Printable View
Dr. Jerome Corsi Interview on Abiotic Oil and NAZI technology from WW2.... on how to liquefy coal.
The interview starts at about the 12 minute mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z998uKCahQo
Yes this is a conspiracy theory but he does raise some interesting questions like why is Oil found 40,000 feet(7 miles) below the surface if it is composed of dead plant and animal matter? Someone hear should know the answer if there is one.
Not Nazi technology, especially not NAZI technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by slapout9
The tech dates back to 1920's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_Tropsch
and is German technology.
Several plants were running (or are), including in East Germany, South Africa. The PRC gave a huge CTL program up, prolly because of coal supply issues.
I read years ago (~2004 info) that CTL would be commercially useful at 40 $/barrel. Very little has happened in regard to more CTL production during the recent oil price peaks, though.
There is one issue with abiotic oil: Many of the compounds in oil are chiral and you often find only one of the the two possible forms in oil, this clearly points to a biogenic origin. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by slapout9
Reason: The enzymatic proteins in plants (=biological catalysts) are build up from chiral amino acids. Therefore, they can only accelerate the reaction of one of two chiral product, which is enriched.
If the oil has an abiotic origin you would find both chiral forms in a 1:1 ratio.
Yes, I think the NAZI connection was due to the fact that the information was found by the Allies after WW2 during Operation Paper clip. Shell Oil company is supposedly making huge investments in this technology(Fischer-Tropsch Process). They think it is a big long term solution.There is also a conspiracy angle on this to. Shell Oil has a symbol of a sea shell which is supposed to be some kind of connection to Shale Oil:eek: again this was a popular conspiracy back in the 70's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
Thanks for the response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulenspiegel
The Lowy Institute had a recommendation / pointer to this book 'Earth Wars: The Battle for Global Resources' by Geoff Hiscick, published April 2012 and link, without reviews:http://www.amazon.com/Earth-Wars-Bat...mm_hrd_title_0
The Amazon summary (in part):Quote:
The global competition for scarce natural resources that pits the West against the super-hot economies of China and India, plus a clutch of other contenders including Russia, Brazil, and Indonesia, has become one of the biggest issues facing the world today. Whether it is the rare metal lithium found in salt pans in the Andes, gas from the Caspian Sea, oil off the coast of Brazil, coal from Africa's Zambezi River, or uranium from Kazakhstan, China and India are desperate to ensure the security of their future energy supplies. The same goes for food and water, as contamination and over-use take their toll, the need to provide continued access for the next generation and beyond has increased exponentially. In Earth Wars: The Battle for Global Resources, international business journalist Geoff Hiscock explores the problems, potential solutions, and inevitable tensions in this ongoing scramble for finite natural resources.
This week another article appeared in the European Energy Review taking nealry the same line as Robin Mills piece two weeks ago.
Quote:
Investment and sustainability are the real challenges in oil, not availability.
Oil does of course not run out within a few years, CHEAP oil does!Quote:
Originally Posted by Polarbear
Here the author uses a strawman, public deception is only a minor problem when even "experts" ignore some fundamentals.
All the new projects or revitalized old ones work, because the price of crude is high, therefore, they will not decrease the price but in best case slow down its increase.
The only positive developement is the higher production of natural gas in the US and Canada and the savings in the last two years.
Whether the transition from oil to methane is fast enough is for me interesting questions. We are talking about rates: rate of transition vs. increase of crude price
BTW: Some really good contributions to the decline of easily accessible crude is are found on "The Oil Drum": http://www.theoildrum.com/
Here I recommend the latest article on Norway's production, see figur 5 to get a feeling for the issue:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9166#more
Addendum: A few minutes ago a IMF study on this topic was posted on TOD:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9182#more
So says a leading UK ecology advocate, George Monbiot.Quote:
Peak oil hasn't happened, and it's unlikely to happen for a very long time.
Link:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...il-we-we-wrong
Rick,Quote:
The world's most powerful nation is again becoming an oil state, and if the political transformation of its northern neighbour is anything to go by, the results will not be pretty.
I don't follow Canadian politics, what is going on that is not pretty?
Conservatives got elected. Whether that is or isn't pretty depends, like many other things, on your perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbfpo
Where there just happens to be a lot of petroleum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayuhan
Like the Citigroup report which came out in February, Maugeri's report is very optimistic. Both reports express a complacency re. future oil supply which is unjustified. Both celebrate the "end of peak oil" (Maugeri says, "no 'peak-oil' in sight"), primarily because of the recent developments re shale/tight oil in the Bakken.
George Monbiot's article appeared on July 2nd, one week after the release of Maugeri's 86-page report. Given the complexity of the issue (ie. the future of global oil supply) and the uncertainties involved, Monbiot would have done well to take his time, consider the validity of some of Maugeri's assertions, and seek out the observations of knowledgeable, experienced analysts before quickly declaring, "We were wrong on peak oil."
Several of these analysts came forward this month to point out where Maugeri is in error.
Dave Summers (aka "Heading Out") posted his rebuttal the same day as Monbiot's article appeared:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9292
Steve Sorrell at UKERC is certainly one person Monbiot should have consulted before jumping to his conclusion. Sorrell's updated rebuttal was posted at The Oil Drum on July 11:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9292
The responses to both TOD articles are worth examining.
Olivier Rech is also a knowledgeable analyst. The English translation of his observations appeared on July 9:
http://petrole.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/...roleum-expert/
In summary, these are 'tough times' for peak oil advocates: optimistic reports (despite the 'selectivity' of their info) are quickly heralded by mainstream media. Meanwhile, well-reasoned, detailed studies like the German military report on PO (2010, 99 pgs) received no media analysis at all.
Personally, I see little to mitigate my concerns.
Production of conventional oil remains flat, global demand continues to rise, we are increasingly forced toward liquid fuel sources which are more energy intensive/lower EROEI, and alternative energy sources are struggling on multiple fronts.
Furthermore, the focus of PO analysts has shifted during the past few years.
At the risk of over-simplifying/generalizing, I would characterize this shift as moving beyond a relatively narrow focus on oil supply (reserves & reserve reporting, flow rates, EROEI, geopolitics, etc) and more toward economics (the importance of affordable oil to our economy & our food supply chain, the potential reversal of globalization, unsupportable transfer payments, risks to currencies and financial institutions & markets, etc).
Given the inevitability of PO and the scale of the potential dilemma, unfounded encouragements to complacency are not helpful (and more likely a tragic error, as Rech argues).
Which one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick M
Our military has no oil production experts. We've got a civilian agency for minerals stuff that bristles with experts instead.
Its latest report.
Quote:
In accordance with BGR’s updated projection, oil
production could be increased until around 2036. The
growing proportion of NGL and oil from oil sands
and extra heavy oil have no signifi cant influence on
the projected time of peak oil production but does
boost the maximum production level. According to
the projection, this maximum will be around 4.6
billion t annual production. Crude oil will therefore
be the first fuel which will no longer be able to
satisfy rising demand.
What's not pretty?
Yes, Conservatives got elected (in 2006, re-elected with a minority in 08). What is significant is that they were re-elected in 2011 with a majority, which has given PM Harper much greater scope to exercise his agenda.
Harper is widely viewed as controlling, and the perception is that he is rather ruthless in pursuing his vision of a pro-corporate, pro-free trade, lean government, reduced public services, etc.
And yes, we have lots of bitumen (we peaked in conventional oil in 1973) and tight gas (we are post-peak in conventional gas as well).
Harper is all in favour of opening up our west coast to export large volumes of LNG and raw bitumen. The latter idea has sparked disagreement this week between the premiers of Alberta and BC.
But I think what Monbiot is referring to is more the issue of Canada being a pariah at the CC conferences, Harper cutbacks re gov't scientists, our general foot-dragging on CC, and our support for USA doing the same
Hi, Fuchs
The Bundeswehr report was addressed on pg. 13 up-thread.
