Talk:2000s energy crisis/Archive 1

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.)

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)


 * It may seem illogical that refinery problems could drive up the price of crude oil, but it is a historical fact. I have seen two explanations offered. The first is that in general, oil and gasoline prices tend to move together. Because of this a number of trading programs run that will automatically take positions if the ratios between these two prices change much, forcing them to tend to move together. Everyone knows about these programs so everyone else takes positions on the assumption that prices will move like this, making it a self fulfilling assumption. The second explanation is that oil prices rise on anticipation of future excess demand from the refineries once they are fixed. The pent-up demand will need to be satisfied causing drawdown of oil inventories and raising prices. Traders anticipate this price movement so we see oil prices move up when refineries shut down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.71.226.132 (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

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.
 * ''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)
 * 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)

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 to 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)

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)

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)

Supply
"Low supply of crude oil"?
 * Production has never been faster. It came in at 83 million barrels a day during 2004. .--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.]

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)

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?

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)

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

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 and. Using CPI inflation calculators the cost of a barrel of crude at its peak was $83.45 in 2005 dollars. Or using a GDP deflator calcualtion 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" 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)

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)

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.

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 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)

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}

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 ..."
 * 1) ''"Still others suggest that ..."
 * ''"These analysts believe ..."
 * 1) ''"The consensus in the oil trading market is ..."

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

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)

'oil prices' redirects here..
..and makes little sense whatsoever.

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)

Walmart actually looks very carefully at the price of gasoline. As the price of gasoline increases, Walmart's customer base literally spends a greater percentage of their income at the pump. They cut back hours to eliminate hours that are marginal at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.121.69 (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2007 (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)

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).

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 improving weasel-worded statements.

Numen 10:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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. -- Ci e lomobile 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. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 20:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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.
 * No, the price won't rise within the US if the US had no need to import oil. The price rises because there wouldn't be enough oil production to satisfy cheap consumer demands in the US. Aran|heru|nar 13:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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).

Late 2006 price decrease, US election
Why is there nothing mentioned about the widespread suspicions that gasoline prices were deliberately lowered in an attempt to infleunce the Congressional elections? 71.203.209.0 02:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How to understand oil prices
How should we understand oil prices? The measurements vary between barrels, US gallons and so on. Then when mentioning the international price per barrel of crude oil, how does that reflect the price in the petrol station? And what about crude vs refined oil? Can anyone explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.43.11 (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The quoted price is for delivery of a certain type of high quality oil, light sweet crude. Oil that is heavy or acid (not sweet or high sulphur content) is discounted. Most enterprises that produce petrol have crude "in the pipeline" which they have previously purchased, so they are not paying the current price. As they make new contracts and pay the higher price, that price will necessarily be reflected in their product. Oil barrel: 42 US gallons, 158.9873 litres,[1] or 34.97231575 Imperial (UK) gallons, see Barrel (unit). See the introduction to Price of petroleum. As to refined products, see Oil refinery. Crude oil is pretty nasty and unusable, although it will burn. Fred Bauder 03:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

2007?
The title of this article seems to be getting out of date. Move to "-2007"? —wwoods 19:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd support a general move to a more year independant name at the least "Oil prices 2004 - present" or " Recent oil price rises "something. Actually its also getting rather long and unwieldy for one page - so I also ask should we split it up by year, or by topic. (Crude oil/ US Gasline price / social effects around the world..) I'd probably be brutal and say "do it" and see if anyone felt hurt enough to undo it, but I'm only a visitor here just my thoughts -Mike in the UK. 213.123.201.126 13:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Moving to something like 'Oil price increases since 2004' would probably be a good idea. It would also stop us having to move the page every year! I just had to move this Talk page to its current location, since whenever the title of the article was last changed the Talk page wasn't moved as well... it would be better if we could avoid the need for these constant page moves. Terraxos 05:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, except 'Oil price increases since 2003' since the first sentence of the article states the price of oil on NYMEX in September 2003. Cyclonenim (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Moved. See Oil price increases since 2003 Cyclonenim (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we move it back to Oil price increases of 2004-2008, the one linked to from the main page?  Within article text, Recentism isn't strongly held to, but I don't know anywhere else that non-permanent words like "current" or an implied "to present" are used within article titles.  --98.206.221.93 (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I think it was indeed nessersary to move the page anyway. The very first line of the article states the year 2003, and for that reason alone it should have been moved. 'Recentism' is more professional, whether it is strongly held to or not. CycloneNimrod (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Graphs, oh my!
The "oil prices in dollars of the day vs 2006 dollars" is a prime example of why graphs indicating time-series prices ought to have a logarithmic Y scale.

While I'm at it - the "high price" of oil may simply reflect the collapsing USD, as oil is denominated in USD. The graphs mean nothing to people outside God's Country unless they are denominated vs some sort of basket of currencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.97.245.84 (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

USA gas Prices?

 * Anyone think the gas prices in the USA are going to be 4 bucks / gallon by next Christmas. Thats is going to be whacked. Man, this is so stupid. Oil prices are going to be going high, higher, and higher. If Hugo Chavez gets "ticked" off by the USA he can cut off oil production to the UNITED STATES any time he feels like it. That would be disaster to the United States economy. It would be like the 1970s when everyone was in line at the pumps for 4 hours waiting for some gas.Iron Valley (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Stop whining! You have legs, don't you? Walk or ride the bicycle to the grocery. Buy a motorcycle or a VW Beetle and save more than half of petrol. Buy a hybrid like the Prius. Ride a bus or train to work. Share your car with neighbour to/from work and so save on costs. Write your congressman to lobby for sulphur-less fuel in USA, so efficient turbo-diesels can be used in private cars as well. The possibilities are endless! 91.83.17.232 (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Dude you didnt have to get all "ticked off" I was just expressing my right to the First Amendment. I just think the gas prices in the USA are just stupid. EXXON is just raking in money "left and right" by the Average Joe. Iron Valley (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Dude", the First Amendment means nothing to anyone outside the US, to us it is simply whining. Petroleum/Gas/Diesel prices are stupid everywhere, because of the simple fact that we are running of crude oil. If the world wants any hope of solving the global warming crisis, then the US and China really need to buckle down and 'act their age', and support bills to reduce carbon emissions and eventually cease them all together. CycloneNimrod (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

America: holy cow (holy donkey, holy elephant).
> At the same time, US consumers are still buying large, inefficient vehicles and living farther and farther from urban centers in suburbia/exurbia.[citation needed] <

Citation? Why? Wikipedia needs no citations for trivial statements, that is clearly specified. The above quoted sentence is equivalent to saying Earth is part of the Solar System. Both are perfectly true and objective statements. EPA itself acknowledges that the average car in the EU has twice MPG compared to the average unitestatesian car.

Not to mention lean turbo-diesels with particulate filter are quite widespread in the EU, while the yankee still have no diesel cars and civilian SUVs due to lack of sulphur removal in their fuel, which is also a major reason why their 18-wheelers are so polluting (60% of all air pollution in USA comes from transit and transport). 91.83.17.232 (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Must suck living in a country that takes away your freedom of movement with arbitrary gas taxes, eh?

On a more serious note, people are moving back to city centers and sales of fuel-efficient vehicles are way up in the US. Go crawl back in your hole, Euro-troll. Kensai Max (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, he made a very good point. The US is responsible (well, the US and China) for the lack of advancements in an international law in reducing carbon emissions and other harmful gases. The US are unwilling to remove sulphur from their fuels which is just plain arrogance. The US believe themselves to be invincible against anything that effects the rest of the world, somehow the US government believes that it is better to help cause Global Warming than slow it down. I don't understand how you saying that people are moving back into the cities is going to help anything, it just concentrates the problem, doesn't dissolve it. 'Fuel-efficient cars are way up in the US' from what? 0 to 100? Considering you only have sulphur fuel in the US, I can't see how any of your vehicles are fuel-efficient. CycloneNimrod (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * THis is all completely OT. Whether Americans or Europeans or both are dumb has nothing whatsoever to do with improving the article. The only point that is relevant is yes, we do need a cite for the claim above no matter how obvious it is. See WP:Verifiability Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the Earth revolving around the Sun is verified by institutions that are generally trusted around the world. Your statement is not.  The point is that I can link to many articles from reputable sources that will say the Earth revolves around the Sun, but you have not linked to any articles showing the recent vehicle and home purchasing trends in the United States that show that Americans are not adjusting to this change. Dx87 (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

While I really shouldn't be playing with trolls here, American diesel sulfur standards are substantively identical to those in Europe. Read the article on Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel. You'd figure people would bother to do research every once in a while instead of just vigorously agreeing with each other about how America is the root of all the world's problems. Kensai Max (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oil price increases or US$ fall ? (case of USA, EUROP, Taiwan)
From USA, you can see that oil price moved from 20 U$ to 100 US$ in 6 years (5 times more expensive).

