This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

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)[reply]
• 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)

Add any additional comments

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)

"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.]

A historical commodity price graph that isn't inflation-adjusted is hard to read and 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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

   [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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)