Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 124

Thread: Oil shooting to $120/barrel...

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like

    Oil shooting to $120/barrel... the smokescreen continues.

    And yet, still, no one wants to acknowledge or admit to the public the real reason climbing oil prices have no end in sight... Gotta love the transparent crap they give us... It's a new reason each time.... This time it's the struggling U.S. dollar. Before it was the war in Iraq, terrorist threats, Big Oil's greed, OPEC's agenda vs. the West, and on and on and on.

    [B][SIZE="4"]Oil prices to hit $120 barrel by September.[/SIZE][/B]

    [COLOR="DarkRed"][indent] Peter Barker-Homek, CEO of Abu Dhabi National Energy Co., predicts that crude oil prices may hit $120 a barrel within the next six months due to the “[URL="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=autFGntuNqZY"]softness of the dollar [/URL]and the occasional interruptions that you have because of politics.” Last October, Barker-Homek also predicted that oil prices would “rise to $100 from $80 before the end of the first quarter.”[/color][/indent]

    The truth is, oil is running out.
    Last edited by Press_Coverage; 03-04-2008 at 04:33 PM.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    Post Thanks / Like
    Come on man, how do you know the truth?

    Speculation and debate are fine, but you are already convinced. I've yet to see you refute any of the links people have posted debunking peak oil and Hubbert theory

    You do realize that oil price, when inflation adjusted against is not very different against the value of the dollar historically

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CTM;2411589]Come on man, how do you know the truth?

    Speculation and debate are fine, but you are already convinced. I've yet to see you refute any of the links people have posted debunking peak oil and Hubbert theory[/QUOTE]

    Well, that's because no one debunked it. I don't have the search feature, but please link me to a post that asserted such.

    I'm convinced because it's the consensus view of the most esteemed geologists, economists and oil industry insiders of our time. Period.

    Even the Dark Lord himself admitted it in his [URL="http://www.energybulletin.net/559.html"]1999 speech to London Petroleum[/URL].
    Last edited by Press_Coverage; 03-04-2008 at 07:05 PM.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2411598]Well, that's because no one debunked it. I don't have the search feature, but please link me to a post that asserted such.

    I'm convinced because it's the consensus view of the most esteemed geologists, economists and oil industry insiders of our time. Period.

    Even the Dark Lord himself admitted it in his [URL="http://www.energybulletin.net/559.html"]1999 speech to London Petroleum[/URL].[/QUOTE]

    Post 25 in the thread below (I included the text below as well) has links to some good alternative view points

    [url]http://jetsinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2384224[/url]

    [QUOTE=frostlich;2384224]Sorry, can't agree with the 'peak oil' Hubbert theory. By Hubberts theory, we should have ran out of oil 2 years ago. First, nobody is exactly sure how crude oil comes about...there are theories, but there has been no definitive explanation. Furthermore, Mr. Hubbert only takes into consideration old fashioned bore drilling. It does not account for tar sands(which the US and Canada have enormous amounts) and modern extraction techniques. Here's a better rebuttal: [url]http://www.gasresources.net/Lynch(Hubbert-Deffeyes).htm[/url]

    Here's an even better one:
    [url]http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2295/No_Peaking_The_Hubbert_Humbug[/url]

    I just don't buy into the doomsday scenario.

    That being said, of course oil will get more expensive. Oil Sands are expensive to refine, but getting more practical the longer oil holds its price. Yes, China and India have been growing at an enormous pace, and geopolitical . Enough to initiate the explosion of the price of oil since '02? I'm not sure about that. I distinctly remember oil shooting up practically overnight back in '03-04. Nobody knew for sure why oil was over $40 when it was burning thru the $50 barrier. There has always been political turmoil in the mid east. What changed things this time since 2000? Perhaps the way it is traded? I haven't researched it quite enough yet, but it's worth a look:

    [url]http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroom/release.cfm?id=283456[/url] or Google Enron Loophole. Kinda neat, they even managed to work in Enron to give it that Evil overtone...[/QUOTE]

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CTM;2411607]Post 25 in the thread below (I included the text below as well) has links to some good alternative view points

    [url]http://jetsinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2384224[/url][/QUOTE]

    Well, not sure if you noticed, but I believe I responded to that post directly under it in the thread you've alluded to.

