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 : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: InvesTing who wrote (37711)	8/7/2008 12:31:56 AM
From: sea_biscuit	Respond to of 42834

So you would rather we not have 1.5 mil barrels a day because oil is depleting. Who told you it's our oil? It would be extracted by NON-national companies and sold to the highest bidder. And in an environment where oil supplies are depleting (AND demand is skyrocketing, thanks to China and India), the prices will remain high. ....some say that a 1% increase or decrease causes a 10% price change now. If that is true, what prevents a cartel of nations - Venezuela, Iran and Russia et al from lowering their production by 1%? Keep in mind that they will make MORE money by doing that than by letting that 1% through and getting 10% less on everything that they export. Why not build and use a nuclear reactor for the energy requried for tar sand extraction? Assuming that nuclear plants can be built on the cheap. And guess what happens when a few more nuclear plants are built? The cost of uranium goes up. This problem is not unique to nuclear power. It applies to any source that is NON-renewable.

To: InvesTing who wrote (37711)	8/7/2008 6:04:28 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Respond to of 42834

You said : "....some say that a 1% increase or decrease causes a 10% price change now." I replied : "If that is true, what prevents a cartel of nations - Venezuela, Iran and Russia et al from lowering their production by 1%? " So what does the EIA say? eia.doe.gov ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. Relative to the AEO2008 reference case, ANWR oil production is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light (LSL) crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 in the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 in the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 in the high oil resource case. Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount.

To: InvesTing who wrote (37711)	8/19/2008 2:55:04 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Respond to of 42834

"The historically conservative International Energy Agency (IEA) has issued some disturbing findings in its latest report. It notes that global production cannot keep up with demand, and the trend is getting worse. It predicts global oil depletion at 5.2% this year, versus 4% last year. Over 3.5 million barrels per day of new production will be needed each year just to hold global production steady. With Ghawar, the world’s largest and one of the oldest fields now producing less than 5 million barrels per day (approximately 6% of global daily production), where will this new production come from this year, and in every succeeding year?" PS: This is from financialsense.com , which is NOT a liberal website!