THE T. Boone Pickens Thread (merged)

[tdrive]

Maybe I'll meet a billionaire who will surprise me one day.

You talk like you have billionaires for breakfast.

No offence.

Cheers,

[tdrive]

I will repeat that I think the oil companies are squeezing people, most people aren't invested in them...

That's because people are letting themselves getting squeezed,
and if they are not invested in oil and instead spend all their
money (which they do not have) on a new car, six bedroom house
and 60 inch plasma TV, that's their undoing.
They deserve not just to be squeezed, but turned into pulp.

Sorry for getting too excited.

Cheers,

[eric_b]

(...)
Talk about condescending. I will repeat that I think the oil companies are squeezing people, most people aren't invested in them, and if you think they don't conspire that will ultimately be your problem, not mine. You have repeated several times words to the effect that I don't believe in peak oil. As a matter of fact, I do. It's a geological conspiracy of amazing proportions.
(...)

Testy, testy. A geological conspiracy? The very rocks are conspiring against
us, holding back all that oil

Care to elaborate on this conspiracy, our do you think the remaining oil
should not be priced according to supply and demand?

[frankthetank]

The oil companies are making money because people are willing to pay it ...like crack

If you don't like the price, no one is putting a gun to your head...walking/biking is an alternative (although it might not be practical)

This geologic conspiracy arouse my suspicion...so you think there might be large quanitities of oil left that were not be told about? its not out of the realm of possibility...i find it highly doubtful, however.

Slimeball billionaires? there are rotten eggs in every basket

[RiverRat]

If you think that you just mention hydrocarbon
depletion to people and they slap their foreheads and start riding
bycicles to work and install solars and windmills, you are in for a
big surprise. The only way to wake people up is to hit them where it
hurst most - IN THE POCKET!

yep ... we currently are experiencing only a 'primer'.

People are slowly getting indoctrinated to the future. Human nature resists change. It takes a concrete event to change perception and action (ie ... mild heart attack from big mac's, spot on a lung from cigs, car crash from always driving recklessly, $2.40 gas, etc)

[threadbear]

(...)
Talk about condescending. I will repeat that I think the oil companies are squeezing people, most people aren't invested in them, and if you think they don't conspire that will ultimately be your problem, not mine. You have repeated several times words to the effect that I don't believe in peak oil. As a matter of fact, I do. It's a geological conspiracy of amazing proportions.
(...)

Testy, testy. A geological conspiracy? The very rocks are conspiring against
us, holding back all that oil

Care to elaborate on this conspiracy, our do you think the remaining oil
should not be priced according to supply and demand?

Oil is a viscous and a vicious substance that can make itself available, if it wants, or slither back to the core of the earth, if it so desires. It's conscious, and has a nasty streak. Fossils can be very fiesty.

TDrive, You needn't apologize for getting too excited. Just don't forget to change your pants.

Your post makes the general population sound as if they're living the Robin Leech, Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous dream, when many of them are struggling to pay their medical insurance, and not doing particularly well.

You can't have billionaires for breakfast, they leave a very unpleasant aftertaste. Their grandchildren can be consumed with a side order of toast and a shot of pepto bismol, though.

[tdrive]

Your post makes the general population sound as if they're living the Robin Leech, Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous dream, when many of them are struggling to pay their medical insurance, and not doing particularly well.

Each and every society has its alphas and omegas.
It's inevitable, it's called natural selection.
Someone has to peck the someone else. What's oyur point?

Cheers,

[threadbear]

I will repeat that I think the oil companies are squeezing people, most people aren't invested in them...

That's because people are letting themselves getting squeezed,
and if they are not invested in oil and instead spend all their
money (which they do not have) on a new car, six bedroom house
and 60 inch plasma TV, that's their undoing.
They deserve not just to be squeezed, but turned into pulp.

Sorry for getting too excited.

Cheers,

YOu made a general statement about "people" that I don't believe to be true. Most people aren't living this way--that's my point. If you are invested in oil stock, you are participating in price fixing operations that hurt those struggling, far more than those you describe. If you want to invest in oil, do it with your eyes wide open and understand you're getting your own hands dirty.

[tdrive]

If you are invested in oil stock, you are participating in price fixing operations that hurt those struggling, far more than those you describe. If you want to invest in oil, do it with your eyes wide open and understand you're getting your own hands dirty.

Long time ago, in the early 1800's in England there was this
group of people, called LUDDITE (btw because their head honcho
was a dude called Ned Lud, not because of the latin word LUDIT).
You want to be an alpha or omega? The choice of your pecking order
is entirely up to you when it comes to humans. Ask any evolutionary
biologist.

My hands are durty because I work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Cheers,

[Carrie]

I just posted another article about his views on PO. He was asked straight out if he agreed with Simmons' view that the Saudi fields are on the verge of decline, and he said he did. He also said something that gave me a chill:

"The majors, they talk about plenty of oil and that they can produce more, but if you look at ExxonMobile, ChevronTexaco, BP (British Petroleum), all the production (is) going down every year. They don't replace and they don't add to production, but they say there's plenty of oil around.

"Now why would they say that? One of the chief economists with one of the major oil companies... I was at a conference where he was... we were talking and I asked, why do they say that? And he said, can you imagine what would happen if one of these major oil company's CEO's got up and made a speech and he said, 'We're running out of oil'? I said there'd be panic and he said, 'That's right. They're not going to make the statement. They're going to say there's plenty of oil around"

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section ... toryid=846

[FatherOfTwo]

I just posted another article about his views on PO. He was asked straight out if he agreed with Simmons' view that the Saudi fields are on the verge of decline, and he said he did. He also said something that gave me a chill:

"The majors, they talk about plenty of oil and that they can produce more, but if you look at ExxonMobile, ChevronTexaco, BP (British Petroleum), all the production (is) going down every year. They don't replace and they don't add to production, but they say there's plenty of oil around.

"Now why would they say that? One of the chief economists with one of the major oil companies... I was at a conference where he was... we were talking and I asked, why do they say that? And he said, can you imagine what would happen if one of these major oil company's CEO's got up and made a speech and he said, 'We're running out of oil'? I said there'd be panic and he said, 'That's right. They're not going to make the statement. They're going to say there's plenty of oil around"

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section ... toryid=846

A chill is an understatement. Unless he's nuts and gets his kicks out of making stories up (which is extremely unlikely in my opinion) well, what can you say but Oh F*&k!

[pstarr]

I just posted another article about his views on PO. He was asked straight out if he agreed with Simmons' view that the Saudi fields are on the verge of decline, and he said he did. He also said something that gave me a chill:

"The majors, they talk about plenty of oil and that they can produce more, but if you look at ExxonMobile, ChevronTexaco, BP (British Petroleum), all the production (is) going down every year. They don't replace and they don't add to production, but they say there's plenty of oil around.

"Now why would they say that? One of the chief economists with one of the major oil companies... I was at a conference where he was... we were talking and I asked, why do they say that? And he said, can you imagine what would happen if one of these major oil company's CEO's got up and made a speech and he said, 'We're running out of oil'? I said there'd be panic and he said, 'That's right. They're not going to make the statement. They're going to say there's plenty of oil around"

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section ... toryid=846

That comment scared the shit out of me for a few minutes. Like I was going to wake up in a different world. I'm better now thanks.

pete

[FatherOfTwo]

That comment scared the shit out of me for a few minutes. Like I was going to wake up in a different world. I'm better now thanks.

pete

The magnitude of the problem is really dumbfounding, isn't it? Even though I'm well aware of the problem, and have been for long enough that I now consider it be part of my "fabric", comments like that still slap me across the face and punch me in the stomach... having a sneak peek at the future can be all too surreal.

[threadbear]

Before you guys rush out and change your pants, please be cautious. This is EXACTLY how a corporation would behave if they wanted to simply maximize profit. Peak oil is a reality --and a smokescreen. The two aren't mutually exclusive. The problem, though urgent, is made worse by consciously constraining supply.

The situation is roughly analgous to the way "Big Electricity" treated California just after Bush's win, a few years back. It was a low snow pack year so there was a genuine problem with supply. The producers responded by further constraining supply.

Peak oil is real geological problem. It's also a corporate ethics problem. If my estimation is correct, oil will be more expensive, but shouldn't go above 65.00 per barrel (unless the dollar plummets) until real geological crisis time, which could be next year. It could also be ten years away.

[JBinKC]

First thing I don't believe T Boone is a member of the Forbes 400.

I respect T Boone but he made a timing mistake on natural gas as he overleveraged Mesa Petroleum by buying up most of the Hugoton field in the mid 80s on a bet that natural gas prices would rise. Unfortunately, for him the cash flow couldn't keep up with the huge debt so he lost a big chunk of the property and a sizble chunk of his net worth.

As for his comments I respect the long term intentions as I do believe within a decade's time we will see a peak but I am the believer that the huge spread in light and heavy crudes indicate we are not at a supply juggernaut quite yet.

[FatherOfTwo]

..but I am the believer that the huge spread in light and heavy crudes indicate we are not at a supply juggernaut quite yet.

Let’s give a simple example of how that may not be the case.
a) 100 barrels of light sweet crude is refined per day by 20 LSC (light sweet crude) refineries.
b) 10 barrels of heavy sour crude is refined per day by 2 HSC (heavy sour crude) refineries.

100 barrels of light sweet crude are globally produced per day. But 12 barrels of heavy sour crude are produced.

Our 2 HSC refineries are running at full capacity and can’t take on the additional sour crude… leading to a depressed price for sour crude. Our 20 LSC refineries are also running at capacity, but there isn’t an excess of light sweet crude on the market just waiting to be refined.

Maybe this is an overly simplistic example, or maybe the real world facts don’t support this example. But this example does show how a spread in prices between light and heavy crudes isn’t sufficient, in and of itself, to prove that we are not at a supply juggernaut yet. Saudi Arabia has already said that the US doesn't have the refining capacity for the extra sour that they are providing...

[Newsseeker]

T. Boone Pickens: "Let me tell you some facts the way I see it. Global oil production is 84 million barrels a day. I don't believe you can get it any more than 84 million barrels. I don't care what Abdullah, Putin or anybody else says about oil reserves or production. I think they are on decline in the biggest oil fields in the world today and I know what's it like once you turn the corner and start declining, it's a tread mill that you just can't keep up with.".

Pickens says 84 million is tops. I have seen other figures generally indicating that 90 million will be about as high as it goes. What do people think?

[gt1370a]

Here's what I think. I've heard a lot of stuff lately about no spare refinery capacity, no spare shipping capacity, etc. Now why would those all be peaking around the same time that Hubbert's methodology predicts a production peak? Coincidence? I think that since the US peaked in 1970 and everyone realized the geological phenomenon of peaking, the companies did calculations based on certain mathematical fits, past production, and an assumed reserves of ~2 trillion barrels, saw that production would peak ~2005 at ~84 MB/day, and said "Ok, we'll build infrastructure to support that." So, whether there is any more production capacity or not, the producers sure aren't acting like it. Have you read about any oil companies spending their record profits on exploration or refineries? Most of them are just buying back stock.... so, geological or not, we probably won't get much above 84 MB/day based on infrastructure. Unless the industry changes course drastically...

[linlithgowoil]

i see what you are saying (2nd post), although others may say that the current lack of infrastructure is due to very low oil prices up until recently and relatively lowish demand growth compared to recently.

i think we can get beyond 84 million barrels. i wouldnt be surprised if we touch 90 before hitting the decline edge of the plateau around 2008. it is amazing what new recovery technologies can do with regards to flow rates - with enough effort, you can improve and maintain flow rates very well nowadays - but we all know, of course ,that this leads to a steeper decline when you do hit the inevitable peak.

[bobcousins]

I don't think anyone here will have a more informed opinion than Mr Pickens.