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 : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Snowshoe who wrote (27595)	8/12/1998 8:51:00 PM
From: Gameboy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 95453

Greg, am pleased to see that you're cutting & pasting from the EIA (US Dept of Energy) and not the IEA. You've raised a valid point "Why are Reuters, the WSJ, and the market taking this information so seriously?" - that is, information from the IEA - without qualifying it by mentioning the IEA track record of presenting a worst case scenario. Also, from EIA (US Dept of Energy) released Aug 10th: eia.doe.gov a graph that shows forecasting the price of crude oil could take several paths (sorry, none go to $8.50). Captain James T. Kirk gets my vote as having a handle on the oil glut. "It sounds so simple to me. Why don't they just bite the bullet for one week, instead of the next year ? Their towels must be wrapped to tight around their heads." I concur except if I were OPEC I'd hold out for 10 days. An immediate injunction on all shipments - screw the contracts, screw the commitments, etc. because as it is OPEC is incurring disastrous ruin which calls for drastic action. Scratch 300 million barrels. If that didn't work, try another 10 days and another 300 million barrels. Wouldn't life be a lot rosier for OPEC with oil at $22/barrel even after 20 days of no revenue? Best of luck, Steve