Pound and Oil at seven-month high

Generali

mewbie wrote: »

On topic - pound strength - I am mightily confused. It's good when it goes up - and - good when it goes down. So it's always good then?

That's about it. If the pound goes up in value, that's good news for anyone buying stuff from abroad and bad for anyone trying to export or competing against importers.

If the pound falls in value it's bad news for importers and good news for exporters and those competing with importers.

So it depends on whether you're a glass half full or half empty sort of a person really. Or if the glass is cracked and the milk is sour.

IveSeenTheLight

ad9898 wrote: »

I'm really surprised at you, you are after all one of the more intelligent bulls on here, however, technological advances are well proven not to get at any more oil, they just get what is there quicker, hence steepening the curve.

Next we have the 'new fields found' argument, we are currently using 4 barrels of oil for every one discovered, peak discovery was in 1960 and it's been going down ever since.

Next we have 'the move to reduce demand for oil' argument, more or less every single object we as human beings consume has oil at it's heart, from food to disposable nappies, and that isn't taking into consideration that 90% of the worlds transport that we use to move said goods around uses crude oil.

Jesus, these arguments are so feeble, I'm at a loss that people can't or don't want to see what's directly in front of them, ignorance must indeed be bliss.

Get out your "The End is Nigh" placard then.
Sounds like the human race can't survive without oil :rolleyes:

StevieJ

ad9898 wrote: »

Donald, forget it, your wasting your time, this will be the next thing 'no one saw coming', even though oil hit $147 a barrel before the recession, the reason, 'speculation'- utter bollox, if the OPEC countries could have pumped more with that $ price, they would have done, the simple fact is, they didn't because they couldn't. As for non OPEC production, 75% of those countries have already peaked and are in decline.

As far as technology goes, just take a look at the Canterall field off the coast of Mexico

I still don't understand your reference to a 4:1 depletion level, when all the majors appear to have over 100% annual replacement

donaldtramp

Degenerate wrote: »

When it goes down, it's a negative indication of worldwide confidence in our economy, but has a stimulating effect on our economy.

When it goes up, it's a positive indication of worldwide confidence in our economy, but has a dampening effect on our economy.

See, it's really not that hard.

Yes but when overall global production goes into terminal and unstoppable decline.
What do you reckon is going to happen to the oil price?

ad9898, I know the Cantarell issue well, I've had some dealings with this particular field. As for:

Pemex expects Cantarells decline to continue to 2012 and eventually stabilizing at an output level of around 500,000 barrels per day

I don't think there is a hope in hell that they are going to "stabilize" the decline. Production levels have fallen like a stone, but as you say there is pretty much no point in speaking about it on here:rolleyes:
Just leave them in their own wee bubble, the shock shouldn't affect me....quite the opposite in fact, quite looking forward to profiting from other peoples blind stupidity and faith in what big operators and governments say.
Good luck to you ad9898!;)

Really2

remember the abiotic oil debate.
who knows on peak or abiotic outright?

That was intresting
http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html

Degenerate

Really2 wrote: »

remember the abiotic oil debate.
who knows on peak or abiotic outright?

That was intresting
http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html

The proven presense of large quantities of methane on other bodies in our solar system lends credence to the abiotic claim. As does the fact that the hydrocarbons that constitute crude oil are simple compounds of the first and sixth most abundant elements in the universe. It hardly requires life to explain the formation of such simple compounds - all other thing being equal, life would be the most improbable of explanations.

ad9898_3

StevieJ wrote: »

I still don't understand your reference to a 4:1 depletion level, when all the majors appear to have over 100% annual replacement

Can you see the unsustainability in this graph, consumption has been rising since 1960 and discovery has been waning, what we are doing is using what we have already found. Ok, so I was a little pessimistic with the 4:1 ratio, it's around about 3:1.

The only real peaks after 1970 were the North Sea in the mid '70's, Prudhoe Bay in Alaska in 1990, both of which are now in serious decline, the other much smaller peak in 2000 I believe is the Shaybah Field in Saudi Arabia. You get the picture though yes ? There are no more Ghawar's, Canterall's or Burgan fields to find.

Really2

Degenerate wrote: »

The proven presense of large quantities of methane on other bodies in our solar system lends credence to the abiotic claim. As does the fact that the hydrocarbons that constitute crude oil are simple compounds of the first and sixth most abundant elements in the universe. It hardly requires life to explain the formation of such simple compounds - all other thing being equal, life would be the most improbable of explanations.

Can we run a pipeline to Titan

StevieJ

ad9898 wrote: »

Can you see the unsustainability in this graph, consumption has been rising since 1960 and discovery has been waning, what we are doing is using what we have already found. Ok, so I was a little pessimistic with the 4:1 ratio, it's around about 3:1.

The only real peaks after 1970 were the North Sea in the mid '70's, Prudhoe Bay in Alaska in 1990, both of which are now in serious decline, the other much smaller peak in 2000 I believe is the Shaybah Field in Saudi Arabia. You get the picture though yes ? There are no more Ghawar's, Canterall's or Burgan fields to find.

What about oil and tar sands these (huge reserves) I am sure are not included in your figures and become very profitable at higher oil prices, also many wells are not milked dry so future extraction technology and also oil price again may change the economics.

sabretoothtigger

this oil sounds a bit like gold. It'll peak but the average price will be much lower

supply and demand has a way of destroying inefficiency I think

Shell seem to be borrowing to pay that dividend but I thought they were worth a look also, do you own the b shares or the A shares

So at some point in the not too distant future they will have no business model as they will have used most of their reserves.

Apparently shell have 100bn barrels in reserve, at varying costs to extract I guess