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: Broken_Clock who wrote (123791)	8/31/2009 12:08:24 AM
From: Salt'n'Peppa	8 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206223

Blah, blah, blah! This article completely fails to mention that there is no relationship between "peak oil" and WTI price. ETFs dictate the WTI price. They have since late 2005 when they began trading more oil daily than physically exists. Mr. Nelder cites $147 oil as proof that peak oil is "here and now". I disagree. Just look at the preceding post about UNG. Nothing makes sense regarding the UNG share price and, in fact, it has nothing to do with the nat-gas commodity price upon which it should be based. A similar situation exists for oil today. "In April 2007, Lynch predicted that oil would gradually drop from the current $65 a barrel to the mid-to-low $40s in 2008. In reality, it climbed steadily to $147." Nelder completely ignores the FACT that WTI did drop to the low $40s (and lower) in 2008. I am not defending Lynch in any way, or arguing for/against peak oil theory, but simply pointing out the obvious bias in this article. I am frankly surprised that it has received so many reco's from this astute audience. S&P