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 : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: el_gaviero who wrote (6593)	2/10/2002 5:50:33 PM
From: jim_p	Respond to of 206183

el, Interesting thoughts. I agree with your assumptions, but if the US had all the oil in the world then the world economies would not have advanced to the point where they are today, oil prices would have been higher due to higher demand from a smaller world economy on a more limit resource and we would have more than 538,574 wells drilled since higher historic oil prices would have made it more economic to drill for marginal wells and maintain existing margin wells for longer time periods. Overall demand/consumption would be lower due to reduced economic activity, and also from increased conservation and the greater use of alternative energy sources resulting from the higher prices. Jim

To: el_gaviero who wrote (6593)	2/10/2002 5:54:27 PM
From: kormac	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206183

El Gaviero, Although your remarks were not directed to me, I want to mention that I agree with your analysis. Sheik Yamani uttered a couple of years ago that "the stone age did not come to an end owing to lack of stones" and offered the thought that technology will diminish the need for oil. This is of course nonsense as there is no other source of energy that will replace oil and natural gas. If the economic recession is longer than now thought, it will mask the inability of substantial increases in production. If this recession would develop into a Japanese style of depression, the oil peak which is scheduled to arrive before the end of this decade would go unnoticed, as economists would say that the lower consumption is caused by slowdown in economies and not to depletion. However, at the end of ten years, any attempt to increase economic activity would be thwarted by inability to grow oil production and the recession/depression would continue. Samsam Bahtiari's article in OGJ on the start of WWIII puts it pretty starkly. He is on record in a related article in the same journal of questioning the projected increases in OPEC oil to year 2020. On the other hand, Richard Nearing has mentioned the mini bonanza from deep water GOM for the next 4 or 5 years, which is certainly helped by technology. The trouble that is brewing becomes a predicament for those about 30 years of age and younger right now. A predicament for which there is no escape. Recently published book "Resource Wars" by Michael T. Klare is devoted primarily to two subjects OIL and WATER. The latter will lead to regional conflicts and the former to global ones. best, Seppo

To: el_gaviero who wrote (6593)	2/11/2002 7:08:28 AM
From: que seria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206183

el gaviero: True enough that declining or significantly more expensive hydrocarbon production will reduce economic growth, but the scenario you paint may not credit the government's willingness to assure alternative fuel sources before things ever get that bad. I have a low opinion of gov't as a rule, but a people such as ours will respond when their backs are against the wall. For now, relatively good times allow for a lot of ostriches in office. You can't have a nuclear reactor or a windmill in your car or bus, but if we moved in the direction of nations such as France and Japan for the grid, we'd free up a lot of oil for transportation. That is where we'll go long before we have any move back toward a Hobbesian situation. The greater threat to society would then be the degree of risk, from mishaps and terrorism, that is unique to nuclear power. That is one reason I believe that while tax credits are generally to be avoided, the feds ought to be giving them out freely where they have marginal utility in fostering use of proven "green" methods of power supply or use reduction.