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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Seeker of Truth who wrote (59997)	1/16/2010 7:09:29 AM
From: dvdw©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218535

You state; "The claim? There are new methods of getting oil out, such as transverse drilling." Why not add drilling deep? You do realize that the foundations for the claims of peak oil, were enculturated around the simple fact that all wells ever drilled in the world were sunk only within some range of depth, and said ranges became constraints, been reading peak oil pieces for years and never found a single piece that properly accounted for the limitations about the boundary....nor were the progressively produced discussions, updated as improvements in SW and sensors indicated that they should be reconsidered. Next you express; "Well, the US government is spending billions to support renewable energy and Chevron where I used to work and which I deeply respect is spending lots on renewable energy, are they all fools? " If US Gov is spending, Chevron wants to capture some % of those expenditures.....bring some of the largesse in house....that is the way of the present. In order for chevron to make a claim on Gov expenditure, it must act like its in the game, and rightfully in the line for receivership. Chevron may secretly also have that envy thing going....some renewables less capital goods outlays, while being subject to operational variables, have zero cost of goods sold......there is utility in there somewhere. MY oh MY thats a powerful motivator.

To: Seeker of Truth who wrote (59997)	1/16/2010 2:15:53 PM
From: energyplay	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218535

For the most part almost all the cheap, easy oil is gone, with a few exceptions which are usually in politically risky places (like Iraq) So it is reasonable to expect long term oil prices at or above $50, (not crashing to $20) which makes many of the alternatives economically viable. One of the other objectives is to get enough renewable energy to help hold down the price of oil. The world economy works much better at $70 than at $100, and the lower price reduces the wealth transfer the oil producing nations. If the world is willing to pay $120 a bbl, and increase that a few dollars each year, production will not peak for many years - there are Canadian oil sand, sub-salt, Bakken, offshore Africa, more North Slope, etc. But as much as a third of world GDP would go to the energy industry, and this would crowd out investment in other areas, like health care, roads, education, clothing, etc. So we have more of an economic peak oil, not so much a physical peak oil. If we look at some fields like Cantarell in Mexico, and the North Sea, those have real physical limits, and can't increase even 5 times the capital investment. But the rest of the world oil supply has made for the declining field so far. The scenario where world oil production would slide off a cliff in the next few years - (this has been promoted by Knustler and some others) has been reduced to a very small probability. ************* One problem for us on the investing side - many investmnets, like oil sands and alternatives, have break even at various prices, some at $40, some at $60, some at $80. The long term oil price moving a few dollars can mean going poor investment to a great one or vice versa.