That changed dramatically starting in late 2014,
when global oil supplies began growing faster than demand.
Not exact matches
One could frame the debate in the advantages of using less fossil fuel, which range from lower costs to people (an all electric car has operating costs about 1/4 that of a gasoline vehicle), to balance of payments (less capital flowing out of the country, especially relevant to countries who import most of their
oil), to terrorism (not funding it, and western influence leaving the ME, which is the basis of most ME terrorist organizations) to conflict in general (most of the major conflicts in the last 30 years have involved ME
oil), to finite
supply (
when we run out, we'll be facing a
global economic meltdown).
If such is the case, the premium may have ended
when global oil storage capacity became exhausted; the contango would have deepened as the lack of storage
supply to soak up excess
oil supply would have put further pressure on spot prices.
An elemental question begs to be corroborated in more than one way for sheer fairness:
When the main pushers of the idea that the «reposition
global warming» phrase insinuate it is proof of an industry - led disinformation effort employing crooked skeptic climate scientists — Naomi Oreskes saying it indicates a plot to
supply «alternative facts,» Gelbspan saying it is a crime against humanity, and Al Gore implying it is a cynical
oil company effort — are they truly oblivious to the necessity of corroborating whether or not that phrase and the memo subset it came from actually had widespread corrupting influence, or did they push this «evidence» with malice knowing it was worthless?