No . Sorry. It goes up to USD90 plus and then it comes down to USD50 plus .
That's where GS made their money.
LL
That's where GS made their money.
LL
Capital gains.. from where exactly?
- Thread starter duncan_m
- Start date
LL do you seriously think you know more than the US Generals?
Are you so naive' that you believe that what they distribute for general consumption is what they actually believe?
The Pentagon knows all about the threats to their fuel. So aware that they will invent "false scenarios" to justify their deliberate attempts to secure oil.
Are you so naive' that you believe that what they distribute for general consumption is what they actually believe?
The Pentagon knows all about the threats to their fuel. So aware that they will invent "false scenarios" to justify their deliberate attempts to secure oil.
Sunfish,
I'm not sure I get your point. Sorry.
What I said was I wouldn't believe them. On anything. They tell lies. Simple as that.
LL
I'm not sure I get your point. Sorry.
What I said was I wouldn't believe them. On anything. They tell lies. Simple as that.
LL
Sure they tell lies. We know that. But didn't you say they couldn't know about peak oil because they didn't know about WMD? Something like that.
Not sure what you mean, are you saying the GFC was not responsible for the drop in the crude price from 2008?
Well the posts are about 2 inches up the screen. Read em
.
I said I would not believe what they told us on anything.
Put another way, I'm saying (after WMD etc) I wouldn't accept the US military as a reliable source of information on ANYTHING. They tell lies.
LL
. I said I would not believe what they told us on anything.
Put another way, I'm saying (after WMD etc) I wouldn't accept the US military as a reliable source of information on ANYTHING. They tell lies.
LL
Well the posts are about 2 inches up the screen. Read em
I said I would not believe what they told us on anything.
Put another way, I'm saying (after WMD etc) I wouldn't accept the US military as a reliable source of information on ANYTHING. They tell lies.
LL
I know that's what you said. What has that got to do with whether or not US Defense has concerns about availability of oil? They are probably way ahead of you in their deliberations. It's too easy to dismiss military men as dumb *** but the top brass all had to do something well (Fly an aircraft, captain a nuclear carrier/sub) and you would do well to consider what they say.
They are concerned about the fuel they need.
Hi all,
I agree about not trusting the US military, up to a point. However when they happen to line up with the findings of independent scientists, and the heads of various large oil companies, etc, then it would be foolish to disregard what they are saying.
Even the EIA (US Energy Information Administration) has been changing their tune over the last decade.... notice how even they have been downgrading the likely crude supply, even though they are one of the most optimistic organizations on future supplies.
bye
I agree about not trusting the US military, up to a point. However when they happen to line up with the findings of independent scientists, and the heads of various large oil companies, etc, then it would be foolish to disregard what they are saying.
Even the EIA (US Energy Information Administration) has been changing their tune over the last decade.... notice how even they have been downgrading the likely crude supply, even though they are one of the most optimistic organizations on future supplies.
bye
Attachments
Not per se, But I accept the two events did overlap. Once again, to GS advantage, because by then they were waayyy short oil. But it's more the way they drove the prices up that is very interesting.
toe, please take the time to read the Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone article. I promise you it's a bloody good read (... if you're interested in this stuff). Well researched and well written. And never challenged by GS to my knowledge. Cup of coffee, feet up, enjoy !
LL
But Bill, do I understand this graph correctly? This is "SUPPLY" ...not demand ?
It would indicate that "the oil supply system" can continue to INCREASE output until at least 2035 ...and the curve shows no signs of even flattening out ?????
How safe do you need to "feel" ? That would appear to me to be pretty OK to me. I'll tell the kids don't sell any of the IPs until at least 2035 !!
LOL LL
...and they use it soooo wisely and economically!!
Sunfish, No insult intended, but I'm not responding any further to the military BS. My late father in law used to say "Being in the army when there's no war going on would be like working for the railways and not running any trains."
LL
Don't read too much into those charts. They are from the EIA which accepts without question the stated reserves from Saudi Arabia et al which have never been reduced to reflect output, in spite of little exploration being done.
I think Bill posted them just to show that EVEN the EIA is reducing their forecasts.
BPs problems prove how difficult and expensive new oil is to find and recover. There will be more stringent regulations put on the oil companies after this so I believe the forecasts of $100 oil by the end of the year.
I haven't a clue what any of this has to do with not selling IPs till '35 though.
I think Bill posted them just to show that EVEN the EIA is reducing their forecasts.
BPs problems prove how difficult and expensive new oil is to find and recover. There will be more stringent regulations put on the oil companies after this so I believe the forecasts of $100 oil by the end of the year.
I haven't a clue what any of this has to do with not selling IPs till '35 though.
Hi all,
LL,
I think you are smarter than that.
Looking at the graph clearly shows that the early forecasts were wrong. They have progressively got less optimistic. The 2010 forecast that shows the previous actual figures from 2005-2010 shows just how dismal the picture is. There has not been anything like the rate of growth of any of the prior predictions for the period between 2005 and 2010.
It shows that those future predictions up to 2035 really are fairytale stuff.
You have to remember that in that 2005-2010 period oil prices were the highest they have ever been, yet supply did not grow by anything like the prediction.
bye
LL,
I think you are smarter than that.
Looking at the graph clearly shows that the early forecasts were wrong. They have progressively got less optimistic. The 2010 forecast that shows the previous actual figures from 2005-2010 shows just how dismal the picture is. There has not been anything like the rate of growth of any of the prior predictions for the period between 2005 and 2010.
It shows that those future predictions up to 2035 really are fairytale stuff.
You have to remember that in that 2005-2010 period oil prices were the highest they have ever been, yet supply did not grow by anything like the prediction.
bye
Bill, that I agree with.
Whilst I agree with your observations, I certainly don't agree with your interpretation. As time goes by, these graphs change from forecasts to reality. (I'm assuming we agree that the oil is essentially consumed, so the numbers used in 2010 e.g. for prior years are actuals, not forecasts.) What we can interpret is these guys consistently OVER forecast demand and consistently demand is LESS than they anticipate. e.g in 2001 the forecast for 2010 was 97.4 , but the actual for 2010 was 86 ( missed by 13%). Further, the farther we look into the future, the "worse" their numbers become. In 2001 the forecast for 2020 was 109.2. But now in 2010 the forecast for 2020 is 88.7 ...a reduction of 23%. THAT'S RIDICULOUS. These numbers are so stupid I don't know how any organisation could publish them.
Unleesssss, they have a vested interest in trying to make people think ...we're running out of oil .... and do this by DRASTICALLY exaggerating their numbers. For that is certainly their "form" ! You have the proof before you.
LL
Hi LL,
Those numbers are supply, what they believe supply will be. They have different numbers for demand and show that demand will outstrip supply by 2020 (it was 2030 until the year before last).
The point on this is that this mob are one of the ones who have been poo-hooing peak oil all along. They still include "undiscovered oil" as their major source of oil by 2030, despite the fact that the average size of oil finds per year has been getting less for nearly 40 years. From memory it was during the '80's when the world first started using more oil than was discovered in each year.
bye
Those numbers are supply, what they believe supply will be. They have different numbers for demand and show that demand will outstrip supply by 2020 (it was 2030 until the year before last).
The point on this is that this mob are one of the ones who have been poo-hooing peak oil all along. They still include "undiscovered oil" as their major source of oil by 2030, despite the fact that the average size of oil finds per year has been getting less for nearly 40 years. From memory it was during the '80's when the world first started using more oil than was discovered in each year.
bye
Hi Bill, All I can deduce is, whatever their numbers, their own chart proves they are most certainly total crap forecasters! Their past forecasts have proven SOOOO inaccurate and their future numbers change so wildly, I really don't know why they bother. May as well stick a "wet finger in the breeze", take a WAG and go to the pub. But I guess there's money comes from somewhere to fund their pathetic predictive efforts.
LL
bottom line; keep your IP's........., and buy oil
Certainly keep your IPs.
By all means buy oil .... as long as you already have some bullion
. LL
One for the worry warts !
http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...ralian-flair-heads-our-way-20100613-y5y5.html
(If the link doesn't work google "the age uk hydrogen car" )
This article is about a hydrogen powered car. But that's not the point. Note it's made from carbon fibre and is one quarter the weight of a regular car and gives 100km/ litre. If we build cars this way, you won't need hydrogen and "oil" lasts for a whooooole lot longer. This is the sort of technology that's ahead.
Lighter cars also make battery power way more fun !! At 100km/litre plus "a few" plug-in electrics and we'll have an oil glut, not a shortage.
LL
http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...ralian-flair-heads-our-way-20100613-y5y5.html
(If the link doesn't work google "the age uk hydrogen car" )
This article is about a hydrogen powered car. But that's not the point. Note it's made from carbon fibre and is one quarter the weight of a regular car and gives 100km/ litre. If we build cars this way, you won't need hydrogen and "oil" lasts for a whooooole lot longer. This is the sort of technology that's ahead.
Lighter cars also make battery power way more fun !! At 100km/litre plus "a few" plug-in electrics and we'll have an oil glut, not a shortage.
LL
Similar threads