    The poster appears to not understand or acknowledge the bell curve model.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2411636]Well, not sure if you noticed, but I believe I responded to that post directly under it in the thread you've alluded to.

    The poster appears to not understand or acknowledge the bell curve model.[/QUOTE]
    I saw, unsatisfying..

    What do you have to say about the major ideas expressed in this article? The bell curve is the best you've got?

    [url]http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2295/No_Peaking_The_Hubbert_Humbug[/url]

    [QUOTE]
    No Peaking: The Hubbert Humbug
    What if everything you thought you knew about Peak Oil was wrong?
    By Greg Palast
    Published: Tuesday May 23rd, 2006

    Editor’s note: This article is the first part in a two part series and should be read in conjunction with this article: Why Palast is Wrong.

    Saddam had to go, we really should take a look at the theory that we went into Iraq to get its oil. A ride up “Hubbert’s Peak” will allow a clearer view of the real topic of this chapter: the geo-politics of petroleum.

    On March 7, 1956, geologist M. King Hubbert presented a research paper that would, a half century later, become the New Gospel of Internet Economics, the Missing Link that would Explain It All from the September 11 attack to the invasion of Iraq.

    In his 1956 paper, Hubbert wrote:

    On the basis of the present estimates of the ultimate reserves of world petroleum and natural gas, it appears that the culmination of world production of these products should occur within a half a century [i.e., by 2006].

    So get in your Hummer and take your last drive, Clive. Sometime during 2006, we will have used up every last drop of crude oil on the planet. We’re not talking “decline” in oil from a production “peak,” we’re talking “culmination,” completely gone, kaput, dead out of crude—and not enough natural gas left to roast a weenie. In his 1956 treatise, Hubbert wrote that Planet Earth could produce not a drop more than one and a quarter trillion barrels of crude.

    We obtain a figure of about 1,250 billion barrels for the ultimate potential reserves of crude oil of the whole world. That’s the entire supply of crude that stingy Mother Nature bequeathed for human use from Adam to the end of civilization. Indeed, our oil-lusting world will have consumed, by the end of 2006, about 1.2 trillion barrels of oil. Therefore, by Hubbert’s calculation, we’re finished; maybe in the very week you read this book we’ll suck the planet dry. Then, as Porky Pig says, “That’s all, folks!”

    But the pig ain’t sung yet. Planes still fly, lovers still cry and smog-o-saurus SUVs still choke the LA freeway. Why aren’t our gas tanks dry? Hubbert insisted Arabia could produce no more than 375 billion barrels of oil. Yet, Middle Eastern oil reserves remaining today total 734 billion barrels. And those are “proven” reserves—known and measured, not including the possibility of a single new oil strike or field extension. Worldwide, ready-to-go reserves total 1.189 trillion barrels—and that excludes the world’s two biggest untapped fields, which could easily double the world reserve. (One is in Iraq, the other we get to in Chapter 4 of our new book Armed Madhouse: Dispatches From the Front Lines of the Class War)

    In all fairness to the Hubbert Heads, there’s a more sophisticated, updated version of Hubbert’s theory. This is where the “peak” concept comes in. In this version of the Hubbert scripture, we ignore his dead wrong prediction of total crude available and look only at the up and down shape of his curve, the “peak.” The amount of oil discovered each year, Hubbert posited, will stop rising by 2000, then will crash rapidly toward zero when we will have used up our allotted 1.25 trillion barrels. We haven’t crashed or even peaked. Oil production has risen year after year after year and discoveries have more than kept pace.