The link to the English translation was posted on p. 15 (#283 up-thread).
I have a few contacts in Germany, all of whom reported that this study received virtually no media attention: Der Spiegel was first to publicize, but only in its on-line version. If you have other info, please let me know.
One of these German contacts met several of the Bundeswehr analysts one evening and was very impressed with both their knowledge and their sincerity.
Their study is thoughtful, realistic and worthy of much greater attention than it has received, IMHO.
I recognize that one.
That's a speculation on security policy consequences of peak oil and a literature review of peak oil literature without original research on "peak oil yes/no and when?" itself.
It's got the quality of a master's thesis and its conclusions are about as sophisticated as what'd say in a five-minute brainstorming about peak oil consequences for Germany.
My country produces a couple ten thousand reports of this quality every year. I don't see why the major media outlets should take notice.
"I recognize that one."
You recognize it, but did you read it?
It seems that your measure of a credible, newsworthy study on PO is two-fold: "peak oil yes/no and when?"
The Bundeswehr team addressed the first question directly referring to it as inevitable/unavoidable.
I see no reason why they or anyone else should attempt to predict when or why the eventual peak/plateau might occur.
Military analysts bring interesting perspectives on PO, and the Bundeswehr study stands out among the publicly-available military analyses of PO.
It was written by a team of objective analysts, not by some book-peddling doomsayer, nor by Exxon or the API.
Furthermore, it was approved by Bundeswehr top brass without its compelling "tipping point" warnings being watered down. This section drew heavily on the Feasta report, which also has received no media attention (but warrants it).
Look, crude oil is widely recognised as being a non-renewable resource and there is substantial consumption which won't stop on its own.
So there has to be some peak production sometime.
The "peak oil" discussion is about something different; it's about whether said peak is either close or even in the past. It's about whether time has already run out for normal adaption to increasing scarcity.
The Bundeswehr study doesn't have the flesh to make a real statement about this important question. Instead, it's citing other sources and muses about possible consequences of a peak (when it happens) for Germany and specifically German security policy.
The real, official experts in Germany concerning the peak oil discussion are in the BGR.
Thanks for the BGR study: I thought the link was no good but it finally did download (after about a minute). I will examine it carefully.
I still think that you are overly focused on timing: how close it may be, are we already post-peak, will there be time for an orderly transition (to what?), etc.
I'm sure you are correct: when it comes to energy resources, BGR will be your experts. Here in Canada, our government expertise supposedly resides within Natural Resources Canada. But NRCan has never done a study on PO or energy security, nor does it intend to (though that does not stop them from stating, "There is no imminent peak oil challenge").
But PO is not simply a geological/resource issue; the issue of affordable liquid fuels affects every sector of society: transport & supply chains, mineral extraction, agri-food, emergency service budgets, etc. Ripple effects include employment, tax revenues for governments and social programs, which in turn affect things like mortgage defaults, property values, stability of financial institutions, currency valuation, and globalization itself.
Surely the issue is so complex that it requires a multi-disciplinary approach.
The O&G industry has first-hand expertise, but it also has vested interests. Government departments are often too cozy with industry, as we have seen (and both have an interest in focusing on the positive/optimistic). Financiers and economists may be ignorant of certain geological realities. The geopolitical situation changes daily.
So who are the real experts?
My point is that military analysts have a useful perspective, and within that sector the Bundeswehr study is unique. It was done by a team (unlike the various war college theses, which contain the disclaimer that it's only the view of the officer candidate, etc). It's over 100 pages long (often we're lucky to get 100 words on PO, usually in a text box).
The section on Tipping Point goes well beyond the usual observations on geopolitics, fueling the troops, the potential for resource wars, etc. It points out that some of the largest threats from PO will be internal: unemployment, reduced government revenues, food supply difficulties/unaffordability, social unrest (with insufficient government services to contain/curtail disorder), unstable financial institutions and currencies, etc.
Are you aware of any other study (within BGR or anywhere) which addresses the issue of PO in such a comprehensive manner?
The only other ones that come close are the Feasta study and UKERC's excellent 2009 study, but I don't recall the latter addressing the internal financial & social dimensions the way the Bundeswehr team does.
Not in English.
A bit of a digression, but one with some relevance to energy politicas and environmental politics...
I'm familiar with that perspective... most of my Canadian friends are either academics or kayakers, and they uniformly view Harper as being somewhere between Darth Vader and Lord Voldemort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick M
But on the other hand...
Yes, on the other hand he gets elected. So while he is "widely" viewed in a very negative way within a certain demographic segment, his message apparently has some resonance and some traction in other segments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick M
Yes, in some quarters that which is not PC is not pretty. Again, this view is not universal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick M
The point on a political level is that leaders are not accountable to the politically correct climate change squad or to any other issue-based group, and while certain political perspectives may seem anathema within those groups, people in those groups have to recognize that there's a wide wide audience out there that may not share their perspective.
Hi again, Steve: I knew you'd jump in on this one.
You said, "within a certain demographic segment" but I would argue that Harper's unpopularity goes much further: it's not just a segment, but a clear majority.
First, the 'left' is split 3 ways (Liberal, NDP, Bloc Quebecois) whereas the right sensibly amalgamated (Conservative & Reform Party) but collectively had more votes than the Tories.
Second, we often hear of life-long Tories who are dismayed by Harper and his agenda and vow that they will never vote for him again (which remains to be seen).
I presume that by "Not in English" you know of well-conducted analyses of PO in other languages (German?).
If so, please provide the links: I have contacts who are fluent in German, Swedish, Italian, French, etc who have assisted with translation in the past and will help out again if they are asked, esp. if the study is significant.
Their related publications of the last years are here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick M
http://www.bgr.bund.de/DE/Themen/Ene...doel_node.html
http://www.bgr.bund.de/DE/Themen/Ene...ukte_node.html
Fuchs,
I examined both links but see no reference to peak oil.
Could you please direct me to the pages/sections which deal with PO?
The new issue of ADF Journal contains two articles which touch on peak oil, declining US power, etc:
http://www.adfjournal.adc.edu.au/Use...%20Jul_Aug.pdf
The first ("Dangerous Assumptions," pgs. 11- 22) is by Maj. Cameron Leckie, who has written several insightful papers re. PO and its potential effects on his nation, esp. re future military capabilities.
The second ("Seven Sinister Strategic Trends," pgs. 23- 33) is by Lt. Nick Deshpande of the Canadian Forces. It's an abridged version of his article which appeared last fall in Cdn Military Journal.
Both papers contain extensive bibliographies.
Also, I wrote to BGR in Germany on Aug. 1st and asked what research they had done on peak oil but did not receive a reply.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/17/news....html?iid=LeadQuote:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Mexico, one of the largest suppliers of oil to the United States, has a big problem: Its production of crude is falling fast.
In 2008, the country's production peaked at 3.2 million barrels a day, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Last year, it didn't even produce 3 million a day.
The bonanza from North Sea oil has spectacularly declined, almost without the public noticing. In 2011 oil 47.5mt and gas 28.1 kms - approx. halved in ten years. From: https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/pprs/full_production.htm
IIRC the UK is now importing more from Norway and we have restarted large-scale LNG imports.
http://energypolicyinfo.com/2012/08/...reasing-again/
.Quote:
Naturally, this demand growth is coming at a time when the market is facing numerous disruptions, both political and physical. Iran’s output, formerly OPEC’s second largest behind Saudi Arabia, has been hamstrung by international sanctions to deter its nuclear program (although it has been relentlessly seeking to dodge them at every viable opportunity) while field depletion is threatening output in the North Sea and Brazil, and production has been sliding in Mexico and Venezuela. The combination of these factors has led to price spikes in Brent Crude, which reached a three month high of $117 earlier this week.
In response to the disruption of Iranian supply, the New York Times reported this morning that the United States is increasing its dependence on oil from Saudi Arabia, the imports of which have increased by over 20 percent this year. The United States and Saudi Arabia have enjoyed a strategic alliance for decades, due to the Kingdom’s ability to compensate for production shortfalls from other OPEC member states. For the past five months, the United States has imported a daily average of 1.45 million barrels of Saudi crude, compared to 1.15 million for the first five months of 2011. However, while this is far from the first time Saudi Arabian spare capacity has proved an invaluable resource, the geopolitics surrounding this reliance are increasingly troubled, and the alliance is a precarious one
Seems that is will all be temporary once the sanctions issue gets straightened out with Iran. Not sure about the North Sea, but if investment is facilitated the Mexican oil fields may still be productive. The core of the issue is the U.S. default to economic sanctions. Besides being a bullying tactic that generally backfires in ways that are not always apparent at first such as, increased anti-Americanism, collateral damage to the economies of our allies and partners, hurts U.S. businesses, increases control of the government we're targeting by further centralizing power (Iraq), etc., it is frankly getting harder to enforce in the era of a globally interdependent economy where both friends and foes will look for ways to bypass these sanctions. We'll be forced to back down or have sanctions in name only.
Oh yeah?Quote:
In response to the disruption of Iranian supply, the New York Times reported this morning that the United States is increasing its dependence on oil from Saudi Arabia, the imports of which have increased by over 20 percent this year.
http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2012/0...ith-cyber.htmlQuote:
Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia’s national oil company and the largest in the world, has confirmed that is has been hit by a cyber attack that resulted in malware infecting user workstations, but did not affect other parts of its network.
No impact on production, so overall an ineffective attack, but none the less a sign of the times and various ways that activist groups can disrupt states and businesses. An Arab Youth hacking group took credit for this one, but of course it would be a viable tactic for Iran to make our sanctions more painful on those enforcing them.
Sadad al Husseini is a knowledgeable veteran re oil, esp in Saudi Arabia.
He recently wrote a concise (842 words) response to Maugeri's report in PIW, which is behind a pay-wall.
TOD has re-posted it:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9411#more
al Husseini's credibility comes through very nicely in this video (7:22)... his English is perfect. The video which also gives you an opportunity to see what some of the main PO analysts have to say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ccUPutDZMM
He hits two key points around the 6th minute:
- production of oil (ie. conventional petroleum) has been stuck since late 2004
- the increase in prices started back in 2002
Contrary arguments from the investment community against the doom and gloom. Green energy stocks have crashed, while fossil fuels are making a come back, especially in the U.S. due to INCREASED production.
http://www.smartmoney.com/invest/str...od=sm_mag#tabs
Quote:
The Return of Fossil Fuels
Enormous new oil and gas discoveries under American soil are having a game-changing impact on the entire economy. How to play the new energy boom.
Optimism re. US oil supply is founded primarily on shale oil, which in turn is founded primarily on the ND Bakken (and Eagle Ford in Texas).
Rune Likvern is a veteran Norwegian oil & gas analyst who examined recent data on Bakken shale oil wells. Yesterday he posted this graph indicating that the average production for the first 12 months of Bakken wells has been declining:
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/Fig0...oductivity.PNG
Rune's info has sparked an ongoing debate today at The Oil Drum, where a veteran O&G supervisor ("Rockman") said:Quote:
Older Bakken horizontal wells did not have the production potential of newer wells. As you point out newer wells are longer and have more frac stages. Additionally I think it’s safe to assume they have improved the frac quality itself. So a new horizontal well should have a much better production profile than an older well.
Which is why it’s so freaking important for folks to look at Rune’s chart above so closely. It shows the productivity of the Bakken wells in discrete time frames. If I’m reading the chart correctly the new better improved (and more expensive) Bakken horizontal wells are not producing like wells drilled some years ago: they are not as good as the older wells. For example Bakken wells drilling during the summer of 2010 recovered about 110,000 bo during their first 12 months of life. Wells drilled December 2011 produced 90,000 bo their first 12 months. And wells drilled during July 2011 produced closer to 80,000 bo their first 12 months.
So as knowledge of the trend increased and companies drilled longer, more heavily frac’d and much more expensive wells the quality of the production decreased. Above I said the potential of new wells is greater…not the actual production. The simple explanation IMHO is that the better areas of the trend have been drilled and now operators are moving into less productive areas. And even though they are drilling wells that should produce better results than the early wells they are actually producing poorer results.
And this the path that every trend in the history of the oil patch has followed: the better acreage is drilled first. And even as the technology improves, the rocks don’t. We have to spend more money to produce less hydrocarbons. What shocks me a tad is to see how quickly it has shown up in the Bakken. About 30 years ago I was typically drilling 12,000’ wells to test potential conventional NG reservoirs that might cover 1,500 acres. In the last 3 years I‘ve been drilling 16,000’+ wells (that can cost 2X what a 12,000’ well costs) for potential NG reservoirs that cover 120 acres. But that transition happened over a 30 year period. The Bakken transition, if it continues to decline at the current rate, will be the most dramatic transition I’ve seen in my career.
The entire discussion is here:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9474#comments_top
1) To correlate stock values with actual performance and long-term perspective of a company is dangerous :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
2) Investment guy have no problem with creating a hype, making then their money and letting other pay for the damage/losses.
3) Hard data on production tells a different story, esp when production costs are discussed: Production of cheap oil decreases and OTOH domestic consumption of the producers and global demand increases.
4) The models used by economists for cude production and prices were piss poor in the past, the better models were developed after the productions has stalled and are still not what a scientist would call robust models. :-)
5) Increased production in the USA and Canada replaces imports at a very high price level. There is no chance that the prices for crude will go down in the medium term without a recession.
6) Energy required for production: You need a lot of energy ro extract the unconventional stuff, so your decision basically is, do you sell the natural gas or do you use it to get more crude? The picture drawn by many economists like "The USA can sell NG and produce large amounts of shale oil etc." will not work in reality.
Green energy stocks have crashed in Germany because the Chinese state subsidised its green energy (mostly photovoltaic) industry greatly. There are now surplus output capacities and the Chinese are beating us in terms of price/Watt (they focused on this more than on photovoltaic efficiency).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
The green energy sector is experiencing a boom, and it's utterly irrelevant what Wall Street or Deutsche Brse say about it.
http://solarfeeds.com/wp-content/upl...ar-germany.jpg
http://go635254.s3.amazonaws.com/sol...production.png
(I saw a newer graphic; the story continued with exponential growth in 2011.)
The Americans are losing this market race badly and are falling behind (even more so than the Germans), but that doesn't mean that green energy is in trouble globally.
Fuchs,
I'm only aware of this through painful experience, but several Chinese solar company stocks have collapsed also. That doesn't refute what you're stating, and I agree the U.S. currently is competitive and will be positioned badly when they bounce back. I jumped too quickly into solar and wind without doing the normal level of research, so I deserved to get burnt, but green energy is still problematic. I think there are some emerging opportunities in green energy, but I don't think alternative forms of energy will be profitable for awhile. Profitable now are technologies that increase the efficiency of legacy carbon based energy sources.
I wonder how the turnover in the housing sector will affect the energy consumption of especially northern/central European economies. In the last decades houses have been increasingly better insulated with more efficient heating. Even when we discount energy production with solar&geothermal power the replacement of far more inefficient units should have a big impact on the energy consumption.
Maybe there is an interesting paper out there.
Bill, profitability and economic activity (or growth thereof) are different pairs of shoes.
My standard example which I offer to people who expect huge profits from growth market are airlines; huge growth sustained for decades, but many of them including big ones are barely able to avoid bankruptcy, if at all.
Posted by Fuchs
Excellent point, and one I haven't really considered. Obviously I need to do more studying in this field.Quote:
My standard example which I offer to people who expect huge profits from growth market are airlines; huge growth sustained for decades, but many of them including big ones are barely able to avoid bankruptcy, if at all.
This is not meant as a guide to make money or other economic advice, but if I was looking for profitable businesses or sectors, I'd -among other things- look at their relative position in the chain of added value.
One example that shows the opposite of profitability, a business model that was good enough to survive but not good enough to pay more than bills:
I once calculated a business plan for a company that was modelled after another company. The other, existing, company had agreed to provide me internal data. Their reasoning was that the market needed more marketeers to widen demand and needed more companies in business to assure customers of security of supply. an additional competitor was more of a gift than a problem in this sector.
So I calculated and calculated and the result was no substantial profit under realistic assumptions. That turned out to be correct for the existing company.
Here's why:
The companies of that sector processed a single raw material. Their suppliers (farmers) were able to choose freely whether they want to supply this raw material or instead grow something else. The customers for the processed stuff on the other hand were free to choose freely between it and multiple synthetic substitutes.
These processing businesses were in a sandwich; zero market power against suppliers and zero market power against customers. Their only hope of profit laid in their skill at misleading their business partners about how much was left to squeeze out of themselves.
The opposite - a company with superior relative market power against suppliers AND customers - is almost inevitably a gold mine.
Many alternative energy stocks were run up to absurd speculative levels during the oil price surge in 2007-2008. In most cases the "values" of these shares were totally disconnected from any fundamentals and were not sustainable. What followed was less a "collapse" than a return to realistic valuations.
There's certainly a future in alternative/renewable energy, but many of the companies in the field have a minimal track record and it's still way too early to determine what direction that future will take and which companies will be the main beneficiaries. Unless you have some serious technical expertise it's a sector to be cautious with: lots of hype flying around and you need to be able to sort the hype from the reality.
Chinese stocks... don't get me started. There may be some good companies there, but given the standard of reporting it will be difficult to find them.
Dayuhan,
I generally stay away from the Tulip mania stocks and the ones I bought had moderate PE ratings (25 or less, which is low for a high tech company). Their value was reduced significantly due to the proliferation of competitors and the rising cost of raw materials. To be competitive they had to sell at lower prices (supply and demand), and combined with the rising costs of basic materials that means less profit, or maybe even a loss so they can keep the doors open. Add to that the global financial downturn which equates to fewer businesses and individuals buying solar it isn't hard to see what the drove the prices down. It will eventually sort itself out and the winners may turn out to be big winners in the long run.
As for China they have a couple of superb companies, but not more than a couple:D, but don't underestimate their ability to steal great ideas and technologies from the U.S. and Europe and market them at a cheaper price!
Problem with trying to assess things like P/E ratios on Chinese stocks, especially with smaller companies, is that you have no idea whether the reported figures have any basis in reality. The accounting can be sloppy at best and fraudulent at worst. It's a serious minefield and one worth staying well away from unless you're willing to do a whole lot of digging into situations where accurate information may be very difficult to find.
Over the past few years we've had several studies & articles posted here re. Saudi export decline.
This article from yesterday's Gulf News reviews some of those previous studies and offers a balanced, reasonable view of what may lie ahead:
http://gulfnews.com/business/opinion...abia-1.1082656
The simple solution for Saudi Arabia and Asianand African countries with a high percentage of their electricity produced with oil and used during daytime for running ACs:
PV is cheap in these countries and makes economically sens with crude at 65 USD. At the moment Saudi Arabia losses 30 USD per barrel they burn.
This doesn't seem to fit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulenspiegel
You seem to forget to include opportunity costs into how much they lose.
Without having the numbers it is difficult to make an educated guess, but I think one can say that the internal oil prices do not cause the forces of the market to create a lot of photovoltaics, even if the conditions for them might be close to ideal.
will provide some data laterQuote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs