Long oil?

I avoid trying to make "homerun-type" investment decisions. Logic may dictate that it's inevitable that "X" will happen in the markets and it's tempting to go there, but the markets aren't logical.

I remember back in 1996, my branch manager asked the brokers what could derail the internet stock bull run. Although, at that time, I had no clients in internet stocks due to valuation concerns, I wouldn't have predicted such a landslide a few years later.

With energy, I feel the same way. I have no idea what could drop the price of gas. It's eventual price fall (and it will fall) might not be due to supply and demand, at all. The financial failure of 1 or 2 major energy derivative players could force a price decrease. (It's been alleged that a large chunk of energy prices is due to speculation and derivatives.)

Investments in energy is a relatively easy sell to prospects and clients, at this time. But I approach from the standpoint that I'm getting in at the top; thus, the dollar amount invested is small by comparison.

Doberman,

I agree with you.  I just posted the article because I thought it was interesting.  Here you have a self made billionaire, who made his fortune buying things out of favor, and all of sudden he's bullish on a sector that already has seen significant gains, interesting or maybe he's ready to sell and ensuring he gets top dollar.

[quote=doberman]

I avoid trying to make "homerun-type" investment decisions. Logic may dictate that it's inevitable that "X" will happen in the markets and it's tempting to go there, but the markets aren't logical.

I remember back in 1996, my branch manager asked the brokers what could derail the internet stock bull run. Although, at that time, I had no clients in internet stocks due to valuation concerns, I wouldn't have predicted such a landslide a few years later.

With energy, I feel the same way. I have no idea what could drop the price of gas. It's eventual price fall (and it will fall) might not be due to supply and demand, at all. The financial failure of 1 or 2 major energy derivative players could force a price decrease. (It's been alleged that a large chunk of energy prices is due to speculation and derivatives.)

Investments in energy is a relatively easy sell to prospects and clients, at this time. But I approach from the standpoint that I'm getting in at the top; t-hus, the dollar amount invested is small by % oparison.

Revealer: 

 I disagree. Energy investments are NOT easy to sell. Very simply because most people, like you, don't want to believe this is happening. The American people (and the world for that matter) would rather take the "ignore it and it'll go away" attitude. Of course a lot of the move in energy prices is due to speculation.Do not fail to remeber that energy "things" are terrifically fungible both from a futures/cash position and to a geographic position. As far as whether we are in for a price fall, I would point out that energy stocks make up about 9-10% of the market cap of the S&P 500 and at the peak in 1979 they made up about 27% of the same index. Remarkably similar to the tech stock weighting (27%) at the tech peak of 99-00. Long ways to go? I believe we are still in the early innings.

----------------------------

Hey, you could be right about energy prices. But I'm not willing to bet the farm (or my clients' farms) on speculation, whatever the logic that supports taking such action.

If history is any indicator, something out of left field will come and take the air out of gas prices.

I don’t bet the farm, either. Actually triple weighted (about 30%) personally. I’ve worked too long and too hard for my money to bet the farm on ANYTHING regardless of how bullish or bearish I might be. Most of my “stock” clients are heavily weighted in energy also. We talk about the risks of carrying heavy weighting in energy. Believe me, I can change my mind in a short time and I constantly remind myself not to get myopic about my positions. Right now, I still believe we are early in this energy “thing.” 

Heavy stuff.

However, now that it’s getting to the point that this is such a universally held belief, I’m inclined to think that near-term prices have already hit their peaks…

[quote=joedabrkr]Heavy stuff.

However, now that it's getting to the point that this is such a universally held belief, I'm inclined to think that near-term prices have already hit their peaks.....
[/quote]

Wow, as you typed that oil traded in the futures markets for more than $75 per bbl.

Why not short a few contracts of sweet light crude?

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=joedabrkr]Heavy stuff.

However, now that it's getting to the point that this is such a universally held belief, I'm inclined to think that near-term prices have already hit their peaks.....
[/quote]

Wow, as you typed that oil traded in the futures markets for more than $75 per bbl.

Why not short a few contracts of sweet light crude?

[/quote]

Is that your considered advice as a licensed broker?

[quote=Philo Kvetch][quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=joedabrkr]Heavy stuff.

However, now that it's getting to the point that this is such a universally held belief, I'm inclined to think that near-term prices have already hit their peaks.....
[/quote]

Wow, as you typed that oil traded in the futures markets for more than $75 per bbl.

Why not short a few contracts of sweet light crude?

[/quote]

Is that your considered advice as a licensed broker?

[/quote]

You moron, advice does not end with a question mark.

[quote=NASD Newbie][quote=Philo Kvetch][quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=joedabrkr]Heavy stuff.

However, now that it's getting to the point that this is such a universally held belief, I'm inclined to think that near-term prices have already hit their peaks.....
[/quote]

Wow, as you typed that oil traded in the futures markets for more than $75 per bbl.

Why not short a few contracts of sweet light crude?

[/quote]

Is that your considered advice as a licensed broker?

[/quote]

You moron, advice does not end with a question mark.

[/quote]

Ah, but asking for the order does, you simpleton!

[quote=Philo Kvetch][quote=NASD Newbie][quote=Philo Kvetch][quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=joedabrkr]Heavy stuff.

However, now that it's getting to the point that this is such a universally held belief, I'm inclined to think that near-term prices have already hit their peaks.....
[/quote]

Wow, as you typed that oil traded in the futures markets for more than $75 per bbl.

Why not short a few contracts of sweet light crude?

[/quote]

Is that your considered advice as a licensed broker?

[/quote]

You moron, advice does not end with a question mark.

[/quote]

Ah, but asking for the order does, you simpleton!

[/quote]

Joedabrkr is not lucky enough to have me as an investment advisor so I was not asking for an order.

[quote=NASD Newbie][quote=Philo Kvetch][quote=NASD Newbie][quote=Philo Kvetch][quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=joedabrkr]Heavy stuff.

However, now that it's getting to the point that this is such a universally held belief, I'm inclined to think that near-term prices have already hit their peaks.....
[/quote]

Wow, as you typed that oil traded in the futures markets for more than $75 per bbl.

Why not short a few contracts of sweet light crude?

[/quote]

Is that your considered advice as a licensed broker?

[/quote]

You moron, advice does not end with a question mark.

[/quote]

Ah, but asking for the order does, you simpleton!

[/quote]

Joedabrkr is not lucky enough to have me as an investment advisor so I was not asking for an order.

[/quote]

Grovelling for an order is more appropriate.

The days must go by pretty slowly for you now that Bozo the Clown is off the air, huh?

Well, I'm tired of you now.

See you in the funny papers!

i've been away for the long 4th week-end, but i finally got around to reading this excellent article- tho the original link was erased by the RR police-

you'll need to google The Rainwater Prophecy + Richard Rainwater to get the article-

Rainwater's suggestion for other scary sites including :
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

it does really get you to worrying- not only about client portfolios (tho, according to the thought/analysis on this site, you can't really position long-term for a second Stone-Age much anyway--more Gold?)-- but on the survivability of the spieces--- aka: Planet of the Apes?

i know it all sounds kooky, but also a bit scary since it is not totally out of the realm of possibility- i've been accused of being a bit oil-crazed due to the lack of foresight/action to cut consumption, but compared to these guys, i'm totally tame-

check it out-

[quote=NASD Newbie][quote=Philo Kvetch][quote=NASD Newbie][quote=Philo Kvetch][quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=joedabrkr]Heavy stuff.

However, now that it's getting to the point that this is such a universally held belief, I'm inclined to think that near-term prices have already hit their peaks.....
[/quote]

Wow, as you typed that oil traded in the futures markets for more than $75 per bbl.

Why not short a few contracts of sweet light crude?

[/quote]

Is that your considered advice as a licensed broker?

[/quote]

You moron, advice does not end with a question mark.

[/quote]

Ah, but asking for the order does, you simpleton!

[/quote]

Joedabrkr is not lucky enough to have me as an investment advisor so I was not asking for an order.

[/quote]

Are you kidding?

Oh I see...you meant "Joedabrkr is lucky enough to NOT have me as an investment advisor...."

Good Lord I'd rather chew glass......

[quote=Revealer]He's right. (If not a little "fringy").....convinced me that the world was up against a supply problem of unprecedented proportions. "All things energy" include, oil, nat.gas, coal, drilling, transportation of same but only in North America. These impending shortages change everything we have been taught about investing.[/quote]

Well, there are plenty of folks, it would seem, who are convinced that there's an "energy shortage" (ignoring the massive US coal reserves, increasing abilities to draw oil in places we couldn’t before, the recent demand destruction we saw at the last peak of gas prices and the tanking price of natural gas) and don’t think the current price of a barrel of oil has anything to do with a massive risk premium thanks to Chavez in Venezuela, Iran’s nuke stand-off with the world and the missile launches from the lunatic in North Korea.

Count me in the latter camp….

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=Revealer]He's right. (If not a little "fringy").....convinced me that the world was up against a supply problem of unprecedented proportions. "All things energy" include, oil, nat.gas, coal, drilling, transportation of same but only in North America. These impending shortages change everything we have been taught about investing.[/quote]

Well, there are plenty of folks, it would seem, who are convinced that there's an "energy shortage" (ignoring the massive US coal reserves, increasing abilities to draw oil in places we couldn’t before, the recent demand destruction we saw at the last peak of gas prices and the tanking price of natural gas) and don’t think the current price of a barrel of oil has anything to do with a massive risk premium thanks to Chavez in Venezuela, Iran’s nuke stand-off with the world and the missile launches from the lunatic in North Korea.

Count me in the latter camp….

[quote=Revealer][quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=Revealer]He's right. (If not a little "fringy").....convinced me that the world was up against a supply problem of unprecedented proportions. "All things energy" include, oil, nat.gas, coal, drilling, transportation of same but only in North America. These impending shortages change everything we have been taught about investing.[/quote]

Well, there are plenty of folks, it would seem, who are convinced that there's an "energy shortage" (ignoring the massive US coal reserves, increasing abilities to draw oil in places we couldn’t before, the recent demand destruction we saw at the last peak of gas prices and the tanking price of natural gas) and don’t think the current price of a barrel of oil has anything to do with a massive risk premium thanks to Chavez in Venezuela, Iran’s nuke stand-off with the world and the missile launches from the lunatic in North Korea.

Count me in the latter camp….

[/quote] Mike: Please don't take my quotes out of context. I would ask that the readers read my ENTIRE comment. As far as lots of reserves of alternative source..... You are right. What I want you to do is some research on the COST of extracting those reserves. Of course there is a geopolitical premium in the price of oil. Think that's gonna go away?[/quote]

Sorry, Revealer, but I don't see where your message was changed when I trimmed down the post to the specific point I wanted to address. But, others can read your original post in its entirety to make their own decision. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I'm aware of the cost of  extracting the reserves, and as you well know, it still doesn't justify the current price. IMHO all the talk about “peak oil” affecting current prices is just talk, and prices are only moving on a larger than usual risk premium. As to the risk premium and whether or not it will "go away", the short answer is I think it will shrink to historic norms.

There's always been a risk premium of some size in energy prices and it expands and contracts with events. Personally I think it’s currently grossly exaggerated (as do people as diverse in opinion as the former CEO of Exxon and members of OPEC). It wasn’t all peace and light in the late 1990s when oil was at $16 a barrel and the world isn’t coming to an end (and we aren’t running out of energy) now at $75.

[quote=mikebutler222]

.....I'm aware of the cost of  extracting the reserves, and as you well know, it still doesn't justify the current price. IMHO all the talk about “peak oil” affecting current prices is just talk, and prices are only moving on a larger than usual risk premium. As to the risk premium and whether or not it will "go away", the short answer is I think it will shrink to historic norms.

There's always been a risk premium of some size in energy prices and it expands and contracts with events. Personally I think it’s currently grossly exaggerated (as do people as diverse in opinion as the former CEO of Exxon and members of OPEC). It wasn’t all peace and light in the late 1990s when oil was at $16 a barrel and the world isn’t coming to an end (and we aren’t running out of energy) now at $75.

[/quote]

i've read nowhere anyone saying that "peak oil" is affecting current prices -- no one rational anyway.

but you've already proven that you'll make up your own enemy so you can shoot it down in an effort to solidify your position-

effective? yeah. honest? no.

[quote=TexasRep][quote=mikebutler222]

.....I'm aware of the cost of  extracting the reserves, and as you well know, it still doesn't justify the current price. IMHO all the talk about “peak oil” affecting current prices is just talk, and prices are only moving on a larger than usual risk premium. As to the risk premium and whether or not it will "go away", the short answer is I think it will shrink to historic norms.

There's always been a risk premium of some size in energy prices and it expands and contracts with events. Personally I think it’s currently grossly exaggerated (as do people as diverse in opinion as the former CEO of Exxon and members of OPEC). It wasn’t all peace and light in the late 1990s when oil was at $16 a barrel and the world isn’t coming to an end (and we aren’t running out of energy) now at $75.

[/quote]

i've read nowhere anyone saying that "peak oil" is affecting current prices -- no one rational anyway.

but you've already proven that you'll make up your own enemy so you can shoot it down in an effort to solidify your position-

effective? yeah. honest? no.

[/quote]

Gee, and we were all getting along so nicely... a bunch of investment professionals...talking about the market...and you had to go personal. Well, I'm not going to take the bait, but I will give you a quote that provides some context to the direction the conversation took;

I've been long "all things energy" since Dec. 2000. Don't remember exactly what turned me on, but a combination of events/articles convinced me that the world was up against a supply problem of unprecedented proportions. "All things energy" include, oil, nat.gas, coal, drilling, transportation of same but only in North America. These impending shortages change everything we have been taught about investing.

Now, perhaps you can explain to me in civil terms how that's an argument that current prices aren't being effected by "supply problem" and not the risk premimum I mentioned.

[quote=mikebutler222]

Gee, and we were all getting along so nicely... a bunch of investment professionals...talking about the market...and you had to go personal. Well, I'm not going to take the bait, but I will give you a quote that provides some context to the direction the conversation took;

I've been long "all things energy" since Dec. 2000. Don't remember exactly what turned me on, but a combination of events/articles convinced me that the world was up against a supply problem of unprecedented proportions. "All things energy" include, oil, nat.gas, coal, drilling, transportation of same but only in North America. These impending shortages change everything we have been taught about investing.

Now, perhaps you can explain to me in civil terms how that's an argument that current prices aren't being effected by "supply problem" and not the risk premimum I mentioned.

[/quote]

the "peak oil" crowd talks very specifically/theoretically about the bell-curve properties inherent in the supply/extraction process of oil/natural gas- no one here has linked the theory to the current price-- except you, so that you could subsequently "knock that one out of the park" -

the last sentence of your statement, which turns the discussion from the "peak oil" theory to  "..that current prices aren't being effected by "supply problem"" underscores the way you sometimes turn the topic to suit your side of the discussion.

you can have a short-term "supply problem" without it being any way related to the "peak oil" theory as the cause- Katrina, and the very political problems that you point out, can/do lead to short term supply problems-- but those won't cause the world to run out of oil long-term.

[quote=TexasRep][quote=mikebutler222]

Gee, and we were all getting along so nicely... a bunch of investment professionals...talking about the market...and you had to go personal. Well, I'm not going to take the bait, but I will give you a quote that provides some context to the direction the conversation took;

I've been long "all things energy" since Dec. 2000. Don't remember exactly what turned me on, but a combination of events/articles convinced me that the world was up against a supply problem of unprecedented proportions. "All things energy" include, oil, nat.gas, coal, drilling, transportation of same but only in North America. These impending shortages change everything we have been taught about investing.

Now, perhaps you can explain to me in civil terms how that's an argument that current prices aren't being effected by "supply problem" and not the risk premimum I mentioned.

[/quote]

the "peak oil" crowd talks very specifically/theoretically about the bell-curve properties inherent in the supply/extraction process of oil/natural gas- no one here has linked the theory to the current price-- except you, so that you could subsequently "knock that one out of the park" -

the last sentence of your statement, which turns the discussion from the "peak oil" theory to  "..that current prices aren't being effected by "supply problem"" underscores the way you sometimes turn the topic to suit your side of the discussion.

you can have a short-term "supply problem" without it being any way related to the "peak oil" theory as the cause- Katrina, and the very political problems that you point out, can/do lead to short term supply problems-- but those won't cause the world to run out of oil long-term.

[/quote]

Are you telling me that "....the world was up against a supply problem of unprecedented proportions." and " These impending shortages change everything we have been taught about investing." comments don't relate to the "peak oil" theory thread from which they jumped?

http://forums.registeredrep.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2012&amp ;PN=0&TPN=1

Also, the refernce to "since Dec 2000" means to you that he was talking about short-term supply issues like Katrina?

[quote=mikebutler222]

Are you telling me that "....the world was up against a supply problem of unprecedented proportions." and " These impending shortages change everything we have been taught about investing." comments don't relate to the "peak oil" theory thread from which they jumped?

http://forums.registeredrep.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2012&amp ; ;PN=0&TPN=1

Also, the refernce to "since Dec 2000" means to you that he was talking about short-term supply issues like Katrina?

[/quote]

again, "...Katrina, and the very political problems that you point out, can/do lead to short term supply problems-- but those won't cause the world to run out of oil long-term..."

in the 2000 we were still dealing with OPEC, unstable regimes situated over the world's reserves (remember what happened in 2001?), and new gas refineries not being built, all of which will hiccup from time to time and cause "supply-issues" regardless of the overall global supply of oil in reserves.

you can still bet on supply issues being a short term play simply by understanding that our extraction/refinering processes are maxxed out, and that since hurricane season is upon us, bet that we will take another Gulf-hit this year which would then lead to a short-term supply issue---- again, unrelated to the "peak oil" theory.

The Peak Oil discussion is interesting.  Common sense dictates that a peak in production will (or maybe has already) eventually happen.  It is a finite resource after all.  We won't know when the peak was until many years after.  A better view on energy is historical.  Oil has always been a boom/bust industry (read "The Prize" by Yergin).  We currently have plenty of oil, peak or no peak.  Prices will come down relative to demand.  When the next global slowdown occurs, watch out.  In the meantime, buy during oil price weakness and sell during strength. 

[quote=TexasRep][quote=mikebutler222]

Are you telling me that "....the world was up against a supply problem of unprecedented proportions." and " These impending shortages change everything we have been taught about investing." comments don't relate to the "peak oil" theory thread from which they jumped?

http://forums.registeredrep.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2012&amp ; ; ;PN=0&TPN=1

Also, the refernce to "since Dec 2000" means to you that he was talking about short-term supply issues like Katrina?

[/quote]

again, "...Katrina, and the very political problems that you point out, can/do lead to short term supply problems-- but those won't cause the world to run out of oil long-term..."

in the 2000 we were still dealing with OPEC, unstable regimes situated over the world's reserves (remember what happened in 2001?), and new gas refineries not being built, all of which will hiccup from time to time and cause "supply-issues" regardless of the overall global supply of oil in reserves.

you can still bet on supply issues being a short term play simply by understanding that our extraction/refinering processes are maxxed out, and that since hurricane season is upon us, bet that we will take another Gulf-hit this year which would then lead to a short-term supply issue---- again, unrelated to the "peak oil" theory.

[/quote]

Everything you've mentioned is of a short term nature and sounds to me unrelated to long term issues as mentioned in "....the world was up against a supply problem of unprecedented proportions." and " These impending shortages change everything we have been taught about investing." .

Could you name something in your response that is covered by Revealer's quote? Secondly, why pretend the other thread doesn't exist?

[quote=Pandale]

The Peak Oil discussion is interesting.  Common sense dictates that a peak in production will (or maybe has already) eventually happen.  It is a finite resource after all.  [/quote]

Maybe not. That's one theory.  Here is another.

http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/in dex.html

sure--- if refineries are maxxed, and new ones are not being built, then short-term supply problems will happen from time to time and with increasing frequency as our usage increases--- again, unrelated to the overall supply of global reserves addressed in the "peak-oil" theory--

what part of the other thread?

[quote=Revealer] I disagree. Energy investments are NOT easy to sell. Very simply because most people, like you, don't want to believe this is happening.  [/quote]

I don't know about anyone else, but I've found them to be a very, very easy sell. In fact I'm concerned about how many clients sound now like they did in 1997-1999 when they wanted to sell everything and buy the hot dot. So many of them are convinced that oil prices can only go up and never again down that I’m feeling the way I did when I read the WSJ articles of the late 1990s about NYC cab drivers pulling over with fares waiting in the back so that they could make a trade on their lap top.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Anyone else seeing this?

[quote=TexasRep]

sure--- if refineries are maxxed, and new ones are not being built, then short-term supply problems will happen from time to time and with increasing frequency as our usage increases--- again, unrelated to the overall supply of global reserves addressed in the "peak-oil" theory--

what part of the other thread?

[/quote]

Why are you working so hard to dispute what Revealer himself has said? Of course the quotes I gave you were about long-term supply problems and not short term issues which simply can't be label "unprecedented". Read the other thread, start at the top. He supports “peak oil” there repeatedly and uses it as an underpinning for his views on oil prices moving forward.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

i'm disputing no one but your:

"...IMHO all the talk about “peak oil” affecting current prices is just talk..."

[quote=TexasRep]

i'm disputing no one but your:

"...IMHO all the talk about “peak oil” affecting current prices is just talk..."

[/quote]

I'm going no further with you in this circle, read the link to the thread I gave you and the "peak oil" under pinnings for the quotes I provided.

Mikey B at work again!  I’m gettin’ dizzy.

[quote=TexasRep][quote=mikebutler222]

.....I'm aware of the cost of  extracting the reserves, and as you well know, it still doesn't justify the current price. IMHO all the talk about “peak oil” affecting current prices is just talk, and prices are only moving on a larger than usual risk premium. As to the risk premium and whether or not it will "go away", the short answer is I think it will shrink to historic norms.

There's always been a risk premium of some size in energy prices and it expands and contracts with events. Personally I think it’s currently grossly exaggerated (as do people as diverse in opinion as the former CEO of Exxon and members of OPEC). It wasn’t all peace and light in the late 1990s when oil was at $16 a barrel and the world isn’t coming to an end (and we aren’t running out of energy) now at $75.

[/quote]

i've read nowhere anyone saying that "peak oil" is affecting current prices -- no one rational anyway.

but you've already proven that you'll make up your own enemy so you can shoot it down in an effort to solidify your position-

effective? yeah. honest? no.

[/quote]

Exactly....

[quote=dude][quote=TexasRep][quote=mikebutler222]

.....I'm aware of the cost of  extracting the reserves, and as you well know, it still doesn't justify the current price. IMHO all the talk about “peak oil” affecting current prices is just talk, and prices are only moving on a larger than usual risk premium. As to the risk premium and whether or not it will "go away", the short answer is I think it will shrink to historic norms.

There's always been a risk premium of some size in energy prices and it expands and contracts with events. Personally I think it’s currently grossly exaggerated (as do people as diverse in opinion as the former CEO of Exxon and members of OPEC). It wasn’t all peace and light in the late 1990s when oil was at $16 a barrel and the world isn’t coming to an end (and we aren’t running out of energy) now at $75.

[/quote]

i've read nowhere anyone saying that "peak oil" is affecting current prices -- no one rational anyway.

but you've already proven that you'll make up your own enemy so you can shoot it down in an effort to solidify your position-

effective? yeah. honest? no.

[/quote]

Exactly....

[/quote]

Dude, you're late to the party and I'm not interested in a whizzing contest. <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Tex, in his eagerness to make up for who knows what commented on my post before he knew what had been said on the subject in the prior thread.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=TexasRep][quote=mikebutler222]

.....I'm aware of the cost of  extracting the reserves, and as you well know, it still doesn't justify the current price. IMHO all the talk about “peak oil” affecting current prices is just talk, and prices are only moving on a larger than usual risk premium. As to the risk premium and whether or not it will "go away", the short answer is I think it will shrink to historic norms.

There's always been a risk premium of some size in energy prices and it expands and contracts with events. Personally I think it’s currently grossly exaggerated (as do people as diverse in opinion as the former CEO of Exxon and members of OPEC). It wasn’t all peace and light in the late 1990s when oil was at $16 a barrel and the world isn’t coming to an end (and we aren’t running out of energy) now at $75.

[/quote]

i've read nowhere anyone saying that "peak oil" is affecting current prices -- no one rational anyway.[/quote]

Perhaps I could have saved us all some bandwidth if I'd just responded to the above with;

http://forums.registeredrep.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2012 I think if you read this thread you'll read exactly that....

i read nothing about the impending doom of mankind related to the peak-oil theory in that thread-- but that you did only proves my point about how you can manipulate the context to support your side--

you keep running from yourself here mike- i just wanted to point out that you can play supply games with oil stocks due to short term glitches, and not be a peak-oil nut job--

i read nothing about the impending doom of mankind related to the peak-oil theory in that thread--<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

note to self... some people will take you literally when you jokely say "end of the world".....

 but that you did only proves my point about how you can manipulate the context to support your side--

Sorry, <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Tex, but it proves nothing of the sort. Revealer, on that thread, voiced support for the "peak oil" theory. In this thread he talked how he came to the conclusion in Dec of 2000 that we faced " a supply problem of unprecedented proportions " and how "these impending shortages change everything we have been taught about investing." and his belief that we're only in the beginning rounds of higher oil prices.

You might think it's unfair or a "manipulation of context" to link the two. I don't, I think it’s obvious his comments are each part of his philosophical approach to investing in energy. You'll notice Revealer himself never tried to make the case that you're trying to make.

you keep running from yourself here mike-

No, Tex, you're just not familiar with what was said before you entered my conversation with Revealer.

i just wanted to point out that you can play supply games with oil stocks due to short term glitches, and not be a peak-oil nut job--

I never said you couldn't, and I don't recall saying "peak-oil nut job". I was referring to Revealer's comments (see above for the quotes) specifically, and they were about long term trends. For whatever reason you decided to attempt to apply my specifically directed comments to other situations.

Now, if you’d like to talk about future engery trends, I’m happy to continue. If all you’re interested in doing is taking my posts and twisting them to “prove” that I twist posts, I’m not interested in continuing. Life’s too short for whizzing contests, but I’m happy to learn if real if a real exchange of ideas is what’s going on.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Revealer][quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=Revealer]He's right. (If not a little "fringy").....convinced me that the world was up against a supply problem of unprecedented proportions. "All things energy" include, oil, nat.gas, coal, drilling, transportation of same but only in North America. These impending shortages change everything we have been taught about investing.[/quote]

Well, there are plenty of folks, it would seem, who are convinced that there's an "energy shortage" (ignoring the massive US coal reserves, increasing abilities to draw oil in places we couldn’t before, the recent demand destruction we saw at the last peak of gas prices and the tanking price of natural gas) and don’t think the current price of a barrel of oil has anything to do with a massive risk premium thanks to Chavez in Venezuela, Iran’s nuke stand-off with the world and the missile launches from the lunatic in North Korea.

Count me in the latter camp….

[/quote] Mike: Please don't take my quotes out of context. I would ask that the readers read my ENTIRE comment. As far as lots of reserves of alternative source..... You are right. What I want you to do is some research on the COST of extracting those reserves. Of course there is a geopolitical premium in the price of oil. Think that's gonna go away?[/quote]

Sorry, Revealer, but I don't see where your message was changed when I trimmed down the post to the specific point I wanted to address. But, others can read your original post in its entirety to make their own decision. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I'm aware of the cost of  extracting the reserves, and as you well know, it still doesn't justify the current price. IMHO all the talk about “peak oil” affecting current prices is just talk, and prices are only moving on a larger than usual risk premium. As to the risk premium and whether or not it will "go away", the short answer is I think it will shrink to historic norms.

There's always been a risk premium of some size in energy prices and it expands and contracts with events. Personally I think it’s currently grossly exaggerated (as do people as diverse in opinion as the former CEO of Exxon and members of OPEC). It wasn’t all peace and light in the late 1990s when oil was at $16 a barrel and the world isn’t coming to an end (and we aren’t running out of energy) now at $75.

>>>>Revealer, on that thread, voiced support for the "peak oil" theory. In this thread he talked how he came to the conclusion in Dec of 2000 that we faced " a supply problem of unprecedented proportions " and how "these impending shortages change everything we have been taught about investing." and his belief that we're only in the beginning rounds of higher oil prices.
You might think it's unfair or a "manipulation of context" to link the two. I don't

Oh mike, you can have belief's in 2 separate theories and still not be wrong- if you then say that the short term supply issues COULD be the precursor to the longer term supply issue's theory conclusions, you MAY not be wrong--  but HE did not, YOU did- that's unfair, you should not connect the dots for someone, and then go on to rebut it with:

"...IMHO all the talk about “peak oil” affecting current prices is just talk..."

that's just wrong.

[quote=Revealer][quote=mikebutler222][quote=Revealer][quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=Revealer]He's right. (If not a little "fringy").....convinced me that the world was up against a supply problem of unprecedented proportions. "All things energy" include, oil, nat.gas, coal, drilling, transportation of same but only in North America. These impending shortages change everything we have been taught about investing.[/quote]

Well, there are plenty of folks, it would seem, who are convinced that there's an "energy shortage" (ignoring the massive US coal reserves, increasing abilities to draw oil in places we couldn’t before, the recent demand destruction we saw at the last peak of gas prices and the tanking price of natural gas) and don’t think the current price of a barrel of oil has anything to do with a massive risk premium thanks to Chavez in Venezuela, Iran’s nuke stand-off with the world and the missile launches from the lunatic in North Korea.

Count me in the latter camp….

[/quote] Mike: Please don't take my quotes out of context. I would ask that the readers read my ENTIRE comment. As far as lots of reserves of alternative source..... You are right. What I want you to do is some research on the COST of extracting those reserves. Of course there is a geopolitical premium in the price of oil. Think that's gonna go away?[/quote]

Sorry, Revealer, but I don't see where your message was changed when I trimmed down the post to the specific point I wanted to address. But, others can read your original post in its entirety to make their own decision. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I'm aware of the cost of  extracting the reserves, and as you well know, it still doesn't justify the current price. IMHO all the talk about “peak oil” affecting current prices is just talk, and prices are only moving on a larger than usual risk premium. As to the risk premium and whether or not it will "go away", the short answer is I think it will shrink to historic norms.

There's always been a risk premium of some size in energy prices and it expands and contracts with events. Personally I think it’s currently grossly exaggerated (as do people as diverse in opinion as the former CEO of Exxon and members of OPEC). It wasn’t all peace and light in the late 1990s when oil was at $16 a barrel and the world isn’t coming to an end (and we aren’t running out of energy) now at $75.

[/quote] Of course we aren't running out of oil. Just running out of cheap oil. Ladies and Gentlemen: The cure for high prices is..........HIGH PRICES.[/quote]

I've spent a good bit of bandwidth talking to other people about what you believe. Let me remedy that now.

How much of today's prices are, in your opinion, due to this running out of cheap oil and how much (if any) of the price is a risk premium due to <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Nigeria, NK, Iran, etc? Do you see prices continuing to increase or is this speculative bubble?<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

And seriously, have you really found that energy investments are a tough sell?

[quote=TexasRep]

>>>>Revealer, on that thread, voiced support for the "peak oil" theory. In this thread he talked how he came to the conclusion in Dec of 2000 that we faced " a supply problem of unprecedented proportions " and how "these impending shortages change everything we have been taught about investing." and his belief that we're only in the beginning rounds of higher oil prices.
You might think it's unfair or a "manipulation of context" to link the two. I don't

Oh mike, you can have belief's in 2 separate theories and still not be wrong-

Where's your evidence that these are two "separate theories" and not part of a consistant, unified approach?

if you then say that the short term supply issues COULD be the precursor

Only you raised the issue of "short term" supplies through your inventive reading of Revealer's quotes about his toughts dating back to Dec 2000. In fact "short term" was a phrase that you alone introduced. 

to the longer term supply issue's theory conclusions, you MAY not be wrong--  but HE did not, YOU did- that's unfair, you should not connect the dots for someone, and then go on to rebut it with:

You call it "connecting the dots" with zero evidence. I see a consistant theme, and Revealer hasn't said otherwise.

"...IMHO all the talk about “peak oil” affecting current prices is just talk..."

that's just wrong.

So you say, but you have to ignore everything he's said to believe it.

BTW, Tex, Revealer's an adult and if he feels I'm mistaken in thinking/saying he has expressed a connection between his support for peak oil and current prices I'll admit it and apologize.

You, otoh, had to be informed after you began this attack line that he is, in fact, a peak oil subscriber.

Like I said earlier. Do you suppose this is gonna go away? (Geopolitical problems) Like I also said earlier, “Most people don’t WANT TO believe this is happening.” And indeed, a lot of people will not buy energy because they believe this is some giant conspiracy. Look, I don’t really care what you believe (or don’t). If you look @ previous posts, you will see that I said, personally I am 3X weighted in energy (approx 30%) and I am nervous about that type of position. I will also share that I own many small E&P co’s and refiners where I have NONE of my “own money” involved because I have sold off entirely original cost. Isn’t this all about making $$? 

Like I said earlier. Do you suppose this is gonna go away? (Geopolitical problems)

No, but we've always had them, as we did when oil was $16 brl. Is it your theory that (and I'm not trying to sound like a DA, just trying to understand your POV here) the risk premium will always be this high?

Like I also said earlier, "Most people don't WANT TO believe this is happening."

What's the "this" that you're talking about? Peak oil's effects?

And indeed, a lot of people will not buy energy because they believe this is some giant conspiracy.

The people I know who think it's a conspiracy are sure oil is only going up forever, since there would be no need for a conspiracy for any other purpose, and they want to buy, buy, buy. Are you saying some people think "peak oil" is a conspiracy or that high prices are?

Look, I don't really care what you believe (or don't).

I was hoping, since this is an exchange of views of professionals, you'd explain your theory on the matter to us and your expectation of prices.

If you look @ previous posts, you will see that I said, personally I am 3X weighted in energy (approx 30%) and I am nervous about that type of position. I will also share that I own many small E&P co's and refiners where I have NONE of my "own money" involved because I have sold off entirely original cost. Isn't this all about making $$? 

I have no problem with making money   and I'm not suggesting you're being unethical. This was all just an attempt to have a civil debate. Thanks for your time

You’re welcome.

[quote=Revealer]You're welcome.[/quote]

rev-

sorry for hopping in- friday was just one of those days.

mike has this annoying habit of taking several things you may have written and amalgamating them into one unified statement, pretending not to realize that you did not actually state it that way, and then teeing-off on HIS version of what you wrote-

i've tried to bring this to his attention as a pitiful way for a bright guy to debate--- basically erecting a straw-man argument just so he can knock it over to solidify his viewpoint- 

he's done it to me, and to others, lately i just try to ignore it, friday, for some reason, i could not--

[quote=Revealer]He’s right. (If not a little “fringy”). I’ve been long “all things energy” since Dec. 2000. Don’t remember exactly what turned me on, but a combination of events/articles convinced me that the world was up against a supply problem of unprecedented proportions. “All things energy” include, oil, nat.gas, coal, drilling, transportation of same but only in North America. These impending shortages change everything we have been taught about investing.[/quote] Tex: This was in response to a link to a Dec 2005 issue of Fortune where Richard Rainwater espoused his theory of “very disasterous” consequences of the impending energy “shortages”. I simply agreed and you’d thought I’d passed gas (flatulence) in someone’s church! My reference to “changing everything we’ve been taught about investing”, is perhaps the reason that our markets P/E mutiples continue to shrink and we have been in a pretty poor market (less than normal rates of return) for some yrs. now. I intend to conduct my personal and client investments accordingly. I suggest everyone do the same based upon THEIR beliefs. However, a dogmatic attitude rarely wins in the long run (Buy and Hold?) We’ll see how this all turns out, won’t we?

mike has this annoying habit of taking several things you may have written and amalgamating them into one unified statement,

Sounds like a lame way of saying I quote you...

 pretending not to realize that you did not actually state it that way,

What does this mean? Should I just assume the various things you've said are unrelated and an example of incoherent, unstructured thought?

 and then teeing-off on HIS version of what you wrote-

I have to assume by "HIS version" you mean that I quote you directly...

i've tried to bring this to his attention as a pitiful way for a bright guy to debate--- basically erecting a straw-man argument just so he can knock it over to solidify his viewpoint- 

Seems to me that's exactly what you did, erect a strawman...

the current state of the oil market has allowed many to cash in on their belief's-- this, possibly short term, bull mkt has made many of my clients and relatives very rich- i have a cousin who at age 35 is considering partial retirement as he has seen his Valero stocks make him a millionaire in short order--

the peak oil theory, for the most part, see's global oil supplies peaking in 2010, and then dissipating very quickly, right as demand is escalating higher than ever-

question: is this current oil mkt bull run part and parcel of peak oil?

answer: who cares? if you are riding the wave, and making money-- but technically, the theory theorizes shrinking production as the precursor, and that 2010 is the outside date for production to begin decreasing at 3% per year--

so are you making money in todays market due to the peak-oil theory? possibly, as you said, we will see in time, if this has started with the energy-wars currently being staged- but the supply/shrinking production precursor is the true indicator and that hasn't happened yet-

most believe, i think correctly, that the current short term uptick in energy is due to the terror-premium factor, not a pure supply shortage result- but the encompassing theory also allows for these terror-wars/energy wars as part and parcel of the peak oil theory-

it's really interesting that so many have hopped on this bandwagon, yet very little seems to be changing--

jeesh- you can really be thick when you need to be............

mike has this annoying habit of taking several things you may have written and amalgamating them into one unified statement,

Sounds like a lame way of saying I quote you...

roses are red.
violets are blue.
Mike: "Although you believe all flowers are either red or blue, it doesn't make it so.."

 pretending not to realize that you did not actually state it that way,

What does this mean? Should I just assume the various things you've said are unrelated and an example of incoherent, unstructured thought?

Don't be a retard.. you are beginning to admit that you can't understand english when it doesn't suit you..
what it means:
The peak oil theory is convincing to me.
I am making money in this oil-stressed market.
Mike:"...IMHO all the talk about “peak oil” affecting current prices is just talk..."
you knock down the strawman that you erect.....

and then teeing-off on HIS version of what you wrote-

I have to assume by "HIS version" you mean that I quote you directly...

But you've already admitted that you don't bother....
Mike: "You might think it's unfair or a "manipulation of context" to link the two. I don't...."

i've tried to bring this to his attention as a pitiful way for a bright guy to debate--- basically erecting a straw-man argument just so he can knock it over to solidify his viewpoint- 

Seems to me that's exactly what you did, erect a strawman...

No clue what this means....

look, all i'm saying is that you should refrain from "linking" things people say in effort to bend them into a position that you can then bash...it's beneath you.

jeesh- you can really be thick when you need to be............

What was I thinking, assuming you could be civil....

mike has this annoying habit of taking several things you may have written and amalgamating them into one unified statement,

Sounds like a lame way of saying I quote you...

roses are red.
violets are blue.
Mike: "Although you believe all flowers are either red or blue, it doesn't make it so.."

Strawman... a pure invention. I could do the same...

roses are red

violets are blue

Tex: "Where did I ever say anything about flowers? Stop "bending" what I've said"

 pretending not to realize that you did not actually state it that way,

So you're saying you don't have an example, fine...

What does this mean? Should I just assume the various things you've said are unrelated and an example of incoherent, unstructured thought?

Don't be a retard.. you are beginning to admit that you can't understand english when it doesn't suit you..

What are you, 15? If you don't what to be quoted for exactly what you've said, that's your problem.

and then teeing-off on HIS version of what you wrote-

I have to assume by "HIS version" you mean that I quote you directly...

But you've already admitted that you don't bother....
Mike: "You might think it's unfair or a "manipulation of context" to link the two. I don't...."

I admitted nothing other than the fact that YOU clearly didn't understand what Revealer had said and continued to defend long after you inserted yourself in the conversation.  IOW, just becuase you see a problem doesn't mean there is one. All you did was provide a side-show as Revealer explained his theory.

Speaking of manipulating, nice job editing those quotes...

i've tried to bring this to his attention as a pitiful way for a bright guy to debate--- basically erecting a straw-man argument just so he can knock it over to solidify his viewpoint- 

Seems to me that's exactly what you did, erect a strawman...

No clue what this means....

You erected a strawman with this "Mike has this annoying habit" when I hadn't done anything of the sort. You simply inserted yourself, unaware of Revealer's prior comments, which BTW, he didn't back away from, ala Tex.

look, all i'm saying is that you should refrain from "linking" things people say in effort to bend them into a position that you can then bash...it's beneath you.

Notice that only you, and not Revealer felt anything had been "bent".  "Linking" (I assume you're referring to me QUOTING things people have said) things people say seems to me to be a fine way of understanding what they mean. I would hope an adult could speak up for themselves if they feel they've been  misintrepreted and say so. This isn't a trial, there are no traps here, your bruised ego isn't the center of events here.

I suggest that if you, speaking for yourself, feel your positions have been "bent", simply say so and save the outrage. 

right....

and this was a figment of our collective imaginations:

Mike: Please don't take my quotes out of context. I would ask that the readers read my ENTIRE comment. As far as lots of reserves of alternative source..... You are right. What I want you to do is some research on the COST of extracting those reserves. Of course there is a geopolitical premium in the price of oil. Think that's gonna go away?

Sorry, Revealer, but I don't see where your message was changed when I trimmed down the post to the specific point I wanted to address. But, others can read your original post in its entirety to make their own decision.

no outrage or bruised ego here, just wonder as to why a guy with legitimate takes, needs to twist, link, amalgamate or outright invent things "the other side" never says...
you've got a problem, its time you own up to it.

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

[quote=TexasRep]

right....

and this was a figment of our collective imaginations:

Mike: Please don't take my quotes out of context. I would ask that the readers read my ENTIRE comment. As far as lots of reserves of alternative source..... You are right. What I want you to do is some research on the COST of extracting those reserves. Of course there is a geopolitical premium in the price of oil. Think that's gonna go away?

Sorry, Revealer, but I don't see where your message was changed when I trimmed down the post to the specific point I wanted to address. But, others can read your original post in its entirety to make their own decision.

no outrage or bruised ego here, just wonder as to why a guy with legitimate takes, needs to twist, link, amalgamate or outright invent things "the other side" never says...
you've got a problem, its time you own up to it.

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

[/quote]

Tex, your ego is still obviously bruised from long ago. There's little I can do for you there. Notice that what you've clipped IS NOT Revealer making the case you've been attempting to make.

BTW, here's Revealer's entire post;

He's right. (If not a little "fringy"). I've been long "all things energy" since Dec. 2000. Don't remember exactly what turned me on, but a combination of events/articles convinced me that the world was up against a supply problem of unprecedented proportions. "All things energy" include, oil, nat.gas, coal, drilling, transportation of same but only in North America. These impending shortages change everything we have been taught about investing.

Now, feel free to try to make a logical argument that I "bent" Revealer's comments by leaving out those words in red so that I could address the others specifically. "Problem" indeed.

If there's a consistant theme here it's how you react when people question/dispute some of your ideas on oil and oil policy (and I'm not talking current prices here).

bruised ego? what are you even talking about with that one?

recant is something that i can do when appropriate, it is your inability to do so that is in question, especially after you've been exposed as wrong and as a dubious debater.

Example:
I've been calling to your attention the fact that you twist what others say, and i then post evidence that others don't like either:
from Rev: "Mike: Please don't take my quotes out of context."

and you respond (ad nausem) as if you don't understand plain english:
You: "...what you've clipped IS NOT Revealer making the case you've been attempting to make."

you obviously have a problem admitting when you are wrong, all i've tried to do was show it to you, and ask you to refrain from "twisting" what others say when your back is up against the wall--learning to say "i'm sorry, you're right" is a big-boy response. So grow up already.

but alas, your treatment is obviously not taking, and i tire, you'll need to seek help elsewhere, good luck with that problem of yours.

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” /><o:p>

bruised ego? what are you even talking about with that one?

Your inability to help yourself from jumping in with both feet, ill-informed at mid-conversation is clearly the lingering effects of your bruised ego over the flame war that began over the meaning of the word “fungible” and whether or not it applied to oil and oil prices.

recant is something that i can do when appropriate,

Got an example of you doing that, that you could share? If you could, you would have done so over your inability to find how I’d “bent” Revealer’s meaning by leaving out I've been long "all things energy" since Dec. 2000. Don't remember exactly what turned me on, but a combination of events/articles from his post. It didn’t escape notice that you dodged that question.

 it is your inability to do so that is in question, especially after you've been exposed as wrong and as a dubious debater.

“Exposed” in your mind, perhaps….personally, I think you've exposed yourself as a petulant child who can't discuss the issue at hand but has to dodge and waive by introducing specious complaints that your own words, quoted directly, don't have the meaning they obviously have.

BTW, it probably escaped your attention, but after your hissy-fit was moved aside, Revealer and I were able to have a ration discussion on an adult level. An exchange of ideas resulted and no temper tantrums or accusations were involved. As I said to him then, if I’m mistaken in how I’d read him, I’m more than happy to learn and admit it. To the objection he did make, I said honestly I didn’t see how trimming out those 22 words changed his meaning, but I welcomed others to make their on decision about it.

Example:
I've been calling to your attention the fact that you twist what others say, and i then post evidence that others don't like either:
from Rev: "Mike: Please don't take my quotes out of context."

Yeah, it’s funny how you used that quote and couldn’t explain how I’d changed Revealer’s meaning .

and you respond (ad nausem) as if you don't understand plain english:
You: "...what you've clipped IS NOT Revealer making the case you've been attempting to make."

It’s rather amazing how you can’t piece this together. Throughout this thread and the other Revealer has talked up “Peak oil”, his belief in it, how he came to that conclusion in 2000 and has been long oil since, how many people refuse to see “what’s happening” (note the word HAPPENING, not what WILL HAPPEN, but what is HAPPENING)  how this is a bull market for oil, how he used the key “peak oil” phrase “It’s the end of cheap oil”, yet when I say rather clearly that I think the talk of “peak oil” effecting current oil prices is wrong, you go into a hissy claiming Revealer never said anything of the sort. It was just priceless and <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Tex to a “T”.

You THEN go on, as “proof”, to introduce all manners of short term reasons for price changes that Revealer had never, never mentioned. Then you pretend that you’ve “proven” something.

In plain English for you, Revealer has never, never claimed that I’ve misinterpreted his theme that peak oil is affecting current prices. Again, does the phrase “It’s the end of cheap oil” ring a bell?

What he DID do in the “don’t take my quotes” line was attempt to say that by leaving out “I've been long "all things energy" since Dec. 2000. Don't remember exactly what turned me on, but a combination of events/articles..” that I’d changed his meaning. I simply disagree (I hope I don’t need your permission to disagree, do I?) and the question still stands to you (although I don’t know if I want to wade into another one of your difficult to read all lower caps posts filled with childish terms like “retarded” to decipher your answer) is just how the meaning was changed.

… the lingering effects of your bruised ego over the flame war that began over the meaning of the word “fungible” and whether or not it applied to oil and oil prices. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Why would I have a bruised ego over an argument that pitted you, Dilbert and Catbert against me, Pres. Bush, Cheney, the US Auto Industry, et al?

Just another of your ridiculous rantings and proof of your inability to see how foolish you can make yourself look.

I’m trying to help you here buddy……………………

recant is something that i can do when appropriate..
Got an example of you doing that, that you could share? If you could, you would have done so over your inability to find how I’d “bent” Revealer’s meaning by leaving out I've been long "all things energy" since Dec. 2000. Don't remember exactly what turned me on, but a combination of events/articles from his post. It didn’t escape notice that you dodged that question.

I’ve answered it, but then I came to realize that you don’t recognize English when it becomes inconvenient for you…

.

BTW, it probably escaped your attention, but after your hissy-fit was moved aside, Revealer and I were able to have a ration discussion on an adult level. An exchange of ideas resulted and no temper tantrums or accusations were involved….

More like Rev (and the rest of this board) knows that trying to get you to debate honesty would be like trying to teach Bill Clinton morals-- a lost cause that I’m slowly resigning myself to as well-

Rev: "Mike: Please don't take my quotes out of context."
Yeah, it’s funny how you used that quote and couldn’t explain how I’d changed Revealer’s meaning .

You just to continue to embarrass yourself…

It’s rather amazing how you can’t piece this together. Throughout this thread and the other Revealer has talked up “Peak oil”, his belief in it, how he came to that conclusion in 2000 and has been long oil since….

The Peak Oil Theory wasn’t publicly spoken about in 2000:
from the LATOC website:
”…With his eye-opening website, Matt Savinar helped make Peak Oil the breakout issue of 2004 while becoming one of the most sought after and extensively quoted commentators on what may be the most important issue facing humanity today.

It’s rather amazing how you can’t piece this together. Throughout this thread and the other Revealer has talked up “Peak oil”, his belief in it, how he came to that conclusion in 2000 and has been long oil since, how many people refuse to see “what’s happening” (note the word HAPPENING, not what WILL HAPPEN, but what is HAPPENING)  how this is a bull market for oil, how he used the key “peak oil” phrase “It’s the end of cheap oil”, yet when I say rather clearly that I think the talk of “peak oil” effecting current oil prices is wrong, you go into a hissy claiming Revealer never said anything of the sort. It was just priceless and Tex to a “T”.You THEN go on, as “proof”, to introduce all manners of short term reasons for price changes that Revealer had never, never mentioned. Then you pretend that you’ve “proven” something. In plain English for you, Revealer has never, never claimed that I’ve misinterpreted his theme that peak oil is affecting current prices. Again, does the phrase “It’s the end of cheap oil” ring a bell?What he DID do in the “don’t take my quotes” line was attempt to say that by leaving out “I've been long "all things energy" since Dec. 2000. Don't remember exactly what turned me on, but a combination of events/articles..” that I’d changed his meaning. I simply disagree (I hope I don’t need your permission to disagree, do I?)

Calm down, mikey. Just take a deep breath, close your eyes and keep telling yourself: “I’m still 100%, I’m right, they’re wrong. I’m right, I’m right, I’m right.”
Of course you are, mikey, it’s OK honey, shhhh, close those eyes, calm down, now, everything’s gonna’ be OK--

....and the question still stands to you (although I don’t know if I want to wade into another one of your difficult to read all lower caps posts filled with childish terms like “retarded” to decipher your answer) is just how the meaning was changed.

soRry nASd, i'LL tRy harDer, i PromIse i WiLL.

You're Right!
i am childish!
(see, it's not that hard...)

 <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

… the lingering effects of your bruised ego over the flame war that began over the meaning of the word “fungible” and whether or not it applied to oil and oil prices.

Why would I have a bruised ego over an argument that pitted you, Dilbert and Catbert against me, Pres. Bush, Cheney, the US Auto Industry, et al?

Yeah, that's how it stacked up , lol....

Just another of your ridiculous rantings and proof of your inability to see how foolish you can make yourself look.

I’m trying to help you here buddy……………………

Perhaps in this conversation you shouldn't be helping anyone but yourself...

recant is something that i can do when appropriate..
Got an example of you doing that, that you could share? If you could, you would have done so over your inability to find how I’d “bent” Revealer’s meaning by leaving out I've been long "all things energy" since Dec. 2000. Don't remember exactly what turned me on, but a combination of events/articles from his post. It didn’t escape notice that you dodged that question.

I’ve answered it, but then I came to realize that you don’t recognize English when it becomes inconvenient for you…

Humor me and "answer" it again....just how was the meaning changed?

.

BTW, it probably escaped your attention, but after your hissy-fit was moved aside, Revealer and I were able to have a ration discussion on an adult level. An exchange of ideas resulted and no temper tantrums or accusations were involved….

More like Rev (and the rest of this board) knows that trying to get you to debate honesty would be like trying to teach Bill Clinton morals-- a lost cause that I’m slowly resigning myself to as well-

You sure have an interesting habit of attempting to speak for others. Here's the bottomline, <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Tex, you inject yourself, a flamewar tries to sputter to life. You remain silent and there's an inteligent exchange. There's a lesson in there for you...

Rev: "Mike: Please don't take my quotes out of context."
Yeah, it’s funny how you used that quote and couldn’t explain how I’d changed Revealer’s meaning .

You just to continue to embarrass yourself…

As I see it the only embarrassing thing going on is you dodging that question. Just how did dropping those 22 words change the meaning of the post....

It’s rather amazing how you can’t piece this together. Throughout this thread and the other Revealer has talked up “Peak oil”, his belief in it, how he came to that conclusion in 2000 and has been long oil since….

The Peak Oil Theory wasn’t publicly spoken about in 2000:
from the LATOC website:
”…With his eye-opening website, Matt Savinar helped make Peak Oil the breakout issue of 2004 while becoming one of the most sought after and extensively quoted commentators on what may be the most important issue facing humanity today.

Interesting habit of yours on display there. You make a (false)declarative statement, and then as supporting "evidence" you provide something that doesn't support what you've claimed, as if you figure no-one will notice. Let me spell it out for you; just because Savinar help make it "the breakout"  issue in 2004 doesn’t mean it "wasn’t publicly spoken about in 2000”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak

The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) was founded in 2000 by the geologist Colin Campbell.

I suppose next you’ll try to convince us all that Campbell didn’t “speak publicly” or that his organization didn’t publish anything on the subject. Save the bandwidth, I'll correct you on that the second you claim it.

It’s rather amazing how you can’t piece this together. Throughout this thread and the other Revealer has talked up “Peak oil”, his belief in it, how he came to that conclusion in 2000 and has been long oil since, how many people refuse to see “what’s happening” (note the word HAPPENING, not what WILL HAPPEN, but what is HAPPENING)  how this is a bull market for oil, how he used the key “peak oil” phrase “It’s the end of cheap oil”, yet when I say rather clearly that I think the talk of “peak oil” effecting current oil prices is wrong, you go into a hissy claiming Revealer never said anything of the sort. It was just priceless and Tex to a “T”.You THEN go on, as “proof”, to introduce all manners of short term reasons for price changes that Revealer had never, never mentioned. Then you pretend that you’ve “proven” something. In plain English for you, Revealer has never, never claimed that I’ve misinterpreted his theme that peak oil is affecting current prices. Again, does the phrase “It’s the end of cheap oil” ring a bell?What he DID do in the “don’t take my quotes” line was attempt to say that by leaving out “I've been long "all things energy" since Dec. 2000. Don't remember exactly what turned me on, but a combination of events/articles..” that I’d changed his meaning. I simply disagree (I hope I don’t need your permission to disagree, do I?)

Calm down, mikey. Just take a deep breath, close your eyes and keep telling yourself: “I’m still 100%, I’m right, they’re wrong. I’m right, I’m right, I’m right.”
Of course you are, mikey, it’s OK honey, shhhh, close those eyes, calm down, now, everything’s gonna’ be OK—

It’s just fine if you can’t respond to the above with reason, simply admit it and drop the attempt to dodge it. BTW, why did you edit that all into a single paragraph, unless it was a lame attempt to "make a point"?

....and the question still stands to you (although I don’t know if I want to wade into another one of your difficult to read all lower caps posts filled with childish terms like “retarded” to decipher your answer) is just how the meaning was changed.

soRry nASd, i'LL tRy harDer, i PromIse i WiLL.

As I expected, you can’t answer the simple question despite all your ranting and raving that I “bent” his comments….

You're Right!
i am childish!
(see, it's not that hard...)

Progress, we seem to be making progress….

BTW, I asked you if Revealer’s comment about the “end of cheap oil” rang a bell for you. Obviously it didn’t, but here’s the answer;

ASPO was founded by Colin Campbell in 2000 with Jean Laherrère a French petroleum geologist with whom he wrote an important article in Scientific American in 1998 called "The end of cheap oil".

Now, since that was before “peak oil” was “spoken of publicly”, you probably missed it….

so now you respond as if Rev (and the world) was cognizant and talking about Peak Oil in 2000, before Matt Savinar helped make Peak Oil the breakout issue of 2004?

well--- if all this twisting makes it RIGHT for you... great, i guess that makes our Rev ahead of the rest of the non-scientific world, if you say so, and, (we know, we know) you're always correct.

but i'm out of gas, and the therapy obviously isn't working for you---

good luck, dilbert.

so now you respond as if Rev (and the world) was cognizant and talking about Peak Oil in 2000, before Matt Savinar helped make Peak Oil the breakout issue of 2004?<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Why shouldn't I, it's the truth. Savinar did introduce the topic to a larger audience, but that doesn't people interested in investing and oil weren't knowledgeable about it long before. I think I proved to reasonable people that it was "spoken about publicly" before 2004. Campbell has been highly visible for much longer back than just 2004 and the orginial theory is decades old.

well--- if all this twisting makes it RIGHT for you... great, i guess that makes our Rev ahead of the rest of the non-scientific world, if you say so, and, (we know, we know) you're always correct.

There you go again, claiming I "twisted" something (when I obviously haven't) and trying to introduce a new term with a claim you’ve yet to support. When was the ignorance of the “non-scientific world” prior to 2004 proved? <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Campbell was appearing on NPR in 1998, spoke to the House of Commons in 1999, had an item published in Foreign Affairs in 2000 and has been publishing a newsletter since Jan 2001. Are all those purely scientific venues? He's been profiled and written about countless times before 2004. Who has spent endless amounts of bandwidth accusing someone else of “bending” and “twisting” things?

but i'm out of gas, and the therapy obviously isn't working for you---

good luck, dilbert.

 Out of something, alright… good luck yourself…

[quote=mikebutler222]

<?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Campbell was appearing on NPR in 1998, spoke to the House of Commons in 1999, had an item published in Foreign Affairs in 2000 and has been publishing a newsletter since Jan 2001. Are all those purely scientific venues? He's been profiled and written about countless times before 2004.

so now you "prove" that Cambell is older than a 10 year old- great, and who cares if he spoke here, then wrote something there?

we already assume he was probably crapping in his pants back in the 30's also......so what?

Who has spent endless amounts of bandwidth accusing someone else of “bending” and “twisting” things?

the king of the twist himself....go mike, go...

[/quote]

Campbell was appearing on NPR in 1998, spoke to the House of Commons in 1999, had an item published in Foreign Affairs in 2000 and has been publishing a newsletter since Jan 2001. Are all those purely scientific venues? He's been profiled and written about countless times before 2004.

so now you "prove" that Cambell is older than a 10 year old- great, and who cares if he spoke here, then wrote something there?

we already assume he was probably crapping in his pants back in the 30's also......so what?

Was that even intended to make sense? You've told us that peak oil wasn't spoken about publicly until 2004, wrong; then in the next post you told us the “non-scientific world” didn’t know of peak oil, wrong again.

Campbell, the head of the organization behind peak oil and co-author of "The End of Cheap Oil" was speaking and writing in all sorts of non-scientific venues and reaching sizable audiences. This sounds like your other pattern, if you didn't know of it, it didn't happen.

Just what are you claiming now? That people who were interested in energy and investing didn’t know of him? Are you serious?

Who has spent endless amounts of bandwidth accusing someone else of “bending” and “twisting” things?

the king of the twist himself....go mike, go...

You’ve descended into self-parody now….

Mike: It’s rather amazing how you can’t piece this together. Throughout this thread and the other Revealer has talked up “Peak oil”, his belief in it, how he came to that conclusion in 2000 and has been long oil since….<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Tex: The Peak Oil Theory wasn’t publicly spoken about in 2000:
from the LATOC website:
”…With his eye-opening website, Matt Savinar helped make Peak Oil the breakout issue of 2004 while becoming one of the most sought after and extensively quoted commentators on what may be the most important issue facing humanity today.

Mike: The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) was founded in 2000 by the geologist Colin Campbell.

You’re correct the ASPO was founded (not formed) in 2000- on December 7th—so (according to you) Rev was probably referring to Peak Oil before as you put it: “…the head of the organization behind peak oil” had even founded his organization, or within 24 days of his talk which later led to the formation of his organization—so we either have to tip our hats to Rev for being on the very cutting edge on the discourse of Peak Oil in 2000, or conclude that for all of your spinning and twisting, the year 2000 was not the year “the public” was widely (a word I should have used previously) cognizant of Peak Oil, much less widely speaking about it ----and that you can be the biggest horse’s a$$ to ever grace our midst.

Colin J.Campbell: "It was in Germany that ASPO had its origin. On December 7th in the year 2000, I was privileged to give a talk on oil depletion at the ancient university of Clausthal in the Harz Mountains. The idea of forming an institution, or network of scientists concerned about the subject, developed. Next day, I took the idea to Professor Wellmer, the head of the BGR in Hannover, who gave it his support. The Norwegians were the next to join, followed by the Swedes. Today, ASPO is represented in almost all European countries.

You're at it again. You make a laughable assertion about peak oil not being spoken about in 2000 just because Fortune says a website made it a "break out" issue in 2004, some 20+ years after the theory was produced. Evidently "break out" means that people interested in investing, world affairs and oil didn't know it until every soccer mom was discussing it...

Then you claim it was unknown to the "non-scientific world". When I point out to you that Campbell's been talking about this theory for years before 2000 you attempt a new tack; that being that since Revealer said 2000, that must mean he made up his mind in 2000, thus the fact that Campbell founded ASPO in DECEMBER 2000 means (AHA! says Tex) Revealer couldn't be talking about peak oil and couldn't have read or seen any of the peak oil related information prior.

Are you trying to become a joke here? I gave you a list of Campbell's writings in various "non-scientific" venues and even on NPR before 2000 (which no sane person would assume were the only peak oil conversations going on then) and you come up with this? Seriously, are you joking here or just being pathetic?

For crying out loud, do you think it was pure chance that Revealer quoted the title of Campbell's 1998 study "The End of Cheap Oil" BY NAME????

I'm beginning to feel sorry for you Tex, give it a rest and see if you can't reclaim some personal dignity… I’m no longer going to be an enabler in your public immolation, you can have the last word….

most kind- thanks for the last word.

i'll admit that i never saw and could not find Rev's quote "...from the title of Campbell's 1998 study "The End of Cheap Oil" BY NAME????"

if you're not making this up, also-- (as you so often do)-- that changes things, because if Rev admitted to reading this book at or closely around the date it was published, it truly does make him a VERY early Peak Oil theorist- (but i doubt he said that he read this in or around 2000)

probably just more spin-- but if he said it and i was unaware, then i'm wrong on this whole deal.

however-- i jumped in to begin with b/c you (admittedly) "linked" things he said to make it into something he did not-- i cannot make it any clearer as to how you so often do this without drawing you a damn picture, so i'll give up trying with:

A. i believe that i can make money in the oil market short term b/c of these oil related issues: hurricanes, china, refinery pressures, ect..
B. i believe in the Peak Oil Theory.
Mike: "...IMHO all the talk about “peak oil” affecting current prices is just talk..."

if you can't see 2 possibly unrelated issues here, that no one linked but you, then you are:
1. Hopelessly stupid
2. Delusional
3. a dishonest debater
4. all of the above

i believed you to be too bright to debate this way, but you have proven that i was giving you way too much credit in that department.....

see you in the funny papers...

This thread is insane.  Who has the time for this crap? 

This issue seems simple to me: Either you believe the supply of oil will increase or stay the same from here on out, or that at some point it will decrease down to nothing. 

Logic says to me that it will run out some day.  Supply may start decreasing this year, or 50 years from now.

But geez, can't you all be a bit clearer about your own points and quit arguing about what he did or didn't say? 

It's rediculous.

Ace

[quote=TexasRep]

however-- i jumped in to begin with b/c you (admittedly) "linked" things he said to make it into something he did not-- i cannot make it any clearer as to how you so often do this without drawing you a damn picture, so i'll give up trying with:[/quote]

You jumped in ignorant of the prior conversation. Notice in the below post Revealer makes no attempt to "correct" me from the conclusion that he feels current prices are showing an effect from peak oil. In it he mentions San Franbroker's dispute of basic peak oil theory;

[quote=Revealer][quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=Revealer]My mistake. Actually posted 4-3-06. (I looked @ join date not post date.) Corrected to....WTI 66.80, S&P 1298, 10 yr 4.87. Not nearly as dramatic, eh? [/quote]

Don't sweat the error, it happens, but what point were you trying to make by it? Oil prices could climb a great deal and he could still be 100% right if the reasons for the climb have nothing to do with your belief in peak oil, right?

[/quote] Yep. Could be. So could I. In the meantime about only thing working is energy "stuff." BTW, any comparison to tech bubble is incredibly off base. One of my current favs. is a driller selling @ 11X earn and 8X estimate. 6.6X cash flow. 80/20 equity/debt ratio. Any tech names from 99-00 fit that description? [/quote]

Emphasis mine. Seems pretty obvious to me he's talking NOW, and again, notice he never says to me that I've misread him and that he doesn't think there are CURRENT effects. Also, note the civl tone, something that disappeared as soon as you entered the conversation. Again, there's a lesson for you in there....

BTW, here's the quote you couldn't find.

[quote=Revealer] Of course we aren't running out of oil. Just running out of cheap oil.[/quote]

My error in remembering it as "The End of" which was the title of a cornerstone piece on peak oil. He did, however, use the very theme involved. Feel free to quibble away....

Just a suggestion, but perhaps in the future you shouldn't leap into a conversation, make all manner of foolish comments and accusations until you have a clue what you're talking about.

Notice in the below post Revealer makes no attempt to "correct" me from the conclusion that he feels current prices are showing an effect from peak oil. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

What I, and the whole damn world, can see (but you, due to your convenient lapse of English comprehension skills) is that Rev concedes that:

A.     SF Broker (or Rev or anyone else) can believe (and make money) in the oil market in short term cycles b/c of these oil related issues: hurricanes, china, refinery pressures, ect..

AND ALSO

B.      believe in the Peak Oil Theory- and if true, we could be seeing the market effects of it in the terror-wars going on in the Mid-East right now-

AND still not then conclude:

Mike: "...IMHO all the talk about “peak oil” affecting current prices is just talk..."

Revealer wrote:

mikebutler222 wrote:

Revealer wrote:

My mistake. Actually posted 4-3-06. (I looked @ join date not post date.) Corrected to....WTI 66.80, S&P 1298, 10 yr 4.87. Not nearly as dramatic, eh?

Don't sweat the error, it happens, but what point were you trying to make by it? Oil prices could climb a great deal and he could still be 100% right if the reasons for the climb have nothing to do with your belief in peak oil, right?

Yep. Could be. So could I. In the meantime about only thing working is energy "stuff." BTW, any comparison to tech bubble is incredibly off base. One of my current favs. is a driller selling @ 11X earn and 8X estimate. 6.6X cash flow. 80/20 equity/debt ratio. Any tech names from 99-00 fit that description?

 Emphasis mine. Seems pretty obvious to me he's talking NOW, and again, notice he never says to me that I've misread him and that he doesn't think there are CURRENT effects.

Look, the reason Rev probably uses “could” for both his and SF’s position is that Rev can see that both positions can be independent and correct, because he understands (he’s a cutting edge Peak Oil expert, according to you) that the Peak Oil Theory first needs oil to peak, before a shortage of the oil supply could even begin to start effecting the market- most experts believe that won’t happen until 2007 to 2010—so the only effects in line with the Peak Oil Theory on the CURRENT market can be the wars and rumors of wars effecting the oil market in a terror-premium type fashion, which maybe the precursor to the Theory playing out in it’s entirety- we will know this in time.

Also, note the civl tone, something that disappeared as soon as you entered the conversation. Again, there's a lesson for you in there....

And this would have nothing to do with you, of course---

BTW, here's the quote you couldn't find. 

Revealer wrote:

Of course we aren't running out of oil. Just running out of cheap oil.

My error in remembering it as "The End of" which was the title of a cornerstone piece on peak oil. He did, however, use the very theme involved. Feel free to quibble away....

Quibble? When you ‘fess up to manipulating what someone says to solidify your point? Why would I quibble over that? It’s only the EXACT point I have been trying to make about the way you debate—it’s unnecessary b/c you’re bright enough to not have to use those tactics—my time has been spent in effort to lift the mirror up to this flaw, and POLITELY ask that you at least self-examine, and try not to employ this tactic.
Can you now see what I’m talking about?

A simple “ I don’t think I debate that way, BUT I will watch out for it in the future to be sure” would have saved all of your precious bandwidth long ago—   it take’s a little guts, but I promise it won’t hurt for long.

Just a suggestion, but perhaps in the future you shouldn't leap into a conversation, make all manner of foolish comments and accusations until you have a clue what you're talking about.

Most who know me know that I have a pretty good understanding of the Oil biz-

as for my comments being foolish?

The mirror starts out being a little foggy at first, don’t give up tho, keep looking into it, you’ll soon start seeing what everyone else sees already--

Notice in the below post Revealer makes no attempt to "correct" me from the conclusion that he feels current prices are showing an effect from peak oil. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

What I, and the whole damn world,

I suggest you stop trying to speak for anyone but yourself. You’re sinking alone here, <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Tex. You sound like a character from “Mean Girls” with all these “everyone” and “the world damn world” as if someone asked you to serve as a spokenman.

 Follow the thread, it couldn’t be clearer. San Fran dismisses P.O. Revealer defends it, cites Pickens and how much Pickens has made, cites the current price of oil, bear market, just the beginning, etc., etc., when I ask him about (his belief in P.O., and San Fran’s dismissal of it)  it he says oil is the only thing working. I’m very explicit that I’m talking about NOW, he responds with an answer using CURRENT tense, “working”. From that very, very obvious exchange (and again, a very civil one) I later comment that I think the talk of P.O. effecting current prices is wrong, and you pop a gasket. You enter the fray completely unaware of what’s been said, make loud accusatory comments and do nothing but attempt to start a flame war.

SF Broker (or Rev or anyone else) can believe (and make money) in the oil market in short term cycles b/c of these oil related issues: hurricanes, china, refinery pressures, ect..

A nifty strawman, but neither I nor ANYONE else has ever said you couldn’t both believe in peak oil (or not, for that matter) and believe that current price movements were due to other events. In fact, I don't believe in P.O., but I'm making money in this oil market. Also, note that no one ever even mentioned short term but you.

Revealer wrote:

mikebutler222 wrote:

Revealer wrote:

My mistake. Actually posted 4-3-06. (I looked @ join date not post date.) Corrected to....WTI 66.80, S&P 1298, 10 yr 4.87. Not nearly as dramatic, eh?

Don't sweat the error, it happens, but what point were you trying to make by it? Oil prices could climb a great deal and he could still be 100% right if the reasons for the climb have nothing to do with your belief in peak oil, right?

Yep. Could be. So could I. In the meantime about only thing working is energy "stuff." BTW, any comparison to tech bubble is incredibly off base. One of my current favs. is a driller selling @ 11X earn and 8X estimate. 6.6X cash flow. 80/20 equity/debt ratio. Any tech names from 99-00 fit that description?

 Emphasis mine. Seems pretty obvious to me he's talking NOW, and again, notice he never says to me that I've misread him and that he doesn't think there are CURRENT effects.

Look, the reason Rev probably uses “could” ….

I love it,  “probably”… the use of the CURRENT tense of the word and you wish it away with probably… the ENTIRE argument he’s been trying to create since his entry into the thread and he tries to wash it away with “probably”. For crying out loud, Tex, the guy had every opportunity to say right then and there that I misunderstood him and that he didn’t mean prices NOW, and I would have apologized. But no, without a clue you plod in and make a spectacle of yourself and even with THIS is your face you can’t correct yourself. It’s really tragic…

Also, note the civil tone, something that disappeared as soon as you entered the conversation. Again, there's a lesson for you in there....

And this would have nothing to do with you, of course---

The fact is I’m engaged in a civil discussion with Revealer and the only thing that changes the tone is your entry and your accusations about “twisting”.

BTW, here's the quote you couldn't find. 

Revealer wrote:

Of course we aren't running out of oil. Just running out of cheap oil.

My error in remembering it as "The End of" which was the title of a cornerstone piece on peak oil. He did, however, use the very theme involved. Feel free to quibble away....

Quibble? When you ‘fess up to manipulating what someone says to solidify your point?

Manipulating? Here we go again Mr. peak-oil-wasn’t-publically-spoken-about-until-2004…. The entire concept of “running out of cheap oil” (which Revealer said was influencing current prices) is part and parcel of the Peak Oil theory, so much so that a cornerstone piece on the subject was titled “The End of Big Oil” and you call it manipulating to point that out. Unreal. And this from the guy that ignored every bit of publicity about “peak Oil” before 2004 in the face of mountains of evidence (which I detailed for him) to the contrary. Just astounding…

Most who know me know that I have a pretty good understanding of the Oil biz-

Nobody gives a rat’s backside what you “understand”, the fact is you entered an ongoing discussion, didn’t have a clue what had been said before, made all sorts of childish and inflammatory remarks and generally made a fool of yourself. You’re a waste of time and most probably as OCD afflicted in real life as you have been here. You’ve wasted enough of my time.

[quote=Ace Planner]

This thread is insane.  Who has the time for this crap? 

This issue seems simple to me: Either you believe the supply of oil will increase or stay the same from here on out, or that at some point it will decrease down to nothing. 

Logic says to me that it will run out some day.  Supply may start decreasing this year, or 50 years from now.

But geez, can't you all be a bit clearer about your own points and quit arguing about what he did or didn't say? 

It's rediculous.

Ace

[/quote]

Oh, it's even worse than that. Tex isn't arguing about what HE said or didn't say, he's arguing about someone did or didn't say in a conversation that was already ongoing when he entered it....

“End of Big Oil” = “The of Cheap Oil”

Seek help, big boy.

If not for yourself, then for the few remaining who can still stomach being around you.

Chubby is LOTS chubbier now.

C'mon MikeyB....

Let's do the twist.

OK, boys and girls. For today’s lesson…What is the name of the WORLD’S second largest oil field whose production declined 5% last year and is expected to decline another 14% this yr. Clue…Western Hemisphere.

[quote=Revealer]OK, boys and girls. For today’s lesson…What is the

name of the WORLD’S second largest oil field whose production declined

5% last year and is expected to decline another 14% this yr.

Clue…Western Hemisphere.[/quote]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Peak_oil

Of the three largest oil fields in the world, two have peaked. Mexico

announced that its giant Cantarell Field entered

depletion in March, 2006, as did the huge Burgan field in Kuwait in

November, 2005. In April, 2006, a Saudi Aramco spokesman

admitted that its mature fields are now declining at a rate of 8% per year,

and its composite decline rate of producing fields is about 2%<A

class=“external autonumber” title=http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/tcrp-

news/2006-April/000019.html href=“http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/

tcrp-news/2006-April/000019.html”>[12], thus implying that <A

title=Ghawar href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghawar”>Ghawar</

A&g t;,

the largest oil field in the world may have peaked. New drilling in Saudi

Arabia may be able to replace a portion of that country’s production

decline.



US Army Corps of Engineers and Peak Oil

In a report from US Army Corps of Engineers we can read the

following statement:“Peak oil is at hand with low availability growth for

the next 5 to 10 years. Once worldwide petroleum production peaks,

geopolitics and market economics will result in even more significant

price increases and security risks. To guess where this is all going to take

us is would be too speculative. Oil wars are certainly not out of the

question.”

[quote=TexasRep] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

US Army Corps of Engineers and Peak Oil
In a report from US Army Corps of Engineers we can read the following statement:[/quote]

If you read the entire report that that TN (Technical Note) comes from; http://www.cecer.army.mil/techreports/Westervelt_EnergyTrend s/Westervelt_EnergyTrendsTR.pdf

You'll also see this statement;

“The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents.”

The authors are a mechanical engineer with the CoE and an academic. They quote heavily, the ASPO and other peak oil proponents. Kudos to the Corps for seeking all manners of opinion, they surely can’t be accused of not looking at things from all angles. (BTW, I thought the authors’ comments on the direction of natural gas prices (written in September 2005) was interesting.)

A question from the back of the class, when the authors say;

“The doubling of oil prices in the past couple of years is not an anomaly, but a picture of the future. Peak oil is at hand with low availability growth for the next 5 to 10 years. “

And later;

“World oil production is at or nears its peak and current world demand exceeds the supply.”

Is it incorrect to believe that they’re suggesting  there’s a current impact on oil prices from peak oil implications?

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=TexasRep] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

US Army Corps of Engineers and Peak Oil
In a report from US Army Corps of Engineers we can read the following statement:[/quote]

If you read the entire report that that TN (Technical Note) comes from; http://www.cecer.army.mil/techreports/Westervelt_EnergyTrend s/Westervelt_EnergyTrendsTR.pdf

You'll also see this statement;

“The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents.”

The authors are a mechanical engineer with the CoE and an academic. They quote heavily, the ASPO and other peak oil proponents. Kudos to the Corps for seeking all manners of opinion, they surely can’t be accused of not looking at things from all angles. (BTW, I thought the authors’ comments on the direction of natural gas prices (written in September 2005) was interesting.)

[/quote]

i take it you'd feel better if this came from the Army versus a mechanical engineer with the CoE and an academic?

why?

[quote=mikebutler222]

<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

A question from the back of the class, when the authors say;

“The doubling of oil prices in the past couple of years is not an anomaly, but a picture of the future. Peak oil is at hand with low availability growth for the next 5 to 10 years. “

And later;

“World oil production is at or nears its peak and current world demand exceeds the supply.”

Is it incorrect to believe that they’re suggesting  there’s a current impact on oil prices from peak oil implications?

[/quote]

....wars and rumours of wars as geo-political factions position themselves over the current reserves? if you are a subscriber, no doubt-- if you are not, you'd see this as a temporary terror-premium due to the current Mid-East (and elsewhere) unrest--

how do you see it, mike?

[quote=TexasRep][quote=mikebutler222] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=TexasRep]

US Army Corps of Engineers and Peak Oil
In a report from US Army Corps of Engineers we can read the following statement:[/quote]

If you read the entire report that that TN (Technical Note) comes from; http://www.cecer.army.mil/techreports/Westervelt_EnergyTrend s/Westervelt_EnergyTrendsTR.pdf

You'll also see this statement;

“The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents.”

The authors are a mechanical engineer with the CoE and an academic. They quote heavily, the ASPO and other peak oil proponents. Kudos to the Corps for seeking all manners of opinion, they surely can’t be accused of not looking at things from all angles. (BTW, I thought the authors’ comments on the direction of natural gas prices (written in September 2005) was interesting.)

[/quote]

i take it you'd feel better if this came from the Army versus a mechanical engineer with the CoE and an academic?

why?

 I don’t know that I’d “feel better”, but I thought it was worth pointing out that the paper was speculative,  and an effort on the part of CoE to get various points of view on the subject, not DoA policy and position. Were that entire paper DoA policy and position, with its full reliance on P.O. and the many political assertions that it made, I’d be pretty uncomfortable. Leave the P.O. issue aside for a moment, the paper made a great many political assertions that I think regardless of where you stand politically, are inappropriate for a part of the Pentagon to make. Those are the sort of things that should come from a political, elected, policy making Whitehouse.

[quote=mikebutler222]

A question from the back of the class, when the authors say;

“The doubling of oil prices in the past couple of years is not an anomaly, but a picture of the future. Peak oil is at hand with low availability growth for the next 5 to 10 years. “

And later;

“World oil production is at or nears its peak and current world demand exceeds the supply.”

Is it incorrect to believe that they’re suggesting  there’s a current impact on oil prices from peak oil implications?

[/quote]

....wars and rumours of wars as geo-political factions position themselves over the current reserves? if you are a subscriber, no doubt-- if you are not, you'd see this as a temporary terror-premium due to the current Mid-East (and elsewhere) unrest--

how do you see it, mike?

[/quote]

I thought it was pretty obvious that at least these two writers, subscribers to P.O. were making the case that P.O. implications are affecting current oil prices, and they make the case that currently demand exceeds supply. Now, it’s obvious from prior conversations that I don’t agree with them about P.O., much less any effects it might be having on current prices, but I wondered if others read that as I did, that two P.O. believers are making the case that there’s a current price effect.

[quote=dude][/quote]

Feel free to point out what's been "twisted", dude. I thought I asked a pretty straight-forward question and Tex answered it in the same civil manner.

I don’t know that I’d “feel better”, but I thought it was worth pointing out that the paper was speculative,  and an effort on the part of CoE to get various points of view on the subject, not DoA policy and position.

as for anything yet future, speculation is somewhat involved, no?

as for DoA Policy:

Peak Oil is very much their concern as well:

http://army-energy.hqda.pentagon.mil/programs/plan.asp

".....The participants in the writing workshop were drawn from current and former Army staff representing a broad cross section of experience, as well as researchers from the DOE national laboratories. At the writing workshop, Don Fournier, Senior Research Specialist, University of Illinois, gave a presentation and led a discussion on "Energy Trends and Implications" (.pdf, 972Kb) to help the writing team frame the current energy (and water) environment, and provide a background for the development of the Campaign Plan...."

Were that entire paper DoA policy and position, with its full reliance on P.O. and the many political assertions that it made, I’d be pretty uncomfortable.

ditto.

that's why a look at the website can convince (almost) anyone that the Army is taking PO very seriously:

http://army-energy.hqda.pentagon.mil/

Leave the P.O. issue aside for a moment, the paper made a great many political assertions that I think regardless of where you stand politically, are inappropriate for a part of the Pentagon to make. Those are the sort of things that should come from a political, elected, policy making Whitehouse.

agreed- but it seems that the political, elected, policy making Whitehouse is preparing and/or allowing the PO discourse and all issues involved therein to be vetted in the public square--

I don’t know that I’d “feel better”, but I thought it was worth pointing out that the paper was speculative,  and an effort on the part of CoE to get various points of view on the subject, not DoA policy and position. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

as for anything yet future, speculation is somewhat involved, no?

as for DoA Policy:

Peak Oil is very much their concern as well:

http://army-energy.hqda.pentagon.mil/programs/plan.asp

".....The participants in the writing workshop were drawn from current and former Army staff representing a broad cross section of experience, as well as researchers from the DOE national laboratories. At the writing workshop, Don Fournier, Senior Research Specialist, University of Illinois, gave a presentation and led a discussion on "Energy Trends and Implications" (.pdf, 972Kb) to help the writing team frame the current energy (and water) environment, and provide a background for the development of the Campaign Plan...."

If by “concern” you mean they are considering the likelihood of it and possible implications, I agree. It would be foolish for them to do otherwise, at least at the outset. That doesn’t mean their anywhere near accepting the theory as reality or making that theory and the assertions behind it as a position they’ve adopted. I think SanFranbroker made a fine summary of the case that you can accept that oil is a finite resource without adopting the entirety of P.O., wouldn't you agree?

Were that entire paper DoA policy and position, with its full reliance on P.O. and the many political assertions that it made, I’d be pretty uncomfortable.

ditto.

that's why a look at the website can convince (almost) anyone that the Army is taking <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />PO very seriously:

http://army-energy.hqda.pentagon.mil/

“Very seriously”? I don’t know about that. They haven’t excluded it from discussion, I’d agree. The link you provided didn’t address P.O. (unless I missed it somewhere), but a general policy of energy efficiency. Energy efficiency and proper stewardship of the taxpayer’s dime is worthwhile goal that doesn’t require anyone to adopt the theory of P.O., right?

Leave the P.O. issue aside for a moment, the paper made a great many political assertions that I think regardless of where you stand politically, are inappropriate for a part of the Pentagon to make. Those are the sort of things that should come from a political, elected, policy making Whitehouse.

agreed- but it seems that the political, elected, policy making Whitehouse is preparing and/or allowing the PO discourse and all issues involved therein to be vetted in the public square--

 Again, agreed, although the CoE’s office on providing energy to military installations hardly seems to be a place the Whitehouse would chose to air these issues. Sounds more in-house to me. But, as I’ve been saying, “vetted” and “discussed” is a long, long way from saying they’re onboard with the theory and its implications. Referring to a Corp of Engineers “report” without making it clear it’s not CoE position or policy, but simply input from one employee co-written by an academic can be misleading

MikeB,

Honestly I ran out of stamina long ago on reading these long debates (although I'm sure y'all are having a productive debate/discussion which is great).  I'm just being a little of a sh*thead that's all.  Thanks for taking it in stride, since you certainly can dish it out as well.  Hug's 'n kisses.

[quote=dude]

MikeB,

Honestly I ran out of stamina long ago on reading these long debates (although I'm sure y'all are having a productive debate/discussion which is great).  I'm just being a little of a sh*thead that's all.  Thanks for taking it in stride, since you certainly can dish it out as well.  Hug's 'n kisses.

[quote=Revealer]OK, boys and girls. For today’s lesson…What is the name of the WORLD’S second largest oil field whose production declined 5% last year and is expected to decline another 14% this yr. Clue…Western Hemisphere.[/quote] Now, for today’s lesson. What series of events has lead to a 1%/yr. (for past 25 yrs.) decline in U.S. refinery efficiency. Clue…quality. 

[quote=Revealer][quote=Revealer]OK, boys and girls. For today’s lesson…What is the name of the WORLD’S second largest oil field whose production declined 5% last year and is expected to decline another 14% this yr. Clue…Western Hemisphere.[/quote] Now, for today’s lesson. What series of events has lead to a 1%/yr. (for past 25 yrs.) decline in U.S. refinery efficiency. Clue…quality. [/quote] NO ONE had the answer. Well an “F” for y’all. Answer is…Most of the higher grade crude in the world has been used up. The crude grades being refined are getting of lower and lower quality ergo the reduction in efficiency of refineries (we won’t even discuss no refinery cap. being added)…Now for today’s lesson. How many cubic feet of nat.gas (yes,nat.gas) is used to extract one barrel of oil from the canadian tar sands? Clue…tar. 

that's why a look at the website can convince (almost) anyone that the Army is taking <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 />PO very seriously:
http://army-energy.hqda.pentagon.mil/<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

“Very seriously”? I don’t know about that. They haven’t excluded it from discussion, I’d agree. The link you provided didn’t address P.O. (unless I missed it somewhere), but a general policy of energy efficiency. Energy efficiency and proper stewardship of the taxpayer’s dime is worthwhile goal that doesn’t require anyone to adopt the theory of P.O., right?

sorry- i've been mostly away-

answer- right.

but the army's energy campaign was highly influenced by PO:(from website) especially the link from  "Energy Trends and Implications" (.pdf, 972Kb):

"....To facilitate the development of the Campaign Plan, an Industry Stakeholders workshop was held on 12 July followed by a writing workshop 13-14 July. The agenda from the Industry Stakeholders workshop (.pdf, 28Kb) is available for downloading and contains links to the industry presentations.

The participants in the writing workshop were drawn from current and former Army staff representing a broad cross section of experience, as well as researchers from the DOE national laboratories. At the writing workshop, Don Fournier, Senior Research Specialist, University of Illinois, gave a presentation and led a discussion on "Energy Trends and Implications" (.pdf, 972Kb) to help the writing team frame the current energy (and water) environment, and provide a background for the development of the Campaign Plan.

A summary discussion of the first draft of the Campaign Plan was presented to interested parties during Energy 2005 on 17 August. View the presentation (.pdf, 164Kb)......"