by BigTex » Wed 13 Aug 2008, 09:01:08
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'W')e'll no doubt ratchet higher in this 'super bull market' on the back of 'the Asia growth story' especially if some large consuming nations continue to subsidize energy imports that does nothing to inform energy users to cutback and otherwise ration demand. However, as BT said, we should expect higher volatility in both directions.
It would actually be healthier in the long-run to return to a $80 to $100 range to give food and fuel prices a chance to settle, inflation to come down and some more supply come onto the market. Then a gradual increase in price from $80-100 to $150-200 might be more managable for everyone involved. So long as they do not expect a return to low energy and commodity prices again.
Mind you what I would prefer and what might happen are often two different realities. If nations continue their growth at any cost policies of the past 6-7 years then we might resume the uptrend in energy and commodities without any meaningful pause. That could lead to a more severe crash later on.
I hope I'm not missing something here, but it seems to me that the oil services sector is going to be incredibly profitable in coming years whether oil is at $80, $100, $150 or $200. At the lower prices, there will be more economic activity, and thus more drilling activity, and at higher prices there may be less economic activity, but as we have seen in the recent runup, many people believe that more drilling is the proper response to high prices, so this will be good for the oil services sector too.
Oil services profits seem safe in either scenario (higher prices or lower prices).
What is the counterargument to this approach?
I am especially interested right now because I think that the oil services sector is priced very attractively.