# Oiling Economies



## Samson (Sep 26, 2010)

The 12 Fastest Growing Economies in 2010**



> Country Growth Rate
> 1.  Qatar 16.4%
> 2.  Botswana 14.4%
> 3.  Azerbaijan 12.3%
> ...




*And what is the #1 reason....?*



> *The insatiable demand for energy.* That has been the big story for much of this decade. A higher standard of living, cheaper international travel, and the proliferation of electronic gadgets in the western world leads to ever higher per-person energy consumption in advanced economies. As massive countries like China, India and Indonesia grow, their citizens become richer and aspire to the same lifestyle, leading to ever greater energy needs. Countries like Qatar, with the world's largest natural gas reserves, and Azerbaijan with its vast oil fields, have boomed as a result.



**credit USMB member Meister for finding the article**


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 26, 2010)

Oil is ok


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Sep 26, 2010)

Building your economy exclusively on resource extraction is a recipe for disaster though


----------



## Samson (Sep 26, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> Building your economy exclusively on resource extraction is a recipe for disaster though



Yes, but you gotta start somewhere.

Once Qatar has built enough Camal Jerky processing facilities, you'll see economic diversification.


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 26, 2010)

Energy has always fueled economic growth. Conventional energy sources come from resource extraction. What could be simpler?

Yes, the U.S. uses 25% of the world's oil supply but it also contributes 25% of the world's GDP. 

CLASS DISMISSED!


----------



## JiggsCasey (Sep 27, 2010)

what is new here? this is a 'no-shit, Sherlock' thread if there ever was one.

what you've essentially done is admitted at least one half of the peak oil equation is quite true. Because it is BOTH a supply AND a demand problem, pulling at both ends of a rubber band ready to snap. Supply is dying, demand is skyrocketing.

Exponentially growing demand only depletes known (dying) capacity that much faster. Mankind is currently using 3-5 barrels of oil for every 1 that it finds, and this has been the case for over 10 years. This can not, and will not continue. Period.

So, great. These poor countries will be/are enjoying a very brief uptick in growth (from a point near zero, mind you), as they feed off a slight and temporary glut in capacity due to desperate new drilling methods. But it won't last past 10 years. Just like growth is over by 2020 for ALL industrial nations. It's power down time, whether people wish to accept it and transition relatively smoothly, or suffer the consequences of denying it all the way to the end.

I'll ask the forum for the 24th time a question that no one seems able or willing to answer:

*Where is the oil then, going forward*? Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, Total and all the others would love to hear from you. (and no, tar sands and shale don't count in this equation)... Total up what you think you have, and then apply that new "discovery" to our 86 million barrel per day appetite. Where is the oil in such abundance that there's "nothing to see here!!" as you guys so arrogantly insist over and over again? Where is it?

Because federal and international entities like the IEA, the Dept. of Energy, the Pentagon, the EIA, Lloyds, ASPO, and Oxford Univ. have all concluded otherwise, and know the game is up within the next 10 years. Tell us all how you're smarter than them.


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 27, 2010)

JC - subscribe to RIGZONE - Your Gateway to the Oil & Gas Industry. I signed up a year ago this month and have nearly 300 emailed newsletters, almost every one of them announces a new discovery somewhere in the world.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Sep 27, 2010)

Mr. H. said:


> JC - subscribe to RIGZONE - Your Gateway to the Oil & Gas Industry. I signed up a year ago this month and have nearly 300 emailed newsletters, almost every one of them announces a new discovery somewhere in the world.



I'm aware that there ARE discoveries. But not remotely close to the rate and volume of discoveries of the 1960s and earlier.

- how big are these individual finds? 
- are they "proven" or "technically recoverable" or "estimated" reserve totals?

Read what I wrote above:



> Total up what you think you have, and *then apply that new "discovery" to our 86 million barrel per day appetite*. Where is the oil in such abundance that there's "nothing to see here!!" as you guys so arrogantly insist over and over again? Where is it?



if Rigzone emails you about a find off the coast of Morocco that has 100,000 proven barrels, are you willing to spend the tens of millions it costs in order to drill for 2.4 hours of energy?


----------



## Samson (Sep 27, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> what is new here? this is a 'no-shit, Sherlock' thread if there ever was one.



Then how about you babble away about your idiotic peak oil theory that you're repeated again and again since 1973:



JiggsCasey said:


> what you've essentially done is admitted at least one half of the peak oil equation is quite true. Because it is BOTH a supply AND a demand problem, pulling at both ends of a rubber band ready to snap. Supply is dying, demand is skyrocketing.
> 
> Exponentially growing demand only depletes known (dying) capacity that much faster. Mankind is currently using 3-5 barrels of oil for every 1 that it finds, and this has been the case for over 10 years. This can not, and will not continue. Period.
> 
> ...


----------



## Samson (Sep 27, 2010)

Mr. H. said:


> JC - subscribe to RIGZONE - Your Gateway to the Oil & Gas Industry. I signed up a year ago this month and have nearly 300 emailed newsletters, almost every one of them announces a new discovery somewhere in the world.



Its no use.

RIGZONE has been annoucing hundreds of new discoveries every year since 1973, and the wild-eyed "peak oil" fanatics won't let go of their mantra that _ANY DAY NOW_ their predictions will materialize.


----------



## Care4all (Sep 27, 2010)

Mr. H. said:


> JC - subscribe to RIGZONE - Your Gateway to the Oil & Gas Industry. I signed up a year ago this month and have nearly 300 emailed newsletters, almost every one of them announces a new discovery somewhere in the world.



it still is not enough to quench the appetite...and harder and harder to extract.

oil prices are going to be price prohibitive...through the roof, in what's left of my lifetime....due to the expense of getting to it....the 'easy oil' , is on it's way out....unless some miracle happens....at least, that is what i have been reading?


----------



## Care4all (Sep 27, 2010)

Samson said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > JC - subscribe to RIGZONE - Your Gateway to the Oil & Gas Industry. I signed up a year ago this month and have nearly 300 emailed newsletters, almost every one of them announces a new discovery somewhere in the world.
> ...



if that were true then oil prices should NEVER have skyrocketed as they did....

or is this all a shell game oil companies are portraying so that they can raise their prices and the 'market' is just a sham?


----------



## Samson (Sep 27, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > JC - subscribe to RIGZONE - Your Gateway to the Oil & Gas Industry. I signed up a year ago this month and have nearly 300 emailed newsletters, almost every one of them announces a new discovery somewhere in the world.
> ...



No one believes it will get easier to find/extract.

But the Peak Oil crowd believes that we'll wake up one day, and it will all disappear.

They've thought this for the last 35 years......


----------



## Samson (Sep 27, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



The Oil market in 1973 was controlled by the OPEC Oil Cartel, and to a large degree, the price of oil continues to be OPEC controlled. Basically, they're market strategy is to get as much as they can for oil, without raising the price to the degree that substitutes are an attractive alternative (not all that unusual).


----------



## Care4all (Sep 27, 2010)

Samson said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



We had oil as low as $10 a barrel for a bit under the clinton administration.

How can it go from THAT to nearly $100 bucks a barrel a few years ago?

someone is playing games with us, that seems certain.


----------



## Samson (Sep 27, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...





You realise the Clinton Adminisitration ended in 2000.

Almost 11 years ago........we're getting old, Care. Everything costs more these days!!


----------



## Care4all (Sep 27, 2010)

Samson said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Please show me, anything at all that had gone up 900% in price in less than 10 years.. think it was 10 years or there abouts.

something is fishy....unless of course, we really are using up and running out of easily accessible oil...but even if true, the hikes in prices a couple of years ago, seems like manipulation to me.


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 27, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > JC - subscribe to RIGZONE - Your Gateway to the Oil & Gas Industry. I signed up a year ago this month and have nearly 300 emailed newsletters, almost every one of them announces a new discovery somewhere in the world.
> ...



