Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Goldman Sachs Thread (merged)

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Re: Goldman on peak oil

Unread postby AirlinePilot » Sun 24 Jan 2010, 21:23:13

shortonsense wrote:Have they mentioned the new 15 years of supply which has been laying around and just got noticed on Friday?


You mean the stuff in the country with the crazy man for a leader? The very same guy who kicked out all the Gringos a year ago and auctioned off the rights to the Chinese and the Russians last year?

You are going to see very little of that oil short, unless we go to war for it.

Yeah thats the ticket!
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4358
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta

Re: Goldman on peak oil

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 24 Jan 2010, 23:50:25

AirlinePilot wrote:
shortonsense wrote:Have they mentioned the new 15 years of supply which has been laying around and just got noticed on Friday?


You mean the stuff in the country with the crazy man for a leader? The very same guy who kicked out all the Gringos a year ago and auctioned off the rights to the Chinese and the Russians last year?

You are going to see very little of that oil short, unless we go to war for it.

Yeah thats the ticket!


We tried it in Iraq....ended up leaving without a single super tanker in tow. Darn it. Best place to store oil you don't need is in the ground, it sure won't degrade any more in Chavez's lifetime....we'll just outwait him. Certainly with the current reserves ( excluding the new Orinoco numbers ) standing at 1300 billion barrels its not like we need anything for....40 years or so?
User avatar
shortonsense
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Goldman on peak oil

Unread postby Geodesic » Mon 25 Jan 2010, 14:51:18

shortonsense wrote:
Have they mentioned the new 15 years of supply which has been laying around and just got noticed on Friday?

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3028/


Did they mention the quality and how easy it is to extract and how soon it would get to market?
User avatar
Geodesic
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat 15 Nov 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Goldman on peak oil

Unread postby pstarr » Mon 25 Jan 2010, 15:08:24

Geodesic wrote:
shortonsense wrote:
Have they mentioned the new 15 years of supply which has been laying around and just got noticed on Friday?

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3028/


Did they mention the quality and how easy it is to extract and how soon it would get to market?

And don't forget the cost in precious declining energy to upgrade the junk. What does it take? Lots of extra hydrogen molecules? Special fractional distillation?
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26285
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Goldman on peak oil

Unread postby frankthetank » Mon 25 Jan 2010, 21:33:24

Doesn't matter how many are in the ground, its how many you can pump out per day/month/year...
lawns should be outlawed.
User avatar
frankthetank
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6188
Joined: Thu 16 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Southwest WI

Re: Goldman on peak oil

Unread postby AirlinePilot » Wed 27 Jan 2010, 02:03:48

shortonsense wrote: Best place to store oil you don't need is in the ground, it sure won't degrade any more in Chavez's lifetime...


What you fail to understand is why a lot of oil will just be left in the ground. it will be too expensive in terms of either energy, or capital to go after.

Awaiting cornucopian drivel to follow.
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4358
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta

Re: Goldman on peak oil

Unread postby shortonsense » Wed 27 Jan 2010, 08:40:27

AirlinePilot wrote:
shortonsense wrote: Best place to store oil you don't need is in the ground, it sure won't degrade any more in Chavez's lifetime...


What you fail to understand is why a lot of oil will just be left in the ground. it will be too expensive in terms of either energy, or capital to go after.



In 1940 the residual heavy oils of the San Joaquin Basin were too expensive ( give me a break with nonsense energy arguments ) to retrieve from their respective producing formations.

Its now 2010....and they have since been produced. Perhaps a PO.com sponsored letter writing campaign telling the producers to put it all back, seeing as how we all know their business better than they do?
User avatar
shortonsense
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Goldman on peak oil

Unread postby Mower » Sun 31 Jan 2010, 10:49:39

Been lurking for a few years now and, I got to say Short, you just are not getting it. Or you're constantly stirring the pot. :P
User avatar
Mower
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Sun 18 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Canada

Re: Goldman on peak oil

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 31 Jan 2010, 11:16:12

Mower wrote:Been lurking for a few years now and, I got to say Short, you just are not getting it. Or you're constantly stirring the pot. :P


Pick a single thing I "don't get". Just one. Because at the end of the day I don't think its a "don't get it" problem, its a, "I get it very well" issue, and I am lambasted because 2+2=4 no matter to what conclusions that equation might lead.

The Orinoco is flowing oil. It is ignored for various reasons in peaker literature and dogma. When it is not ignored it is made fun of, because its very existence threatens peaker dogma. Noticing the facts of this particular, scientifically quantified and monstrous accumulation doesn't mean I am the one not getting it.

I have said it before, I will say it again, the volume level of someone screaming 2+2=5 does not make them right.
User avatar
shortonsense
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Goldman on peak oil

Unread postby MD » Sun 31 Jan 2010, 12:05:12

shortonsense wrote:
Pick a single thing I "don't get". Just one..


Energy. You are completely clueless with regard to energy.

There's your one thing.
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.

Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
User avatar
MD
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4830
Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 02:00:00
Location: On the ball

Re: Goldman on peak oil

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 31 Jan 2010, 17:16:50

MD wrote:
shortonsense wrote:
Pick a single thing I "don't get". Just one..


Energy. You are completely clueless with regard to energy.

There's your one thing.


Quite a large statement. Do you have any specific example? I certainly disagree of course, I am familiar with energy that is generated by the sun, or intercepted by a square meter of average earth during lunchtime. I am quite familiar with the BTU's of most natural gases, crudes in general, how their forms can be changed using energy to something more valuable, etc etc.

Is this comment related to the absolutely nonsensical claims of EROEI and my common response when such silly statements are made? If so, I have tried to be specific as to why such claims are silly, and how irrelevant they are in general, in particular to the industry in question around the topic of peak oil.
User avatar
shortonsense
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Goldman on peak oil

Unread postby AirlinePilot » Tue 02 Feb 2010, 02:11:56

Actually short I think it has to do more with things like you referring to Orinoco hydrocarbons as "just lying around" as if its as easy as just going out and scooping it into barrels for ever and ever. You also have a very bad tendency to believe that oil production will go up just because it always has in the past. That is not a valid assumption. Period.
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4358
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta

Re: Goldman on peak oil

Unread postby shortonsense » Tue 02 Feb 2010, 09:14:45

AirlinePilot wrote:Actually short I think it has to do more with things like you referring to Orinoco hydrocarbons as "just lying around" as if its as easy as just going out and scooping it into barrels for ever and ever. You also have a very bad tendency to believe that oil production will go up just because it always has in the past. That is not a valid assumption. Period.


But those aren't based on any misunderstandings on my part related to "energy". I referenced the depth of the producing formation in the Orinoco, for all intensive purposes, it is just "lying around" if you can use 2 century old technology to reach it. And I certainly have also referenced the amounts involved, 1/2 trilion + being the current estimate, so by definition this can't be "for ever and ever". Certainly it is BUNCHES, but thats the opinion of scientists and experts, if they had said it was only 100 billion, I would have referenced that, and it is still not "for ever and ever".

As far as production going up in the future...well....the future has quite a bit of uncertainty involved in it, and increasing oil production, in areas which have already peaked once, is quite a common occurrence. That is not an assumption, it is a fact. And because it is a fact, it seems prudent to consider all possibilities in the future with an open mind.
User avatar
shortonsense
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Goldman on peak oil

Unread postby AirlinePilot » Wed 03 Feb 2010, 00:06:09

shortonsense wrote: it seems prudent to consider all possibilities in the future with an open mind.


I'd say that by your track record here your basically NOT doing that. I'm sure a lot of other folks agree.

I consider myself "open" to your argument but since it seems often based on the logical fallacy you embrace I cannot agree with it. PO may not be "popular" nor soothing, but it does explain a lot of what is going on with energy costs in the last decade quite a bit better than your premise of "plenty".
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4358
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta

Re: Goldman on peak oil

Unread postby yesplease » Wed 03 Feb 2010, 01:19:17

What logical fallacy?
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Goldman on peak oil

Unread postby AirlinePilot » Wed 03 Feb 2010, 16:07:22

yesplease wrote:What logical fallacy?


The idea that since production has always increased in the past it will continue to do so and that because we have had "multiple peaks" we will continue to have those also.
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4358
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta

Re: Goldman on peak oil

Unread postby yesplease » Wed 03 Feb 2010, 23:23:10

AirlinePilot wrote:
yesplease wrote:What logical fallacy?
The idea that since production has always increased in the past it will continue to do so and that because we have had "multiple peaks" we will continue to have those also.
Do you have a link to this?

Besides, your statement contains a contradiction. If you assert that someone believes production will always increase because it has done so in the past that contradicts the idea of multiple peaks because production has to fall in order to see multiple peaks, violating your first assertion that production will always increase.
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 02:00:00

AIG & Goldman Sachs screw us AGAIN

Unread postby jbrovont » Sat 24 Apr 2010, 20:20:28

The SEC sues Goldman Sachs and charges them with fraud. AIG gets tax payer money, and will now be paying to defend Goldman Sachs agains the SEC, as well as pay any fines or judgements against them. No doubt any payouts will count as expenses against AIG's revenues for tax purposes.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... pCVg&pos=4

AIG is the lead insurer of the Goldman Sachs board against shareholder suits, according to a person with knowledge of the policy. AIG may therefore have to pay the defense costs in the suit in addition to any verdict or settlement.


The derivative lawsuits, which are a type of litigation filed on behalf of a company against its officers and directors, seek a court declaration that the firm’s top executives violated their fiduciary duties to the company, plus unspecified damages.


So if the derivatives lawsuits against the board members are won, AIG (benefactor of bailouts due to financial crisis) will be paying damages to GS (also benefactor of bailouts).

This may seem complicated until you break it down. As a tax payer, you are paying the costs for GS to sue itself. You will be paying (through AIG) the costs of direct financial losses to GS. You will also pay any punative fees imposed by the SEC, and finally you will pay a huge "settlement" for "damages to the reputation of GS."
User avatar
jbrovont
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 998
Joined: Fri 16 Jun 2006, 02:00:00

Re: AIG & Goldman Sachs screw us AGAIN

Unread postby Revi » Sat 24 Apr 2010, 21:20:27

I heard this morning that they might make it illegal to trade derivatives on a product that the banksters sell in the same building. They will have to use another wing of the business for that.

We are really talking about getting tough on them now.

I guess it's unlikely to pass because it's their right to bet against the product they sell.
Deep in the mud and slime of things, even there, something sings.
User avatar
Revi
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6807
Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Maine

future of Goldman Sachs ?

Unread postby IslandCrow » Tue 27 Apr 2010, 06:38:10

"We have been a client-centred firm for 140 years and if our clients believe that we don't deserve their trust, we cannot survive."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8645945.stm

Is the action in Congress and the fruad charges against Goldman Sachs likely to fizzle out?

If they do stick, that should mean very serious damage to GS...any ideas of how that might playout in the financial world? [ie could this be the next big financial crisis].

I sort of think that the 'TOO BIG TO FAIL' sindream syndrom might lead it to fizzle out, but should I start taking action in case a good chunk of S hits the Fan (to use an expression that seems to have fallen out of favour here)?
Last edited by Ferretlover on Sun 10 Jul 2011, 17:26:18, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merged thread.
We should teach our children the 4-Rs: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Rejoice.
User avatar
IslandCrow
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Mon 12 Sep 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Finland

PreviousNext

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

cron