[shortonoil]

.

I think it is more likely that each firm has taken a different perspective of the market. Goldman Sachs analysts might be looking at the fact that we are using 6 barrels to every 1 that we find and that most of the world's King and Queen fields are in decline. That will undoubtably result in increasing prices. Morgan Stanley analysts might be looking at the affect of the rising current account deficit and the collapse of the financial/monatary structure that will ensue. That scenario would result in drastically reduced demand and falling prices. The question of which one has the right answer will probably be determined by unknown factors.

.

[nth]

.

I think it is more likely that each firm has taken a different perspective of the market. Goldman Sachs analysts might be looking at the fact that we are using 6 barrels to every 1 that we find and that most of the world's King and Queen fields are in decline. That will undoubtably result in increasing prices. Morgan Stanley analysts might be looking at the affect of the rising current account deficit and the collapse of the financial/monatary structure that will ensue. That scenario would result in drastically reduced demand and falling prices. The question of which one has the right answer will probably be determined by unknown factors.

.

Morgan Stanley is not looking at the collapse you mention. Their advise doesn't make sense if this was true. Morgan Stanley's analyst is just seeing economic slowdown and sees a lot of leverage instead of real demands in the oil market.

What is interesting to note is that Morgan Stanley has not announce it has sold its oil interests. On the contrary, it has acquired oil firms and those firms are still actively buying oil as of last month.

[shortonoil]

nth said:

Morgan Stanley is not looking at the collapse you mention. Their advise doesn't make sense if this was true. Morgan Stanley's analyst is just seeing economic slowdown and sees a lot of leverage instead of real demands in the oil market.

What is interesting to note is that Morgan Stanley has not announce it has sold its oil interests. On the contrary, it has acquired oil firms and those firms are still actively buying oil as of last month.

By collapse I am referring to a 2000 dot com like bust. Even in the event of a 3000 Dow, oil will still be the most profitable commodity available. They are probably perfectly aware of the implications of oil depletion and they are probably perfectly aware of the long term profitablity of holding it. For these reasons I doubt if they will sell their oil interests and their acquistion of additional sources is not surprising.

.

[nth]

nth said:

Morgan Stanley is not looking at the collapse you mention. Their advise doesn't make sense if this was true. Morgan Stanley's analyst is just seeing economic slowdown and sees a lot of leverage instead of real demands in the oil market.

What is interesting to note is that Morgan Stanley has not announce it has sold its oil interests. On the contrary, it has acquired oil firms and those firms are still actively buying oil as of last month.

By collapse I am referring to a 2000 dot com like bust. Even in the event of a 3000 Dow, oil will still be the most profitable commodity available. They are probably perfectly aware of the implications of oil depletion and they are probably perfectly aware of the long term profitablity of holding it. For these reasons I doubt if they will sell their oil interests and their acquistion of additional sources is not surprising.

.

No, Morgan Stanley is not advising clients that there will be a correction. The idea of correction is your idea not theirs.

Oil price forecast by Morgan Stanley...

Using Morgan Stanley forecasts for oil prices, our central expectation is that energy prices faced by UK consumers in 2005 will be, on average, nearly 8% higher than in 2004.

http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/di ... igest.html

[nth]

.
If this guy believes that tar sands are going to make a difference, he's probably not worth listening to. Tar sands are at best, only a small energy gain.
.

Tar sands is not going to lower price of oil, but it is going to be a significant source for us.
Canada will reach 5mbpd and Venezeula if regime change like what Bush wants, will also reach in a couple mbpd.

[MD]

Tar sands is not going to lower price of oil, but it is going to be a significant source for us.
Canada will reach 5mbpd and Venezeula if regime change like what Bush wants, will also reach in a couple mbpd.

Tar sands will never supply our current market and cultural structure.

[airstrip1]

No, Morgan Stanley is not advising clients that there will be a correction. The idea of correction is your idea not theirs.

Oil price forecast by Morgan Stanley...

