I saw an interesting presentation on C-span yesterday by an analyst
from Deutsche Bank. He made the following points.
1. Average prediction from multiple sources of oil prices: $60 for
2006, $40-50 after. Consensus is a 10% chance of future oil at $20,
also a 10% chance of $100.
2. The critical problem is lack of refining capacity. Unless the
price of refined fuel makes it worthwhile for companies to endure the
hassles of building new refining capacity, the price of fuel will not
decline.
3. A worldwide recession would help in reducing demand and price
(cheery thought).

Paul kgyy wrote:

> I saw an interesting presentation on C-span yesterday by an analyst
> from Deutsche Bank. He made the following points.
> 1. Average prediction from multiple sources of oil prices: $60 for
> 2006, $40-50 after. Consensus is a 10% chance of future oil at $20,
> also a 10% chance of $100.
> 2. The critical problem is lack of refining capacity. Unless the
> price of refined fuel makes it worthwhile for companies to endure the
> hassles of building new refining capacity, the price of fuel will not
> decline.
> 3. A worldwide recession would help in reducing demand and price
> (cheery thought).
>

The FBO at my home airport ran out of fuel yesterday because he couldn't
afford to buy a full load earlier in the week. It was a beautiful
Sunday too. New load expected today.

--
"You can support the troops but not the president"
--Representative Tom Delay (R-TX), during the Kosovo war.

Consensus is a 10% chance of future oil at $20,
also a 10% chance of $100.
*************************************************

The chance of $20 oil is zero...
The chance of $100 oil is greater than 10%
The consensus is wrong...
Listening to experts is worthless...
If experts were truly 'experts' then every stock broker would be a
billionaire... Is your stock broker a billionaire?

denny

"Denny" > wrote:

> If experts were truly 'experts' then every stock broker would be a
> billionaire... Is your stock broker a billionaire?

Only if he received enough commission fees from you to become independently
wealthy off them... :-)

For details, see http://efficientfrontier.com/ef/996/broker.htm


Greetings,
Markus

Paul kgyy wrote:

> 1. Average prediction from multiple sources of oil prices: $60 for
> 2006, $40-50 after. Consensus is a 10% chance of future oil at $20,
> also a 10% chance of $100.

Really? According to National Geographics, the consensus is that we will never
see $50 oil again.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:w6Z4f.7024$iI.6500@trndny06...
> Paul kgyy wrote:
>
>> 1. Average prediction from multiple sources of oil prices: $60 for
>> 2006, $40-50 after. Consensus is a 10% chance of future oil at $20,
>> also a 10% chance of $100.
>
> Really? According to National Geographics, the consensus is that we will
> never see $50 oil again.
>

Their expertise is topless women in Africa.

"Denny" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Consensus is a 10% chance of future oil at $20,
> also a 10% chance of $100.
> *************************************************
>
> The chance of $20 oil is zero...
> The chance of $100 oil is greater than 10%
> The consensus is wrong...
> Listening to experts is worthless...
> If experts were truly 'experts' then every stock broker would be a
> billionaire... Is your stock broker a billionaire?
>
OPEC is realizing that if they push the price too high, they'll "screw the
pooch".

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
> OPEC is realizing that if they push the price too high, they'll "screw
> the pooch".


OPEC is realizing that China is a sweet crude addict ... and will pay any
price.

US oil consumption as the basis for OPEC policy is so 1985.


Montblack

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Matt Barrow" wrote)
>> OPEC is realizing that if they push the price too high, they'll "screw
>> the pooch".
>
>
> OPEC is realizing that China is a sweet crude addict ... and will pay any
> price.

And they'll wind up with China as their only customer. China has been
building up it's rserves and it's said they are running out of storage
capacity.

Imagine; OPEC pushes prices to $90-100 and then lose the rest of the world
to US and Canadian shale and tar sands producers.

>
> US oil consumption as the basis for OPEC policy is so 1985.

Didn't say "US only", did I? (My memory fails every once in a while).

Matt Barrow wrote:

> Their expertise is topless women in Africa.

Their expertise is in interviewing people knowledgeable about the subject
matter. Same as any other reputable publication.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:6HZ4f.25671$p_.24514@trndny05...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> Their expertise is topless women in Africa.
>
> Their expertise is in interviewing people knowledgeable about the subject
> matter. Same as any other reputable publication.
Yes...the topic is topless women...

Matt Barrow wrote:

> Yes...the topic is topless women...

Not when the title of the article indicates it's about oil.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:IZ75f.11326$f02.627@trndny02...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> Yes...the topic is topless women...
>
> Not when the title of the article indicates it's about oil.
>
>

Oiled up topless women. :)

> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:IZ75f.11326$f02.627@trndny02...
> > Matt Barrow wrote:
> >
> >> Yes...the topic is topless women...
> >
> > Not when the title of the article indicates it's about oil.
> >
> >
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:6O85f.42668$b65.14228@okepread01...
>
> Oiled up topless women. :)
>
>

Thank you. Made my day.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:IZ75f.11326$f02.627@trndny02...
>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yes...the topic is topless women...
>>
>>Not when the title of the article indicates it's about oil.
>>
>>
>
>
> Oiled up topless women. :)
>
>
Darn it! I was going to say that.