    Nevertheless, like believers undaunted by the failure of alien spaceships to take them to Mars on the date predicted, Peak enthusiasts keep moving the date of the oil apocalypse further into the future. In the new, revisionist models of Hubbert’s prediction, the high point in the curve of discoverable oil on our planet will come in a decade or so. Though we have a reprieve, goes the new theory, still, we’re running out of crude, dude! There’s only another twenty years left in proven reserves! Oh, my! “It’s true that there’s only twenty years’ supply left—and that’s been true for the last hundred years,” Lewis Lapham told me over a decent sauterne at Five Points. (He more often sups at Elaine’s, but I don’t rate that.) Lapham of Harper’s magazine is the only editor in the hemisphere with hard knowledge of the petroleum market, insight he inherited legitimately: His family helped found Mobil Oil, the back half of what is now Exxon Mobil.

    He asked, “Why in the world would oil companies, or any company, announce that there’s lots of its product out there? You’d bust your own market. It’s better to say the cupboard’s bare.” As Lapham noted, we have been “running out of oil” since the days we drained it from whales. OPEC’s big headache before the war shut down Iraq’s fields was that there was way too much oil. We were swimming in it and oil prices stayed low. The last thing oil companies want is more oil from Iraq, any more than soybean farmers want more soybeans from Iraq. Increasing supply means decreasing price.

    This war is about the oil, but what about the oil? The Hubbert Peaksters think they know. They are convinced that Dick Cheney in his bunker is panicked that the world’s supply of oil is about to run out, and so to Iraq we go, to seize the last of it. Here’s the flaw in that argument: To believe that George Bush and Dick Cheney hustled us into Iraq to open up that nation’s untapped bounty of petroleum is to believe that these two oil Texans in the White House are deeply troubled that the price of oil will rise unless they get us more crude.

    But Dick and George get a rise out of the rise.

    Have we peaked? The planet is producing today twice as much as the maximum predicted in 1956 by the “Peaking Man.” But the political uses of holy-****-we’re-running-out-of-oil! has yet to peak. Indeed, Bush and Cheney are more than happy to allow others to promote Hubbert Peak hysteria in the public. “We need Iraq’s oil” is used as a good bogeyman to get the public behind an invasion that promises to get Americans a fill-up for the family gas guzzler for less than a hundred dollars. Anti-war progressives seized on the Hubbert humbug as proof that Bush’s invasion was a war of “Blood for Oil.” Nuns, professors and rock stars were outraged. But the average American thinks, Blood for oil? That’s a BARGAIN.

    The Shell Game

    Hubbert’s predictions may have been astonishingly wrong but his little forty-page research report is, nevertheless, astonishingly important in understanding the mindset of Big Oil.

    Almost everything you need to know about Hubbert and the agenda behind his crucial 1956 study is contained on its cover page. The oil doomsday pronouncement is “Publication No. 95, Shell Development Company, Houston, Texas.” Hubbert was the chief Consultant on general geology for Shell Oil and his “end of oil” paper was presented to the Texas meeting of the American Petroleum Institute. All else flows there from.

    Every once in a while the landlords of the planet have to remind us to be grateful for their services. In 1956 it was Shell Oil’s turn and Hubbert was their man for the job. It was not a happy time for the oilmen of Texas. Shell and the other Seven Sisters, as Big Oil was then known, faced a heck of a problem: crude was cheaper than dirt—$2.77 a barrel, that is, a nickel a gallon—and sinking. Worse, they were finding more of the stuff all over the planet, meaning prices would fall further. In March of that year, Hubbert presented the solution to his fellow oilmen at the API in Houston. He unveiled this magical chart, which you can view here in its original form as a public service.

    The total sum of oil is 1,250 billion barrels—which runs out in 2006. This chart assumed a low annual burn of oil.

    Look closely. When Hubbert spoke, oil reserves worldwide were zooming heavenward. Despite the tide of petroleum rising around us, Hubbert declared that oil discoveries in the USA had begun to peak “as recently as 1951 or 1952” and that the world’s reserves would follow not long thereafter. He didn’t need to wink. His oil industry audience understood what oil giant Shell wanted America to believe: Oil isn’t abundant, it’s a scarce commodity and therefore…

    1. It’s too cheap—so oil companies should, for the public’s own good, raise the price to conserve this precious resource.

