OPEC nations had their most profitable half-a-year ever. According to the FT, "Members of the Saudi ­Arabia-led oil exporters' cartel took home $645bn (£335bn, €430bn) between January and June." That number could get even better in the second half.

OPEC may be doing exceedingly well and it may be building huge sovereign funds to invest in crippled financial companies in the US and EU, but it is taking on a substantial risk.

OPEC has kept is production fairly flat. The organization has done very little to abate the run-up in oil prices. That run-up has been the one of the two or three largest contributors to a slowdown of economies in the West.

A full-blown and deep economic recession is likely to spread from the West to China and India. If the US consumer cannot afford much beyond his mortgage, gas, and food, imports will suffer, perhaps substantially. Falling demand for imports in the US could spread to the energy-hungry countries of the developing world. In other words, demand for crude could collapse as demand for exports falters.

A sharp drop in oil demand could do terrific harm to the pace at which OPEC takes in cash. Record income may seem good for now, but it could drive very unpleasant and unintended consequences.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

The price of oil is falling, and it may stay down for some time. But prices could well remain in the $90 range.

Saudi Arabia has indicated that it could increase production by two million barrels a day, according to The Associated Press. President Bush has urged the kingdom to release more oil.

Signs of a recession in the U.S. would indicate that demand here should fall off as consumers cut back on purchases of gas and heating oil.

Even with these two pieces of news, oil trades around $92. There are factors that could keep it there which, in turn, could undermine a recovery in the U.S. economy.

The New York Times reports that nobody knows where the price of oil will go next. It quotes John Richels, president of the Devon Energy Corp. (NYSE: DVN), an international oil and gas company based in Oklahoma City, saying $150 a barrel was possible, but so was $55.

To me, the most interesting part of this forecast is that an executive in the industry has no idea where the price will go. As the Times suggests, this is because the price is determined by traders and hedge funds. And these market participants view U.S. equities, housing, credit and currency markets as shaky. By contrast, they see oil and other commodities as a safe haven.

If the Times is correct, then the price of oil will be determined by the direction of U.S. equities, housing, and currency and whether these traders and hedge funds continue to see oil as a store of value. If you think that housing prices will rise in 2009; that the U.S. economy is in for robust growth and a balancing budget in 2009; and that peace will break out in the Middle East then those traders and hedge funds are likely to sell oil and buy dollars -- dropping the price to Richels' $55.

Otherwise, $150 here we come.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in Devon securities.

It is getting harder to find new oil reserves and demand is growing. That seems to be old news, but industry experts are only now beginning to form a consensus that oil prices could go well over $100 a barrel [subscription required].

According to The Wall Street Journal, "Sadad I. Al-Husseini, an oil consultant and former executive at Aramco, Saudi Arabia's national oil company, gave a particularly chilling assessment of the world's oil outlook. The major oil-producing nations, he said, are inflating their oil reserves by as much as 300 billion barrels." Some of this is crude found in places where it cannot be recovered.

Current oil fields are aging. Many have been in production for several decades. It is unclear that they can continue to produce oil for decades to come. In addition, governments in major oil-producing countries such as Nigeria and Venezuela are unstable. And the Middle East seems to have a new political crisis each month.

If oil moves well above $100, it could cripple the economy in the US and devastate the economy in China. The costs of transportation and of goods using petroleum-based chemicals would skyrocket.

A sharp and permanent increase in oil prices may bring global economic growth to a halt.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Overnight, a barrel of crude hit $86.79 on the New York Mercantile Exchange, according to MarketWatch. The news site says, "Among the bigger news items impacting oil, Turkey's government asked parliament late Monday to approve a cross-border offensive against Kurdish rebels in Iraq."

But it now appears that almost any excuse will move oil up.

And this is not the end of it. OPEC is only lifting production by 2% in November, while Chinese demand for imported oil rose 18% in the first eight months of this year. Turmoil in areas where oil is produced is growing. Nigeria and Venezuela are not considered stable. It will not take much of another "little war" in the Middle East to move crude higher. The only good news is that hurricane season is winding down and production interruptions in the Gulf of Mexico are less likely.

With a tip of the hat to Al Gore, the rotund champion of the environment, former Vice President, and current Nobel winner, big economies are still their own worst enemies in the arena of energy consumption. There is no reason to believe that supply can keep up long-term, and OPEC sees no reason to help out. Higher oil prices are an excellent money-making proposition.

Oil is moving higher. There are too few forces to move it down. And, with winter setting in around the Northern Hemisphere, a bit of oil is going to be needed to keep us warm.

Douglas A. McIntyre is a partner at 24/7 Wall St.

Two Sumos -- government and big oil companies -- are wrestling for control of the oil industry. And according to the Wall Street Journal [subscription required], a big shift in bargaining power is putting government on top. This could be a crushing blow for oil companies and the people who invest in them.

In the past, oil companies enjoyed the upper hand because they had the capital and the expertise to take on the risk of exploring for new sources of oil. As a result, big oil traded that ability to take risk for equity ownership of oil fields. But since there are fewer new places to explore, governments increasingly find themselves in control of their own energy destinies.

With demand strong and supply dwindling, prices are high and governments have the capital and expertise they need to develop their own energy resources -- leaving leaving big oil companies with a smaller piece of the pie. In some places, the producer nations are simply taking majority stakes in existing projects away from Western oil companies. Even when the Western company is paid for its property, future profits are erased. In December, Royal Dutch Shell PLC (NYSE: RDS.A) was forced to turn over a majority stake in Russia's giant Sakhalin 2 project to Gazprom

When I think of the jowly former Exxon Mobil Corp. (NYSE: XOM) CEO Lee Raymond and his $400 million retirement package, I feel little sympathy for big oil. But if big oil wants to strengthen its long-term profits it will need to find a way to increase its bargaining power. And this could come from developing sustainable energy sources --such as solar and others -- and pushing for greater energy efficiency in automobiles.

The resulting lower prices could strengthen big oil's bargaining power with governments and position it to extract a bigger share of end game profit. Meanwhile it would be positioned to profit from the next big energy wave.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates, a management consulting and venture capital firm. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in Exxon or Royal Dutch Shell.