But I come from Europe, and from Europe people see that oil price moved from 30 € to 65 € in 6 years (2.2 times more expensive).

I'm currently in Taiwan for studies, and taiwanese people are like Europeans, they see that oil price moved from 1200 NT$ to 2600 NT$ in 6 years (2.4 times more expensive). False believe, corrected in Talk:Oil price increases since 2003.

So, my conclusion is that half of the perceived increase in USA is not due to oil increase, but to US$ fall. This article is currently not clear on this issue.

So : Why are we only or widely talking about "oil price increase" and "oil price top", and not talking for an half of US$ fall and US$ lowest level since many years.

I also have in mind that US governement is -in Europe as least- often say to control the fall or the rise of his own currency.

Regards, 210.203.62.182 (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I eventually added a world wide view to this article with a more "neutral" version of the previous sentences, felling that the need was real, and according to the fact that I had time to do so.
 * It may be need to add links sourcing my memory of the currencies values 6 years ago (data to check, some answer on US%24) :
 * In my memory : 2001 => 1€ = 0.8 US$ = 38 NT$ + oil price = 20 US$
 * Today 2008/01/01 : 1€ = 1.48 US$ = 44 NT$ + oil price = about 100 US$
 * I didn't dared to add that this US$ fall may be the choice of US government, this idea that I read frequently in European newspapers can be an European media bias.
 * Regards, 210.203.62.182 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC

I removed this section for the time being. You at least need sources for the prices that you list, otherwise, this would fall under the "original research" portion of WP. IF this were to return, try incorporating it into the "History" or "Effects" section, both of which cover much of the material that you state. Dx87 (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Daniel Gross's piece in Slate makes this very clear. I'm amused people think he's being sarcastic about $100 being the price of lunch in London, but the greenback really isn't what is used to be. This is also one of the three frequent standard economists use to relate purchasing power (a hamburger/ a gallon of gasoline/ a nice steak dinner). -- Kendrick7talk 23:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, see next section. -- Kendrick7talk 11:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Help to provide 2001's NT$/US$ currency rate source
Section about World view have been restore. The rules about "original research" also encourage to don't be blind, and to accept pertinent text.

In this case : the 2008 currencies rate are easily checkable (go on WallStreet website today), while the 2001 €/US$ is visible on here (with external link), and 2001's US$/barrel is visible in the current article itself. It just stay the 2001's NT$/Barrel rate to source (or 2001's NT$/US$ as well, since we already have the 2001 US$/barrel rate).

Accordingly, I restored the section which is at 3/4 clear now, and I will look for source for 2001's NT$/US$ rate. Your help is welcome since I personally don't know where, on which website, I can find this kind of source/archive image.

Regards, 210.203.62.182 (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the perceived increase of oil price in USA is by half due to US$ fall. Then, yes, I think that this section is important, especially when the "Oil price increases since 2003" article's introduction don't say a word about this issue. More again when I remember than 95% of the world population is not American, and so, does not have to talk or heard about exceptional oil crisis (price x5), which seems to be an USA locate story.
 * Regards, 210.203.62.182 (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion (to complete, help welcome) :

World view
Conclusion correcting my former belief : Also, I will complete and correct the section accordingly. 210.203.62.182 (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Taiwan is more like USA than Europe ;
 * 2) Result and differences are not as hight as I previously remembered-expected ;
 * 3) I may have mislead by : 1/ my European background ; 2/ the first time I came to Taiwan (2003) seems to have been a Good year for NT$, which lead me to believe that the usual and 2001 rate NT$/US$ was different. I underestimated link between NT$ and US$, which display close rate graphs.
 * 4) By the way, I checked Japanese Yen as of 2002/01/01 since I think it's a stronger currency than NT$, and far enough from Europe to show a world wide view. It finally seems that Japanese Yen also follow US$ fall, and so, that Japaneses see oil price rise close from this seen in USA (3.33x compare to 4x).

Futher data need

 * I encourage to continue the study for the following countries :
 * Great Britain's GBP [ 2002/01/01] and [  2008/01/01]
 * Brazilian BRL [ 2002/01/01] and [  2008/01/01]
 * Indian INR [ 2002/01/01] and [  2008/01/01]
 * Russian RUB [ 2002/01/01] and [  2008/01/01]
 * Chinese and RMB [ 2002/01/01] and [  2008/01/01] ;
 * South Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.122.97.6 (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * to add the point of view of countries who are currently growing fast. (look for 2002/01/01 and 2008/01/04 rate compare to US$, then find the price of a barrel in the local money in 2002 and 2008, then find the grow.) 210.203.62.182 (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Currency value

Lunch at London McDonalds DOES NOT cost $100!
I deleted this:

The purchasing power of the U.S. dollar has also declined sharply over this period. For example, at the time the price of oil reached US$ 100 per barrel, this price was roughly equivalent to the price of lunch at the McDonald's in London.

