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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Strictly: Drilling II -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank Pembleton who wrote (3344)	10/30/2001 9:47:36 AM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36161

Hey frank, You’ll be at your break even point shortly. I just didn't see any compelling reason to take a hit having committed for the reasons I did. I suspect some of us will move out early As far as the energy trust positions, I haven't bet the farm but this is part of that plan I've been thinking about (out loud at times here) for a while for income production. They will become core long term holdings if all goes according to plan. Of course the next energy bubble (whenever that comes) would probably see them on the block too for some cap gains. re: Husky (waiting to trade to the plus :o) reaction seems muted so far. U.S. companies have valued the Canadian patch at about a 50% premium I'm looking for a better sign of the future of US energy policy. I've posted on this before that I hope it gets 'attended to' and not forgotten with lower foreign oil prices and the current scavenger hunt. That will affect how much energy I want as a core holding. regards Kastel acute and cuddly Canadian

To: Frank Pembleton who wrote (3344)	10/30/2001 10:42:05 AM
From: kirby49	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36161

Frank: Re: Kingfisher's post and oil prices moving down. Brain synapse switch not working, what's M & A? If all non - OPEC countries are increasing production then does OPEC's contribution to oil in the long run not decrease and their influence decrease as well? I'm trying to equate this to two things. One is I seem to recall that Reagan somehow got a handle on OPEC and the oil situation shortly after he took office in 1980. Democrats in power = high oil prices. Republicans = lowering oil prices. I don't know if this is true or just one of the overlapping cycles of things. Also because of the war, this time things are different. I do agree that if you're going to be in O & G it's gas you want as it's almost a totally domestic (within NA) market. Secondly, OPEC countries are sending more than their quotas and demand has been reduced so I hope what is going on relates to an earlier discussion you and I had about strategic reserves. I hope they're driving the price down to the bottom so they can take all the Arabs oil as cheap as they can get it to replace the reserves. Once that is done and they've financially crippled the OPEC elites it won't matter whether we have to bomb them into submission as with non-OPEC producers and our Tar sands perhaps we could finally tell them to kiss off. Of course this would not be good for the patch or it's investors domestically but just for a short time and then their time will really shine. Just some of my thoughts, could you check the reserves and when you do I hope that you can report that you can't anymore. Just MO that perhaps during a war, strategic reserves should not be publicly reported. Regards Bob