yank

Oil Service Stocks Likely to Fall Near-Term

Daniel Yergin is considered a pro? The man is an idiot. He completley misjudged the explosion in oil prices last year so now he proclaims that oil prices must remain lower for the foresseable future? He is not a credible source for energy price forecasting. PERIOD. As for the author, his article is riddled with false hopes, dubious claims to permanent oil demand destruction, etc. "Job losses will continue to mount leading to lower oil demand?" Sorry to burst your bubble but unemployment is a "lagging indicator" and has never been used credibly to forecast oil demand. As for your comments on the USD please consult any "technical" stock pro who will patiently explain to you what a classic "double top" looks like in a stock chart. The USD is precisely that right now and will be heading below 80 very soon. Here is some advice for you. Wishing for lower oil prices is pretty much a waste of everyone's time.

What’s the Right Price for Oil?

It's not just Japan that is ahead of the curve with more fuel efficient cars. In Europe and the UK they have been producing Minivans (diesel) that get 35-40 mpg for at least the last 10-15 years. Those are mileage figures we would love to have here in the USA. But instead our automakers here in the USA sat on their hands. And now we as taxpayers have to bail them out? I'm sick of this charade.


On Feb 12 12:50 AM Teutonic Knight wrote:

> To the Daily Reckoning,
>
> I would like to offer a different perspective from the title of your
> article, if I may.
>
> Instead of debating, or even defending the "right" price for oil,
> isn't it time that we, American, wake up to cease our addiction to
> cheap oil?
>
> If indeed we had learned our lessons from the early '70s Arab oil
> embargo crisis, and started to build energy efficient cars like the
> Japanese did, we would have been in much better shape today. We spent
> about something like a little less than $1T each year importing oil.
> Imagine if we had succeeded in conservation, and invested in converting
> to renewable energy, the money saved would have gone a long way in
> paying down our national debt, and in cleaning up the environment.
>
>
> The truth is we don't want to, unless we are forced to, on top of
> other political and economic reasons that the readers only know too
> well, and which I do not want to elucidate here, after listening
> to the Bankers on Capital Hill this morning.
>
> In my view it has to do with our culture too. i could recall in the
> roaring '60s gas was so cheap selling for 33 cents a gallon. The
> Japanese being a island country with almost no oil reserve and production
> at the time, everyone knew from childhood the high cost of gasoline
> and the need to conserve. As a result they have been way ahead in
> building more energy efficient cars.
>

Is It Safe?

Shiv:
I generally agree with everything you said except for the RIG comments. If you look at RIGs valuation with a PEG of 0.4 and other metrics, it suggests a forward oil price of $25-30. Is that realistic? I don't think so. In all the hysteria this week about oil demand destruction the news out of China yesterday went completely unnoticed. They imported a record 20 million tons of oil in September, a 10% increase yoy. So much for demand destruction. RIG is basically being given away at these price levels. The full value of this stock is around $160, making it a "double from here.

Newby