Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 76 to 100 of 100
  1. #76
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121

    Do you have a ty Youtube video you want me to watch?










    (not that it has anything to do with the discussion, but you should watch it, 'cause it is cool.)

  2. #77
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    That you convinced yourself that oil will play out doesn't mean that it will. For every quote of an oil executive saying oil will play out, I can find a quote from another one saying that it won't.
    I have reviewed enough data to determine that it is highly likely that it will. It is one of the few things that I will ever say with any real high degree of certainty. The only question is what we do about it.

    I personally know of no analysis of reserves that would support the notion that oil wil not "play out". Nobody with any expertise and/or credibility on the subject has made such claim that I can find.

    But since you have made the assertion that you can find quotes from "an oil executive" that it won't, I call bull .

    Your turn to provide some support.

  3. #78
    I play pretty, no? TeyshaBlue's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    13,321










    (not that it has anything to do with the discussion, but you should watch it, 'cause it is cool.)
    ROFL.

  4. #79
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    For my part, I can show some technical data that outlines how oil is being produced faster than it it is being discovered.

    Further, as the light, sweet crude that is easy to get at starts becoming rarer, we will be faced with using the technologically possible, but much less efficient sour crude.

    Rather basic economic theory concerning production curves dictate the the best/easiest/most efficient resources will be utilized first in the production of any given product, and each unit after the top of the supply curve will be prduced at greater and greater cost. (note this is the "snapshot in time" supply curve, and NOT the Hubbert oil production curve describing production over time)

    We have, in the last decade or two had to start drilling that technologically difficult and/or generally less energetically dense stuff. This decreases our return on invested energy.



    Data for this graph was derived from "A Preliminary Investigation of Energy Return on Energy Investment for Global Oil and Gas Production" Gagnon, Hall, Brinker, the full text of which can be seen by clicking here for the PDF. This paper was published in the peer-reviewed journal "Energies". http://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

    ABSTRACT: Economies are fueled by energy produced in excess of the amount required to drive the energy production process. Therefore any successful society’s energy resources must be both abundant and exploitable with a high ratio of energy return on energy invested (EROI). Unfortunately most of the data kept on costs of oil and gas operations are in monetary, not energy, terms. Fortunately we can convert monetary values into approximate energy values by deriving energy intensities for monetary transactions from those few nations that keep both sets of data. We provide a preliminary assessment of EROI for the world’s most important fuels, oil and gas, based on time series of global production and estimates of energy inputs derived from monetary expenditures for all publicly traded oil and gas companies and estimates of energy intensities of those expenditures. We estimate that EROI at the wellhead was roughly 26:1 in 1992, increased to 35:1 in 1999, and then decreased to 18:1 in 2006. These trends imply that global supplies of petroleum available to do economic work are considerably less than estimates of gross reserves and that EROI is declining over time and with increased annual drilling levels. Our global estimates of EROI have a pattern similar to, but somewhat higher than, the United States, which has better data on energy costs but a more depleted resource base.
    (note: a good analysis can be found here: http://netenergy.theoildrum.com/node/5600 )

    Note that this first speaks to the concept necessary for oil to "play out" that as we wind our way down the Hubbert curve, the oil we extract will be less and less efficient.

    The problem in trying to assert that oil won't play out is that it violates the laws of thermodynamics, as well as the most basic underpinnings of economics.

    Technology may make, and has made more oil available, but THAT OIL IS GENERALLY NOT EFFICIENT AS THE OIL THAT CAME BEFORE IT in terms of the amount of energy needed to extract it.

    The proxy for energy in this case is simply money. Which costs less to extract per barrel: A billion barrel deposit that requires a single $1,000,000 dollar oil rig on land to extract or a 10 billion barrel deposit that requires a $7,000,000,000 deep sea rig to extract? If one were to measure the amount of energy needed to fully construct the land-based rig, versus that required for the deep sea oil rig, one would certainly find a fairly good parallel between the two in comparative energy required.

  5. #80
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    42,561
    Rumor has it that global warming is doing strage things to the fish.

    See


  6. #81
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    What is it that you think I won't read? You've repeated this claim numerous times already. If there's something you want me to read, be specific. Post a link. Don't be overly general like "read the IPCC reports". I haven't read EACH AND EVERY piece of scientific literature and I haven't read EACH AND EVERY IPCC report. Neither have you.


    If there's a specific article or study that you think is so damned compelling, then post a link to it and I promise I'll read it (if I haven't already).
    Fair enough. Give me some time, and I will do some digging around and get back to you.

  7. #82
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    Rumor has it that global warming is doing strage things to the fish.

    See

    I liked my youtube better.

    (changes underwear)

  8. #83
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Rumor has it that global warming is doing strage things to the fish.

    See

    LOL...

    Not quite what I expected. I thought maybe a normal large bottom feeder decided a taste of live food, and someone didn't know what type of fish it was.

  9. #84
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    Rumor has it that global warming is doing strage things to the fish.

    See
    Here is a good summary of data and studies.

  10. #85
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121


    Here is the updated bit that WC seems like harping on. (LOSU = Level of Scientific Understanding)

    Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures
    since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
    observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.8
    This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most
    of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to
    have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations” (Figure
    2.5). {WGI 9.4, SPM}
    The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean,
    together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely
    unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can
    be explained without external forcing and very likely that it is not
    due to known natural causes alone. During this period, the sum of
    solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling,
    not warming. Warming of the climate system has been detected in
    changes in surface and atmospheric temperatures and in temperatures
    of the upper several hundred metres of the ocean. The observed
    pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling
    is very likely due to the combined influences of GHG increases and
    stratospheric ozone depletion. It is likely that increases in GHG
    concentrations alone would have caused more warming than observed
    because volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols have offset
    some warming that would otherwise have taken place. {WGI 2.9, 3.2,
    3.4, 4.8, 5.2, 7.5, 9.4, 9.5, 9.7, TS.4.1, SPM}
    It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic
    warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent
    (except Antarctica) (Figure 2.5). {WGI 3.2, 9.4, SPM}
    The observed patterns of warming, including greater warming
    over land than over the ocean, and their changes over time, are
    simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcing. No
    coupled global climate model that has used natural forcing only
    has reproduced the continental mean warming trends in individual
    continents (except Antarctica) over the second half of the 20th century.
    {WGI 3.2, 9.4, TS.4.2, SPM}

  11. #86
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    42,561


    Gee, another IPCC report. Thanks.


    Why not just give me a link to Al Gore's latest and greatest carbon-trading website?


    http://www.wecansolveit.org/

  12. #87
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    Gee, another IPCC report. Thanks.


    Why not just give me a link to Al Gore's latest and greatest carbon-trading website?


    http://www.wecansolveit.org/
    You mentioned modeling:

    Do you actually know what they do?

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...1-chapter8.pdf

    ..or do you just take others' word for it?

  13. #88
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    Still fossil fuels though. Right now, it doesn't make economic sense to switch to anything else.
    The first country that makes the leap to crossing over will gain a rather substantial compe ive advantage.

    This will make Europe, with its dense cities, and commitment to renewables way more compe ive, relatively to economies that don't.

    It is all the same to me. Time will tell who ends up right about the oil thing.

    As I have said before, it is one of the few macro-economic trends on which there is much certainty.

  14. #89
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    42,561
    You mentioned modeling:

    Do you actually know what they do?

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...1-chapter8.pdf

    ..or do you just take others' word for it?


    Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.

    -Box and Draper, Empirical Model-Building, p. 74

  15. #90
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.

    -Box and Draper, Empirical Model-Building, p. 74
    How can you judge how wrong the models used are if you don't read about the methodology used?

    (note: your post amounts to little more than ad hominem)

  16. #91
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    42,561
    How can you judge how wrong the models used are if you don't read about the methodology used?

    (note: your post amounts to little more than ad hominem)


    Quite simple. If a model has poor predictive capability, it is pretty useless, regardless of how "complex" the model is.

    "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't"
    -Keven Trenberth (climate scientist)

  17. #92
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    Quite simple. If a model has poor predictive capability, it is pretty useless, regardless of how "complex" the model is.

    "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't"
    -Keven Trenberth (climate scientist)
    Ad hominem, rinse repeat. Your posts start sounding like shampoo directions.

