Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Jim Rogers Thread (merged)

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Re: Jim Rogers calls most big U.S. banks "bankrupt"

Unread postby idiom » Mon 15 Dec 2008, 02:15:52

Ayn Rand would be pissed.
The world ends without a tragedy,Time is melting into history
The sky is falling, Voices crying out in desperation
Hear them calling, Everybody, save yourself
User avatar
idiom
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 672
Joined: Mon 23 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Jim Rogers calls most big U.S. banks "bankrupt"

Unread postby nobodypanic » Mon 15 Dec 2008, 11:31:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')lan Shrugged: Greenspan, Ayn Rand and Their God That Failed

In a historic moment, former Fed chair Alan Greenspan acknowledged he had been wrong for years to assume that government regulation was bad for markets. Whoops—there goes decades of Ayn Rand down the drain.
by David Corn

In a congressional hearing room on Thursday, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, one of the most influential civil servants of the past century, saw his stock plummet—and his entire career lose its moorings. More important, the ideological battle over economic theory and the role of government in markets—a fight that has played out in the current presidential campaign—took a historic turn.

With members of the House oversight and government reform committee blasting Greenspan for his past decisions that helped pave the way for the current financial crisis, he acknowledged that his libertarian view of markets and the financial world had not worked out so well. "You know," he told the legislators, "that's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well." While Greenspan did defend his various decisions, he admitted that his faith in the ability of free and loosely-regulated markets to produce the best outcomes had been shaken: "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."

In other words, whoops—there goes decades of Ayn Rand down the drain.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/25-6

:lol:
User avatar
nobodypanic
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Mon 02 Jun 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Jim Rogers calls most big U.S. banks "bankrupt"

Unread postby Daphne64 » Mon 15 Dec 2008, 21:22:54

With that in mind I bought some JPMorgan puts. I figure that stock hasn't been pounded yet like most of the other big stocks, and they do have that massive silver short position on COMEX...

We'll see how it turns out!
Daphne64
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: middle of the USA

Re: Jim Rogers calls most big U.S. banks "bankrupt"

Unread postby Daphne64 » Mon 15 Dec 2008, 21:23:25

With that in mind I bought some JPMorgan puts. I figure that stock hasn't been pounded yet like most of the other big stocks, and they do have that massive silver short position on COMEX...

We'll see how it turns out!
Daphne64
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: middle of the USA

Jim Rogers: Sell Sterling. It's finished.

Unread postby mattduke » Wed 21 Jan 2009, 11:27:09

Jim Rogers: Sell Sterling. It's finished.: You mean to tell me paper money loses value?

independent
User avatar
mattduke
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3591
Joined: Fri 28 Oct 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Jim Rogers: Sell Sterling. It's finished.

Unread postby jdmartin » Fri 23 Jan 2009, 11:24:18

I've always wanted to visit England...now might be a good time to go~
After fueling up their cars, Twyman says they bowed their heads and asked God for cheaper gas.There was no immediate answer, but he says other motorists joined in and the service station owner didn't run them off.
User avatar
jdmartin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu 19 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Merry Ol' USA

Jim Rogers: Saudi Arabia lying, can't increase production

Unread postby Sixstrings » Mon 28 Feb 2011, 23:30:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')im Rogers joins Zero Hedge in being highly skeptical about just how credible Saudi's call for a 1MM + boost in its oil supply is: "Saudi Arabia has been lying about the reserves for decades. Saudi Arabia the last two times said they are going to increase production and they couldn't increase production. Don't fall for that. The reason oil is going up is the world is running out of known reserves of oil."
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/jim-rogers-saudi-arabia-lying-about-being-able-increase-its-oil-production

So what's the truth here.. is this another empty promise, or can Saudi Arabia actually increase production (other than just tapping into stored reserves).
Last edited by Ferretlover on Wed 10 Aug 2011, 16:46:20, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merged thread.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Jim Rogers: Saudi Arabia lying, can't increase productio

Unread postby evilgenius » Mon 28 Feb 2011, 23:38:44

Yeah, there's probably going to be a war.
User avatar
evilgenius
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3730
Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Stopped at the Border.

Re: Jim Rogers: Saudi Arabia lying, can't increase productio

Unread postby anador » Mon 28 Feb 2011, 23:49:42

isn't there already a war?

not to mention the ME is like a kicked anthill right now
@#$% highways
User avatar
anador
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Thu 26 Feb 2009, 17:31:18

Re: Jim Rogers: Saudi Arabia lying, can't increase productio

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Mon 28 Feb 2011, 23:59:30

Let me tell you an interesting history of OPEC. In 1986, they established a quota system that based each countries cap in production on the the amount of oil remaining in their reserves.

This created an incentive to report more reserves remaining and a disincentive to report any decline in reserves.

Most every one of the OPEC countries doubled their estimate of reserves and have not been claiming any decline in reserves remaining even though they have been pumping for years. As evidenced by this funky looking chart.

Image

Only So Much Oil
Last edited by Cid_Yama on Tue 01 Mar 2011, 00:03:28, edited 1 time in total.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: Jim Rogers: Saudi Arabia lying, can't increase productio

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Tue 01 Mar 2011, 00:25:56

Everyone has know that they have been lying about their reserves since 1986, but everyone has been willing to go along with the lie, because they want that oil.

Simple as that. Cantarell has now crashed, and the other supergiants are right behind them. And they will continue to report incredible remaining reserves until they crash.

Because of the advanced recovery going on at all of the supergiants, none of them will slow decline, they will all crash like Cantarell.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: Jim Rogers: Saudi Arabia lying, can't increase productio

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Tue 01 Mar 2011, 00:40:42

Canada's jump on the chart after 2000 is the oil sands. Which shows we are even cheating in our reporting, by including unconventional oil.

We don't want to admit it. So we lie even to ourselves.

This is evidenced by the repeated reports of Oil Shale reserves on this website, which isn't even oil but Kerogen. It can be turned into a synthetic oil at great expense and low EROEI, but it isn't oil.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: Jim Rogers: Saudi Arabia lying, can't increase productio

Unread postby Daniel_Plainview » Tue 01 Mar 2011, 00:45:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')im Rogers joins Zero Hedge in being highly skeptical about just how credible Saudi's call for a 1MM + boost in its oil supply is


Is this 1MM+ increase light/sweet crude or heavy/sour crude? I have no doubt that KSA could boost its heavy sour production by 1MM ...
User avatar
Daniel_Plainview
Prognosticator
Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: Tue 06 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: 7035 Hollis ... Near the Observatory ... Just down the way, tucked back in the small woods

Re: Jim Rogers: Saudi Arabia lying, can't increase productio

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Tue 01 Mar 2011, 04:23:00

Last time they raised production it was all heavy with high sulphur content.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: Jim Rogers: Saudi Arabia lying, can't increase productio

Unread postby JohnRM » Fri 04 Mar 2011, 02:13:45

I started noticing that in the early 2000s that mid east petroleum reserves never changed much. I used to use the CIA Fact Book a lot and it was always around 260 billion bbl for Saudi Arabia. I always wondered about that, even before I took an interest in Peak Energy Awareness.
"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." -- Thomas Paine
User avatar
JohnRM
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2011, 01:36:44
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania

Re: Jim Rogers: Saudi Arabia lying, can't increase productio

Unread postby TheDude » Fri 04 Mar 2011, 02:43:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cid_Yama', 'L')et me tell you an interesting history of OPEC. In 1986, they established a quota system that based each countries cap in production on the the amount of oil remaining in their reserves.


No they didn't.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: Jim Rogers: Saudi Arabia lying, can't increase productio

Unread postby Homesteader » Fri 04 Mar 2011, 04:30:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cid_Yama', 'L')et me tell you an interesting history of OPEC. In 1986, they established a quota system that based each countries cap in production on the the amount of oil remaining in their reserves.


No they didn't.


Interesting link to a thread at TOD regarding how the quotas may be determined.

snip:
"Conclusion

Quotas are still the rule in OPEC and haven't changed since January 2009. It is difficult to find out how these ceilings are ascertained.

It is well known now that OPEC increased their so-called proven reserves by 300 Gb from 1986 to 1989 (which Sadad al-Husseini called speculative resources in 2007) because of a fight for quotas in a low price environment. Despite that, quotas are now agreed upon in OPEC meetings without any reference to reserves; the recent October increase of Iraq's reserves followed by Iran's reserves increase indicates that OPEC members are still keen to stay at the same rank. It is not surprising to find that the technical remaining reserves are quite different. In its last estimate of proven reserves (on 6 December 2010), the OGJ did not accept Iran's and Iraq's updated values, waiting for further discussions!"

Link:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7363
"The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences…"
Sir Winston Churchill

Beliefs are what people fall back on when the facts make them uncomfortable.
User avatar
Homesteader
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1856
Joined: Thu 12 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Economic Nomad
Top

Re: Jim Rogers: Saudi Arabia lying, can't increase productio

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Fri 04 Mar 2011, 07:43:24

The OPEC Race For Quotas And Now For Statistical Credibility
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t was in the autumn of 1986, after world crude oil prices collapsed, that the issue of OPEC's distribution of production quotas arose. OPEC's crude oil output then had fallen to 16m b/d and it was very difficult to divide that number among the member-states. With some members demanding a "scientific" method of allocating quotas, OPEC spent the next two years in fruitless discussions. Experts proposed such factors as oil reserves, annual budget needs, production capacity, the country's size by area or population, etc.

As member-ministers agreed oil reserves could be a factor, huge revisions of reserve numbers ensued. Thus, OPEC's proven reserves rose from 530 billion barrels in 1985 to 637 billion in 1986 and to 755 billion in 1988. Some countries increased their reserves by 100% overnight and others went as far up as almost 200%.

That raised doubts about the authenticity of the numbers and OPEC lost credibility, especially since no support documents were required for the process.
Some members - especially those who counted on their sovereignty for resource nationalism - considered reserves a state secret.

OPEC finally dropped the reserves and other "scientific" parametres for quota allocations and considered excess production capacity as a guideline for the setting of production limits, or targets. Soon reserve revisions became less sharp and less frequent.

Writing in Gulf News of Oct. 18, Saadallah al-Fathi, an Iraqi downstream expert now based in Dubai who, in 1986 became head of the Energy Studies Department at the OPEC Secretariat in Vienna, recalled: "It was finally realised that it is what hits the market that matters most and not what lies underground or what the Iraqis would call the ability to load the truck with melons' quota allocation is a political accommodation process among member countries, nothing more and nothing less".

"Therefore", he added, "it is very hard to understand the reasons for sharp reserves' additions announced in the past few years and especially in the past few weeks. Take Canada, for example, where reserves were close to five billion barrels in 2005 but Canada started reporting 30 times as much in what it called tar sands oil, unconventional oil whose production goes up and down with the price of oil.

"This prompted Venezuela to revise its oil reserves up from 80 billion barrels in 2005 to 211 billion in 2009 on account that its unconventional heavy bitumen deposits had become economical to produce due to rising oil prices.

"Will these numbers go down if oil prices collapse? I doubt it".

link
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian
Top

Re: Jim Rogers: Saudi Arabia lying, can't increase productio

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 04 Mar 2011, 11:59:58

just to clear up some misconceptions

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ost every one of the OPEC countries doubled their estimate of reserves and have not been claiming any decline in reserves remaining even though they have been pumping for years. As evidenced by this funky looking chart.


As I pointed out years ago on the Saudi Reserves thread, the bump in reserves happened following discussions amoungst OPEC as to how to standardize the reserve reporting procedure. Although no one knows precisely what was decided it is entirely possible that the definition applied to proven reserves may have gone from an equivalent of what we call proved producing to proved which includes reserves not yet tied in. The movement of reserves from category to category results in much confusion amoungst the press and many on this site who have little understanding of the definitions. It doesn´t mean the oil wasn´t there it just means it was in a different category.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ecause of the advanced recovery going on at all of the supergiants, none of them will slow decline, they will all crash like Cantarell.


