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: Aggie who wrote (134692)	6/12/2010 12:58:44 PM
From: ChanceIs	Respond to of 206199

RE: Simmons Addressing two of your points about which there might be legitimate disagreement: 1) or that oil sinks in water rather than floating, One would generally agree. However in this case, we may be talking some extra dense crude fractions, temperature inversion, thermoclines, etc. However I doubt my own counterarguments - they may be plausible but far fetched. 2) or that tankers are equipped to "suck" oil up from the seabed, I have no problem with this. Just bring along side the tanker, a large barge with big pumps on its deck and drop inlet hoses down to depth, and pump tino the tanker hold. The rest of what Simmons alleges is either total bunk or needs to be addressed ASAP. As you can tell, this paradox is driving me nuts. If Dylan Ratigan had a clue, he would be investigating Simmons' allegations 24/7 and in the finest detail. This could make his reputation as an investigative journalist, or establish him as just another empty suit, empty minded talking head. Given the press in general, the downside is small, but the upside for him is huge - if Simmons is correct.