Using Morgan Stanley forecasts for oil prices, our central expectation is that energy prices faced by UK consumers in 2005 will be, on average, nearly 8% higher than in 2004.

http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/di ... igest.html

I love these investment houses. They have an analyst backing every horse in the race so that whatever the result they can always state that they are on the winner.

I note that the original Yahoo article quoted the views of Any Xie who is Morgan Stanleys resident China expert in Hong Kong. I think his views on oil prices are based on his rather bearish oulook for the Chinese economy. Since he is not really an energy analyst I think his predictions need to be treated with a degree of caution.

.

[Sys1]

Especially because they use natural gaz to process oil from tar sands !!!

[KevO]

Um, look down about seven threads:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic8862.html

Yes. Has Montequest left or is he on holiday? or has the constant haranguing of his choice of car got to him?
He used to keep tabs on this sort of thing.
I even started the same thread at the Discussion section.
That's 3 threads saying exactly the same thing.
Come on Moderators - do some moderating. Bird Flu or peak oil ain't here just yet!



KevO

[Sgs-Cruz]

Uh, I see the threads are now merged, leading to my other post linking to the same thread that it's already in. Thanks for making me look like an idiot

[KevO]

Uh, I see the threads are now merged, leading to my other post linking to the same thread that it's already in. Thanks for making me look like an idiot

lol

[MacG]

The reason I don't say it's a good thing is that without recognising the energy disaster we won't even attempt to address it. We won't go on a major efficiency or alternatives drive. We'll just have one big, nasty, ever-deepening depression.

Yep, but depressions are not frozen states. Societies will start to reorganize themselves according to the new conditions. Dmitry Orlov describes how this happened in Russia in the 1990:s and the same will happen for us.

[shortonoil]

MacG said:

Yep, but depressions are not frozen states. Societies will start to reorganize themselves according to the new conditions. Dmitry Orlov describes how this happened in Russia in the 1990:s and the same will happen for us.

Russia was not short on oil in 1990. Everything in our society is dependent on the availability of oil. Our present culture can not be rebuilt without a substitute for petroleum and as yet we aren't even close to accomplishing that feat. It is more probable that we will experience several generations of declining world population, poverty, wars and socio/economic disruption. A thousand year darkages could be in the making. We will probably just be another of the 360 odd civilizations that have come and gone in the history of man.


.

[MacG]

Russia was not short on oil in 1990. Everything in our society is dependent on the availability of oil. Our present culture can not be rebuilt without a substitute for petroleum and as yet we aren't even close to accomplishing that feat. It is more probable that we will experience several generations of declining world population, poverty, wars and socio/economic disruption. A thousand year darkages could be in the making. We will probably just be another of the 360 odd civilizations that have come and gone in the history of man.

Agree. There are huge differences in conditions between the former S.U. crash and us. To our disadvantage. Russia still have oil, and Russia was surrounded by a functioning economy in the rest of the world. We will have a harder time than they had, but still societies will start to reorganize spontaneously. Exactly how is rather difficult to tell, but people have a tendency to hang on and find ways to keep warm and fed.

[nth]

Tar sands is not going to lower price of oil, but it is going to be a significant source for us.
Canada will reach 5mbpd and Venezeula if regime change like what Bush wants, will also reach in a couple mbpd.

Tar sands will never supply our current market and cultural structure.

I hope you are not saying tar sands is not a significant source of oil.

[MD]

Tar sands is not going to lower price of oil, but it is going to be a significant source for us.
Canada will reach 5mbpd and Venezeula if regime change like what Bush wants, will also reach in a couple mbpd.

Tar sands will never supply our current market and cultural structure.

I hope you are not saying tar sands is not a significant source of oil.

Your hope is realized, I am not saying tar sands are insignificant. Tar sands will never supply our current use model.

[nth]

Tar sands is not going to lower price of oil, but it is going to be a significant source for us.
Canada will reach 5mbpd and Venezeula if regime change like what Bush wants, will also reach in a couple mbpd.

Tar sands will never supply our current market and cultural structure.

I hope you are not saying tar sands is not a significant source of oil.

Your hope is realized, I am not saying tar sands are insignificant. Tar sands will never supply our current use model.

I hope no one is stupid enough to think we can replace conventional oil with tar sand. The projected peak production is 5mbpd for Canadian tar sands. Looking at the current tar sand operations, it doesn't look good at all. The number of accidents is quite high.

[nth]

No, Morgan Stanley is not advising clients that there will be a correction. The idea of correction is your idea not theirs.

Oil price forecast by Morgan Stanley...

Using Morgan Stanley forecasts for oil prices, our central expectation is that energy prices faced by UK consumers in 2005 will be, on average, nearly 8% higher than in 2004.

http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/di ... igest.html

I love these investment houses. They have an analyst backing every horse in the race so that whatever the result they can always state that they are on the winner.

I note that the original Yahoo article quoted the views of Any Xie who is Morgan Stanleys resident China expert in Hong Kong. I think his views on oil prices are based on his rather bearish oulook for the Chinese economy. Since he is not really an energy analyst I think his predictions need to be treated with a degree of caution.

.

I think a more reliable way is to look for Morgan Stanley official communications, especially its own investments. They will state specific recommendations. Analysts opinions are less trustworthy than actual Morgan Stanley investment advice and investment movements by the company.

[spot5050]

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - The oil market may be quickly headed for a massive crash as global economic growth slackens, alternative energy gains ground and financial traders sense a price peak, an economist with Morgan Stanley said on Thursday

source: Yahoo

Anyone got any opinions on this?

That's a fascinating article in terms of understanding economists.

As evidence of weakening demand and ample supply accumulates, the market may panic, I believe it could correct in the most speculative fashion -- it could collapse.

They will likely keep prices up until an oil market collapse. That day is not too far away, I believe... What is occurring now is probably the final frenzy, in my view.

His opinion is that the price of oil is inflated by speculators and a price collapse is imminent.

Let's say he's right. Say the price of oil drops by 50% over the next 6 months. He's not saying that output increases by 20%, or that demand decreases by 30%, he is suggesting that a tiny fall in demand or a tiny increase in output could trigger a collapse in the price. In a nutshell, he is suggesting that the oil market has an element of gearing - that small fluctuations in the demand/supply balance are exaggerated by speculators. This is not such a daft suggestion.

So, let's suppose for a moment that he's right and the price drops 50% over 6 months. Output might increase by a few percent over that time, or consumption may decrease by a few percent, but that would neither prove nor disprove anything IMHO. It doesn't mean we have peaked, nor does it mean we have years before the peak. It doesn't prove peak-oil, nor does it disprove it. From a peak-oil perspective, it doesn't really mean anything. All it proves (if it happens, which I doubt) is that there is a large element of speculation in the price of oil, nothing more nothing less.

Even OPEC only tried to claim that $10 of the price of oil was due to speculation. (That was last quarter btw. This quarter they're blaming refining capacity. Next quarter maybe it'll be those pesky terrorists. Then maybe those damn Chinese..., or Humvee drivers, or global warming. Yup global warming, that's always a safe bet.)

[saginawstrongblockdilemma]

I very much regret asking my girlfriend to read Matt Savinars webpage. I am a Californian agnostic- peak oil was built into me. Colin Campbell reaffirmed my understanding of oil. He is educated, intelligent, an expert in his field, and in my estimation a brave man. I accept his data, and his conclusions. As for Matt Savinar...
Peak oil, that's just empirical data. The FUTURE, however, was, is and will forever be unscrutable. You couldn't get Colin Campbell into the business of predicting the future with a cattleprod. The man is a scientist. The blessing/curse of politics is that no good political decision ever escapes being undone by a later group of politicians. If democrats weren't so f@ck&*g inept, things would be at least a little different today. But even red-staters are capable of getting fed up with a diminishing quality of life, and things change- for now. The end of oil, certainly. Mob rule, mass extinction, maybe. Don't let dire predictions, overide, your only natural advantage. Use your critical thinking, you drooling, spindly, pitiful ape! Unless of course they're giving away laptops for fifty bucks!