    2. We need to find an abundant alternative to fossil fuel.

    3. We need to protect our access to dwindling sources of crude, by force if necessary.

    Shell Oil, through Hubbert, sought, successfully, to change the way America thought of oil’s price, alternatives to oil and access to oil.

    PRICE: The problem of falling oil prices was solved for Shell, brilliantly, in four years, in 1960, by the creation of OPEC. On paper, OPEC was created by national governments. If oil companies had created this cartel to fix prices, that would have made it a criminal conspiracy—cartels are illegal. But when governments conspire for the same purpose, the illegal conspiracy turns into a legitimate “alliance” of sovereign states. OPEC’s government cover makes the price-fixing perfectly legal, and Big Oil reaps the rewards.

    ALTERNATIVES: As to replacing fossil fuels, Hubbert had the answer:
    Limitless nuclear power. His 1956 paper is not called “Peak Oil.” Its title is “Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels.” His let’s-go-nuclear chart, call it “Hubbert’s Plateau,” is usually ignored. You can view it here.

    Note that Hubbert envisions a high, flat plateau of nuclear energy outstripping fossil fuels by the twenty-first century, providing us a comfy, electric economy for five thousand years. Hubbert’s Uranium Reich was longer than anything the Führer could have imagined. Who would supply all this nuclear fuel? Lucky for us that Hubbert’s company, Royal Dutch Shell, was about to announce the formation of its new mega-venture, “URENCO,” a uranium enrichment consortium.

    ACCESS: Protecting our access to petroleum, a “peaking” resource, was Shell Oil’s urgent message. Hubbert’s paper was published in June 1956, not long after the CIA overthrew Iran’s Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh for having nationalized Shell’s and BP’s assets. The paper was released just one month before Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt’s President, seized the Suez Canal, the oil tanker passageway, and just months before a British-French-Israeli invasion force took it back. Hubbert’s Peak thinking helped provide a justification for war over this “strategic resource.”

    Have we peaked? Worldwide oil reserves continue to rise even faster than America and China can burn it. Since 1980, reserves, despite our binge-guzzling, have risen from 648 billion to 1.2 trillion barrels. Yet, weirdly, despite the rising flood of discovered crude, its price quadrupled between 2001 and 2005. Supply choked, yet there’s no peak in sight. Behind this slow in the flow of crude:

    His bit of bother in OPEC’s second-largest reserve (Iraq)

    Putin’s cutting off financing to, then his seizing of, Russian producer Yukos Oil, reducing its output

    Hubbert’s Plateau

    U.S.-promoted sabotage of oil piping, loading and refining systems in Venezuela; and, not least of all,

    the Saudis sitting on their spigots.

    The oil squeeze tightened after the Bush Administration, beginning with the energy bill of 2001, abandoned conservation and encouraged a monstrous jump of two million barrels a day in U.S. oil consumption.

    So please don’t slander Mother Earth and say she’s run out of oil when it’s man-made mischief to blame. Evil, not geology, has a chokehold on energy; nature is ready to give us crude at $12 a barrel where it was just a few short years ago.

    On June 6, Penguin Dutton will publish GNN contributor Greg Palast’s new book, Armed Madhouse: Dispatches From the Front Lines of the Class War. Order it today – and view his investigative reports for Harper’s Magazine and BBC television’s Newsnight – [url]www.GregPalast.com[/url].
    [/QUOTE]

  7. #7
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    848
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2411145]And yet, still, no one wants to acknowledge or admit to the public the real reason climbing oil prices have no end in sight... Gotta love the transparent crap they give us... It's a new reason each time.... [B]This time it's the struggling U.S. dollar.[/B] Before it was the war in Iraq, terrorist threats, Big Oil's greed, OPEC's agenda vs. the West, and on and on and on.