    Since you have chosen not to fairly treat evidence or what people actually assert in full context:


    Frequently Asked Question 8.1
    How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections
    of Future Climate Change?
    There is considerable confi dence that climate models provide
    credible quan ative estimates of future climate change, particularly
    at continental scales and above. This confi dence comes from the
    foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from
    their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and
    past climate changes. Confi dence in model estimates is higher
    for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others
    (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models
    have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of
    signifi cant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse
    gases.

    Climate models are mathematical representations of the climate
    system, expressed as computer codes and run on powerful
    computers. One source of confidence in models comes from the
    fact that model fundamentals are based on established physical
    laws, such as conservation of mass, energy and momentum,
    along with a wealth of observations.
    A second source of confidence comes from the ability of
    models to simulate important aspects of the current climate.
    Models are routinely and extensively assessed by comparing
    their simulations with observations of the atmosphere, ocean,
    cryosphere and land surface. Unprecedented levels of evaluation
    have taken place over the last decade in the form of organised
    multi-model ‘intercomparisons’. Models show significant and increasing skill in representing many important mean climate
    features, such as the large-scale distributions of atmospheric
    temperature, precipitation, radiation and wind, and of oceanic
    temperatures, currents and sea ice cover. Models can also simulate
    essential aspects of many of the patterns of climate variability
    observed across a range of time scales. Examples include
    the advance and retreat of the major monsoon systems, the
    seasonal shifts of temperatures, storm tracks and rain belts, and
    the hemispheric-scale seesawing of extratropical surface pressures
    (the Northern and Southern ‘annular modes’). Some climate
    models, or closely related variants, have also been tested
    by using them to predict weather and make seasonal forecasts.
    These models demonstrate skill in such forecasts, showing they
    can represent important features of the general circulation
    across shorter time scales, as well as aspects of seasonal and
    interannual variability. Models’ ability to represent these and
    other important climate features increases our confidence that
    they represent the essential physical processes important for
    the simulation of future climate change. (Note that the limitations
    in climate models’ ability to forecast weather beyond a
    few days do not limit their ability to predict long-term climate
    changes, as these are very different types of prediction – see
    FAQ 1.2.)

    A third source of confidence comes from the ability of models
    to reproduce features of past climates and climate changes.
    Models have been used to simulate ancient climates, such as
    the warm mid-Holocene of 6,000 years ago or the last glacial
    maximum of 21,000 years ago (see Chapter 6). They can
    reproduce many features (allowing for uncertainties in reconstructing
    past climates) such as the magnitude and broad-scale
    pattern of oceanic cooling during the last ice age. Models can
    also simulate many observed aspects of climate change over the
    instrumental record. One example is that the global temperature
    trend over the past century (shown in Figure 1) can be modelled
    with high skill when both human and natural factors that
    influence climate are included. Models also reproduce other observed
    changes, such as the faster increase in nighttime than
    in daytime temperatures, the larger degree of warming in the
    Arctic and the small, short-term global cooling (and subsequent
    recovery) which has followed major volcanic eruptions, such
    as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 (see FAQ 8.1, Figure 1). Model
    global temperature projections made over the last two decades
    have also been in overall agreement with subsequent observations
    over that period (Chapter 1).
    Nevertheless, models still show significant errors. Although
    these are generally greater at smaller scales, important largescale
    problems also remain. For example, deficiencies remain
    in the simulation of tropical precipitation, the El Niño-
    Southern Oscillation and the Madden-Julian Oscillation (an
    observed variation in tropical winds and rainfall with a time
    scale of 30 to 90 days). The ultimate source of most such
    errors is that many important small-scale processes cannot be
    represented explicitly in models, and so must be included in
    approximate form as they interact with larger-scale features.
    This is partly due to limitations in computing power, but also
    results from limitations in scientific understanding or in the
    availability of detailed observations of some physical processes.
    Significant uncertainties, in particular, are associated with the
    representation of clouds, and in the resulting cloud responses
    to climate change. Consequently, models continue to display a
    substantial range of global temperature change in response to
    specified greenhouse gas forcing (see Chapter 10). Despite such
    uncertainties, however, models are unanimous in their prediction
    of substantial climate warming under greenhouse gas increases,
    and this warming is of a magnitude consistent with
    independent estimates derived from other sources, such as from
    observed climate changes and past climate reconstructions.
    Since confidence in the changes projected by global models
    decreases at smaller scales, other techniques, such as the use of
    regional climate models, or downscaling methods, have been
    specifically developed for the study of regional- and local-scale
    climate change (see FAQ 11.1). However, as global models continue
    to develop, and their resolution continues to improve,
    they are becoming increasingly useful for investigating important
    smaller-scale features, such as changes in extreme weather
    events, and further improvements in regional-scale representation
    are expected with increased computing power. Models are
    also becoming more comprehensive in their treatment of the
    climate system, thus explicitly representing more physical and
    biophysical processes and interactions considered potentially
    important for climate change, particularly at longer time scales.
    Examples are the recent inclusion of plant responses, ocean
    biological and chemical interactions, and ice sheet dynamics in
    some global climate models.
    In summary, confidence in models comes from their physical
    basis, and their skill in representing observed climate and past
    climate changes. Models have proven to be extremely important
    tools for simulating and understanding climate, and there is
    considerable confidence that they are able to provide credible
    quan ative estimates of future climate change, particularly at
    larger scales. Models continue to have significant limitations,
    such as in their representation of clouds, which lead to uncertainties
    in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details,
    of predicted climate change. Nevertheless, over several decades
    of model development, they have consistently provided a robust
    and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response
    to increasing greenhouse gases.

  18. #93
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    42,561
    ^Wow. A bunch of verbiage from the IPCC saying how good their models are. If they wrote it down, it must be true.


    Observation is the ultimate judge.

  19. #94
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    ^Wow. A bunch of verbiage from the IPCC saying how good their models are. If they wrote it down, it must be true.


    Observation is the ultimate judge.
    Models have proven to be extremely important
    tools for simulating and understanding climate, and there is
    considerable confidence that they are able to provide credible
    quan ative estimates of future climate change, particularly at
    larger scales. Models continue to have significant limitations,
    such as in their representation of clouds, which lead to uncertainties
    in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details,
    of predicted climate change. Nevertheless, over several decades
    of model development, they have consistently provided a robust
    and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response
    to increasing greenhouse gases.
    Actually they acknowledge the limitations of what they do.

    That is called being intellectually honest.

    It is what real scientists do.

    The thing about the models and all the other studies they summarize and review.

    No one thing is ever said to be conclusive. They couch their conclusions rather carefully, using words such as "very likely" or "likely".

    They have weighed large amounts of data, and have concluded that, on the whole, we appear to be having a growing impact on the overall global climate.

  20. #95
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    For every quote of an oil executive saying oil will play out, I can find a quote from another one saying that it won't.
    Still waiting on this one.

    Please provide an expert opinion saying that oil will not "play out".

    The best scientific data we have on reserves says that we are not finding it as fast as we are using it up.

    You seem to be sceptical, but do you base that on actual data, or your own theory?

  21. #96
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    Still waiting on this one.

    Please provide an expert opinion saying that oil will not "play out".

    The best scientific data we have on reserves says that we are not finding it as fast as we are using it up.

    You seem to be sceptical, but do you base that on actual data, or your own theory?
    I'm sorry. I thought a mere google would do it...

    Dr. Christoph Rühl, Chief economist of BP, repeatedly uttered strong doubts about the peak oil hypothesis:[185]

    Physical peak oil, which I have no reason to accept as a valid statement either on theoretical, scientific or ideological grounds, would be insensitive to prices. (...)In fact the whole hypothesis of peak oil – which is that there is a certain amount of oil in the ground, consumed at a certain rate, and then it's finished – does not react to anything.... (Global Warming) is likely to be more of a natural limit than all these peak oil theories combined. (...) Peak oil has been predicted for 150 years. It has never happened, and it will stay this way.

    LINK

    Do you disagree that Peak Oil is just a theory nowadays?

  22. #97
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    The first country that makes the leap to crossing over will gain a rather substantial compe ive advantage.

    This will make Europe, with its dense cities, and commitment to renewables way more compe ive, relatively to economies that don't.
    Opinion.

    It is all the same to me. Time will tell who ends up right about the oil thing.

    As I have said before, it is one of the few macro-economic trends on which there is much certainty.
    Again, market economics will determine what is economically viable or not. Wether oil plays out or not, the market, through pricing, will adjust accordingly.

    There's plenty of smart investors out there in the energy market that I'm sure will seize on any opportunity that makes economic sense.

  23. #98
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    I'm sorry. I thought a mere google would do it...

    Dr. Christoph Rühl, Chief economist of BP, repeatedly uttered strong doubts about the peak oil hypothesis:[185]

    Physical peak oil, which I have no reason to accept as a valid statement either on theoretical, scientific or ideological grounds, would be insensitive to prices. (...)In fact the whole hypothesis of peak oil – which is that there is a certain amount of oil in the ground, consumed at a certain rate, and then it's finished – does not react to anything.... (Global Warming) is likely to be more of a natural limit than all these peak oil theories combined. (...) Peak oil has been predicted for 150 years. It has never happened, and it will stay this way.

    LINK

    Do you disagree that Peak Oil is just a theory nowadays?
    Thanks.

    The entire interview is here:

    http://www.euractiv.com/de/energie/b...article-175931

    I would actually tend to agree with his assessments.

    Much of the "peak oil" concept unnecessarily includes hysteronics about malthusian death spirals.

    He makes the valid point that as the price of oil goes up (the intersection between the supply and demand curves), there will always be more hydrocarbons/oil to be had.

    That is true.

    It is also true that the overall return on energy of those new sources will get lower.

    I would never make the contention that oil will completely run out, just that it's economic utility will fall over time, as it gets less an less efficient in term of Return On Invested Energy (ROIE)

    As the man stated in the interview:
    "you can turn anything into oil into if you are willing to pay the financial and environmental price"

    I see a lot of demand destruction for oil as it becomes less and less efficient comparatively. That will be the mechanism that has us shifting our energy usage to other forms over time, as a natural reaction to market prices.

    I do agree that peak oil is a theory, but it is a theory that is backed by some fairly good data and historical patterns.

    You are also correct that we have used technology to unlock new oil fields, and we will continue to do so. This will make the downward slope a lot more of a shallow drop off than the upwards slope of the curve.

    The case I am stating is that, over time, oil will, compared to other energy sources, become more and more expensive.

    I do not try to make the case that we will run out of oil, and Mr. Rühl would agree.

    He does seem to think that demand will be constrained far before supply will. On that, I would tend to disagree, if for no other reason than for the reduced ROIE that we will see over time.

    It is highly probable that we will see the ROIE fall over time at the same time that we will see continued economic growth in Asia, both of which are big demand drivers.

  24. #99
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    "The first country that makes the leap to crossing over will gain a rather substantial compe ive advantage.

    This will make Europe, with its dense cities, and commitment to renewables way more compe ive, relatively to economies that don't. "--RG

    Indeed it is. Europe will face a host of other problems related to an aging population though.



    Again, market economics will determine what is economically viable or not. Wether oil plays out or not, the market, through pricing, will adjust accordingly.

    There's plenty of smart investors out there in the energy market that I'm sure will seize on any opportunity that makes economic sense.
    I agree.

    The thing though about technology is that the first person to get to a technology gets the patent, plus the ability to improve on that.

    The main problem with waiting entirely until there is a glaring need is that investment capital tends to seek short-term returns, and basic research is not the kind of thing that yields that.

    This is a long-term problem that will require long-term solutions.

    We need to be a bit smarter than the next fiscal quarters' results.

  25. #100
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    The thing though about technology is that the first person to get to a technology gets the patent, plus the ability to improve on that.

    The main problem with waiting entirely until there is a glaring need is that investment capital tends to seek short-term returns, and basic research is not the kind of thing that yields that.

    This is a long-term problem that will require long-term solutions.

    We need to be a bit smarter than the next fiscal quarters' results.
    I think we mostly agree. I just trust in the normal economic development, while you want to 'beat the rush', if you will.

    I'm just going to add: Don't underestimate investors. Not everyone is merely looking at the next quarter. It's just that those looking further ahead still don't see a clear-cut picture that dissing oil is the prudent thing to do at this time.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •