Re: DON TIBERONE- YOU SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO ME

Bill Reid <hormelfree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:IKJKg.42566$5i3.36767@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In other words, there'd still be demand. Supply/demand will determine
the
price.

Well, duh, except price can't fall below the cost of production for long
without destroying the industry through bankruptcy...

It can, according to your silly arguments.

What always defeats simple minds about supply/demand is that
they are both "elastic", and therefore moving targets in and of
themselves...

Actually, so far, it has been pretty inelastic considering demand continues
to rise right along with the price.

...but you keep talking about "demand continues to rise" as if you
had some type of instantaneous calcular function of demand. You
don't; you just know that demand rose a few months ago, and
then "simply" extrapolate demand will continue to rise at the same
rate forever no matter what.

Why don't you ask the EIA. They are the ones predicting demand to continue
to rise.

BTW, the SPR is already almost full. At least the one in the US. But
apparently you believe we have unlimited storage capacity.

My reference to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was a joke.
Sometimes MY "facts" are jokes...

Sure, when proven wrong, pretend you were joking.


Like I said, ignoring the facts. Natural gas was just an example.

An "example" about another topic is not a "fact". If you have any
"facts"
about OPEC, I've asked you to post them. Did you post them?

Oil production has always been far greater than supply.

BUT WHO HAS BEEN BUYING ALL THAT OVER-SUPPLY??!!???!!!
WHAAAAAA??!!!?!?!!

Just because production was higher, doesn't mean they were pumping all
out.

At the risk of repeating myself: WHAAAAAA??!!!?!?!!

Repeat it again.

And the SPRs don't have unlimited space but apparently you believe they
do.

At the current time it has a particular limit. Before it was established
it
was zero. It actually could be bigger in the future. But in any event,
be
aware that I consider the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to be a "joke",
but not everybody gets my sense of humor...

Well, most of your argument are a joke so....

The world
had
many millions of barrels of spare capacity. Both demand and
production
have
been going up.

What's your point?

Supply/demand, which apparently is well beyond your comprehension.

Well, I deal with it on daily basis, so I like to think I understand it.
Are you trying to "re-educate" me on the topic?

Actually, I did re-educate you on this. Afterall, you are backpedaling,
especially after I proved your silly arguments about lower demand leading to
higher production.

Huh? The price was higher a few years ago? What price are you
talking
about?
Oil was about 30-40 bucks a few years ago.

Once again, your limited time frame is showing...

...and the lack of "facts". I'll take two columns of time series,
please,
production, and price of oil. That's what I call "facts"...

Enjoy.



http://www.imf.org/Pubs/FT/weo/2006/01/chp1pdf/fig1_21.pdf#search=%22spare%2
0capacity%20oil%20demand%20production%22

Oooooh, this one was good. See "OPEC Target and OPEC,
Non-OPEC Production". Proves EXACTLY what I've been saying:
that up until about the last couple years, OPEC almost always pumped
MORE oil than their "target", and the discrepancy was the GREATEST
during the US recession that knocked oil prices down as shown
in "Figure 20. Crude Oil Refiner Acquisition Cost" in the link below.
(Note also that oil didn't go above $30/barrel until about 2003, further
underscoring what I've been saying about your very limited historical
time-frame).

Too bad the chart only goes back five years or so, but that's still
about four years longer than your time-frame of "analysis". But
thanks for supplying the links that crudely but clearly disprove just
about everything you say; for some more examples:

Oh please. Oil demand ROSE during the recession!

BTW, the first chart goes back over 20 years. The only time demand dropped,
was during the early 80's. Check out the charts from the other link and
guess what? Both world and OPEC production dropped right along with demand
during that time!

Game, set, match.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/ep/ep_frame.html

This is also quite good, particularly for the longer time frames, but
since it focuses on US figures, you kind of have to extrapolate for
world-wide trends. But we can quickly note that OPEC imports
into the US rose throughout the '90s (Figure 23), implying that OPEC was
pumping at a pretty good rate (if not "all out" WHAAAAAA??!!!?!?!!),
while oil prices FELL to a DISASTEROUS LOW (for OPEC) of
$12.52 A FRIGGIN' BARREL IN FRIGGIN' 1998 (Figure 20),
or a INFLATION-ADJUSTED DECLINE of about 75 FRIGGIN'
PERCENT from the peak in 1981, 17 FRIGGIN' YEARS EARLIER!!!

Did you notice demand continued to rise during that time?! So of course they
would increase production to meet that demand.

Gee, dude, according to your brain-dead analysis of oil industry
economics, OPEC should have pretty much shut themselves down
for most of the '90s...but of course, the "facts" are quite different,
THEY KEPT INCREASING PRODUCTION DESPITE THE
DIZZYING PRICE DECLINE.

Uh huh. Clearly, the charts show they were increasing production to meet
higher demand. When demand dropped in the early 80's, production dropped
right along with it. Those are the FACTS.

Dude, seriously, do yourself a favor, stop arguing with me, and start
thinking about what I'm saying. Look at your own "facts", the links
you supplied, and stop trying to win a "flame war", but rather THINK
about what actually happened in the last thirty years in the oil industry.

Your future wealth may very well thank you for your effort. I'm not
saying ABANDON OIL RIGHT NOW!!! but for cryin' out loud
LEARN FROM HISTORY, KEEP AWARE AND ALERT, AND
MADE THE BEST DECISIONS POSSIBLE GIVEN THE REAL
"FACTS".

LOL. I've already won this argument considering you were already retracting
your statements not to mention my links clearly show that lower demand leads
to lower production.

The lower prices in the late 90's was due to the asian financial crisis when
people panicked and thought demand would drop, which it didn't and so the
price recovered. Demand continued to rise throughout the 90's but there was
plenty of surplus capacity which is why oil still dropped. But the
bottomline is, production rose to meet that demand. Period.

There's no spare capacity anymore.

BTW, you're the one claiming oil was much higher a few years ago. The
burden
of proof is on you. Prove it.

This is a lie. I specifically said it was lower. I specifically said I
paid $0.80 a gallon for gas a few years ago. You are either seriously
confused, or are mispeaking yourself, or are a deliberate liar.

Your exact quote:

"So five years ago, were they ACTUALLY pumping MORE or LESS
oil than when the price was much higher a few years earlier?"

So I ask again. When was the price higher? Stop backpedaling.


The points are the following:

* ALL vehicles will be driven exclusively by electric motors without
transmissions, just like EVERY train for the last 60 years
* This transition from the wasteful use of the admittedly
exciting-sounding
gasoline engine to drive vehicles will result in the reduction of at
least
80% of the oil consumed, quite possibly to be replaced by "bio-diesel"
(also known as "Mazzola")
* This is all possible with technology that exists now and has existed
in most cases for DECADES or even OVER A HUNDRED YEARS

Like I said, I am STILL waiting.

Like a guy standing on the train tracks saying "I haven't been hit by the
train YET". And that train will be propelled, like all trains in the last
60
years, by electric motors, to extract much better fuel mileage for the
cost-conscious freight transportation industry...

You're assuming I'm saying we'll never use alternatives. Oh we'll use them,
but the question is at what oil price.

Demand continues to rise.

Until it doesn't. You also live until you die.

So you go ahead and keep waiting for demand to drop. Just like all the
"experts" who predicted oil at 40 would lead to a recession and less demand.

People continue
to waste energy on a daily basis.

Yup. Read your own links to guage the historical effect of conservation
and increased efficiency ALONE in collapsing oil prices. Here's the
relevant link again, DON'T SNIP IT, IT'S YOURS:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/ep/ep_frame.html

Note particularly Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2 shows that energy
consumption PER PERSON is STILL below what it was 30 FRIGGIN'
YEARS AGO WITH THE STATED REASON OF THE OIL
"SHOCKS" of the '70s.

Yet another reason why it's not affecting demand. Thanks for proving me
right.

If you are an energy "investor", if there is a REAL "shock" in the
next few years, STRONGLY CONSIDER TAKING YOUR
PROFITS, based on history. DON'T BE STUPID, YOU MORON!!!

Duh. Obviously. When did I say I wouldn't take profits?

Sure, there are
*some* people, mainly poorer folks affected but mostly demand continues
to
rise.

Rilly rilly dum.

Look dude, I told you every other car on the road around here is
now a Prius(TM). I live in what has been determined to be the most
expensive place in the country to live in, and literally almost EVERY
SINGLE PERSON I KNOW IS A FRIGGIN' MULT-MILLIONAIRE.
THE FRIGGIN' JANITORS HERE ARE MILLIONAIRES.

THEY CAN AFFORD GAS AT $50/GALLON, BUT THE NEW
"STATUS SYMBOL" ARE THOSE GOOFY-LOOKING TOYOTAS.

Just trying to supply a little "fact" of which you seem to be unaware.
In your neck of the woods, guys are probably still driving '68 El
Caminos that would only get 12 miles per gallon, except they're
actually sitting up on blocks in the front yard...

Rant all you want. Demand continues to increase. FACT. The EIA predicts
demand will continue to rise. If you have a problem with that, go talk to
the EIA.

You never specifically disagreed with me. I already know we have
alternatives available, some of which I've mentioned, but that
doesn't
mean
we aren't trying to develop more, like hydrogen (which I'm skeptical
of),
cellulosic ethanol and perhaps nano-powered solar cars in the far
out
future. We wouldn't be throwing tons of money into hydrogen if oil
prices
weren't so high.

Again, you're talking about fantasy technologies. Read the above
about existing technologies again, or as I've suggested, get somebody
to read it to you. THE ALTERNATIVES HAVE BEEN HERE ALL
ALONG.

If we don't use them at 70 dollars oil, when will we use them?

$150-$200/barrel, or thereabouts. But ur rilly jes 2 dum, itz empozzabul
2 git threw ur tick skul.

So says the guy who already backtracked. Not once but twice.

This is your quote.

"If the price of oil drops, particularly if it
drops substantially, they'll start pumping like crazy in a desperate
attempt to maintain a steady revenue stream, all the while jawboning
about "quotas", and price will go down even faster."

"they'll start pumping like crazy"

"The price "will" go down even faster. That's FUTURE not PAST tense.

Yup. Occasionally ur jes smurt enuff 2 qut pruperly. Sumtims nut.

Yep. I guess you couldn't lie your way out of this one, eh? Which other
statement will you claim you never made?

Only in those sporadic instances when you're correct...

You spent more time agreeing with me. Like when you ranted multiple
paragraphs about alternatives.

Why do you call MY facts "rants"? And your "examples" are "facts"?

Because I've given you facts.

And now I've thanked you for them. Thank you for proving yourself
wrong. It takes a big man to do that; oh wait, that's ADMITTING you're
wrong, just stupidly supplying links that you apparently don't understand
implies a different kind of person...

You've already admitted you were wrong when you started backpedaling and I
quote:

"And I never said the OPEC would IN THE FUTURE raise production if prices
dropped."

Sure you didn't. Just lie and change your position when proven wrong.

And then proceed to claim oil prices were higher in the past and then claim
you never said it. Either that or claim you were joking. What other excuses
are you going to use?

See above about oil historically dropping from almost 60 "real" dollars
to $12. It was in your own link. That would be like oil dropping from
where it is today to about $17 in about a year.

Oh please. Go to the "real" dollars card when proven wrong. BTW, the "real"
dollars cost of extracting that oil drops right along with it.

Don't think it can happen? Well, I still remember all the scare stories
about natural gas this time last year, it was on an "inevitable rise to
$30", blah, blah, blah. WHAAAAAAA???!!!??!! HAPPENED???!!??!!

Warm winter.

If your "example fact" is natural gas, be afraid, BE VERY AFRAID,
if you are an oil "investor"...

I'll be afraid if the housing bubble wrecks the economy leading to less
demand.

I can't believe how clueless you are on this topic, but now you're
just
having basic problems following the discussion.

Talk about clueless. The oil price has to be above a certain price for
some
companies to be profitable. If oil tanked to 27, all the oil sands
companies
and offshore drillers will start losing money. Using your logic, if oil
tanked, these companies will want to lose even more money by producing
even
more. Most of the supply increases have been coming from the oil sands
and
offshore.

SCARED YET?!!!??!!!

Why would I be afraid? I'm the one giving better arguments about us using
zero oil. You're only babbling about using 50% less oil.


Yeah ok. Now stop agreeing with me. LOL.

NO, YOU STOP AGREEING WITH ME!!!!!!

Ok but first you should stop typing multiple paragraphs just to
agree
with
me. LOL.

THOSE ARE "FACTS", YOU ***!!!!!!!!

And backtracking from them too. LOL.

I can't hide from them anymore, now that you proved them correct
historically with your links. Thank you for exposing me as the genius
that I am...

LOL. Thanks for backpedaling and proving me right. The links clearly proved
me right and you changed your arguments multiple times because of it. What
statement will you change next?

--
"If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the
newspaper, you are misinformed..."

-- Mark Twain

"Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in
peril. When you are ignorant of the enemy, but know yourself, your chances
of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself,
you are certain in every battle to be in peril."

-- Sun Tzu ("The Art of War," circa 6th century B.C.)



.