[jficquette]

[quote=arraya]Jfiquette-Your argument it schizophrenic. On one side you are arguing that it is lack of supply that is driving prices i.e. “the liberals” not allowing exploration. On the other side you are arguing that it is all speculative. Ok, so which is it? You can’t just “shotgun” conflicting theories of why oil prices should not be so high. It’s just silly and wreaks of desperation. Desperation of what, I don’t know.

BIG PICTURE

Let’s looks at some fundamentals for a big picture. And the fundamentals are roughly flat production over 4+ years (maybe 1.5 mbpd max more in certain quarters) now versus a near 8 mbpd increase in consumption by China and India. If we subtract out that 1.5 mbpd occasional bump up in production, that means China and India combined are taking 6.5 mbpd away from someone else who was consuming that oil in 2004. And that doesn’t account for increases in consumption elsewhere in the world, which have been documented.

DECLINING NET EXPORTS

On top of the 4 years of flat production we have also seen oil exporting countries demand increase dramatically. What this has caused is less and less oil for oil importing countries. So one could conclude that oil importers are bidding up declining net exports thus at least driving the trend. Net exports are actually down 4% from 2006.

ELASTICITY OF OIL

Elasticity of oil by most studies is measured at 15-20%. This means that for every 1% decline of supply or 1% increase in demand the price will move 15-20%. I would are argue that as forced conservation moves up the food chain it becomes more inelastic due to the fact that the buyers bidding up oil having more buying power.

SPECULATION

I don’t think you can accurately show that as a specific number, and since a large part of the speculation is in shorts I do not think you can even argue clearly what effect speculation is even having in this market.

[/quote]

Read this link and see what you think about speculation and its influence on the price of oil.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
context=va&aid=8878

Here is another article you might want to read.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060504322.html

“Hedge funds and big Wall Street banks are taking advantage of loopholes in federal trading limits to buy massive amounts of oil contracts, according to a growing number of lawmakers and prominent investors, who blame the practice for helping to push oil prices to record highs.”

The reason why oil is easily manipulated is because is market cap is very small relative to say the NYSE or the Treasury market. It doesn’t take much to push oil up or down for that matter. This makes it ideal for speculation.

The backdrop behind this speculation is partly to blame on the perception that America is not going to do anything to develop its own resources.

In speculation perception is everything. The perception that Qualcomm was going to $1000 per share is what drove its price so high. The idea that the Internet was going to make everyone rich is what drove NASDAQ to 5000.

Right now the perception is that Oil can go no where but up so people are piling into the market because it appears to be easy money.

All of this is taking place when oil inventories are higher then they have been in years and where demand for Oil in the US had dropped 4% over the last year.

I suggest that if America were to come out with a program on the same scale and commitment as we did with landing a man on the Moon then we would see over time the speculation diminish because it would change the psychology of the investors. Now they have nothing to lose but with a commitment by America to become energy independent all bets would be off.

This program to become energy independence would take 20 years but had we started Anwar in 1995 we would now be getting a 2 mill barrels a day which would affect the price of oil and more importantly the market psychology.

In summary, speculation is conducted on expectations of easy money and low risk. Change the expectations and you change the degree of speculation. Committing this country to energy independence is the best way to change the expectations and therefore the upward pressure on prices and when the supply becomes to come online we might become exporters and that would greatly help the balance of trade and also the value of the dollar. Not to mention not sending billions to countries who are not our friends.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=arraya]Jfiquette-Your argument it schizophrenic. On one side you are arguing that it is lack of supply that is driving prices i.e. “the liberals” not allowing exploration. On the other side you are arguing that it is all speculative. Ok, so which is it? You can’t just “shotgun” conflicting theories of why oil prices should not be so high. It’s just silly and wreaks of desperation. Desperation of what, I don’t know.