The article this links to is clearly being SARCASTIC here. Lunch does not cost roughly US $100 at any McDonald's!! It was a joke! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.49.51 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you're IP resolves to Texas. I happen to know there's no McDonald's in London, Texas, so I can't believe you're expertise on any London pricing here, versus the plain statement of an economist. If the source is joking, it's a bad joke. -- Kendrick7talk 06:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and asked for feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London. -- Kendrick7talk 06:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not does it cost $100 in London. It's about £3.99 for a Big Mac Meal which is under $8 at current exchange rates. Regan123 (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting... in Taipei, it's about 119 NT$ for a Big Mac Meal, which -at the 2008/01/04 rates 100 TWD=3.08 USD => 119 TWD ~3,68 US$. Two time cheaper than London ones, Accordingly, I will probably go to buy it tomorrow.
 * PS: The Mc Chiken hamburger is at 39 TWD ~ 1.33 US$. 210.203.62.182 (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. As I have all my money in US$, I'm really relieved to hear this! -- Kendrick7talk 11:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

umh... I want to add a note : this section is fun but is a non-event, and should be deleted/archived quickly (a such section is a shame for wikipedian... -___-"). 210.203.62.182 (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Yes, I live in Austin, Texas...but I've eaten at McDonald's in London...several times (as well as in various other countries, I'm ashamed to admit). At any rate, it's common sense that a Big Mac and Fries is not going to cost US $100!  The "plain statement" by the economist was plainly a demonstration of wit; who says an economist can't have a sense of humor?  It was A JOKE.  He might as well have said that lunch costs "a million dollars" (same irony).  I'm surprised that you didn't catch it, but I am more surprised that you would pay $100 for fast food, which is my assumption based on your incredulity even after it was pointed out to you. I once paid US $7.50 for an ice cream cone at the Ben and Jerry's near Trafalgar Square and I felt violated. London is expensive, but one need not be affluent to avoid starvation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.49.52 (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I don't know why the economist said that. But he or she did succeed in highlighting the naïvety of certain people since it appears some really believed him Nil Einne (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

World View International perspective section seems like original research and flawed

 * This talk is about Internationalperspective section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.122.97.4 (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(old rfc keeps screwing up the bot) section= International perspective section seems like original research and flawed !! reason=need someone knowledgable in international economics to comment on new section in the article !! time=19:04, 06 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides the section being poorly written and its placement in the article being poorly chosen, most of the statements in the section sound like original research, and the statement that '3 times growth is less important than 4 times growth' is fundamentally flawed. I was going to remove it all together for those reasons, but want to gage consensus first. I think a section could be written to discuss the underlying issue, but it shouldn't be the first thing, and it should be written by someone who has a very good understanding of global economics. Other opinions? NJGW (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the English, simply as I hit the article, read that section, and though it needed fixing. Sorry if it was undergoing discussion! I also added the caveat that this analysis requires the assumption of constant relative purchasing power between the countries and currencies concerned. All in all, I think the author of the section is making a valid addition to the article (it's news about the US$100 price, but this must be framed in context of US$ fall as much as oil price increase), but it can probably be put more succinctly. Given there is discussion on the topic, I leave this to others. 82.6.106.8 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good start to what I had in mind. I still would like someone to further address the relative purchasing power issue, as well as to what extent the effects of price increases have been seen world wide (e.g. the effects section clearly shows that Europe is highly affected by price increases). NJGW (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not an original research in my POV, currencies' rates are sourced and are fact, put them together and look at oil barrel price rose in each currency is still a list of facts. Accordingly, comparaisons of these growns are also facts and acceptable.
 * I also finally found the barrel price as of 2002/01/02 : 20,37 US$. Accordingly, some calculus have to be done again for 2002, ar for the 2002-2008 grow factor (see the green lines). (I will have time to do so only in 3 or 4 days, feel free to do it and to correct my "Summary table" 2 or 3 section upper)210.203.62.182) (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While I understand why you may think that this is not original research, WP:NOR would seem to indicate that while you can put the tables together, you cannot state that "Looking on oil price increase with other currencies for a world view lead to see that oil price was multiplied by an average of 3 in these areas, which is not as important as the 4 times jump compare to US currency. USA being the more affected because of the rencent years' US$ fall.


 * Actually, a quarter of the perceived increase in USA population is not due to oil increase, but to US$ fall. It is then important to not only talk about "oil price increase" and "oil price top", but also to talk about "US$ fall" and "US$ lowest level" since many years."


 * That would be defined as original research. The other sections, showing price increases over a period of time, can be stated, as well as a summarization of what it shows (eg the price of oil per barrel increased by a factor of 2.32422).  While I'm at it, I would also suggest looking at the values from 2005-2008, instead of 2002-2008, as that is the time period that has been used for 3 of the good graphs shown on the main page. Dx87 (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the author has missed my point when I had first removed this section. Much of what you are asserting does fall underneath the original research WP. My suggestion that you incorporate your findings in the History or Effects section is so that there is not an unnecessary section (one that appears before other well cited, well written, and very relevant sections If you would read those sections, you can clearly see that there are subheadings for "The effect of dollar value, exchange rates and metals", as well as sections for Europe and Asia. Additionally, your articles should be professionally written.  A simple run through word processing programs would catch many of the grammatical errors that appear in your entry. I'm not going to take a stance on the original research issue, but please try to incorporate any information you have in the relevant sections, and not make a completely new section when one is not necessary Dx87 (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see that somebody had already implemented some of the changes I had suggested, and moved the section further down (I thought it had been deleted again). Whoops. Dx87 (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we agree : numbers are numbers, and are fact when well sourced + interpretations are modifiable. Your previous copyediting and neutralization of my sentences are fine : lets wiki work ;] (210.203.62.182) (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement "USA populations being the most affected according to recent years US$ fall," is not neccessarily true, and not supported by any sources. One has to consider a local currencies purchasing power to gage the real-world effects of a price increase (according to this graph the US has the stongest local economy in the world according to PPP), and also consider other contributors to the price of petrol in Europe (such as high taxes).  There is validity in discussing the price of oil world wide, but I don't think you can show that Europeans suffer any less because oil is traded with dollars (the benifits there come from more efficient public and private transportation).  Also, as someone else pointed out, this discussion is about the price increases that started near the end of 2003, so I'm not sure why you're including 2002. NJGW (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why 2002 ? because -on my memory- old price accelerated its rise with the USA's miliary actions in the Golf (the Afghanistan and then Iraki war). 2002/01/01 to make 6 year away from now, and start on the beggining of the year (easier to memorise).
 * After what, while US$ fell by ~33%, I don't think that USA's salaries jumped by ~50% in 6 years, allowing USA consumers to keep the same Purchasing Power for foreign products. On the other hand, taxes in Europes haven't change in 6 years, distributions price probably not lot, etc. This lead me to think [not to Know], that US's people are affected by a bigger change/rise on the oil issue than other. But, according to the fact that I have just a basic understanding on PPP and Purchasing Power, not enough understanding to match you on this issue if you already studied on Economy (I never did), so... feel free to neutralize. (210.203.62.182) (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * After what, while US$ fell by ~33%, I don't think that USA's salaries jumped by ~50% in 6 years, allowing USA consumers to keep the same Purchasing Power for foreign products. On the other hand, taxes in Europes haven't change in 6 years, distributions price probably not lot, etc. This lead me to think [not to Know], that US's people are affected by a bigger change/rise on the oil issue than other. But, according to the fact that I have just a basic understanding on PPP and Purchasing Power, not enough understanding to match you on this issue if you already studied on Economy (I never did), so... feel free to neutralize. (210.203.62.182) (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Indonesia
I changed the claim here that Indonesia no longer exports oil. While I'm not an expert I'm pretty sure the claim was false. Indonesia is now a net importer of oil/petroleum. However this doesn't mean they don't export petroleum. Many small scale petroleum producers do in fact export and import petroleum regardless of whether they are net exporters or net importers. The quality of petroleum produced may not fit the local markets needs and therefore this is exported to places which want what is produced and the country imports what they need. For example, Malaysia is I believe still a net exporter of petroleum but they also import a lot of petroleum because they don't need much of the light sweet crude which is what they produce. Australia also imports and exports petroleum I believe. From what I can tell Indonesia also both exports and imports petroleum. Being a net importer of petroleum is obviously what matters most but it is not the same thing as not exporting any petroleum, so I adjusted the wording to be more accurate Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)