No, this isn't the 60's but the industry has continually kept up with world demand. Sure oil is more challenging to find and produce but the technology has advanced far in the last 40 years. As to your questions re: recent finds I suppose the details are out there. 

Where's the oil? It's where you find it. 

Companies make decisions regarding return on investment based on a discovery's potential. I'm not current on the science involved, but yes if a project is going to cost tens of millions of dollars than rest assured they have reason to plunk the money down.

And what's with the "2.4 hours of energy"? I never understood that analogy. As in "why develop ANWR- it's only 6 months worth of consumption". LOL


----------



## JiggsCasey (Sep 28, 2010)

Samson said:


> No one believes it will get easier to find/extract.
> 
> But the Peak Oil crowd believes that we'll wake up one day, and it will all disappear.



No they don't believe that at all. And I don't know anyone who believes this, as you've written it. This is, without a doubt, proof positive that you A) have no idea what you're talking about, and B) are too lazy and dumb to actually absorb what you're being told.

NO ONE said we'd "wake up one day and it will all disappear."  You would know this is you were at all paying any attention. 

What we've/I've ALWAYS said is that it's a slow drawdown into collapse, as the price point becomes too high and crushes demand. That, in turn, leads to deeper and deeper recession, and inevitably depression and/or war. 2010 is far worse than 2005, which was worse than 2000. Going forward, 2015 will be far worse than we're facing today, and so forth into the terminal decline of existing capacity.

There will always be oil in the ground. It's a matter of at what point it becomes too expensive to get to it. 

Pay attention, and make some semblance of an effort to avoid the constant straw man. You've really looked foolish the past few months here in the energy forum, so you'd think you'd learn... But nope, more dumb, arrogant pablum.



Samson said:


> They've thought this for the last 35 years......



35 years ago, they were right... about U.S. capacity and production rates...  We've been in terminal decline ever since.

They're also correct today about global production and capacity.

If you'd remove your head from your rectum and actually read the Club of Rome's report "Limits to Growth" that spawned all this talk in the 70s (rather than taking your spoonfed talking point distortions from Breitbart and friends), you'd be aware that they never said it was running out, globally, that decade, nor even in the 80s.

do yourself a favor and sit the next few plays out.

...


----------



## topspin (Sep 28, 2010)

I think Peak Oil had a lot to do with the 900% run up in price. God Bless Mathew!!
 But the auther who penned it years ago has passed and Billions of new barrells are being discovered every month. (shh don't let that get out)
 $77 oil is way too cheap, It's gone down 50% under Obama. WTF get me a republican. LOL


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 28, 2010)

JC, oil could be selling for $10 a barrel in 2015.


----------



## topspin (Sep 28, 2010)

$110 would be fair.


----------



## Samson (Sep 28, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Go to

Crude oil price chart, 2000-2010

It has a feature to select many commodities, from Aluminum to Wheat, and view a 2000-2010 Price Chart.

There is no commodity selling for 900% more now, than in 2000.

There's also no commodity selling at or less than it did in 2000.


----------



## antagon (Sep 28, 2010)

Samson said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > Building your economy exclusively on resource extraction is a recipe for disaster though
> ...



doubtful.  the sheiks will just get bigger yachts and more wives.  these cats dont know what they are doing with stewarding an economy.  obviously they don't care.


----------



## Trajan (Sep 28, 2010)

Samson said:


> The 12 Fastest Growing Economies in 2010**
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am shocked Brazil is not on that upper 12 list....hummm.


----------



## Samson (Sep 28, 2010)

antagon said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Baruch Menachem said:
> ...



Are you doubting that Camal Jerky will become the next foodie craze?


----------



## Samson (Sep 28, 2010)

Trajan said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > The 12 Fastest Growing Economies in 2010**
> ...



Brazil   5.496 %


----------



## Trajan (Sep 28, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Care....global fungibles are very susceptible to global angst lets call it. Especially when the good is a must have and that which a huge portion comes from a very volatile area. 

In 1999 and 2000 when oil was that low,  opec had seen the end of a not so weighty foreign policy of that admin..In short there was little rocking of the boat. The Asian Financial flu was gearing up.
 Iran was really ramping up their then unknown nuke facilities and needed very dime they could lay their hands on.  SA and Iran, who between them control over 40% of the oil that makes up the dossier of the OPEC nations,  huddled together and prices began their climb....Putin came on to the scene,  Saddam was telling Kuwait he wouldn't pay them the debt. he had run up and he had a special treat in store for them if they didn't forgive the debt...etc etc.. the chart gives you a pretty good overview.


----------



## editec (Sep 28, 2010)

Samson said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > Building your economy exclusively on resource extraction is a recipe for disaster though
> ...


 
We'll see what we typically see.

Thos nhations' elite, using projected revenue sources provided by the international banking community to get those nations to go into so much debt, will find that the projected revenues will not be enough to repay the debts.

This game of how to bankrupt _the natives_ to take over their resources has a long LONG history.

The first time I encountered it and understood it for what it really was, was when I studied the way the Brits screwed the French and bankrupted Egypt during the building of the Suez Canal.

The Brits got control of the canal, and the Egyptians ended up with all the debts for it.

That's how predatory capitalism has been controlling the world for well over a century, folks.

Coupled with occassional gunboat diplomacy, the odd coupe d' etat here and there, and of course the rare but highly effective precision political assassination, predatory economics is the way to dominate the world.


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 28, 2010)

Samson said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > JC - subscribe to RIGZONE - Your Gateway to the Oil & Gas Industry. I signed up a year ago this month and have nearly 300 emailed newsletters, almost every one of them announces a new discovery somewhere in the world.
> ...



There has to be a finite limit to how deep we can drill safely. I for one think that the enviro damage of the BP spill has been hugely exaggerated. But even if costs for the clean up were capped today BP would probably concede that the risks of that kind of drilling/extraction are prohibitive without some kind of global risk sharing. 

The question isn't how much oil is left in the ground the question is how much is recoverable and at what price. The longer you rely on oil the higher that price will be and much of that price won't be paid in dollars but in escalating environmental destruction. 

CA has suddenly realized that it is well within our capacity to provide 70% of our electricity via solar power stations located in the barren Mojave. And we are quickly making it so. The business models make sense at today's prices. 

The same is true for much of the world. The challenges involved in converting to renewables and reducing consumption begin as formidable but improve as you do it. 

Whereas the challenges of relying on mined petro chemicals and robust consumption begin easy and will become increasingly challenging as you do that.


----------



## topspin (Sep 28, 2010)

I'd love to see a link on 70% of cali's energy ever getting supplied by solar.
 Also BP nor anyone esle is going to think deep drilling is prohibitive. ie rage over moritaorium


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 28, 2010)

> if that were true then oil prices should NEVER have skyrocketed as they  did....


BUZZZZZZ!

Every price spike in oil has one thing in common.  It was always caused by politics.  It has never been caused by lack of supply or cost of production.  When Sodamn Insane blew up the Kuwaiti oil wells (worlds largest environmental disaster AND cause of a price spike that never truly occurred, the price rise was mild.  Even the hurricanes of 2005 did not cause a major spike in the cost to produce.

Only politicians and their tools of stupidity cause price spikes.  OPEC embargos, wars, trade restrictions, sanctions, rationing, taxes, tariffs.  These are the causes of price spikes.

What stops us from finding more oil?  90% of that is also politics with politicians either banning methods OR putting locations 'off limits' to exploration.  Or they slap down punitive taxes and moratoriums on the production of oil so high, the companies justifiably move elsewhere to get somewhere else what a government is too stupid to allow the proper exploitation of their native resources and make money for themselves off it.

Peak Oil is a political fraud.  Why is it being perpetrated?  Because prosperity destroys the support for progressofascism, and that's who supports this lie.

And to King Chicken Little the Last, Shut up.  Nobody with a brain buys your Oludavi trench bullshit.


----------



## topspin (Sep 28, 2010)

Prices go up because someone has the money and is willing to pay for it. LOL


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 28, 2010)

topspin said:


> Prices go up because someone has the money and is willing to pay for it. LOL


That is called elementary push inflation.  There's too much money out chasing too few goods, so the prices rise.  It has nothing to do with the product, it's an economic issue.  The value of the oil is not chasing, the currency is devaluing.

Case in point, Oil's price, compared to gold is the same as it was, give or take a little fluctuation, as it was in the 1930's.  The dollar devalued catastrophically since the 1970's.


----------



## topspin (Sep 28, 2010)

duh, slow down the printing press


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 28, 2010)

topspin said:


> I'd love to see a link on 70% of cali's energy ever getting supplied by solar.
> Also BP nor anyone esle is going to think deep drilling is prohibitive. ie rage over moritaorium



I wouldn't count on that for two reasons: first even before the BP spill Exxon already considered drilling that deep prohibitively risky and stopped.

Second the offshore moratorium applied to wells already in progress and to firms other than BP

As per Cali we could produce 300% as much electricity as we consume via solar. But 70% is the top of the practical potential because we can't make that power any cheaper than neighboring states and the sun doesn't shine at night.


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 28, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> topspin said:
> 
> 
> > Prices go up because someone has the money and is willing to pay for it. LOL
> ...



Absolutely correct. MOST of, but not all of, the increase in the price of crude since 1999 is inflation driven. But demand also increased and according to _elasticity of demand_ a small demand increase for a scarce resource can cause irrational price increases. 

Price elasticity of demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 28, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > if that were true then oil prices should NEVER have skyrocketed as they  did....
> 
> 
> BUZZZZZZ!
> ...



Your argument discounts the possibility that price increases could be triggered by political events even tho the driving cause of the increase is still scarcity and increased demand. Inflation never sleeps but it isn't realized as a flat progression either. Spikes occur at politically triggered moments.


----------



## antagon (Sep 28, 2010)

Trajan said:


> I am shocked Brazil is not on that upper 12 list....hummm.



if it seems you give a shit about your citizens, it is hard to crest 6%.  my guess is brazil gives at least one shit.  if this were a growth-by-volume rather than per-cent list, brazil, india, maybe the US would be on it.


----------



## antagon (Sep 28, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> Your argument discounts the possibility that price increases could be triggered by political events even tho the driving cause of the increase is still scarcity and increased demand. Inflation never sleeps but it isn't realized as a flat progression either. Spikes occur at politically triggered moments.



does this mean you're on board with my theory about narrative being a surrogate to hard market inputs?  works for oil; works for dollars?


----------



## topspin (Sep 28, 2010)

the $10 price of oil in 99 was low by historical standards.
 Gas at $2.5 is a great bargan, SUV's and big ass trucks (thanks rednecks) are back on the prowl.


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 28, 2010)

No, it means that I think it is possible for causation and correlation to exist side by side. 

I may have misunderstood your theory tho. I could have sworn you were saying that the narrative and public response to it was the causation of a few dollar lunges.

Or maybe you misunderstood what I meant by political events. Dunno.


----------



## antagon (Sep 28, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> No, it means that I think it is possible for causation and correlation to exist side by side.
> 
> I may have misunderstood your theory tho. I could have sworn you were saying that the narrative and public response to it was the causation of a few dollar lunges.
> 
> Or maybe you misunderstood what I meant by political events. Dunno.


...the narrative and _market_ response to it...  'the public' couldn't define QE better than 1:50.

"price increases could be triggered by political events."  for me this is a valid observation of causation, although acute.  are you saying this is correlation?  

i don't doubt the propensity for producers to seize and exploit the tolerance of a market to higher prices.  i think this is (part of) the case with the oil supply and the price bubble which coincided with the iraq war.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Sep 28, 2010)

Mr. H. said:


> JC, oil could be selling for $10 a barrel in 2015.



Inflate or deflate the price, and you eventually still have a serious problem.

At $10 a barrel, there is no incentive to move to alternative technology. At $200 a barrel, blue collar consumers and business owners can not afford oil related costs on their balance sheet, and commerce slows to a crawl. 

This is why I say price is somewhat irrelevant. What matters is the geology.  Where is it?



Mr. H. said:


> No, this isn't the 60's but the industry has continually kept up with world demand. Sure oil is more challenging to find and produce but the technology has advanced far in the last 40 years. As to your questions re: recent finds I suppose the details are out there.



Not far enough, considering the North Sea, Mexico, Russia, Indonesia, the U.S., Iran, and now Saudi Arabia, have peaked, among many other fields.

You "suppose the details are out there?" This debate is about figures, and identifications. Hope-based guesstimates were put in proper perspective many weeks/months ago.



Mr. H. said:


> Where's the oil? It's where you find it.



All due respect, but this above is a punt if there ever was one. 

I'm asking you, or anyone, to document the finds, and provide PROVEN reserve estimates for those finds. Then divide whatever total you believe you have by our 86 million barrel per day appetitie.



Mr. H. said:


> Companies make decisions regarding return on investment based on a discovery's potential. I'm not current on the science involved, but yes if a project is going to cost tens of millions of dollars than rest assured they have reason to plunk the money down.



Exploratory wells, and full-blown production infrastructure and refinement capacity are two very different things. For the latter, companies DO NOT make investment decisions until they have a discovery's PROVEN recoverable reserve totals.



Mr. H. said:


> And what's with the "2.4 hours of energy"? I never understood that analogy.



Per my example for a field with 100,000 barrels of recoverable oil, up against our 86 million barrel per day rate of consumption (and growing, rapidly).

But, you're right.... That amount wouldn't be 2.4 hours worth, more like 2.4 minutes worth.



Mr. H. said:


> As in "why develop ANWR- it's only 6 months worth of consumption". LOL



Because six months of energy does not sustain growth, does not spawn additional lending and credit, and is not worth the tens of billions of dollars to build the infrastructure.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 28, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > > if that were true then oil prices should NEVER have skyrocketed as they  did....
> ...


You make a good point.  But, I don't recall any time when this has been the primary cause of a price hike in oil.  But you're right, it could happened.  Please do correct me if I'm missing one... at least through the 70's to present.  I don't know about beforehand.


----------



## Samson (Sep 28, 2010)

editec said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Baruch Menachem said:
> ...



You make it sound like a bad thing.

What would you rather see?

Qatar trying to market Camal Jerky _without_ oil revenues?


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 28, 2010)

antagon said:


> "price increases could be triggered by political events."  for me this is a valid observation of causation, although acute.  are you saying this is correlation?



Yes, exactly. An 8.0  earthquake isn't caused by whatever happened in the five preceding minutes, or even other 8.0 earthquakes in the previous weeks and months. Altho both of those things may help trigger it.

What actually causes the quake is a long period of slowly mounting pressure that must ultimately culminate in a plate shift. That these large quakes happen in somewhat rapid succession after decades of building to a head doesn't make the triggering effect the actual cause.


----------



## Samson (Sep 28, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > "price increases could be triggered by political events."  for me this is a valid observation of causation, although acute.  are you saying this is correlation?
> ...





yes, oil prices are just like earthquakes.


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 28, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Well I am saying that it happened to some degree in all of those cases. If for no other reason than that inflation never sleeps while crude oil prices are locked in in advance at fixed rates. 

And specifically regarding the last major oil spike, speculation ( a political event) drove oil to $143/bbl. But when the dollar strengthened, demand fell and speculation ceased driving prices up oil only retreated to $63-$83/bbl, considerably higher than it's previous plateau. 

Oil prices tend to stagnate at plateaus even while pressures of aggregate demand and inflation mount. Then during specific windows of opportunity long term corrections in the price occur.


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 28, 2010)

Samson said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



You obviously can't handle metaphor.

Go play in the sand box.


----------



## Samson (Sep 28, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > loosecannon said:
> ...



Are oil prices like sand too?



Retard.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 28, 2010)

> Well I am saying that it happened to some degree in all of those cases.  If for no other reason than that inflation never sleeps while crude oil  prices are locked in in advance at fixed rates.



I see what you're sayin but have to say you're making a distinction with no meaning here.  It is still a politically caused event.  Not natural.  People reacting to politics in the market is still politics in action.


----------



## Samson (Sep 28, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > Well I am saying that it happened to some degree in all of those cases.  If for no other reason than that inflation never sleeps while crude oil  prices are locked in in advance at fixed rates.
> 
> 
> 
> I see what you're sayin but have to say you're making a distinction with no meaning here.  It is still a politically caused event.  Not natural.  People reacting to politics in the market is still politics in action.



I understand there are some that are causing hurricanes, earthquakes, and ....




sand.


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 28, 2010)

Samson said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



since you can't seem to be capable of following mature ideas why don't you tell me?


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 28, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > Well I am saying that it happened to some degree in all of those cases.  If for no other reason than that inflation never sleeps while crude oil  prices are locked in in advance at fixed rates.
> 
> 
> 
> I see what you're sayin but have to say you're making a distinction with no meaning here.  It is still a politically caused event.  Not natural.  People reacting to politics in the market is still politics in action.



To you anyway. To me inflation and aggregate demand are causation while triggers are only triggers. 

The trigger doesn't propel the bullet, neither does the finger pulling the trigger, the gun powder explosion does.


----------



## Samson (Sep 28, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > loosecannon said:
> ...



Its your idiotic ideas that no one is capable of following.


----------



## asterism (Sep 28, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > > Well I am saying that it happened to some degree in all of those cases.  If for no other reason than that inflation never sleeps while crude oil  prices are locked in in advance at fixed rates.
> ...



Did you just state that the actual trigger isn't a trigger?


----------



## Samson (Sep 28, 2010)

asterism said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



No, No, No.

The earthquake is a trigger that makes the gunpowder explode the sand which raises oil prices.


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 28, 2010)

asterism said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



No, quite the opposite. I just stated that the trigger is precisely the trigger. But not the actual cause of oil price rises.


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 28, 2010)

Samson said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > loosecannon said:
> ...



are you an idiotic fuckhead in real life too, Mr toostupidtodometaphor?


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 28, 2010)

Samson said:


> Its your mature ideas that I am incapable of following.



Noted, Sir shitface.


----------



## Samson (Sep 28, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Its your mature ideas that I am incapable of following.
> ...





More "maturity" from LC.

Thanks for the example.


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 28, 2010)

You ignored the examples I gave.

Child.


----------



## Samson (Sep 28, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> You ignored the examples I gave.
> 
> Child.



Child, _Child_, _*CHILD*_!!!



Originality isn't the strongest feature of the moronic character.


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 28, 2010)

Here you go, sampson: the post that so rattled your little pea brain that you went into full childo attacko mode to avoid dealing with it directly



loosecannon said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...


----------



## antagon (Sep 29, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > "price increases could be triggered by political events."  for me this is a valid observation of causation, although acute.  are you saying this is correlation?
> ...



i follow samson with this one, i dont think that physical events like earthquakes and market events are similar.  

the bottom line is, if saudi arabia declares war on israel, there will be a market reaction that could not be attached to any causation other than the news and the initial, _emotional_ market reaction itself.  the news will be the causation.  it will sustain even if saudi manages to maintain supply.  no speculation.  this happened in the lead-up to the conflict in iraq.


----------



## Samson (Sep 29, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> Whereas the challenges of relying on mined petro chemicals and robust consumption begin easy and will become increasingly challenging as you do that.



While all this remains true, the growing value of "mined petro-chemicals"........(you mean crude oil)........countries that have few other resources have a unique historical opportunity.

Of course, this depends upon whether or not they can addrees the opportunity: Some would criticise them for enabling the continued "addiction" to fossil fuels at the expense of the environment.


----------



## asterism (Sep 29, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > loosecannon said:
> ...



The price of oil rises due to many different variables which are combined once there is a catalyst.  A bullet is propelled due to many different variables which are combined once there is a catalyst.

For the bullet, it's when the trigger is pulled.  What do you think the trigger is in the case of oil?


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 29, 2010)

Samson said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > Whereas the challenges of relying on mined petro chemicals and robust consumption begin easy and will become increasingly challenging as you do that.
> ...



I agree about the addiction. I am hearing that our coal reserves are not nearly as vast as advertised as well.


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 29, 2010)

antagon said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



But that is just one example. And the run up of oil prices as the Iraq war began was small compared to that caused by speculation in oil futures in 2008. And as best as I can tell that particular example was nothing but a trigger because the price of oil sustained a new level long after the war had worn down. IOW other fundamentals now sustain the new price plateau regardless of the initial trigger to price adjustments.


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 29, 2010)

asterism said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



The political events being discussed. News of war, quotas set by OPEC, speculation in futures markets.


----------



## Samson (Sep 29, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > loosecannon said:
> ...



Well, who REALLY knows?

I really cannot imagine that energy producers, let's just use ConocoPhillips as an example, will just continue to mine fossil fuels until one day they cannot, and just decide to send everyone home with their last paycheck and padlock the door.

The fact is that they, and all their counterparts are the major investors, and stakeholders, in developing alternative energy sources.

CP is building a 500 person campus that will open in 2013 in Louisville, CO for precisely this purpose.


----------



## topspin (Sep 29, 2010)

we will all be dead and the oil industry will still be discovering billions of new barrells every year.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Sep 29, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> I agree about the addiction. I am hearing that our coal reserves are not nearly as vast as advertised as well.



Correct. The coal industry likes to dupe the American public by conflating lignite and peat with 
anthracite in their reserve totals figues. Nevermind that lignite barely burns, let's just pretend there's hundreds of years worth of energy in it!!!!! 

Hydrocarbon junkies also formulate their totals using flat, static rates of consumption, ignoring entirely the fact that demand skyrockets as you go forward. They know this, it's just part of their fraud to boost investment ignorance.

They do the same thing with oil, pretending tar sands and shale are light crude, and formulating figures based on vast, technically recoverable junk that measures in the "trillions" of barrels... yeah, at 2:1 EROEI. ... Zzzz

Whenever you hear claims from the "nothing to see here" crowd regarding "hundreds of years of energy!!!!"....  rest assured, it's all bunk.


----------



## Samson (Sep 29, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > I agree about the addiction. I am hearing that our coal reserves are not nearly as vast as advertised as well.
> ...



Why?


----------



## antagon (Sep 29, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > i follow samson with this one, i dont think that physical events like earthquakes and market events are similar.
> ...



not saying that it is an exclusive factor, but that is an example of something which happens all the time in any futures market because of the relationship with the commodity and the future, speculation and information.  the follow-on is what i was getting at earlier:



antagon said:


> i don't doubt the propensity for producers to seize and exploit the tolerance of a market to higher prices.  i think this is (part of) the case with the oil supply and the price bubble which coincided with the iraq war.


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 29, 2010)

antagon said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



OK, I think I understand what you are saying that you believe. But it is fully unnatural for me to think that way, and I couldn't conceivably bring myself to agree. 

Markets don't adopt higher prices intentionally, nor do they have much power to resist price increases that pertain to essentials. Or to paraphrase somebody famous:



> Prudence, indeed, will dictate that markets long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while price increases are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the markets to which they are accustomed.


----------



## antagon (Sep 29, 2010)

cannon, this is oil.  you can determine supply just as easily as with currency.  this is a market which has resolved to limit supply to optimize the return, the price, on the commodity, rather than exploit its velocity.


----------



## loosecannon (Sep 29, 2010)

proof?


----------

