Seeking Alpha

About this author:

Weeden & Co. energy analyst Charles Maxwell says $300/barrel oil is on the way - and will hit us by 2015. In an interview with Barron's, Maxwell highlights oil's uniqueness:

When it begins to disappear, there really aren't any good substitutes, which there are for so many other commodities. It's that lack of substitutes that forces the pricing mechanism to balance supply and demand.

Before you scoff at the notion, note that Maxwell correctly predicted the recent oil spike (well, actually, he underestimated its magnitude) four years ago.

Key arguments:

  • Oil's alternatives - coal and nuclear energy - are not viable replacements, the former because we lack the technology to burn it cleanly, and the latter because political wrangling has held up its development. This lack makes the U.S. vulnerable.
  • Political instability will keep prices elevated and resource nationalism will continue to stop oil-rich nations from opening up their reserves.
  • New oil fields tend to be lower-yield and in more remote locations.
  • Record world economic expansion has been predicated on the use of oil as the primary energy source. The only thing that will ultimately slow that growth is higher prices.

Maxwell likes tar-sands stocks such as Suncor Energy (SU) and EnCana (ECA). Aside from that, new yet-undiscovered technologies will make a killing for those smart enough to recognize them early:

There are going to be so many new companies and so many new technologies that it boggles my mind at the thought of identifying all of them. There are going to be a lot of new industries coming in and wonderful opportunities in the stock market.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

  • While not as extreme as Mr. Maxwell, Richard Shaw thinks long-term price trends make buying the dips a winning strategy.
  • Not suggesting this will happen, Bespoke ponders what would be if the 'oil bubble' burst at a magnitude similar to that of the dot-com bubble or the homebuilders bubble: "For oil to match the Nasdaq crash, it would get all the way down to $32.06 by February 1st, 2011. For it to match the homebuilder crash, oil would fall to $31.40 by June 27th, 2011."
Print this article with comments

This article has 70 comments:

  •  
    No one can predict the future....Read ...The Black Swan,or Fooled by Randomness.........
    2008 Sep 07 07:16 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    it's a black box
    2008 Sep 07 07:22 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Any public firms with significant positions in the Bakken area?
    2008 Sep 07 07:30 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    this is nonsense. when the industrialized economies of the world can't afford oil who is going to support the price?

    predictions like this are worth less than the paper they're printed on.
    2008 Sep 07 08:09 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Far be it from be to scoff at a respected prognosticator. But 2015, really ?
    I would love to know what is going to happen 7 hours from now, much less 7 years from now !
    Silly to ponder these things, when we have the treacherous, manipulated stock market to deal with on a much more immediate basis .
    2008 Sep 07 08:19 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    buyitcheap: WLL, EOG, BEXP. CLR are some names with presence in Bakken
    2008 Sep 07 08:44 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    This article entirely ignores the argument that natural gas would help to replace dependence on oil. Just because someone called it right once, doesn't mean they'll call it right twice. In fact, according to the article, he didn't even call it right the first time...
    2008 Sep 07 08:48 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    The future is indeed a black box. Very pessimistic view though. Maybe read this:
    www.economist.com/spec...

    2008 Sep 07 09:01 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Hey Ricard, while this column may not have addressed natural oil in depth, the interview in Barron's did. Maxwell does not believe natural gas can replace oil on a large scale for purposes of transportation. I agree.
    2008 Sep 07 09:08 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Wow, he predicated oil will rise four years ago. Definitely worth whatever he is paid x10!
    My call, Oil $3,000 barrel by 2015!
    2008 Sep 07 09:25 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    tough to say where oil goes long term.....in terms of price.

    But I can say that oil is getting heavier.....we are going to deeper waters, taking on more expensive projects....and exporting countries are all cannabolizing their exports with growing internal demand....and/or declining production aside from a few countries.

    in 5-7 yrs....$300 is easily doable.

    The deep sea oil fields will be getting smaller and smaller....mexico will be a net importer of oil....all new hybrids or NG cars will not be phased in to make up the lost amount of oil...etc.etc.etc

    2008 Sep 07 09:29 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    What about natural gas?
    2008 Sep 07 09:54 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Weeden & Co must have a lot of money invested in oil?
    2008 Sep 07 10:26 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) could serve as the stopgap for replacing some of the US imports. Perhaps this will buy the time necessary to develop the next breakthrough technology.
    2008 Sep 07 10:34 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Natural gas, like Helium, is a natural byproduct of hydrocarbon aging that exists in limited supply and cannot fill the mass energy role you imagine. Propane, a man-made version of it, does not supply the same energy level for a given quantity...
    2008 Sep 07 10:37 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    The higher the better. This is a critical transition - and $300/bbl is where the money to do it will come from.