That’s ridiculous. Ghawar is as different from Canterall as corn is to beans. The performance of the reservoir isn´t anywhere near the same. As long as the Saudis have sufficient water handling capacity there is no reason to assume they can´t produce up to 90% or greater water cut. As an example at Ain Dur the reservoir simulation suggests ultimate recovery will be around 73% compared to its current 60%. Will it suddenly jump from 30% water cut to 100%, no it will gradually increase over a period of time until they are forced to abandon due to economic reasons (operating costs = revenues).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')anada's jump on the chart after 2000 is the oil sands. Which shows we are even cheating in our reporting, by including unconventional oil.


Why would heavy oil not be included? It is used for many of the same products that lighter oils are used for and is actually the oil of choice for certain industrial products. With the up graders where much of the Alberta oil is being feed through the end product are very similar. The cost to produce is slightly higher so hence the difference between P1 and P3 reserves as well as the contingent resource volume.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his is evidenced by the repeated reports of Oil Shale reserves on this website, which isn't even oil but Kerogen. It can be turned into a synthetic oil at great expense and low EROEI, but it isn't oil.


You need to read a bit more before you spout off. The term oil shale as used most recently in the industry is not referring to mineable kerogen but rather shales/silts that have hydrocarbons entrained either in the volatile liquid phase or gas that is at or near bubble point (eg. Eagleford shale). The product is light oil or condensate and even with the need to apply slick water fracs it is extremely economic. Hence such hydrocarbons should be included as reserves under the SPE/AAPG guidelines.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')s this 1MM+ increase light/sweet crude or heavy/sour crude? I have no doubt that KSA could boost its heavy sour production by 1MM

This was discussed a number of years ago on the Saudi Reserves thread. When Aramco sought to increase their capacity to 12 MMb/d they commissioned a number of projects. The analysis I did at that time demonstrated that of the hydrocarbons in the proposed project the majority were light and sweet. It was only Manifa and Safaniyah projects that would increase the amount of heavy oil and the Saudi´s plan was to actually process most of that in country through their new plant and sell products. Note that Manifa was postponed which means the average is even better quality. So the vast majority of the oil is high quality….it isn´t as premium as Brent (arguably the best out there) but it can be swapped for oil from Angola (higher quality with spare capacity) where necessary.

As to Al-Fathi´s comments:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '&')quot;Therefore", he added, "it is very hard to understand the reasons for sharp reserves' additions announced in the past few years and especially in the past few weeks. Take Canada, for example, where reserves were close to five billion barrels in 2005 but Canada started reporting 30 times as much in what it called tar sands oil, unconventional oil whose production goes up and down with the price of oil.

"This prompted Venezuela to revise its oil reserves up from 80 billion barrels in 2005 to 211 billion in 2009 on account that its unconventional heavy bitumen deposits had become economical to produce due to rising oil prices.

"Will these numbers go down if oil prices collapse? I doubt it".

That statement might hold water for the Venezuela example but not for Canada where the reserve booking rules are extremely strict. Third party audits are required and the auditors and officers of the various companies are held accountable by the regulatory bodies for the reserve statements they make. It used to be that the reserves calculated at year end were based on a price as of December 21 (which created a bit of chaos and wild year on year swings) but the price is now based on the yearly average. Wild fluctuations are often even out by movement of reserves through categories through additional work being completed.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Jim Rogers: Saudi Arabia lying, can't increase productio

Unread postby pana_burda » Fri 04 Mar 2011, 22:39:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cid_Yama', 'T')his created an incentive to report more reserves remaining and a disincentive to report any decline in reserves.

Most every one of the OPEC countries doubled their estimate of reserves and have not been claiming any decline in reserves remaining even though they have been pumping for years. As evidenced by this funky looking chart.

Image

Only So Much Oil



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Everyone has know that they have been lying about their reserves since 1986, but everyone has been willing to go along with the lie, because they want that oil.

Canada's jump on the chart after 2000 is the oil sands. Which shows we are even cheating in our reporting, by including unconventional oil.

We don't want to admit it. So we lie even to ourselves.


Interesting way to describe the use of a natural non-renewable resource as a political/strategical weapon (to which I agree fully with your very vision of it).

And ... to show off, who the biggest and perhaps most irresponsible lier turns out to be, just by seeing the "funky looking chart" you provided us with. :oops:
User avatar
pana_burda
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 507
Joined: Tue 11 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: In freefall speed right down to the claws of the devil
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron