Peak Oil News and Message Boards

mkwin wrote:

skyemoor wrote:

threadbear wrote:

MonteQuest wrote:The stock market and business has always been short-sighted. Hell, we make decisions based upon quarter profits.

Can you say this short-term play will not bear rewards?

Probably. But I sold off my energy shares a couple of years ago, to wash the tar, mixed with blood, off my own hands. It was a purely ethical decision.

Ah, but as the price of remaining barrels oil increase in an unending spiral, how many oil company execs are going to have the same ethics you are? Oil will truly become black gold, so oil stocks will continue their upward march inexorably.

Exactly! Your saying there won't be the capital to invest in infrastructure/new drilling/more exploration/Increase deployment of IOR techniques?

It's not being invested now. If refining capacity is limited now and contributes to the increased cost of gasoline, why aren't new refineries being built? Because it keeps the price of gas high.

Likewise, why invest in energy infrastructure to bring the price down, when keeping the price high via limiting production reaps obscene profits? That's why the oil major are buying back stock.

Nationalization of the US oil infrastructure and operations? Far too massive, and such a transition would take years, be rife with confusion, and require draconian measures. Would this be acceptable in the US? Well, we have the "Patriot" Act, so perhaps it just might. That doesn't mean it would work by any means.

skyemoor wrote:

mkwin wrote:

skyemoor wrote:

threadbear wrote:

MonteQuest wrote:The stock market and business has always been short-sighted. Hell, we make decisions based upon quarter profits.

Can you say this short-term play will not bear rewards?

Probably. But I sold off my energy shares a couple of years ago, to wash the tar, mixed with blood, off my own hands. It was a purely ethical decision.

Ah, but as the price of remaining barrels oil increase in an unending spiral, how many oil company execs are going to have the same ethics you are? Oil will truly become black gold, so oil stocks will continue their upward march inexorably.

Exactly! Your saying there won't be the capital to invest in infrastructure/new drilling/more exploration/Increase deployment of IOR techniques?

It's not being invested now. If refining capacity is limited now and contributes to the increased cost of gasoline, why aren't new refineries being built? Because it keeps the price of gas high.

Likewise, why invest in energy infrastructure to bring the price down, when keeping the price high via limiting production reaps obscene profits? That's why the oil major are buying back stock.

Nationalization of the US oil infrastructure and operations? Far too massive, and such a transition would take years, be rife with confusion, and require draconian measures. Would this be acceptable in the US? Well, we have the "Patriot" Act, so perhaps it just might. That doesn't mean it would work by any means.

Who is talking about nationalisation of the Oil industry. In regards to investment, it's a simple concept, sustained higher oil price makes many projects in the past, that would not gt the required return to the oil companies, profitable.

If the current high price is due to a lack of refinary capacity - fine. We are talking about peak oil not lack of refinary capacity.

mkwin wrote: In regards to investment, it's a simple concept, sustained higher oil price makes many projects in the past, that would not gt the required return to the oil companies, profitable.

Flat earth economics will not save you from the coming Doom. Economics says, "let there be crude" and crude appears! Thats as silly a concept as anything the Pope has ever dreamed up.

mkwin wrote:Who is talking about nationalisation of the Oil industry. In regards to investment, it's a simple concept, sustained higher oil price makes many projects in the past, that would not gt the required return to the oil companies, profitable.

If the current high price is due to a lack of refinary capacity - fine. We are talking about peak oil not lack of refinary capacity.

You are assuming;

- The peak is not imminent. This is the crux of the problem; a tremendous infrastructure shift to unconventional oil (or some miracle fuel) to make up the decline would come far too late. How long will it take the tar/oil sands to generate 20 mmbd? Your sources for your estimates?

-or-

- There is plenty of oil that can be extracted at higher prices. There is no evidence of this to replace declines (much less growth); please provide what you have (IHS database? IEA data?) if you think otherwise.

mkwin wrote:In peak oil the VERY last sector that will have problems finding investment is the oil industry as it will be one of the only industries with guaranteed growth.

Are you serious?

mkwin wrote:
- in fact the whole doomers world view based on nothing but speculation.


No, it is based on evidence.

Logic dictates you base conclusions on the evidence at hand. All the evidence points to no new energy source (and it must be an energy source equal or greater) to replace oil, the implications of which are discussed here at length.

You need to do some research.

coyote wrote:

mkwin wrote:In peak oil the VERY last sector that will have problems finding investment is the oil industry as it will be one of the only industries with guaranteed growth.