BIG PICTURE

Let’s looks at some fundamentals for a big picture. And the fundamentals are roughly flat production over 4+ years (maybe 1.5 mbpd max more in certain quarters) now versus a near 8 mbpd increase in consumption by China and India. If we subtract out that 1.5 mbpd occasional bump up in production, that means China and India combined are taking 6.5 mbpd away from someone else who was consuming that oil in 2004. And that doesn’t account for increases in consumption elsewhere in the world, which have been documented.

DECLINING NET EXPORTS

On top of the 4 years of flat production we have also seen oil exporting countries demand increase dramatically. What this has caused is less and less oil for oil importing countries. So one could conclude that oil importers are bidding up declining net exports thus at least driving the trend. Net exports are actually down 4% from 2006.

ELASTICITY OF OIL

Elasticity of oil by most studies is measured at 15-20%. This means that for every 1% decline of supply or 1% increase in demand the price will move 15-20%. I would are argue that as forced conservation moves up the food chain it becomes more inelastic due to the fact that the buyers bidding up oil having more buying power.

SPECULATION

I don’t think you can accurately show that as a specific number, and since a large part of the speculation is in shorts I do not think you can even argue clearly what effect speculation is even having in this market.

[/quote]

Read this link and see what you think about speculation and its influence on the price of oil.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
context=va&aid=8878

Here is another article you might want to read.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060504322.html

“Hedge funds and big Wall Street banks are taking advantage of loopholes in federal trading limits to buy massive amounts of oil contracts, according to a growing number of lawmakers and prominent investors, who blame the practice for helping to push oil prices to record highs.”

The reason why oil is easily manipulated is because is market cap is very small relative to say the NYSE or the Treasury market. It doesn’t take much to push oil up or down for that matter. This makes it ideal for speculation.

The backdrop behind this speculation is partly to blame on the perception that America is not going to do anything to develop its own resources.

In speculation perception is everything. The perception that Qualcomm was going to $1000 per share is what drove its price so high. The idea that the Internet was going to make everyone rich is what drove NASDAQ to 5000.

Right now the perception is that Oil can go no where but up so people are piling into the market because it appears to be easy money.

All of this is taking place when oil inventories are higher then they have been in years and where demand for Oil in the US had dropped 4% over the last year.

I suggest that if America were to come out with a program on the same scale and commitment as we did with landing a man on the Moon then we would see over time the speculation diminish because it would change the psychology of the investors. Now they have nothing to lose but with a commitment by America to become energy independent all bets would be off.

This program to become energy independence would take 20 years but had we started Anwar in 1995 we would now be getting a 2 mill barrels a day which would affect the price of oil and more importantly the market psychology.

In summary, speculation is conducted on expectations of easy money and low risk. Change the expectations and you change the degree of speculation. Committing this country to energy independence is the best way to change the expectations and therefore the upward pressure on prices and when the supply becomes to come online we might become exporters and that would greatly help the balance of trade and also the value of the dollar. Not to mention not sending billions to countries who are not our friends.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=arraya]Jfiquette-Your argument it schizophrenic. On one side you are arguing that it is lack of supply that is driving prices i.e. “the liberals” not allowing exploration. On the other side you are arguing that it is all speculative. Ok, so which is it? You can’t just “shotgun” conflicting theories of why oil prices should not be so high. It’s just silly and wreaks of desperation. Desperation of what, I don’t know.

BIG PICTURE

Let’s looks at some fundamentals for a big picture. And the fundamentals are roughly flat production over 4+ years (maybe 1.5 mbpd max more in certain quarters) now versus a near 8 mbpd increase in consumption by China and India. If we subtract out that 1.5 mbpd occasional bump up in production, that means China and India combined are taking 6.5 mbpd away from someone else who was consuming that oil in 2004. And that doesn’t account for increases in consumption elsewhere in the world, which have been documented.

DECLINING NET EXPORTS

On top of the 4 years of flat production we have also seen oil exporting countries demand increase dramatically. What this has caused is less and less oil for oil importing countries. So one could conclude that oil importers are bidding up declining net exports thus at least driving the trend. Net exports are actually down 4% from 2006.

