Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kormac who wrote (78675)	11/12/2000 10:28:24 AM
From: excardog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

seppo, Thanks for the Campbell link. I for one am in the Campbell corner and agree with most of his prognostications. His time line I believe is 2005 when supplies start to rapidly diminish. What if the events he forecasts are even happening sooner? This election mess could seem like small potatoes in a world that finally realizes we are running out of oil. Regards

To: kormac who wrote (78675)	11/12/2000 12:19:04 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Respond to of 95453

Seppo, I'm not (by far!) the most knowledgeable guy on this thread when it comes to the Hubbert Peak, but I think Colin Campbell and Matt Simmons are the two most knowledgable guys in the industry. They both seem to agree that worldwide production will peak towards the middle to end of this decade (ie, before 2010), and from there on its all downhill. I agree with this. Of course, it probably won't be recognized (or agreed with) by the financial markets, so there is plenty room for at least 2-3 more boom/bust cycles in the oil patch before then...but the long term trend is clear. Given the ABYSMAL lack of a coherent, long-range energy policy in the U.S., I think when it finally hits, it will absolutely be devastating.... Regards, Patron

To: kormac who wrote (78675)	11/12/2000 9:15:09 PM
From: kormac	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Excardog and Patron, Thanks for your comments on the BBC program on which Campbell appeared. The articles today in NYTimes and elsewhere concerning OPEC's thinking about reducing the oil supply again show that they have become convinced that they have put too much oil into the market and this must be going to storage. IEA reports that storage numbers are recovering elsewhere but here in the US. Also OPEC countries are now the swing producers and can control the supply. If they believe Campbell's scenario, they do not need to manage the supply for longer than 4 years. They have managed to do it for the last year quite well. Of course, if a serious economic recession is at the door, their job is very difficult one. It is clearly in their interest to extend their supplies as long as possible. As Victor Ramirez said, the company that pumps last makes the most money. ------------ Ed, your post Message 14791961 has much that is right on. Before the voting I was discussing various issues with some friends and one of them expressed the opinion of how important it was to choose Gore because of the supreme court. We do not need extremists in the court was his position. He was taken back by the thought that Bush would appoint people such as Scalia and Thomas. He is a liberal, so it does not bother him that there maybe also equally extreme liberal justices on the court. I am certainly in favor of centrist thoughtful justices and those such as Rehnquist, who was demonized by the liberals when he was appointed, has not turned out nearly as bad as they thought at the time. I am not saying that he is an ideal one, but certainly liberals complain a lot more about Scalia and Thomas today than about him. After this mess developed in Florida, I decided to begin to read Bruno Leoni's book Freedom and The Law. It was a good thing as it made my thinking clearer. Of the great principles to me Liberty is the most important. Social justice, which is so important to the socialist wing of the Democrats has its history in the equality of men, first in the eyes of God and later, as civil society developed, in the eyes of the Law. That this has deteriorated into "equality of results" is a very troubling notion. Coming back to the Supreme Court, the difficulty we are in currently is that the legislative law has grown so large that it has completely suppressed the ideas on which common law is based; that is workable arrangements between people. Legislatures work on slim majorities and "log roll" to gain an advantage to their causes. This creates victors and victims and the groups keep changing depending on the issue. Jurists no longer try to "discover" the Law, but grapple with this legislative mess. The Supreme Court becomes more political in direct proportion to size of this condition. Such is partly the theory that Bruno Leoni puts forth, making an analogy with legislatures and "central planning". It is difficult to see how the so called representatives can be said to represent anybody owing to the endless logrolling. What to do? Very little one can actually. The saying, "you can run but can't hide" is very apropos to man at the beginning of this century. With oil depletion starting to take hold this decade, it is difficult to see how we will fill the gap in energy flow, taking the physical nature of oil and natural gas into account, their energy density and transport quality. Somehow we try to muddle through and it would be nice to have more thoughtful people running for national offices to put the countries priorities straight. With my best, Seppo