TheEEStory.com

Carlo wrote:

Um. Is the Arctic melting - or is it not? I find it hard to believe that an ice structure that has existed for 20 million years should suddenly decide to melt from natural causes. Not when, co-incidentally, the level of CO2 has gone through a recent and sudden climb in conjunction with the burning of coal in earnest. If that's coincidence - it's like pulling ticket 66666 from the barrel twice in a row. If we are confusing cause and effect - it's still like pulling it once.

Global temperatures go up and down in a cycle that is around five or six centuries long. The fact a century or two of industrialisation should coincide with a century or two of warming is like flipping a coin and it comes up heads - no big deal.

Freddy wrote:

The fact a century or two of industrialisation should coincide with a century or two of warming is like flipping a coin and it comes up heads - no big deal.

And, of course, if the coin comes up tails, the collectivists will just say that industrialisation is causing a new ice age.
Which is what they were doing in the 1970s, when the world seemed to have been cooling for a couple of decades.

Right. It's a psychological thing that people believe the temperatures they grew up experiencing are "normal". This makes it easy for alarmists to convince people that any cooling or warming trend is "unusual" and that therefore there is something "wrong" with the Earth's climate.

The debate we *should* be having is on how to deal with the reality of ongoing climate change-- either warmer or cooler-- not trying to promote some mad scheme for stopping global warming, which we can't do merely by curbing pollution.

That's not to say that we shouldn't curb pollution. The benefit for our health and conservation of the environment should be reward enuff for that. I don't need to believe in anthropic global warming to think we should fight pollution.

Lensman wrote:

That's not to say that we shouldn't curb pollution. The benefit for our health and conservation of the environment should be reward enuff for that. I don't need to believe in anthropic global warming to think we should fight pollution.

Exactly. This is the best way to bring it to the AGW non-believers.

If the AGW crowd touted energy independence and pollution curbing, I think they would have a much better chance of success, and would have the greenhouse gas emission problems solved at the same time.

Now if this solves the global warming problem remains to be seen.

Lensman wrote:

I don't need to believe in anthropic global warming to think we should fight pollution.

Nor I, but carbon dioxide is NOT pollution.

This is a very good (close pediction)... see my links to the S&P P/E ratios...

energy investor wrote:

Just to add to the fun, I have sent a prediction to my investment group today, suggesting they beware a further collapse in world economies around October. The Dow to rise to 10,000 and then drop to below 7,000.....

Historic Ratios
www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/xls/index/sp500pe_ratio.xls
STANDARD & POOR'S INDEX SERVICES
S&P 500 Historical As Reported P/E Ratio
P/Es are based on trailing 12-month earnings
There is a quarter lag in posting due to reporting

QUARTER 12 MO P/E
12/31/2008 60.70
09/30/2008 25.38
06/30/2008 24.92
03/31/2008 21.90
12/31/2007 22.19
09/30/2007 19.42
06/30/2007 17.70
03/31/2007 17.21
12/31/2006 17.40
09/30/2006 17.00
06/30/2006 17.05
03/31/2006 17.82

August 31st 2009 s&p500 P/E ratio (near the bottom of the page)
http://www2.standardandpoors.com/portal/site/sp/en/us/page.topic/indices_500/2,3,2,2,0,0,0,0,0,1,11,0,0,0,0,0.html

S&P 500 Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) Sectors
As of August 31, 2009
Number of Cos. % of Market Capitalization
Consumer Discretionary 80 9.1 %
Consumer Staples 41 11.5 %
Energy 40 11.7 %
Financials 79 15.4 %
Health Care 53 13.5 %
Industrials* 58 10.0 %
Information Technology 76 18.5%
Materials 29 3.4 %
Telecommunication Services 9 3.2 %
Utilities 35 3.8 %
Industrials (Composite)** 376 78.7 %

*S&P 500 Industrials Sector is part of the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS).
**S&P 500 Industrials Composite is a continuation of the Industrials that have been published by Standard & Poor's for over 40 years, and is provided in recognition of the fact that it is used by analysts and has a long history. It is not the same as the GICS Industrials Sector.

S&P 500 Exchange Representation
As of August 31, 2009
Number of Cos. % of Market Capitalization
NYSE 410 81.0 %
NASDAQ 90 19.0 %
AMEX 0 0.0 %

S&P 500 Statistics
As of August 31, 2009
 
Total Market Value ($ Billion) 8,981
Mean Market Value ($ Million) 17,961
Median Market Value ($ Million) 7,494
Weighted Ave. Market Value ($ Million) 72,830
Largest Cos. Market Value ($ Million) 337,432
Smallest Cos. Market Value ($ Million) 700
Median Share Price ($) 31.200
P/E Ratio* 129.19
Indicated Dividend Yield (%) 2.10

NM - Not Meaningful
*Based on As Reported Earnings.
Market Coverage
At month-end, the S&P 500 Index represented approximately 77% and the S&P MidCap 400 represented 7% and the S&P SmallCap 600 represented 3% of the market value of S&P's internal database of over 6,179 equities. Combined, the S&P Equity Indices represented 87%.

Last edited Fri, 04 Sep 2009, 2:14pm by dvelasco68

energy investor wrote:

Just to add to the fun, I have sent a prediction to my investment group today, suggesting they beware a further collapse in world economies around October. The Dow to rise to 10,000 and then drop to below 7,000. Although convinced on the probable impact of peak oil myself, I expect WTI oil prices for light sweet crude to continue to USD75/bbl and then plunge over Northern winter to the high USD50's. I think the launch of the EESU will have an effect but it will likely be subsumed into the large summer/winter variations.

I expect peak oil to be on everyone's lips by summer 2011.

If we don't have large scale implementation of EVs and PHEVs by 2012, then the summer of 2012 will be a doozey for oil prices.

This is the whole quotation from 5th August. Isn't it amazing what one month can bring. We have already had oil knocking close on 75 and now dropping back and yet the Dow is faltering off close to 9,600.

Just goes to show that only idiots like me can make such predictions - granted there is time left to run :-)

Petrochina has spent 3.4 billion buying 60% of the canadian oilsand rights fairly reciently. I find that a sign of something. China year over year double didgit growth is not from short term thinking. Maybe I am missing something but it looks like china is thinking about peak oil.

sorry C$1.9 billion for 60%.

Lensman wrote:

The debate we *should* be having is on how to deal with the reality of ongoing climate change-- either warmer or cooler-- not trying to promote some mad scheme for stopping global warming, which we can't do merely by curbing pollution.

Lets see - its a mad scheme because thousands of scientists support it and Palin & Rush are against it ?

The only reason conservatives don't want to acknowledge AGW is that it means they have to support govt regulations.

Evnow,

Anthropogenic influence is proven.
Anthropogenic causation remains an unproven theory, yet plausible to some degree and implausible to another degree.

The problem is that Copenhagen will not achieve anything, with the African nations set to torpedo the talks.

Meantime ETS will only benefit the speculators rather than introduce viable solutions.

One volcanic eruption can frustrate all man's efforts.

James Lovelock's is the only sensible voice if climate change is irreversible...In 2100 he sees a planet with only 500 million humans :-(

I like his style :-)

But the only sensible course is to tighten emission controls and reduce pollution - but not get stupid like Greenpeace and other paid activists.

There is no problem, only masshysteria, with peak oil. Liquid fuels can be produced from Coal at $45/barrel. (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba656). World assets of coal lasts for 400 years. US assets for at least 100 years.

Did anyone read anything into the recent BP announcement
(http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09... regarding a major 4-6 billion barrel find in the Gulf? with new deep-drilling methods?

Will we underestimate the desire of the carbon companies
to keep their beast (the ICE) from going extinct?

Hey Energy Investor where do you live? LATOC? PO.COM? TOD?

I might know 'Freddy' too.....

P.S. A believer since '04. and a believer in AGW since before that!

Drew

drew wrote:

Hey Energy Investor where do you live? LATOC? PO.COM? TOD?

I might know 'Freddy' too.....

P.S. A believer since '04. and a believer in AGW since before that!

Drew

LOL, seems these days I live in all - perhaps in the cosmos :-)

Like you a believer in PO since 04 - not hard when that was the year that EIA and IEA had been falsifying projections for five years to keep the myth of everlasting oil alive :-)

I am not a believer in AGW - nor a "denier", simply because I have seen the damage done by radical greenies funded by my taxes (the "Atlas Shrugged" syndrome) and am therefore suspicious. But I have met and discussed the subject at length with our country's IPCC team leaders and arranged for them to talk on CC at our Rotary Club since prior to the critical 4th IPCC report.

So on AGW I remain to be convinced. I am no longer a virgin, but happy to be seduced by logical extrapolation of evidence as it comes to hand :-)

bEElzebub wrote:

There is no problem, only masshysteria, with peak oil. Liquid fuels can be produced from Coal at $45/barrel. (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba656). World assets of coal lasts for 400 years. US assets for at least 100 years.

evnow wrote:

Lets see - its a mad scheme [for stopping global warming] because thousands of scientists support it and Palin & Rush are against it ?

No, it's a mad scheme because even if we cripple our economies by cutting carbon emissions by half, sending the world economy into a depression worse than the Great Depression, and even if we use the global warming alarmists' own numbers, and their own theory regarding global warming being primarily anthropic, we can only reduce global warming over the next 50 years by 10%.

This is why I say the debate should be on how to deal with the reality of climate change-- and signs are that may soon be a cooling trend rather than a warming trend.

I read 3BB somewhere else... but at 19.5MM (US usage) barrels per day that's only a 154 day supply.... or 308 @ 6BB barrels (less than a year)

geeko wrote:

Did anyone read anything into the recent BP announcement
(http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09... regarding a major 4-6 billion barrel find in the Gulf? with new deep-drilling methods?

Will we underestimate the desire of the carbon companies
to keep their beast (the ICE) from going extinct?

Lensman wrote:

...we can only reduce global warming over the next 50 years by 10%.

This is why I say the debate should be on how to deal with the reality of climate change-- and signs are that may soon be a cooling trend rather than a warming trend.

X2

energy investor wrote:

Just to add to the fun, I have sent a prediction to my investment group today, suggesting they beware a further collapse in world economies around October. The Dow to rise to 10,000 and then drop to below 7,000. Although convinced on the probable impact of peak oil myself, I expect WTI oil prices for light sweet crude to continue to USD75/bbl and then plunge over Northern winter to the high USD50's. I think the launch of the EESU will have an effect but it will likely be subsumed into the large summer/winter variations.

I expect peak oil to be on everyone's lips by summer 2011.

If we don't have large scale implementation of EVs and PHEVs by 2012, then the summer of 2012 will be a doozey for oil prices.

energyinvestor: are you purely investing in energy and in which ones? or are you also in other things like commodities?

Looks like we may not need the EESU after all. I still hope to retire on Zenn though.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/09...

Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas, Swedish Researchers Find
ScienceDaily (Sep. 12, 2009) — Researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm have managed to prove that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated. The findings are revolutionary since this means, on the one hand, that it will be much easier to find these sources of energy and, on the other hand, that they can be found all over the globe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also:
Plants & Animals
Nature
Biology
Matter & Energy
Petroleum
Fossil Fuels
Earth & Climate
Energy and the Environment
Environmental Issues
Fossils & Ruins
Evolution
Fossils
Reference
Saturated fat
Hydrocarbon
Fossil fuel
Exxon Valdez
“Using our research we can even say where oil could be found in Sweden,” says Vladimir Kutcherov, a professor at the Division of Energy Technology at KTH.

Together with two research colleagues, Vladimir Kutcherov has simulated the process involving pressure and heat that occurs naturally in the inner layers of the earth, the process that generates hydrocarbon, the primary component in oil and natural gas.

According to Vladimir Kutcherov, the findings are a clear indication that the oil supply is not about to end, which researchers and experts in the field have long feared.

He adds that there is no way that fossil oil, with the help of gravity or other forces, could have seeped down to a depth of 10.5 kilometers in the state of Texas, for example, which is rich in oil deposits. As Vladimir Kutcherov sees it, this is further proof, alongside his own research findings, of the genesis of these energy sources – that they can be created in other ways than via fossils. This has long been a matter of lively discussion among scientists.

“There is no doubt that our research proves that crude oil and natural gas are generated without the involvement of fossils. All types of bedrock can serve as reservoirs of oil,” says Vladimir Kutcherov, who adds that this is true of land areas that have not yet been prospected for these energy sources.

But the discovery has more benefits. The degree of accuracy in finding oil is enhanced dramatically – from 20 to 70 percent. Since drilling for oil and natural gas is a very expensive process, the cost picture will be radically altered for petroleum companies, and in the end probably for consumers as well.

“The savings will be in the many billions,” says Vladimir Kutcherov.

To identify where it is worthwhile to drill for natural gas and oil, Vladimir Kutcherov has used his research to arrive at a new method. It involves dividing the globe into a finely meshed grid. The grid corresponds to fissures, so-called ‘migration channels,’ through underlying layers under the surface of the earth. Wherever these fissures meet, it is suitable to drill.

According to Vladimir Kutcherov, these research findings are extremely important, not least as 61 percent of the world’s energy consumption derives from crude oil and natural gas.

The next step in this research work will involve more experiments, but above all refining the method will make it easier to find places where it is suitable to drill for oil and natural gas.

Vladimir Kutcherov, Anton Kolesnikov, and Alexander Goncharov’s research work was recently published in the scientific journal Nature Geoscience.

Nino45,

Canada is the place to invest in oil - either in the oil sands or energy income trusts. The former are out of fashion because they need USD60/bbl to make a buck. But they are also maligned by idots so there will be buying opportunities there soon.

The energy investment trusts are low cost producers who can usually get oil or gas from 90% of the new wells they drill.

Australia is the only place to invest in uranium miners. But you need to do your homework because there are about 100 targets of which only 15 or so are worth investing in.

We have investments in other energy companies but not so systematic.

In the case of oil, there is the compelling case of peak oil.

In uranium there is a major supply/demand imbalance that is currently filled by HEU from the military. The Russian divestment under SALT is due to end in 2013.

Also with uranium the IAEA predict that by 2030 the amount of power being generated globally from nuclear plants will increase by 40%. Driven largely by India and China but with many countries diving in.

So fundamentals for oil and uranium tend to be OK.

Heman wrote:

Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas, Swedish Researchers Find

This is an old theory - with very little support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleu...

We can't keep burning oil much longer. We need it to make eesu's!(PET plastic) Your monitor, your clothes, your chair and couch, fertilizer for the food you are eating, etc. How many things in your house are made of petroleum products? We need oil and soon it will be too precious just to burn.

energy investor wrote:

Nino45,

Canada is the place to invest in oil - either in the oil sands or energy income trusts. The former are out of fashion because they need USD60/bbl to make a buck. But they are also maligned by idots so there will be buying opportunities there soon.

The energy investment trusts are low cost producers who can usually get oil or gas from 90% of the new wells they drill.

Australia is the only place to invest in uranium miners. But you need to do your homework because there are about 100 targets of which only 15 or so are worth investing in.

We have investments in other energy companies but not so systematic.

In the case of oil, there is the compelling case of peak oil.

In uranium there is a major supply/demand imbalance that is currently filled by HEU from the military. The Russian divestment under SALT is due to end in 2013.

Also with uranium the IAEA predict that by 2030 the amount of power being generated globally from nuclear plants will increase by 40%. Driven largely by India and China but with many countries diving in.

So fundamentals for oil and uranium tend to be OK.

What about oil majors like Exxon Mobile? XOM says it will be able to increase production by 2%/year for the next five years.

Invest_manager wrote:

What about oil majors like Exxon Mobile? XOM says it will be able to increase production by 2%/year for the next five years.

You will have to take what Exxon or Saudi Oil Minister say with a sack of salt. They have too many things riding on perception of their reserves.

Nemo77 wrote:

We can't keep burning oil much longer. We need it to make eesu's!(PET plastic) Your monitor, your clothes, your chair and couch, fertilizer for the food you are eating, etc. How many things in your house are made of petroleum products? We need oil and soon it will be too precious just to burn.

There is a company making plastics from plants grown on a farm.

Link here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idU...

Heman wrote:

...He adds that there is no way that fossil oil, with the help of gravity or other forces, could have seeped down to a depth of 10.5 kilometers in the state of Texas...

that's where i stopped paying attention. this guy seems to think that the surface of the earth millions of years ago is where it today and that oil needed to seep down through the earth by gravity to get to where it is.

I'm not sure what to believe, but I don't think I'll ever be convinced about Peak Oil until there's some kind of shortage at the pump, that's when we know that they can't produce (in the discovery sense) the amount of oil that's being demanded.

That might be too late, but I won't be sucked in by prospecting stock thieves, and I don't want to be one either.