Long oil?
89 RepliesJump to last post
[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....
Seek help, big boy.
If not for yourself, then for the few remaining who can still stomach being around you.
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?