Are you serious?

Do you know anything about the investment sector? My guess would be no. As soon as problems are experienced there will be chaos on the stock markets and capital will divert into industry and resources still deemed to be profitable. There will be literally TRILLIONS of dollars wanting to buy into the oil industry with its guaranteed high growth potential and inflation hedging ability. The same will be true of precious metals and many other industries likely to experience high growth due to infrastructure investment

Battle_Scarred_Galactico wrote:mkwin wrote:
- in fact the whole doomers world view based on nothing but speculation.


No, it is based on evidence.

Logic dictates you base conclusions on the evidence at hand. All the evidence points to no new energy source (and it must be an energy source equal or greater) to replace oil, the implications of which are discussed here at length.

You need to do some research.

It's not based on 'evidence' it's based on assumptions on how society will respond to less energy availability.

mkwin wrote:

Battle_Scarred_Galactico wrote:mkwin wrote:
- in fact the whole doomers world view based on nothing but speculation.


No, it is based on evidence.

Logic dictates you base conclusions on the evidence at hand. All the evidence points to no new energy source (and it must be an energy source equal or greater) to replace oil, the implications of which are discussed here at length.

You need to do some research.

It's not based on 'evidence' it's based on assumptions on how society will respond to less energy availability.

If you think its' an 'assumption' that our system requires increasing amounts of energy to continue growth or collapse, then you need a trip back to reality friend.

Seriously, do some research. Maybe even go outside into the big wide world and take a look with your own eyes at what we've built.

You may have a revelation.

Battle_Scarred_Galactico wrote:

mkwin wrote:

Battle_Scarred_Galactico wrote:mkwin wrote:
- in fact the whole doomers world view based on nothing but speculation.


No, it is based on evidence.

Logic dictates you base conclusions on the evidence at hand. All the evidence points to no new energy source (and it must be an energy source equal or greater) to replace oil, the implications of which are discussed here at length.

You need to do some research.

It's not based on 'evidence' it's based on assumptions on how society will respond to less energy availability.

If you think its' an 'assumption' that our system requires increasing amounts of energy to continue growth or collapse, then you need a trip back to reality friend.

Seriously, do some research. Maybe even go outside into the big wide world and take a look with your own eyes at what we've built.

You may have a revelation.

Don't patronise me - I've a degree in economics and masters degree in real estate analysis and forecasting. I work as a real market analyst in the London. Believe me, I know how important oil is and what damage is has and will do to economies around the world.

The point is, the doomers view ignores a whole host of possibilities regarding potential shifts to a lower-energy/lower-consumption system and assumes everything is going to break down - back to a pre-industrial level of existence. This view is presented as a certainty based on a naive abstract theory that tries to simplyfy human society to simple energy per capital equation.

coyote wrote:

mkwin wrote:In peak oil the VERY last sector that will have problems finding investment is the oil industry as it will be one of the only industries with guaranteed growth.

Are you serious?

That's correct... at least for a while.

Investments in the oil sector are planned decades out... so as oil's price rises, these projects exceed their anticipated profits.

If you invested in exploration & refining anticipating $32/bbl oil, then you are very pleased with that investment today.

So yes... oil is set to be a big financial winner... for a while.

mkwin wrote:

Battle_Scarred_Galactico wrote:

mkwin wrote:

Battle_Scarred_Galactico wrote:mkwin wrote:
- in fact the whole doomers world view based on nothing but speculation.


No, it is based on evidence.

Logic dictates you base conclusions on the evidence at hand. All the evidence points to no new energy source (and it must be an energy source equal or greater) to replace oil, the implications of which are discussed here at length.

You need to do some research.

It's not based on 'evidence' it's based on assumptions on how society will respond to less energy availability.

If you think its' an 'assumption' that our system requires increasing amounts of energy to continue growth or collapse, then you need a trip back to reality friend.

Seriously, do some research. Maybe even go outside into the big wide world and take a look with your own eyes at what we've built.

You may have a revelation.

Don't patronise me - I've a degree in economics and masters degree in real estate analysis and forecasting. I work as a real market analyst in the London. Believe me, I know how important oil is and what damage is has and will do to economies around the world.

The point is, the doomers view ignores a whole host of possibilities regarding potential shifts to a lower-energy/lower-consumption system and assumes everything is going to break down - back to a pre-industrial level of existence. This view is presented as a certainty based on a naive abstract theory that tries to simplyfy human society to simple energy per capital equation.