ELASTICITY OF OIL

Elasticity of oil by most studies is measured at 15-20%. This means that for every 1% decline of supply or 1% increase in demand the price will move 15-20%. I would are argue that as forced conservation moves up the food chain it becomes more inelastic due to the fact that the buyers bidding up oil having more buying power.

SPECULATION

I don’t think you can accurately show that as a specific number, and since a large part of the speculation is in shorts I do not think you can even argue clearly what effect speculation is even having in this market.

[/quote]

Read this link and see what you think about speculation and its influence on the price of oil.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
context=va&aid=8878

Here is another article you might want to read.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060504322.html

“Hedge funds and big Wall Street banks are taking advantage of loopholes in federal trading limits to buy massive amounts of oil contracts, according to a growing number of lawmakers and prominent investors, who blame the practice for helping to push oil prices to record highs.”

The reason why oil is easily manipulated is because is market cap is very small relative to say the NYSE or the Treasury market. It doesn’t take much to push oil up or down for that matter. This makes it ideal for speculation.

The backdrop behind this speculation is partly to blame on the perception that America is not going to do anything to develop its own resources.

In speculation perception is everything. The perception that Qualcomm was going to $1000 per share is what drove its price so high. The idea that the Internet was going to make everyone rich is what drove NASDAQ to 5000.

Right now the perception is that Oil can go no where but up so people are piling into the market because it appears to be easy money.

All of this is taking place when oil inventories are higher then they have been in years and where demand for Oil in the US had dropped 4% over the last year.

I suggest that if America were to come out with a program on the same scale and commitment as we did with landing a man on the Moon then we would see over time the speculation diminish because it would change the psychology of the investors. Now they have nothing to lose but with a commitment by America to become energy independent all bets would be off.

This program to become energy independence would take 20 years but had we started Anwar in 1995 we would now be getting a 2 mill barrels a day which would affect the price of oil and more importantly the market psychology.

In summary, speculation is conducted on expectations of easy money and low risk. Change the expectations and you change the degree of speculation. Committing this country to energy independence is the best way to change the expectations and therefore the upward pressure on prices and when the supply becomes to come online we might become exporters and that would greatly help the balance of trade and also the value of the dollar. Not to mention not sending billions to countries who are not our friends.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=arraya]Jfiquette-Your argument it schizophrenic. On one side you are arguing that it is lack of supply that is driving prices i.e. “the liberals” not allowing exploration. On the other side you are arguing that it is all speculative. Ok, so which is it? You can’t just “shotgun” conflicting theories of why oil prices should not be so high. It’s just silly and wreaks of desperation. Desperation of what, I don’t know.

BIG PICTURE

Let’s looks at some fundamentals for a big picture. And the fundamentals are roughly flat production over 4+ years (maybe 1.5 mbpd max more in certain quarters) now versus a near 8 mbpd increase in consumption by China and India. If we subtract out that 1.5 mbpd occasional bump up in production, that means China and India combined are taking 6.5 mbpd away from someone else who was consuming that oil in 2004. And that doesn’t account for increases in consumption elsewhere in the world, which have been documented.

DECLINING NET EXPORTS

On top of the 4 years of flat production we have also seen oil exporting countries demand increase dramatically. What this has caused is less and less oil for oil importing countries. So one could conclude that oil importers are bidding up declining net exports thus at least driving the trend. Net exports are actually down 4% from 2006.

ELASTICITY OF OIL

Elasticity of oil by most studies is measured at 15-20%. This means that for every 1% decline of supply or 1% increase in demand the price will move 15-20%. I would are argue that as forced conservation moves up the food chain it becomes more inelastic due to the fact that the buyers bidding up oil having more buying power.

SPECULATION

I don’t think you can accurately show that as a specific number, and since a large part of the speculation is in shorts I do not think you can even argue clearly what effect speculation is even having in this market.

[/quote]

Read this link and see what you think about speculation and its influence on the price of oil.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
context=va&aid=8878

Here is another article you might want to read.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060504322.html

“Hedge funds and big Wall Street banks are taking advantage of loopholes in federal trading limits to buy massive amounts of oil contracts, according to a growing number of lawmakers and prominent investors, who blame the practice for helping to push oil prices to record highs.”

The reason why oil is easily manipulated is because is market cap is very small relative to say the NYSE or the Treasury market. It doesn’t take much to push oil up or down for that matter. This makes it ideal for speculation.

The backdrop behind this speculation is partly to blame on the perception that America is not going to do anything to develop its own resources.

In speculation perception is everything. The perception that Qualcomm was going to $1000 per share is what drove its price so high. The idea that the Internet was going to make everyone rich is what drove NASDAQ to 5000.

Right now the perception is that Oil can go no where but up so people are piling into the market because it appears to be easy money.

All of this is taking place when oil inventories are higher then they have been in years and where demand for Oil in the US had dropped 4% over the last year.

I suggest that if America were to come out with a program on the same scale and commitment as we did with landing a man on the Moon then we would see over time the speculation diminish because it would change the psychology of the investors. Now they have nothing to lose but with a commitment by America to become energy independent all bets would be off.

This program to become energy independence would take 20 years but had we started Anwar in 1995 we would now be getting a 2 mill barrels a day which would affect the price of oil and more importantly the market psychology.

In summary, speculation is conducted on expectations of easy money and low risk. Change the expectations and you change the degree of speculation. Committing this country to energy independence is the best way to change the expectations and therefore the upward pressure on prices and when the supply becomes to come online we might become exporters and that would greatly help the balance of trade and also the value of the dollar. Not to mention not sending billions to countries who are not our friends.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=arraya]Jfiquette-Your argument it schizophrenic. On one side you are arguing that it is lack of supply that is driving prices i.e. “the liberals” not allowing exploration. On the other side you are arguing that it is all speculative. Ok, so which is it? You can’t just “shotgun” conflicting theories of why oil prices should not be so high. It’s just silly and wreaks of desperation. Desperation of what, I don’t know.

BIG PICTURE

Let’s looks at some fundamentals for a big picture. And the fundamentals are roughly flat production over 4+ years (maybe 1.5 mbpd max more in certain quarters) now versus a near 8 mbpd increase in consumption by China and India. If we subtract out that 1.5 mbpd occasional bump up in production, that means China and India combined are taking 6.5 mbpd away from someone else who was consuming that oil in 2004. And that doesn’t account for increases in consumption elsewhere in the world, which have been documented.

DECLINING NET EXPORTS

On top of the 4 years of flat production we have also seen oil exporting countries demand increase dramatically. What this has caused is less and less oil for oil importing countries. So one could conclude that oil importers are bidding up declining net exports thus at least driving the trend. Net exports are actually down 4% from 2006.

ELASTICITY OF OIL

Elasticity of oil by most studies is measured at 15-20%. This means that for every 1% decline of supply or 1% increase in demand the price will move 15-20%. I would are argue that as forced conservation moves up the food chain it becomes more inelastic due to the fact that the buyers bidding up oil having more buying power.

SPECULATION

I don’t think you can accurately show that as a specific number, and since a large part of the speculation is in shorts I do not think you can even argue clearly what effect speculation is even having in this market.

[/quote]

Read this link and see what you think about speculation and its influence on the price of oil.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
context=va&aid=8878

Here is another article you might want to read.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060504322.html

“Hedge funds and big Wall Street banks are taking advantage of loopholes in federal trading limits to buy massive amounts of oil contracts, according to a growing number of lawmakers and prominent investors, who blame the practice for helping to push oil prices to record highs.”

The reason why oil is easily manipulated is because is market cap is very small relative to say the NYSE or the Treasury market. It doesn’t take much to push oil up or down for that matter. This makes it ideal for speculation.

The backdrop behind this speculation is partly to blame on the perception that America is not going to do anything to develop its own resources.

In speculation perception is everything. The perception that Qualcomm was going to $1000 per share is what drove its price so high. The idea that the Internet was going to make everyone rich is what drove NASDAQ to 5000.

Right now the perception is that Oil can go no where but up so people are piling into the market because it appears to be easy money.

All of this is taking place when oil inventories are higher then they have been in years and where demand for Oil in the US had dropped 4% over the last year.

I suggest that if America were to come out with a program on the same scale and commitment as we did with landing a man on the Moon then we would see over time the speculation diminish because it would change the psychology of the investors. Now they have nothing to lose but with a commitment by America to become energy independent all bets would be off.

This program to become energy independence would take 20 years but had we started Anwar in 1995 we would now be getting a 2 mill barrels a day which would affect the price of oil and more importantly the market psychology.

In summary, speculation is conducted on expectations of easy money and low risk. Change the expectations and you change the degree of speculation. Committing this country to energy independence is the best way to change the expectations and therefore the upward pressure on prices and when the supply becomes to come online we might become exporters and that would greatly help the balance of trade and also the value of the dollar. Not to mention not sending billions to countries who are not our friends.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]gandalf: In one of my earlier posts, I suggested looking at Obama’s voting record and his stance on various issues. Combined with his inexperience on the world stage and with foreign policy matters, what evidence do you have that he will govern from the center and cross the aisle?

He is among the more left leaning politicians we have (not saying this as a pejorative, but based on his voting record), and he votes party line nearly without fail.

His suggested policy of engagement includes “peer to peer” discussions with rogue states like Syria, as well as muscular interventionism into sovereign nations like Pakistan (although, in fairness, this particular idea was probably motivated by the fact that he was unaware that Pakistan was a sovereign nation).

I am saying all of this because it does fly in the face of the hope that Obama will prove a centrist, capable on the world stage, and a realist when it comes to recognition that many of the players we are confronting at present are anything but reasonable, rational, and willing to allow diplomacy to work.[/quote]

Actually Obama’s voting record is rated more liberal then Ted Kennedy’s. I believe there is one other Senator ranked higher then Obama and that name escapes me.

I see no reason to think he would change anything if he got elected.

[jficquette]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]gandalf: In one of my earlier posts, I suggested looking at Obama’s voting record and his stance on various issues. Combined with his inexperience on the world stage and with foreign policy matters, what evidence do you have that he will govern from the center and cross the aisle?

He is among the more left leaning politicians we have (not saying this as a pejorative, but based on his voting record), and he votes party line nearly without fail.

His suggested policy of engagement includes “peer to peer” discussions with rogue states like Syria, as well as muscular interventionism into sovereign nations like Pakistan (although, in fairness, this particular idea was probably motivated by the fact that he was unaware that Pakistan was a sovereign nation).

I am saying all of this because it does fly in the face of the hope that Obama will prove a centrist, capable on the world stage, and a realist when it comes to recognition that many of the players we are confronting at present are anything but reasonable, rational, and willing to allow diplomacy to work.[/quote]

Actually Obama’s voting record is rated more liberal then Ted Kennedy’s. I believe there is one other Senator ranked higher then Obama and that name escapes me.

I see no reason to think he would change anything if he got elected.

[jficquette]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]gandalf: In one of my earlier posts, I suggested looking at Obama’s voting record and his stance on various issues. Combined with his inexperience on the world stage and with foreign policy matters, what evidence do you have that he will govern from the center and cross the aisle?

He is among the more left leaning politicians we have (not saying this as a pejorative, but based on his voting record), and he votes party line nearly without fail.

His suggested policy of engagement includes “peer to peer” discussions with rogue states like Syria, as well as muscular interventionism into sovereign nations like Pakistan (although, in fairness, this particular idea was probably motivated by the fact that he was unaware that Pakistan was a sovereign nation).

I am saying all of this because it does fly in the face of the hope that Obama will prove a centrist, capable on the world stage, and a realist when it comes to recognition that many of the players we are confronting at present are anything but reasonable, rational, and willing to allow diplomacy to work.[/quote]

Actually Obama’s voting record is rated more liberal then Ted Kennedy’s. I believe there is one other Senator ranked higher then Obama and that name escapes me.

I see no reason to think he would change anything if he got elected.

[jficquette]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]gandalf: In one of my earlier posts, I suggested looking at Obama’s voting record and his stance on various issues. Combined with his inexperience on the world stage and with foreign policy matters, what evidence do you have that he will govern from the center and cross the aisle?

He is among the more left leaning politicians we have (not saying this as a pejorative, but based on his voting record), and he votes party line nearly without fail.

His suggested policy of engagement includes “peer to peer” discussions with rogue states like Syria, as well as muscular interventionism into sovereign nations like Pakistan (although, in fairness, this particular idea was probably motivated by the fact that he was unaware that Pakistan was a sovereign nation).

I am saying all of this because it does fly in the face of the hope that Obama will prove a centrist, capable on the world stage, and a realist when it comes to recognition that many of the players we are confronting at present are anything but reasonable, rational, and willing to allow diplomacy to work.[/quote]

Actually Obama’s voting record is rated more liberal then Ted Kennedy’s. I believe there is one other Senator ranked higher then Obama and that name escapes me.

I see no reason to think he would change anything if he got elected.

[jficquette]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]gandalf: In one of my earlier posts, I suggested looking at Obama’s voting record and his stance on various issues. Combined with his inexperience on the world stage and with foreign policy matters, what evidence do you have that he will govern from the center and cross the aisle?

He is among the more left leaning politicians we have (not saying this as a pejorative, but based on his voting record), and he votes party line nearly without fail.

His suggested policy of engagement includes “peer to peer” discussions with rogue states like Syria, as well as muscular interventionism into sovereign nations like Pakistan (although, in fairness, this particular idea was probably motivated by the fact that he was unaware that Pakistan was a sovereign nation).

I am saying all of this because it does fly in the face of the hope that Obama will prove a centrist, capable on the world stage, and a realist when it comes to recognition that many of the players we are confronting at present are anything but reasonable, rational, and willing to allow diplomacy to work.[/quote]

Actually Obama’s voting record is rated more liberal then Ted Kennedy’s. I believe there is one other Senator ranked higher then Obama and that name escapes me.

I see no reason to think he would change anything if he got elected.

[jficquette]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Cooper: While John won’t answer your questions, they are interesting. I’m on the periphery of the oil/gas business (I do seismic and blast engineering for refinery operations), and I’m also somewhat new to the business (coming out of defense biz). I hear a lot about Peak Oil and refineries having to work harder for less output.

Your question #2 caught my eye. Do you have this information? If so, I’d be curious to hear that number, as well as how it was derived. The second part of my question is driven by the fact that different oil companies (i.e. ExxonMobil, RD/S and BP) use different methodologies for the calculation(s), and therefore the variance between their respective numbers can be quite large.

Again, just curious, but it does pick at an interesting thread, especially in light of $5 per gallon gasoline.[/quote]

Allan,

Here is a link discussing Anwr. http://www.anwr.org/

Here here is a link discussing the Bakken formation in North Dakota

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

Here is another link that goes into a discussion about how the reserves are reported.

http://www.runet.edu/~wkovarik/oil/

Here is a link to an article discussing the speculation in the oil market.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8878

There are many more links out there. I don’t mind doing the leg work for people who are sincerly interested in the information but we both know Cooper doesn’t care about the facts which is why I told him to go look the information up himself.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Cooper: While John won’t answer your questions, they are interesting. I’m on the periphery of the oil/gas business (I do seismic and blast engineering for refinery operations), and I’m also somewhat new to the business (coming out of defense biz). I hear a lot about Peak Oil and refineries having to work harder for less output.

Your question #2 caught my eye. Do you have this information? If so, I’d be curious to hear that number, as well as how it was derived. The second part of my question is driven by the fact that different oil companies (i.e. ExxonMobil, RD/S and BP) use different methodologies for the calculation(s), and therefore the variance between their respective numbers can be quite large.

Again, just curious, but it does pick at an interesting thread, especially in light of $5 per gallon gasoline.[/quote]

Allan,

Here is a link discussing Anwr. http://www.anwr.org/

Here here is a link discussing the Bakken formation in North Dakota

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

Here is another link that goes into a discussion about how the reserves are reported.

http://www.runet.edu/~wkovarik/oil/

Here is a link to an article discussing the speculation in the oil market.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8878

There are many more links out there. I don’t mind doing the leg work for people who are sincerly interested in the information but we both know Cooper doesn’t care about the facts which is why I told him to go look the information up himself.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Cooper: While John won’t answer your questions, they are interesting. I’m on the periphery of the oil/gas business (I do seismic and blast engineering for refinery operations), and I’m also somewhat new to the business (coming out of defense biz). I hear a lot about Peak Oil and refineries having to work harder for less output.

Your question #2 caught my eye. Do you have this information? If so, I’d be curious to hear that number, as well as how it was derived. The second part of my question is driven by the fact that different oil companies (i.e. ExxonMobil, RD/S and BP) use different methodologies for the calculation(s), and therefore the variance between their respective numbers can be quite large.

Again, just curious, but it does pick at an interesting thread, especially in light of $5 per gallon gasoline.[/quote]

Allan,

Here is a link discussing Anwr. http://www.anwr.org/

Here here is a link discussing the Bakken formation in North Dakota

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

Here is another link that goes into a discussion about how the reserves are reported.

http://www.runet.edu/~wkovarik/oil/

Here is a link to an article discussing the speculation in the oil market.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8878

There are many more links out there. I don’t mind doing the leg work for people who are sincerly interested in the information but we both know Cooper doesn’t care about the facts which is why I told him to go look the information up himself.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Cooper: While John won’t answer your questions, they are interesting. I’m on the periphery of the oil/gas business (I do seismic and blast engineering for refinery operations), and I’m also somewhat new to the business (coming out of defense biz). I hear a lot about Peak Oil and refineries having to work harder for less output.

Your question #2 caught my eye. Do you have this information? If so, I’d be curious to hear that number, as well as how it was derived. The second part of my question is driven by the fact that different oil companies (i.e. ExxonMobil, RD/S and BP) use different methodologies for the calculation(s), and therefore the variance between their respective numbers can be quite large.

Again, just curious, but it does pick at an interesting thread, especially in light of $5 per gallon gasoline.[/quote]

Allan,

Here is a link discussing Anwr. http://www.anwr.org/

Here here is a link discussing the Bakken formation in North Dakota

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

Here is another link that goes into a discussion about how the reserves are reported.

http://www.runet.edu/~wkovarik/oil/

Here is a link to an article discussing the speculation in the oil market.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8878

There are many more links out there. I don’t mind doing the leg work for people who are sincerly interested in the information but we both know Cooper doesn’t care about the facts which is why I told him to go look the information up himself.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Cooper: While John won’t answer your questions, they are interesting. I’m on the periphery of the oil/gas business (I do seismic and blast engineering for refinery operations), and I’m also somewhat new to the business (coming out of defense biz). I hear a lot about Peak Oil and refineries having to work harder for less output.

Your question #2 caught my eye. Do you have this information? If so, I’d be curious to hear that number, as well as how it was derived. The second part of my question is driven by the fact that different oil companies (i.e. ExxonMobil, RD/S and BP) use different methodologies for the calculation(s), and therefore the variance between their respective numbers can be quite large.

Again, just curious, but it does pick at an interesting thread, especially in light of $5 per gallon gasoline.[/quote]

Allan,

Here is a link discussing Anwr. http://www.anwr.org/

Here here is a link discussing the Bakken formation in North Dakota

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

Here is another link that goes into a discussion about how the reserves are reported.

http://www.runet.edu/~wkovarik/oil/

Here is a link to an article discussing the speculation in the oil market.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8878

There are many more links out there. I don’t mind doing the leg work for people who are sincerly interested in the information but we both know Cooper doesn’t care about the facts which is why I told him to go look the information up himself.

John

[Author]

Posts