    2008 Sep 07 10:41 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Helium?? Helium??? Helium is the result of the decay of radioactive isotopes or uranium and thorium in the Earth's crust. The reason it is found in natural gas is that the same rock formations (anticlines) that trap natural gas also trap helium. The formation of the two gases are by two completely independent processes.
    2008 Sep 07 10:48 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    One important factor determining the price oil was not discussed - the value of the USD. Could be worth 50% of today's value by 2015.
    2008 Sep 07 11:54 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    abolish the Fed, remove the Bush and Saudi petro-family from power and start caring about the middle class. Then invest a trillion in green energy, not war.Oil will go to $30 if the above happen.
    wallastoninvestments.c.../
    2008 Sep 08 12:07 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Second that on the value of the dollar.

    Can we start using some other, more stable currency to price the oil in? Say... gold? Because the US government has obviously given up on the value of the dollar. And with the enormous budget deficits, never ending wars, and probably even more to come if McCain wins (as he probably will) dollar is going DOWN long term (although I am betting on it short term).

    Otherwise these statements mean nothing. Oil could be $3,000 in 2015, and still be 100 euros, or 1000 CNY.
    2008 Sep 08 12:31 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    I think Maxwell is underestimating the probability of an unexpected technological advance. Once oil passes $150, there will be huge amounts spent on alternative energy research. Someone might come up with a revolutionary game-changing technology sooner than he thinks.
    2008 Sep 08 12:48 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Oil prices are a fascinating example of short term inelasticity and long term elasticity of demand[s]. In the short term, you live where you live, you work where you work, you drive what you drive, and the bus routes are what they are. Every one of those things is fixed in the short run . . . but variable in the long run. The recent price spike in gasoline did what no government policy could do-- forced consumers in a myriad of ways to rearrange their lives to burn less gas. This didn't happen immediately, but it did happen, over a period of six months or so. High gasoline prices which last for years will promote a radical re-ordering of consumer behavior.
    2008 Sep 08 12:57 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    High prices is not necessarily a bad thing. Remember, necessity is the mother of all inventions.
    2008 Sep 08 01:04 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Croc - yes, high prices are cured by high prices, but will these new behaviors continue as prices fall? Aren't low prices also cured by low prices? I think any long term elastic impact would take a lot longer to manifest than 6 months. I would argue the recent drop in oil has more to do with the strengthening of the USD than demand destruction in the US. The govt should raise taxes on gasoline to keep demand low and spur alternative source development.

    Nicola - Exactly! Thanks for clarifying.
    Population growth is another factor the article did not mention. At current rates, the world pop.is growing by 1 billion people every 13 years. That is obviously bullish for oil and commodities in general. This recent dollar rise/commodity drop is a "golden" buying opportunity! Too bad I have no cash!
    2008 Sep 08 01:14 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Oil. Its not a shortage of oil,but once again a shortage in shipping and greed. If you were to believe the crooks in the 80's then you are going to believe them now. We have more energy re-sources in america than anywhere else on earth. Has nobody asked why Japan gets all the oil off the north slope? Have you wondered why the Gov. makes us pay so much when most of the other countries subsidises there citizens. Europe gets most of its oil and fuel from Russia. And are we really gullible to think that asias use of fuel has driven up the price. Get realistic folks,when heads of oil companies are raking in hundreds of millions for themselves and leave us once again holding the bag. You havent got mad enough to ask the right questions, or are we once again just being sheep. Enjoy.
    2008 Sep 08 05:18 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    When US bombs Iran in the near future to take out their nuclear facilities, I like to see how much oil jumps. My guess its going to be the last thing Bush does in Office. To me 200$ is possible and we are not even running out of the stuff. 300$ means its going to triple, and I bet people will still be driving their cars. There is no political will to get us off the stuff, we are addicted. Yes I believe at 9 dollars a gallon, we will still use our cars; maybe only to get to work and back if we can move closer to work or quit our jobs. And don't forget about farming, they need oil, construction, manufacturing uses oil in plastics, buses, planes and so on. Plain and simple we are addicted to the stuff and will pay what ever.
    2008 Sep 08 08:33 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    you have not factored in new supply - high-quality syncrude from illinois/west kentucky high-volatile bituminous coal via 2-stage hydroliquefaction (wilsonville AL 1982-85).
    > jack
    2008 Sep 08 08:50 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Buy the CanRoys before Imperial Oil, Encana etc. buy them all up at a massive premium. Collect major divs in the meantime. It is fall, heating season, people driving kids everywhere to school in big SUVs and minivans etc. Long PWE, HTE, AAV, PVX, PGH and for a nice conservative play, Brompton Eq WT O&G Fund (OGN.UN-TO) paying ..07c CN monthly owning 5% of 20 CanRoys.
    Safe country assets. Agree, Oil is here to stay for a long time.
    Chinese and Indians won't go back to bicycles, especially in the monsoon and winter seasons!
    2008 Sep 08 08:50 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    $300/bbl oil is easy to believe by 2015. I think this may even be another under-valuation. However, it is all based on demand of the developing countries (as well as the developed) and finding oild as Brazil has in its deep off-shore waters. However, the US needs to look at the French and UK model for nuclear energy. Technology has vastly improved since Three-Mile island and let's not even talk about Chernobyl. The developed countries should also spend more money on alternative energy research rather than the paltry sums now being fed into their public and private sectors.
    2008 Sep 08 08:59 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Canroys are not safe. Never underestimate the ability of socialist governments to seize corporate wealth. Back in October of 2006, these Canroys took a huge hit when the govt. decided to tax the hell out of them. Check the charts. Many have never recovered, even though the price of oil has spiked. BEWARE.
    2008 Sep 08 09:09 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    test
    2008 Sep 08 09:30 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    The ignorance on the web is astonishing!

    $300/bbl oil is quite possible and likely before 2015. Here are two good reasons.

    1. Supply -- production is falling in Mexico, USA, Europe and Most of the Middle East. Increases from Brazil, Africa and polar regions are not enough to offset the losses. Russia is a wild card, but it is likely that their production is also falling. No amount of drilling can reverse geologically determined depletion. Who cares if you can get production from a stripper well from 10 to 20 barrels per day. The world needs 85,000,000 barrels per day!!

    Also, don't count on Windmills and solar to save you. They don't produce a liquid fuel. Massive penetration of electric vehicles is required first. This will take at least a decade to accomplish.

    Finally, natural gas in North America is neither plentiful nor available for transportation fuel. The nat gas producers routinely drill wells that deplete 20% per year or more. North America is on a furious treadmill to keep the gas flowing. Forget about LNG either. There are only a few terminals to handle the stuff and NIMBY is blocking the construction of new ones.

    2. Demand -- Despite $4.00/gal gasoline, demand is still rising in Asia and the Middle East. In fact, prices are quite low in the Middle East so demand will continue to explode! The Saudi's are going to supply their own market first! Worry about the USA secord or maybe even third.

    Even in America demand has only weakened from 22,000,000 bbls per day to about 21,000,000 bbls per day. This is in spite of $4.00gal gasoline. It will take $8.00/gal or $300/bbl to really knock out the demand.
    2008 Sep 08 10:16 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Predicting oil supply / demand is nearly impossible, especially in the long term. Recent events demonstrate this quite well. The truth is, out of the hundreds of analysts out there, a handful are going to be lucky in their predictions, and will be hailed as prophets a few years later on blogs like this. Well, if the guy's still an analyst and not a multi-millionaire, he didn't have confidence in his own findings the first time around. The only thing sillier than guru-worship is talking about how some individual oil field is going to make the difference.

    Nikola, I second that opinion. The dollar is toast long-term and there simply aren't enough deficit hawks in the US to prevent it from happening. We're addicted to both oil and debt, and it is possible that both could be squeezed hard in the coming years. Don't expect the baby boomers to give up anything to help the country make the transition. We'll probably blame outsiders for our predicament and start some wars.

    As far as investing is concerned, oil is a fairly risky investment at $100. Remember the early 80's? The demographics and oil statistics all pointed to peak oil at the time. All the books and articles said the peak had arrived and then WHAM!, the oil investors got burned, as demand finally plummeted at the same time new supply arrived in response to the high prices. Oil didn't recover from that shocking drop for two decades. Remember... if the president decided to change the interstate speed limit back to 55 mph, demand would drop 5-10% overnight.

    If McCain wins, I might invest more in oil and defense stocks, as war against somebody will be inevitable, along with the resulting currency devaluation and oil price shocks. Long term, though, I'm looking at Asia, Europe, and Latin America.

    If Obama wins, oil could drop in response to the reduced geopolitical risk and the dollar could stabilize as balanced budgets actually seem possible someday. In this case, I would make a contrarian move into the same Asian, European, and Latin American equities as above, but I might get lower prices on them as money flows back into the U.S.
    2008 Sep 08 10:37 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Nuclear is available once the foot dragging stops. Otherwise new technology must involve coal to be viable.
    2008 Sep 08 10:43 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    I agree with others comments that the author does not take new non-oil technologies into consideration. There is biomass ethanol and sugar cane ethanol, and non-food grade ethanol technology being produced today at competitive rates. This fuel can easily be integrated using current gasoline distribution. Why else do you think BP invested in VRNM? Unless they want to get at the patent and bury the technology. Look into it.
    2008 Sep 08 10:59 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Yes, "Buyitcheap",

    To answer your question, there is a public firm highly active in the Bakken oil area.

    Northern Oil & Gas, Inc. (NOG), www.northernoil.com/ 52wk Range: $4.27 - $16.40, currently at $6.16/sh.

    I do own some of this stock.

    famos, in Montana
    2008 Sep 08 11:09 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Dave M. - an election was called yesterday in Canada and it appears the Conservatives will be elected back to office, who are about as socialist as Sarah Palin. The (Conservative) PM is also from Calgary and is campaigning against new taxes on the energy sector. Alberta did raise royalty rates, although they are still among the lowest in the world, and it bears mentioning that the size and speed of the oil sands development in AB is something that would likely not have been possible in the US with far more stringent federal environmental rules, and a more organized (and well-funded) environmental political movement. So while I would await the election outcome (Oct. 14th), Cdn oil and gas cos, including the royalty trusts, are probably about the best investment you'll find (look at COS.UN on the TSX - good assets and pays 11% dividend, or CPG.UN which is a Bakken (Saskatchewan)play, and pays about 7% yield).
    2008 Sep 08 11:17 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Hey Folks,

    Trains, planes, ships, trucks, cars, etc. currently all run on some form of diesel. The key word is "diesel." Consequently, the near term solution is clean-burning diesel. The next key word is "coal." We can currently make clean diesel from coal,
    (a 200 year USA resource).

    Hitler fueled his military machine by this process 64 years ago because of the very same circumstance, i.e. Germany was cut off from oil.

    I'm not going to paint the whole picture for you, research it yourself. practicability will dictate and win out in the end.

    famos
    2008 Sep 08 11:33 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Amazing we are using all that 'dirty coal' isn't it? Seen the price for coal lately? Oh now it's going to be called 'clean coal' by the Democrat party. And that is the problem you mention of it being a 'political' issue with coal and nuclear power. The American people can do anything and after the next four years of 'hoping for change' people will get off there asses and actually change Washington. I will vote for Ron Paul. McCain is a mental midget when it comes to the economy and Obama is worse then Bill Clinton when it comes to corruption. The gangsta's paradise? Nah. Not for me...
    2008 Sep 08 11:36 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Dear iThinkLittle,

    Yes, we've seen the price of coal lately and it is still the cheapest energy commodity. And political parties aside, we didn't call it clean coal, we called it clean diesel. Two different entities by definition.

    By the way, we certainly, don't care who you vote for.

    famos, in Montana
    2008 Sep 08 11:47 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Famos - one minor details is that Hitler had access to slave labour, which greately reduced the input costs - the problem with nearly all forms of alternative energy, from syncrude to wind and hydrogen is that it takes almost as much energy inputs as you get out (more in the case of hydrogen). Light sweet crude in places like Saudi (or Texas 50 years ago) gave you a ratio of 20:1 - that is 20 units of energy out for every one in - and those days of all but free energy are ending, which, whether we like it or not, will change the way we live.
    2008 Sep 08 11:52 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Dear Caltorguy,

    When you are talking slave labor, your talking man power. How much does slave labor/man power enter into the production of oil/diesel. Increase the compensation of labor in the cost equation of crude oil to fuel and it will not justify the price the U.S. pays for a barrel of oil. Fear of obtainable supply it what dictates the price of crude oil, i.e. "scarcity determines value." Economics, 101.

    famos

    2008 Sep 08 12:04 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Human labour is a form of energy - I don't recall how many person hours of labour that a bbl of oil translated into but it's a lot and some say, this "free" input explains much of the economic and productivity growth over the last 100 years. Scarcity does determine value, and as value rises above the marginal cost to produce, more will be produced theoretically unless these costs are very high which they are in the case of oil. There are a trillion bbls of oil left in the world - what will the marginal cost be to produce the last one $300 a bbl or $3,000,000...?
    2008 Sep 08 12:37 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Caltorguy, funny you talk socialism up in Canada. You think your socialized medicine is something huh. Well, we got one up on you now. Socialized housing!

    Come McCain we're going full-on National Socialism.
    2008 Sep 08 01:00 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Nikola - Well if you applied our model for health care to housing it would look something like this: free housing would be declared a social imperative; the government would nationalize the entire US housing stock and private housing would be made illegal; every American would be issued a "housing insurance number" and bureaucrats would dole out housing according to need. Since the system would produce no revenue, no new housing would be built and each year Americans would get less and less housing, resulting heavily rationing and long wait lists (sort of like the situation the old USSR as I understand it). I don't think you are anywhere near that yet down there!
    2008 Sep 08 01:12 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Dear Caltorguy,

    Human labor (energy)? Did you swim over to China/Far East to get that computer that your using? Or did you walk to the manufacturer, if it was produced in this country?

    The answer, if by plane, ship, truck FedEx/UPS, etc. some form of diesel was used. Stop the diesel/transportation and you'll go hungry, cold and probably be killed in the riots.

    I agree with a lot of alternative energy advocates, but the immediate solution is use our coal to supply our most important transportation fuel. Everything is already existing and in place. Including the coal.

    Let's not hide from the problem. Let's solve it. Right now.

    famos
    2008 Sep 08 01:29 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    OK famos, please then tell at what price per litre or gallon diesel made from coal can be profitably produced and sold. My point is that well it is technically possible, it will be very expensive, and require significant capital costs and energy inputs but ultimately these will be necessary. In fact coal-derived diesel hybrids may be the car of choice 20 years from now when straight up gasoline will probably cost $20 a gallon or more.
    2008 Sep 08 01:55 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    > Caltorguy
    Sep 08 01:12 PMNikola - Well if you applied our model for health care to housing it would look something like this: free housing would be declared a social imperative; the government would nationalize the entire US housing stock and private housing would be made illegal; every American would be issued a "housing insurance number" and bureaucrats would dole out housing according to need. Since the system would produce no revenue, no new housing would be built and each year Americans would get less and less housing, resulting heavily rationing and long wait lists (sort of like the situation the old USSR as I understand it). I don't think you are anywhere near that yet down there!
    ----------------------...
    Ha, exactly. I experienced it myself. 3 generations living in the same 50 years old 2-room flat. However, after the fall of the USSR, private healthcare and housing were allowed to co-exist with public and it works very well this way. Very poor people have some protection (via public system) and others buy at the market.
    2008 Sep 08 02:03 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Oil will eventually hit $1000/barel.. But humanity would have long before developed their alternative revenue sources by efficiently generating power from the sun, wind, water etc.. In the near term oil could go below $100. The emerging market natural resource party is over. Soon after prices continue to collapse most economies like Russia and Brazil will start begging for mercy again, as they haven't improved infrastructure and are still widely exposed to price fluctuations. They will produce more and more nat resources and this will further depress prices..
    2008 Sep 08 02:19 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    This person is insane. The oil industries and the hedge funds greed will eventually kill the oil industry. There is no price support for oil even at the current prices. Look what has happened to demand at the current fuel prices. The only thing that could possibly save the oil industry is for gasoline and oil prices to drop long term. $30-$50 a barrell oil is coming.
    2008 Sep 08 03:10 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Read some of Maxwell's other posts (the primary author in Barrons) and you will see he does take into naural gas supplies, and disruptive technologies. His research agrees nicely with Kurt Wulffs at McDep.com.
    2008 Sep 08 04:14 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    its gotten very complex & i dont think anybody knows anything.my question is-how can a society that produces almost nothing except print monopoly money & shuffle worthless paper around survive for long?we were great when we made things,good useable end products.is this greatness behind us?do you think of your children & grandchildren? or is it-fill the hummer & lets drive 60 mi.rt to the sports arena?
    2008 Sep 08 04:21 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    OK,

    I give up. Everybody shoot themselves, while you can still afford a bullet.

    famos

    P.S. In the mean time I'll drive your dead bodies to the diminishing landfill in my clean-diesel car powered by waste animal fat/by products by the new Tyson Foods and Syntroleum Corporation plant in Geismar, Louisiana.
    This plant is a 50:50 partnership between Tyson and Syntroleum to convert low grade, inedible fats and greases into renewable transportation fuels for the military and civilian markets.

    Good Americans, don't give up so easy.

    famos
    2008 Sep 08 05:03 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    @Alpha Seeker: you are sadly mistaken, my "friend". Let's run through the points, one at a time:

    "abolish the Fed, remove the Bush and Saudi petro-family from power and start caring about the middle class. Then invest a trillion in green energy, not war.Oil will go to $30 if the above happen."

    1) "abolish the Fed" - that one I am actually in favor of. Get back on the gold standard. Our currency is subjectively manipulable, and it's just a matter of who knows who and needs help in the financial community. Not only unfair...but unnecessary and ruinous economically to be doing economics this way!
    2) Remove the Bush and Saudi petro family? What are you on? When we dug to the bottom of the Iraq oil dealing, we found that the profiteers were not the Bush family, but UN officials and their cronies! Try googling "Iraq Food for Oil scandal". Then come back and talk to me about the Bush family. The Saudis? Yeah, I agree we need to stop kissing foreign oil butt. And that's why I back the GOP ticket this November and "drill here, drill now"!!
    3) Caring about the middle class? The Dems are gonna tax the middle class to high heaven. Like they always do. Keep in mind, this is a function of who controls Congress, not just who sits in the Oval Office. Take the blinders off: Bush cut taxes, and the cut went to almost *everyone* - not just the elite. Exhibit # 1: dividend tax down to 15% - over 50% of Americans have dividend-yielding investments. Obama wants to jack that rate back up.
    4) 1 trillion invested in green energy yields exactly what? Show us the study that yields your number of $30/barrel for that investment. The quickest way back to $80/barrel (we won't ever see $30 again...supply just isn't as easy to get to as it used to be - drillers tell us they need $70/barrel to break even) is to drill, drill, drill!!
    2008 Sep 08 06:53 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    I remember back sometime in the fall of 1999 an analyst telling me with complete certainty that BVSN was bound for $600. His case was about as strong as this one.
    2008 Sep 08 08:28 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Big Money
    No Whammies!,

    2) Are you using the sins of another party/organization to justify the sins of the Bush family? What are we getting out of Iraq again?

    3) Given our huge deficits, the Bush tax cuts were nothing loans and bribes. They did nothing but shifted more of the tax burden to the middle class. Most Americans don't derive their income from dividend yields like the rich do. In fact, the middle class pays more of its wealth to taxes than do the rich because of the tax code. Neither party, especially Republicans, works for the middle class.

    4) Necessity is the mother of invention. If mankind was too scared of new discoveries, we'd be living in caves. Oh yes, drill now and wait 10+ years for any meaningful results. By that time, $30/barrel will be a pipe dream.
    2008 Sep 08 09:50 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    No attack on Iran.

    Settle.

    www.mathaba.net/rss/in...

    we are working on this.

    www.prosefights.org/nm...



    2008 Sep 08 09:58 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    craziness people... craziness..... tout the silly fundamental story all you want..... oil is just another commodity.... welcome to the latest secular bear market in commodities.... i will be looking to sell into strength on a potential counter trend rally in commodities. buy it up all you want... smart money will feed you all the supply you desire.... best of luck to you.
    2008 Sep 09 01:02 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    We will not attack Iran, Israel will. They have no choice. We will, however, protect them from retaliatory attacks.

    With the decrease in the price of oil, alternative energy stocks have also taken a beating. Sales will decrease and funding will also. Why bother with renewables, there is plenty of OIL.

    Make up your minds, if its a big conspiracy and it has been uncovered, then oil prices will continue their slide and all of the Alt. Energy research will die due to lack of interest and funding. Bye bye wind and solar, come on lets all go with Hummers.

    If it is supply and demand, then a permanent Global Recession is the only solution. We will suffer with the rest.

    We blame those nations who subidize gasoline for their citizens because it hurts our over per capita usage. We subsidize, ethanol, cotton, sugar and a variety of farm products but its okay for us because we deserve it and they don't.

    This attitude deserves whatever it gets. The world is no longer our pie, get used to it.
    2008 Sep 09 05:41 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Pickens stated Iran changing to Natural Gas to save crude to sell
    I believe one of the reasons for Nuke is the same.
    Not to say they have other designs (I see the point on the weapons grade) but put yourself in their shoes. If you had a commidity that was limited and cannot be replaced what would you do to get the most of that product?

    The real story behind the scenes and reasons are generally not followed by the press or reported by most Governments. If you have a dispute find who benefits financially from that dispute and you will find the culprit(s). Who benefits when oil spikes the Texas Oilman and/or the Iranian when they have a public exchange of threats?

    However war is like rolling a bolling ball downhill. You only control letting the ball go and once it starts it's very hard to stop or know where it ends up going. We slowed that ball in Anbar but it was not cheap.

    If one calls this poster a bleeding heart I did my combat tour in Iraq mostly outside of the wire. I am not tough with other people's kids.

    2008 Sep 09 07:47 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    •  • Website: http://www.cwsx.org
    Chris B wrote: "If Obama wins, oil could drop in response to the reduced geopolitical risk... "

    I don't think so. Obama is more likely than McCain to escalate tensions and wage mega-war. The Dems are always scared of appearing soft. FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ were war presidents, JFK threatening nuclear war with Russia. Israel has the option of attacking Iran and dragging us along, no matter who the next POTUS is. Personally, on behalf of good government and some creative destruction, I like President Palin.
    2008 Sep 09 08:20 AM | Link | Reply
  •  
    What are you talking about Heck? The tax cut was also an income tax cut! I got a rebate check *and* an almost immediate (and yes, noticeable) reduction in my withholding! And no, I'm not in the 6-figure plus club! You Bush haters really need to get your blinders off!


    On Sep 08 09:50 PM Prince of Heck wrote:

    > Big Money
    > No Whammies!,
    >
    > 2) Are you using the sins of another party/organization to justify
    > the sins of the Bush family? What are we getting out of Iraq again?
    >
    >
    > 3) Given our huge deficits, the Bush tax cuts were nothing loans
    > and bribes. They did nothing but shifted more of the tax burden
    > to the middle class. Most Americans don't derive their income from
    > dividend yields like the rich do. In fact, the middle class pays
    > more of its wealth to taxes than do the rich because of the tax code.
    > Neither party, especially Republicans, works for the middle class.
    >
    >
    > 4) Necessity is the mother of invention. If mankind was too scared
    > of new discoveries, we'd be living in caves. Oh yes, drill now and
    > wait 10+ years for any meaningful results. By that time, $30/barrel
    > will be a pipe dream.
    2008 Sep 09 12:34 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Big Money
    No Whammies!

    Bush hater this, bush hater that. Try dealing from a logical point of view. Where exactly does the U.S. government get that
    "tax cut" money from when its budget is deeply in the red? Oh, no better candidate than you and me, the U.S. taxpayers. I find it fascinating from party hacks their joy of voting against their own self-interest.
    2008 Sep 09 01:26 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    I cannot believe you are this ignorant! Depending on current economics and current tax levels, a cut sometimes results in *greater* government tax revenue...because the cuts on the front end stimulate business and spending...the economy compounds things...and by the time the money gets back through the system, there's more of it for the government to tax, though at a lower rate...but thereby yielding a great amount. Whether the budget is in the red or not is irrelevant to whether a tax cut can be afforded...you aren't including enough variables if you only look at one top-line input and then the bottom line result. We let people with your math and economic knowledge (ahem) invest?? I guess this is a free country....


    On Sep 09 01:26 PM Prince of Heck wrote:

    > Big Money
    > No Whammies!
    >
    > Bush hater this, bush hater that. Try dealing from a logical point
    > of view. Where exactly does the U.S. government get that
    > "tax cut" money from when its budget is deeply in the red? Oh, no
    > better candidate than you and me, the U.S. taxpayers. I find it
    > fascinating from party hacks their joy of voting against their own
    > self-interest.
    2008 Sep 09 03:18 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Big Money
    No Whammies!

    Speaking of ignorance, why am not surprised that you're a fan of "voodoo economics", aka Reaganomics/supply side economics. Supply siders could never prove that tax cuts would spur business investment nor create more federal revenues. Businesses invest because consumers spend, not vice versa. To make matters worse, spending cuts are not even enacted to offset those revenue-depleting tax cuts. Hence, the budget deficit continues to grow, and we have to shift more of our resources towards servicing the debt.

    You're darned right people like me invest and save. We have to make up for the juvenile and irresponsible attitudes of partisan hacks like you who continue to party endlessly.
    2008 Sep 09 04:40 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Even if it's true, cars will be flying by then!
    2008 Sep 09 04:47 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    It's pretty bold to predict a 300% increase coming on the heels of a 30% decrease. Time to recoup some of that loss, eh Eli?

    Back in the late 1990's, it cost about $4/bbl to get oil out of Saudi Arabia. It's obviously more now, but this unlimited demand by SE Asia argument is insane. There is no way that countries with per capital incomes of less than $1000/year will consume the stuff at $300/bbl. 42 gallons = 1 bbl. I doubt if the average Chinese citizen would stake his yearly pay on the privilege of driving a car to work for six weeks.

    Somehow, the humans on this planet survived for 10 million years (or 5000 years, depending on how literally you take the bible) without consuming a couple hundred barrels of per capita each per year. We're smart. I'm sure we'll figure something else out. My money is on the 1.21 Jigawatt flux capacitor from BTTF.
    2008 Sep 09 07:09 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Not every Chinese person has to use a lot of oil to throw prices into the $300 range. It just takes a small growing percentage. And a lot of Chinese are starting to make good money. But then again, a lot of their income is predicated on our consumers buying what they make. And if we can't afford to pay more for oil and start conserving (or are just unable to buy it), the demand destruction will prevent a gross escalation in the price save the dollar inflating like a balloon to the point that a snicker's bar costs $3 and a white bread is $6 (Wonderbread, not some Whole Food's "Rustica" or whatever)
    People are just going to get used to colder winters and hot summers.
    The only way we got up to 20mil barrels a day was due to easy credit. More people were able to afford and drive cars more. Now more people will be walking, taking mass transit and riding bikes. There isn't going to be an apocalypse, it will just be basic economics. I can be a mindless driver myself. But I know I could drive 50% less than I do if I needed to. Having a fridge full of yummy food and heating and cooling my home are far more important than taking 20 trips a day to buy things I don't need because I am bored.
    Look at what is happening right now... Oil is dropping like a brick and so is our economy. Normally oil becoming cheaper would be helpful. The reason it isn't helpful is because it is still too expensive to help our sickly economy gain any ground. If oil went down to $30/barrel tomorrow, it would raise the economy from the dead like a defibrillator. But it would slowly descend and end up at point that makes economical sense. There is logic to all of this.
    Honestly, if oil stays above $100 for a year, it would bleed us drier than we are. It might, but I doubt it.
    The world uses 87mil barrels a day, right? We use 20mil of that. Well, we have been using less. But the argument is that world will use more. Not exactly. The worlds interdependence on us is tightly woven. We will see relative drops in the rest of the world's use.
    If the world could truly afford $100 oil, then OPEC would put the floor in, but in all likelihood they are not.
    And yes I am short oil right now. At least until it hits $80.
    2008 Sep 09 09:25 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    I dont believe in 300 dollar oil but hav satrted selling january 2010 XON 70 strike puts and collecting 7.70. Great hedge against higher oil. The stock was higher than this when oil was 60
    2008 Sep 10 01:05 PM | Link | Reply
  •  
    Can't see it myself. Yes, we will still be reliant on oil, but the recent spike served to put everyone on warning that high oil prices are probably here to stay. Technology will respond to high prices, in more fuel efficiency and alternative technologies. It may be $300 per barrel, but we won't all be using it as much.
    2008 Sep 10 02:20 PM | Link | Reply
More by SA Editor Eli Hoffmann
Other articles by SA Editor Eli Hoffmann »