Oh don't get me wrong, I know we'll get to a 'lower-energy/lower-consumption system'.

I think we differ on how low, and how much trouble we're in along the way.

This is the main point of contention on these boards now.

mkwin wrote:
Don't patronise me - I've a degree in economics and masters degree in real estate analysis and forecasting. I work as a real market analyst in the London. Believe me, I know how important oil is and what damage is has and will do to economies around the world.

Around here 4000 posts is worth more than an actual degree and experience using it.

mkwin wrote:
This view is presented as a certainty based on a naive abstract theory that tries to simplyfy human society to simple energy per capital equation.

Thou Shalt Not InSult The Prophet Duncan!!!

[
Don't patronise me - I've a degree in economics and masters degree in real estate analysis and forecasting. I work as a real market analyst in the London. Believe me, I know how important oil is and what damage is has and will do to economies around the world.

What's a real market analyst?.....

Around here 4000 posts is worth more than an actual degree and experience using it.

Guy,

Give it a rest eh?

We all know you feel slighted by some posters "post count arguments", & I agree with you in substance.

Enough is enough though.

Your arguments are considered on their merits by any reader who matters... so let this go please.

Smudger wrote:[
Don't patronise me - I've a degree in economics and masters degree in real estate analysis and forecasting. I work as a real market analyst in the London. Believe me, I know how important oil is and what damage is has and will do to economies around the world.

What's a real market analyst?.....

Typo - real estate market analyst. Basically advise the property industry on investment and development opportunities in real estate markets by analysing macro-economic trends and the local situation. Funnily enough my firm doesn't factor in the immanent global depression into its models!!

mkwin wrote:

Smudger wrote:[
Don't patronise me - I've a degree in economics and masters degree in real estate analysis and forecasting. I work as a real market analyst in the London. Believe me, I know how important oil is and what damage is has and will do to economies around the world.

What's a real market analyst?.....

Typo - real estate market analyst. Basically advise the property industry on investment and development opportunities in real estate markets by analysing macro-economic trends and the local situation. Funnily enough my firm doesn't factor in the immanent global depression into its models!!

In a nutshell, what issue stands out in your mind as the most prominent one that will plunge us into a depression?

Do you know anything about the investment sector? My guess would be no. As soon as problems are experienced there will be chaos on the stock markets and capital will divert into industry and resources still deemed to be profitable. There will be literally TRILLIONS of dollars wanting to buy into the oil industry with its guaranteed high growth potential and inflation hedging ability. The same will be true of precious metals and many other industries likely to experience high growth due to infrastructure investment

Here's the point I guess people might have been trying to point out to you Mkwin. All the dollars in the world can't make oil that isn't there appear. The worlds oil supply is like an orange. You can keep squeezing the orange, and if you come up with new and inventive ways to squeeze it, then sure you'll get more juice. But after all a while, no matter how hard you squeeze, you won't get any more juice out. And we've been squeezing for a long long time now....

I reconize your frustration with the situation, most people who start dealing with this cognitively are in that situation. Just reconize in return that the people your talking with a few exceptions aren't idiots either. I think there are quite a few people on this site with college education or better. Sometimes alot better. And also quite a few with practical experence in the field they speak of.

Mkwin makes the point that from a markets perspective, there is no reason to assume that the equation

society-abundant supplies of cheap oil=economic+societal collapse.

is going to prove accurate. To suggest he is naive, a newbie or having a mild nervous breakdown, is patronizing in the extreme.

Aaron, your point is well taken... but I still don't see it as a guaranteed investment with guaranteed growth. There is the possibility of fairly immediate and increasing price volatility in all the markets. I have trouble imagining any sort of steady and predictable bull movement post-peak, for even a short time, even (or perhaps especially) in energy futures.

If you're talking about direct investment, and I think you are, then I think enormous profit taking will certainly be possible, but mainly for people who invested pre-peak -- and then get out at the right time, so taking advantage of a huge price floor difference. I'm sure there will certainly be a gold rush for new extraction, but it will include risky projects -- ultra deepwater, Arctic circle and so on -- and at a much higher initial cost. Some people will make a lot of money, but I think a lot will be lost by others as cost basis rises and some projects just don't pan out.

We may be saying the same thing here.

I suppose an interesting alternative investment would be the industries that provide materials and infrastructure for the oil industry. One step removed, as it were. That I could see as more of a steady bull. Most gold prospectors didn't get rich during the California gold rush -- but Levi Strauss sure made a bundle.