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: Raven McCloud who wrote (42965)	4/22/1999 10:37:00 AM
From: The Ox	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 95453

Pure spin, that's all I see from this post. First, we had to see $15 oil to "improve stock prices", been there, done that. Next, we had to see $18 oil to "justify some of these price run ups", we are there now. Now, we have to see higher prices to see these stock appreciate from here. This argument I don't buy. If anything, we need to see oil above $17 for an extended period of time. This will take time, unless someone has a crystal ball for reading the future. PROVE THEIR SUSTAINABILITY. Hmmmmm... that statement is impossible. You can prove you sustained a price but you can't possibly prove future "sustainability". This is exactly the type of statement that those with a negative angle will use for their FUD campaign. You can't prove today what's going to happen in the future. You can speculate, you can use directions and information to justify a position, but you can't PROVE that a future event will occur with any degree of assurance. How do we know exactly what every producing country will do? How do we know exactly what demand requirements will be in a few months? How do we know what events will shape our future??? Too many questions without "provable" answers. Just my opinion, Michael