs more world focus.

--Paullb Jan 16

commentary on working class people is tacky and unprofessional - anon

$ needs replacing with $USD

If its going to all be US based thats fine but otherwise loose the "gallon" measurements and internationalise it, if not with metric then use the international standard of oil measurement the "Barrel"

"Hidden cost of oil" has nothing to do with price changes and probably includes US military expenditure related to Korea and Israel. How very odd --23:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North Korea

How exacly does North Korea afect the prices of oil? Neither South Korea of Japan produce oil. --MrBlonde 10:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

North Korean situation is thought to affect oil prices because of the security threat they pose. This is highly speculative of course but so is the oil price in general. --Rammer 07:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say it's more NPOV and more correct to say it's not necessarily because of the security threat they may or may not pose but because the situation could create instability in the region and the world... Nil Einne 17:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belated discussion of "weasel" template

I think this section does contain weasel words. No sources are provided for the following claims (weasel words are used instead):

1. "Some people and news agencies argue ..."
2. "Critics argue that ..."
3. "A more fundamental problem that some believe ..."
4. "Others believe that the price ..."

   "These people argue ..."

5. "Still others suggest that ..."

   "These analysts believe ..."

6. "The consensus in the oil trading market is ..."

These statements should have sources or be deleted. Ufwuct 16:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post to the bottom please

This happens in all articles but it seems to have happened a lot here so I'll mention it here. I really, really wish people would learn to post new msgs to the bottom. It makes it much easier to follow. People often tend to ignore stuff at the top too because they assume it's mostly old and already settled. Nil Einne 17:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'oil prices' redirects here..

..and makes little sense whatsoever.

[edit] Oil prices affecting store hours

"Many businesses are moving away from 24-hour operation (e.g. box stores like Wal-Mart, groceries, convenience stores, restaurants) since the higher prices discourage past lifestyle trends[citation needed]"

Will somebody tell me how higher gas prices cause a store to cut back its hours?--Loodog 17:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I would assume that the more stores use more electricity and heating/air conditioning, the more money they'll have to pay in bills. And since oil prices are high, many electric and heating/air conditioning bills are also up. Most of our electricity comes from fossil-fuel burning power-plants. JEMASCOLA 03:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Then the fact that hours are being cut back for energy concerns should be in the article. Right now it just seems to say that higher prices cause people to live differently for the sake of living differently.--Loodog 05:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oil Price Increase since June 1999

In Houston, TX before June 1999, the average for regular unleaded was $.79/gallon until OPEC announced production cuts. The logic: production cuts yield higher prices and/or price gouging.

This article is not based on the increases after 2004; all of this dates back to 1999 where production cuts were enforced. Regardless of the era where downsizing was rampant (late 1970s) to hybrids (mid-2000s), V8s and RWD are history72.181.31.168 23:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Inappropriate image

Someone, somehow has embedded a large image of a penis over the top of this article. It's not viewable in Internet Explorer, but it shows up in Mozilla. The image tag is not viewable when you edit the page, but if you view the source of the page, the image "glans.jpg" does show up...how would one remove this image? I have tried, but to no avail.

This is the HTML on the page where it shows up (edit this section to view the HTML):

You can help Wikipedia by <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Improving_weasel-worded_statements" title="Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words">improving weasel-worded statements</a>.

Numen 10:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive use of tags

There are four tags on the top of the article. This is ridiculous and degrades the overall look of the article more than it helps editors realize that there are problems. I'm going to remove the cleanup tag, because it unnecessary, and I'm going to remove the current event tag, since 2006 is just about over. Just from reading the lead, I haven't noticed any weasel words, but I'll review the rest of the article and try to remove them, and then remove the tag. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 19:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed all the tags other than the speculation tag. The whole article needs referencing, but the "Causes" section is the only section which is in dire need of clean-up. If someone who is knowledgable about the subject could find some sources and possibly rewrite the entire section, it would be satisfactory. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 20:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

This page should be moved to Oil price increases since 2004. Or somehing that wouldn't make us move the page every year. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{Ho! Ho! Ho! • My Presents!}} 22:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Oil Independence

There was a clause saying that as the US imports most of its oil, the price of it in the US would rise if there were disruptions abroad. But, barring the use of tarriffs, the price would rise even if the US imported no oil.

[edit] Insurance cost

Hello Here I think crude oil prices are directly or indirectly linked to threat level in the world. By this I mean insurance factor covering the crude oil from processing, transportation and delivery. There is a positive correlation between the threat level in the world and crude oil prices, as threat level goes high crude oil prices rises{covering the insurance cost}. However, there is asymmetric information on which companies are covering the crude oil insurance and does OPEC takes the insurance factor into place when they are pricing in the basket.

More research should be done in this lines which can at least solve some quires —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sushil09 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC).