GLD Forum Topics
- All Comments on GLD
- General Discussion on GLD
- An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited [view article]
- Currency, Precious Metal and Futures ETFs: Don’t Get Caught in the Tax Trap [view article]
- Gold and Silver Are Still Bargains [view article]
- Commodity ETFs and ETNs [view article]
- Stay Clear of Traditional Asset Classes [view article]
- Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
- Is it Finally Time to Sell Gold and Related Mining Stocks? [view article]
- ETF Fund Flows (Week Ending 5/2/08) [view article]
- A Rebound in Inventory at GLD [view article]
- Tuesday Outlook: Unremarkable Volume, Breadth [view article]
- In Defense of Gold [view article]
- 6 Ways to Profit from Gold's Dip Below $850 [view article]
loading ...Recent GLD Articles
- ETF Update: Use Oil, Gold ETFs to Offset Gas Price Increases
- Gold and Silver Are Still Bargains
- An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited
- Currency, Precious Metal and Futures ETFs: Don’t Get Caught in the Tax Trap
- Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News
- ETF Fund Flows (Week Ending 5/2/08)
- A Rebound in Inventory at GLD
- Interview with Prieur du Plessis: Blogging, Investing and Global Markets
- Wednesday Outlook: Commodities, Emerging Markets
- In Defense of Gold
- Full List of Articles »
An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited [view article]
Ignorance is bliss, so one of us should be happy in the years ahead. Since the two of us obviously have diametrically opposed opinions, I suggest we touch base with each other in 1, 3, and 5 years from today's date. We will compare the price of oil, its impact on the US economy, and the state of the world in general. It will be very clear which of us was correct in this debate. ReplyPursley
An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited [view article]
Fitz:1) Peak Oil is not accepted in the industry. If Peak Oil were accepted in the industry there would be no so-called "crisis." Rex Tillerson, Daniel Yergin, etc, all laugh at the idea of Peak Oil. All science in the world confirms that petroleum is abiogenic in origin and more abundandant than conventionally assumed.
2) The majority of the elephant fields in the world today have yet to be discovered or developed: peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/03/263...
3) Brazil alone has discovered 3 elephant fields in the past 6 months (Tupi, Jupiter, & Carioca). Therefore the rate of discovery of elephants is increasing dramatically.
4) Conclusion of facts 1-3: Obviously this is a religion for you and no data will be able to convince you otherwise.
I think I'll spend the rest of the day whistling past the graveyard and enjoying the Spring air. Maybe burn a few hydrocarbons just for the hell of it. Have a nice day. Reply
An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited [view article]
A couple of comments: 1) If we are really running out of oil that fast, it does NOT make sense to drill for what we have left -- our military won't run with prius-like engines, so we need our oil for continued and future defense. 2) Increasing the tax on gasoline won't have the desired effect because the only people that will be significantly hurt are those that can't afford gas in the first place. You may as well bite the bullet and use the WWII approach, rationing. That's really the only way to directly reduce consumption across all levels in the country. It may be dramatic, but if your hypothesis is correct, we are almost there already. One final point, I hear on TV that speculators don't have anything to do with the price of oil, but I don't believe it. I would suggest that a sensible energy policy require that oil (and possibly other commodities) be designated as strategic to the overall well being of this country, and that no one is allowed to purchase oil or oil futures that is not a direct user of oil. I believe that various ETFs, such as USO, require the purchase of oil to back up the shares that are sold. I also hear reports that hedge funds buy billions of dollars of oil on a weekly basis with never an intention of taking delivery. I am sure there are other examples of instruments that also create false demand for oil, natural gas, and other commodities. Just the fact that the amount of money spent by this country on oil annualy goes in a large part to people who want to destroy us, would fully justify such an action. ReplyCurrency, Precious Metal and Futures ETFs: Don’t Get Caught in the Tax Trap [view article]
I'd like to hear about the US tax implications of buying and selling CEF in the US. ReplyAn Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited [view article]
Art,Thank you for saying we should be mindful to not "...overinvest resources in a bad path..." as we attempt to resolve our energy dilemma. I hadn't thought of this aspect of the issue in quite that way.
What we know about oil is that has been historically abundant, reasonably safe and, most important of all, that it works. As technology evolves, it will become less relevant as a fuel and more important for the other many benefits it provides us.
This discussion has been about oil's prospective replacements to operate the machinery that enables us to go about our daily lives. Assuming we can keep our government from taking us too far down any particular "bad paths" (...a prospect I'm not overly optimistic about given recent history), science and the marketplace will ultimately determine our fate (...I'm cheered by that!) in this regard.
As you point out, each of us needs to do our bit in our own way to help us get there. If we do our part, the importance and urgency of the problem will take care of the rest. Thanks for your informed opinions and calming demeanor on how to best try to comprehend this life altering matter!
Reply
Gold and Silver Are Still Bargains [view article]
Food has first call on disposable income and food is rising leaving less for everything else, including gold.As a percentage of income it is rising more in the huge emerging economies of Asia, which will have the greatest impact on gold as an unnecessary commodity. They may "desire" to buy gold but a lot of other things come first, and that's a big demand base which can ignore "guarding wealth". Reply
Gold and Silver Are Still Bargains [view article]
You weaken your own story with the all-caps/exclamations in "the fuse is lit" about five times. ReplyAn Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited [view article]
pursley: the fact that individual reservoirs peak is the MAIN issue, and the basis of the proven peak oil theory. worldwide oil production is losing 4 million BPD due to depletion rates at reservoirs which have already peaked, and these depletion rates are increasing every year. here are the facts:1) peak oil reservoir theory is sound, proven, and accepted in the oil industry
2) a majority of existing elephant fields in the world today have already reached peak production and are in decline
3) the number of new elephant fields discovered in the last two decades have dropped dramatically. of the new discoveries, the oil is in deeper water, under more rock, and far off-shore making the economies of producing the oil more expensive
4) conclusion of facts 1-3: since the major fields of the world have reached peak oil and are declining, and since the rate of discovery of new elephant fields have slowed, and since the demand side of the equation with china, india, russia, and the middle east will grow it can only lead to one common sense action:
***** a comprehensive US energy policy *****
To do otherwise is simple stupidity and will lead us into an economic abyss from which we will never recover. We still have time (not much...) to deal affectively with this issue. However, people who think there is plenty of oil out there and nothing to worry about are the main problem in affecting action. It doesn't even matter that oil is at $126/barrel, the US dollar is dropping like a rock, the economy is in tatters, inflation is raging, and we have men (and women) dying in Iraq. You are whistling past the graveyard sir. Reply
Jackson, SA
Founder
Commodity ETFs and ETNs [view article]
Update: We just added the new Platinum long and short ETFs to the list, and re-organized the Further Reading section to make it more informative. ReplyAn Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited [view article]
cruiser9805, perhaps you're aware that there are limits to the amount of DDGS that can be used in the diet of cattle. Perhaps you're aware too that DDGS is not well utilized in chickens and hogs. Pilgrim's Pride recently shut down a major chicken processing facility. It was commented that chicken producers are losing money on every chicken they grow. And have you seen the price of eggs lately? Eggs and chicken are, of course, low cost sources of protein to the consumer. Unfortunately chickens need corn, not DDGS. Corn should go to animals. Energy should come from inedibles. ReplyAn Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited [view article]
I keep hearing complaints regarding ethanol. The next time you are eating a juicy steak at areasonable price, remember this...the grain used to feed livestock comes from the leftover after they convert the corn to ethanol (DDGS). The corn is fully used, inluding the cob, who's oil is used for Bio Diesel. The price of all commodities is more due to India and China sucking up resources to feed 1.3 billion people and not Bio fuels.As far as carbon, look up CTLF(Liquid Carbon Fuel). Clean carbon fuel. Reply
Pursley
An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited [view article]
The fact that individual reservoirs peak is totally irrelevant. The claim of peak oil is that total production will peak globally. Again, I encourage you to read the wiki article you linked to. The first sentence says "Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of GLOBAL petroleum production is reached." So it's not my interpretation. I'm quoting the information you provided me with.The reason why companies are toiling away in Athabasca is because national oil companies (politics) controls the oil in most other countries. And as far as your remark to get a job at a national oil company, Saudi Aramco doesn't directly hire infidels and Petrobras doesn't hire foreigners: www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarch...
I do however own shares in PBR.
*Eugene Island 330*: www.science-frontiers.com/sf124/sf124p10.htm
aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content...
Anyway, individual reservoirs peaking is irrelevant. What matters is global production. Reply
An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited [view article]
pursley: you say: "I do know this - Peak Oil theorists have been around since 1859 and they've been wrong 149 years in a row."Hubbert, the father of the peak oil theory, used his theory on oil reservoir production curves to predict, in 1956, that US oil production in the lower-48 would peak between 1965-70. He was absolutely correct. The peak oil theory of INDIVIDUAL RESERVOIRS production curves, has been absolutely correct in predicting the depletion decline rates in (again, i have to state these fields, because you continue to ignore these important facts) prudoe bay, the north sea, the mexican cantrell fields, and now in a few of the largest reservoirs in saudi arabia.
The theory of peak oil does NOT say, as you keep repeating, that worldwide production of oil has peaked TODAY! That is the interpretation YOU are putting on "peak oil".
If oil is sooo abundant, and easily produced (as you appear to think), why are major oil companies toiling away in canada with huge trucks, digging up tons and tons of tar sands, processing them with huge amounts of steam, etc. etc. in a very costly process? Are these companies just stupid? I suggest if you know where all the easily accessable huge supplies of oil are that you imply, go get a job at these oil companies! They will make you a very rich man because you are obviously much smarter than all their geologist.
I am *still* waiting for you to name one oil reservoir of any size that has not followed the production curves predicted by Hubbert. You keep saying peak oil theorists are and have been wrong, but all the evidence is against you and, if you cannot name a reservoir that proves the peak oil production curve incorrect, i will assume, by default, that it is because you cannot name one.
Reply
An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited [view article]
Art,See what I mean about "neogreens," you can't even converse with them intelligently. They just make it up as they go along! Since there are an estimated 10 Bbl of recoverable oil in ANWR, the "500 days" number they use can only refer to our nation's TOTAL use of gasoline, not the 1 million gallons of gas a day forecast from ANWR. Dishonesty won't solve our energy crises, either...! Reply
An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited [view article]
Poet1,I've worked in the chemical and oil industry for over 20 years. 500 days is often how long it takes to get something significant done. You can't legislate that more be done in less time and you can't trivialize what does get done in 500 days.
If one finger plugs one hole for 500 days then another finger plugs another hole for another 500 days and then maybe in 1000 or 2000 days there is some improvement that an initial finger can be moved to a new hole is how technology and industrial improvement moves. It might seem painfully slow but it is what it is and therefore along with oil, time is a very valuable commodity to be utilized smartly.
The whole industrial complex has layers of improvement, discovery, set backs, successes, ongoing operations, etc. Sometimes just holding on is part of the solution. Not overinvesting resources in a bad path is as important as finding a better path.
Way back at the beginning, Fitzman made a good list of suggestions. All possible paths of progress need a chance to be evaluated. That requires time! Reply