    [B][SIZE="4"]Oil prices to hit $120 barrel by September.[/SIZE][/B]

    [COLOR="DarkRed"][indent] Peter Barker-Homek, CEO of Abu Dhabi National Energy Co., predicts that crude oil prices may hit $120 a barrel within the next six months due to the “[URL="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=autFGntuNqZY"]softness of the dollar [/URL]and the occasional interruptions that you have because of politics.” Last October, Barker-Homek also predicted that oil prices would “rise to $100 from $80 before the end of the first quarter.”[/color][/indent]

    [B]The truth is, oil is running out.[/B][/QUOTE]

    Sorry man but the truth is that the falling dollar has created the oil prices. The dollar is only worth 1/3 of what it was worth 10 years ago. If you price oil not in dollars, but in a commodity that protects against inflation, such as gold, you will see that oil prices are close to as much as they were ten years ago.

    Here is a chart with gasoline prices based in gold instead of dollars. If you eliminate the last ten years of inflation, a gallon of gasoline is cheaper today than it was in 1997:

    [IMG]http://pricedingold.com/charts/Gas-1997.png[/IMG]

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CTM;2411643]I saw, unsatisfying..

    What do you have to say about the major ideas expressed in this article? The bell curve is the best you've got?

    [url]http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2295/No_Peaking_The_Hubbert_Humbug[/url][/QUOTE]

    I love Greg Pallast. He exposed the caging lists and reported how obvious the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen. Somehow, however, I doubt you buy those stories.

    Journalists aren't infallable, and Pallast is off the mark on this one.

    Here's oil industry insider Matthew Simmons, among the most respected human beings on the planet regarding depletion of oil discovery and extraction. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IwtAQzrfiw"]Enjoy.[/URL]

    Somehow, i don't believe this man is lying merely for Big Oil profits.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2411696]I love Greg Pallast. He exposed the caging lists and reported how obvious the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen. Somehow, however, I doubt you buy those stories.

    Journalists aren't infallable, and Pallast is off the mark on this one.

    Here's oil industry insider Matthew Simmons, among the most respected human beings on the planet regarding depletion of oil discovery and extraction. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IwtAQzrfiw"]Enjoy.[/URL]

    Somehow, i don't believe this man is lying merely for Big Oil profits.[/QUOTE]

    Reminds of what you criticize some of the cons here for. Instead of attacking the article, you attack the source..


    My opinion on the matter is that nobody can know for sure.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CTM;2411717]Reminds of what you criticize some of the cons here for. Instead of attacking the article, you attack the source..


    My opinion on the matter is that nobody can know for sure.[/QUOTE]

    Ummm, i believe i praised the source. You're being a tad bit overdramatic if you believe I "attacked" Greg Pallast in that post. Sorry. :cool:

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2411724]Ummm, i believe i praised the source. You're being a tad bit overdramatic if you believe I "attacked" Greg Pallast in that post. Sorry. :cool:[/QUOTE]

    Just waiting for you to refute his op with something more then "great guy, but everybody gets one wrong from time to time"

    The burden of proof here is on you..

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CTM;2411739]Just waiting for you to refute his op with something more then "great guy, but everybody gets one wrong from time to time"

    The burden of proof here is on you..[/QUOTE]

    Well, besides Cheney's speech to London Petroleum that i linked, I'd say Simmons' assessment in the video goes a long way towards showing Pallast's stance on the issue of Peak Oil is under researched.

  13. #13
    All League
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,266
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ok, ok. I'll entertain the thought that we ARE running out of oil...never mind that Mr. Hubbert worked for Shell. Never mind that Mr. Hubbert presented his theory, THEN sought facts to back it up(very scientific).

    If in fact we ARE running out of oil, there is some really great news...no need for additional funding to research Global Warming! We'll run out of oil before the world burns up. Thank you Exxon! Saviour of the world! Think they will be honored in any way?

    Oh, where does oil come from again? How do we know we're running out if we're not sure where it comes from? Prove that we're running out? No, much more fun to prove that we're NOT running out. Trying to prove a negative, always a treat.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2411750]Well, besides Cheney's speech to London Petroleum that i linked, I'd say Simmons' assessment in the video goes a long way towards showing Pallast's stance on the issue of Peak Oil is under researched.[/QUOTE]

    Can you clarify what exactly was conclusive admittance of Peak oil theory in Cheney's speech? (I read ans skimmed, but didn't see it)

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    The truth is that there is not enough refineries ... and not enough production (especially domestic)

    [quote=Press_Coverage;2411145]And yet, still, no one wants to acknowledge or admit to the public the real reason climbing oil prices have no end in sight... Gotta love the transparent crap they give us... It's a new reason each time.... This time it's the struggling U.S. dollar. Before it was the war in Iraq, terrorist threats, Big Oil's greed, OPEC's agenda vs. the West, and on and on and on.

    [B][SIZE=4]Oil prices to hit $120 barrel by September.[/SIZE][/B]


    [COLOR=darkred][INDENT]Peter Barker-Homek, CEO of Abu Dhabi National Energy Co., predicts that crude oil prices may hit $120 a barrel within the next six months due to the “[URL="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=autFGntuNqZY"]softness of the dollar [/URL]and the occasional interruptions that you have because of politics.” Last October, Barker-Homek also predicted that oil prices would “rise to $100 from $80 before the end of the first quarter.”[/INDENT][/COLOR]
    The truth is, oil is running out.[/quote]

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2411145]And yet, still, no one wants to acknowledge or admit to the public the real reason climbing oil prices have no end in sight... Gotta love the transparent crap they give us... It's a new reason each time.... This time it's the struggling U.S. dollar. Before it was the war in Iraq, terrorist threats, Big Oil's greed, OPEC's agenda vs. the West, and on and on and on.

    [B][SIZE="4"]Oil prices to hit $120 barrel by September.[/SIZE][/B]

    [COLOR="DarkRed"][indent] Peter Barker-Homek, CEO of Abu Dhabi National Energy Co., predicts that crude oil prices may hit $120 a barrel within the next six months due to the “[URL="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=autFGntuNqZY"]softness of the dollar [/URL]and the occasional interruptions that you have because of politics.” Last October, Barker-Homek also predicted that oil prices would “rise to $100 from $80 before the end of the first quarter.”[/color][/indent]

    The truth is, oil is running out.[/QUOTE]
    Oil MAY hit $120? Stretch a little more why don't you.

    When priced in gold, oil is getting cheaper and cheaper. Just sayin.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CTM;2411866]Can you clarify what exactly was conclusive admittance of Peak oil theory in Cheney's speech? (I read ans skimmed, but didn't see it)[/QUOTE]

    It's in the lead promo graph, but very well:

    [I][INDENT]For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates [B]there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day.[/B] So where is the oil going to come from?[/INDENT][/I]

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2412197]Oil MAY hit $120? Stretch a little more why don't you.
    [/QUOTE]

    Are you talking to me, or the CEO of Abu Dhabi National Energy Co. who made the claim, and likely knows a bit more about the topic than you?

  19. #19
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2412345]Are you talking to me, or the CEO of Abu Dhabi National Energy Co. who made the claim, and likely knows a bit more about the topic than you?[/QUOTE]

    Press,

    normally I enjoy your posts even though I don't always agree with you, and you normally are kind of on point, but you have been ignoring one point I would love for you to answer to, mainly to see if there is a counterpoint to the statement that in gold the price has dropped slightly, and not increased, whereas in dollars it has.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=piney;2412362]Press,

    normally I enjoy your posts even though I don't always agree with you, and you normally are kind of on point, but you have been ignoring one point I would love for you to answer to, mainly to see if there is a counterpoint to the statement that in gold the price has dropped slightly, and not increased, whereas in dollars it has.[/QUOTE]

    Well, I believe gold HAS increased. In 1971, before Nixon scrapped the gold standard, gold was $35 per ounce, and the price of oil was relatively stable at about $3.00 per barrel. Now it's what, $965 per ounce and oil is $103 per barrel?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us