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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AC Flyer who wrote (55503)	11/3/2004 3:59:00 PM
From: Snowshoe	Respond to of 74559

>>50.00 a barrel is plenty to ensure increased production and increased exploration<< The big oily companies were repeatedly burned by falling oil prices, so they're conservatively basing their current project planning economics on $30 oil. Doubt we'll see that again, but I think it could bottom out at $40 within the next two years. Oil stocks could be a good buy when oil drops to $40. Yes, despite my dislike for dinosaur energy I do trade these stocks. Gotta save up for my electric TZero, you know... acpropulsion.com

To: AC Flyer who wrote (55503)	11/3/2004 4:12:43 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 74559

ACF, <I get a big kick from those who say that Iraq is about cheap oil for America.> On the contrary, Iraq's sanctions were about EXPENSIVE oil for everyone, not just the USA, and the point was profits for the oil guys [and other energy suppliers such as noocular]. Now that oil is over the top in price, it's time to bring Iraqi oil production back on stream, which will also enable Iranian oil to be turned off. There has been a glitch is getting Iraq stable and on-stream, but they're working on it. Iran has got a breathing space. They are going flat out to get noocular bombs before Iraq is stable enough to free the USA to take on Iran next. They are getting China on side to have some UN backing/veto. PNAC Pre-emptive strikes don't require UN support though, so that's no problem. BTW, one year in London was long enough for us. Filthy air from chimneys and diesels [and others], crowds, clouds and gloom. I can only imagine the 1950s smogs. Oil producers do NOT want cheap oil. BP doesn't, Exxon doesn't, Shell doesn't. Nor do the oil states. Nor do the nuclear power producers. Nor do the coal producers. A big import duty would be an easy tax to collect and would generate internal economic activity on alternatives and conservation. The argument against it is economic dislocation while such distortion is built in. It would be far better to develop the UN into the New United Nations, NUN, with a far bigger border and a global economic system. Squabbling among nation states and massive border protection is expensive. A NUN would be like a USA, or EU, made up of many states with common methods for some things such as border protection. The current UN is no such thing. Mqurice