Date: April 2nd, 2006 7:17 AM Author: Olive University Mediation
I hope you're right but I fear you aren't. It would be so badass if we destroyed the vestiges of our polite, PC society where men are emasculated and instead went back to Wild West style pwnage.
Date: April 2nd, 2006 6:51 AM Author: Multi-colored people who are hurt clown
Total, a french oil giant, is already doing it. usually using tons of water. Exxon is doing it too.
they will cost more. mayhbe 75 a barrel, since production/extraction/refining costs are higher than with the benchmark light sweet crude. but the oil is there.
Date: April 2nd, 2006 6:54 AM Author: Multi-colored people who are hurt clown
dont you see, this is not how markets work. if there is a commodity like oil, and Total has some and Exxon has some...what happens?
Exxon offers at 100. Total, trying to sell its crude, offers 98. Exxon 95. Total 92. and so on and so on until they find a price the buyer will pay but still allows them an acceptable return on their capital.
Date: April 2nd, 2006 7:00 AM Author: umber immigrant office
sorry. assumed 75 == cost to bring to market. not familiar with cost of sucking canada's sponge. have heard that is has more oil that saudi arabia though.
Date: April 2nd, 2006 6:57 AM Author: Lime soul-stirring locus turdskin
yeah, that's ASSUMING that the number of barrels demanded is less than the number of barrels in stock. obviously then oil companies would compete against each other on price
but the situation will be that the number of barrels needed is vastly more than the number of barrels in stock. so it'll be the other way around. purchasers of oil will compete against themselves on price, bidding the price up until it's the highest they're willing to pay
Date: April 2nd, 2006 6:59 AM Author: Multi-colored people who are hurt clown
how do you know this? there are about 1.74 trillion barrels of oil in Canada's oil sands alone. i see no reason why scarcity should ensue. if the market price, due to scarcity, is high enough (75 or so), the incentives will be there to use the oil sands. and they are essentially endless.
so we're fine, except for a permanently higher price of oil, probably.
Date: April 2nd, 2006 7:05 AM Author: Hyperventilating multi-billionaire
if it is true that necessity is the mother of invention, then when we perceive our oil reserves diminishing to a dangerous low, we'll put more effort into using substitutes and making them economically viable.
Date: April 2nd, 2006 7:15 AM Author: umber immigrant office
you realize this is the fundemental difference between the socialist and the libertarian - the democrat and the republican? one believes that the govt must prepare for the worst by fairly distributing funds to all those who have ideas whereas the other belives the market will find the solution and fund it naturally.
Date: April 2nd, 2006 7:17 AM Author: Multi-colored people who are hurt clown
yeah. i dont agree with everything libertarians or republicans say. nor democrats.
but libs/repubs are right about markets. they dont always work but they tend to work better than anything else. while the price of oil from normal fields is low and we can get it easily, the market naturally inhibits costly work in oil sands. that's great cuz it keeps us from wasting our capital there.
almost magically, as oil from fields becomes scarce (and the price goes up), there are huge incentives do develop oil sands.
i know all about markets, but honestly, this still amazes and delights me. it's incredible and wonderful. may as well let this awesome system function as it naturally does.
Date: April 2nd, 2006 7:19 AM Author: medicated spot
the pro-governmental intervention/laissez faire distinction is so simple that it almost resembles a false dichotomy. but history really does indicate that these two alternatives are the only ones that exist.
Date: April 2nd, 2006 7:04 AM Author: Multi-colored people who are hurt clown
and they basically are, although oil sands cost more to extract. technology improvements may make it no tougher than conventional oil fields though...some day.
even with current tech never improving, we're only looking at a price in the 70's for oil sands oil.
Date: April 2nd, 2006 7:09 AM Author: Hyperventilating multi-billionaire
yeah, there's really no reason to think that there will be no improvement in extraction technologies by the time our non-oil-sands reserves are depleted (assuming of course that such a point in time exists)
Date: April 2nd, 2006 7:11 AM Author: Multi-colored people who are hurt clown
yep. the companies doing this are very very smart. we're talking Exxon and Total and others. some of the most well-managed and innovative companies on the planet. these major oil companies have technology and management that put the likes of Microsoft to shame.
Date: April 2nd, 2006 7:20 AM Author: Multi-colored people who are hurt clown
yep. Exxon is far more innovative than Microsoft these days, i think, and its reflected in its business results. despite a WAY higher profit margin, Exxon's Return on Equity (dunno if you follow this stuff, but this is *the* key metric guys like Warren Buffett use to evaluate how well a business runs) is 34% to Microsofts 28%.
that is strong innovation and management at work. they sell a low-margin commodity (oil) and they get awesome capital returns doing it. good stuff.
i doubt there is much, oil-wise, that Exxon and its ilk cannot do, given incentives and time.
Date: April 2nd, 2006 7:27 AM Author: medicated spot
interesting. are you saying that a 6% advantage in ROE reflects a superior innovation intellect and management ability? i think i agree. but is there really a way to compare the innovation intellects of two totally different companies?
Date: April 2nd, 2006 8:15 AM Author: Multi-colored people who are hurt clown
i think there is...who does more to transform their field and help society, etc.
well, considering that MSFT has an enormous monopoly in operating systems and XOM has only a commodity product to sell, even if XOM's ROE matched MSFT's, i'd be pretty impressed. MSFT's should be through the roof imo.
Date: April 2nd, 2006 7:08 AM Author: umber immigrant office
bought just above $20. wasn't a fortune. didn't have the capital to make a fortune ;)
didn't serve me bad tho. if you want a real cinderella story: i bought a crap load of American Airlines at $6 a couple summer back. altho again, not enough for a 'fortune'.
Date: April 2nd, 2006 7:20 AM Author: umber immigrant office
not 'very' into it. AMR was a tip (when it hit $6 back in 10/04 it was grossly undervalued) and SSL was kinda lucky. Like i said: no fortunes made here. when you're playing with a few thousand bucks at a time the comission cost hurts so i less tempted to play and more tempted to hold. up about ~25% in the last 15 mo.
another (recent) fun one is CEGE. bought into that around the 5.90 area about a year ago. it hovered around there (mostly down, sometimes up) and i wanted to ditch it. just recently its popped up. not familiar with LUK or PSPFX but the charts look fun.
Date: April 2nd, 2006 7:02 AM Author: Multi-colored people who are hurt clown
it wont go from 60 to 120 that quickly, odds are. i hope it does. my PSPFX will fucking pwn if it does and i will be far wealthier. but i am not counting on it.
i just see no reason why there will be insufficient oil, with the oil sands in Canada and elsewhere. we will likely see a price in the 70's in the future (to pay for the cost of drawing on oil sands instead of conventional fields), and permanently, i think. but there will be oil.