redbaron

Comment Stream » BPT

Comment Stream
Filter comments by:
Highest rated Latest comments
Or filter by symbol:
  • $125 Oil Not Sustainable for the Time Being
    DaveInHackensack, Projected increases in production, don't take into account the decreases in production that is occuring from Mexico and other producers.

    Oil inventories just released this morning show another 4.6 million bbl drop here in the US, and is the 4th week in a row for a larger drop than what 'analysts' expected. With all the inventory decline, where is all of this 'Demand Destruction' that the 'analysts' (i.e., CNBC, etc), continually project? In addition, refineries continue to run at less than expected rates, with todays report showing a 1.1 percent decline in operating rates, while 'analysts' expected an increase. I know that all of this is confusing, and constantly changing, but I continue to think that the oil related stocks have further to run, and that they are priced at 'oil $80-90', rather than the current price of $135. At some point, they will begin to catch up with the price of oil and natural gas, one would think. Then again, I have been wrong before.
    Jun 11 11:08 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • $125 Oil Not Sustainable for the Time Being
    Oil this morning is up again, and those that believe that our markets are honest and transparent should start to believe that oil and oil related companies, continue to be a good investment.

    All the political and related hype is garbage, and does not belong here on an investment board. The question should be about where oil is going, and whether the companies mentioned are doing well. Since the author's article was published, giving his opinion that '$125 oil is not sustainable' (yes, that is what he says in the title of the article, please read it again just to confirm)..........the price of crude has gone up another $13. One can argue that this should not be happening........but one cannot deny that it is! So far, the author, and those that take his side of the arguement, are on the wrong side of this investment, and those that invested using his thesis have lost money.
    Jun 10 10:25 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • $125 Oil Not Sustainable for the Time Being
    HackensackDave........... Destruction............Yes, in the US, but not Globally. We Americans see only what is in front of us, and forget completely what is going on in the rest of the world. Demand in the Middle East alone is going up faster than what we are eliminating here in the US, and that doesn't factor in China, Indiana and the other emerging countries.
    Jun 09 08:54 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • $125 Oil Not Sustainable for the Time Being
    No where in your piece, do you mention increased Global Oil Consumption, or increased Global Oil Demand. Your premise seems to be that at some point there will be a top in oil price, and I suppose if we all live long enough, that will be true. When, is the question, and your suggestion that now is the top, due to the factors mentioned, has been completely shot down. If it in fact, occurs any time soon, it will not be because of anything you have mentioned in the article. What has Chryslers offer to buyers to do with anything?

    SF94127, I am thinking that you mean to quote T. Boone as saying Demand is 86 mbpd, and Supply is 85. I would never argue with him........he knows more about this subject than all of the rest of these writers combined, and he is smart enough to not tip his hand.

    Hopefully, future articles here will be a little more researched, or reasoned that this article (for lack of a more acceptable term). I agree with Georealist..........Do... anybody preview this stuff before it is posted? Surely someone on the bear side can do better than this. And if not, oil/gas is surely going higher, as there seems to be no logical reason for it act differently.
    Jun 08 15:57 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • $125 Oil Not Sustainable for the Time Being
    The oil analyst I follow, i.e., Kurt Wulf, at mcdep.com, projects that some of the oil/gas income trusts you mention here, have a very long life that numbers into several decades in the future. For instance, on Canadian Oil Sands Trusts he projects 70 years of income without a substantial decline in production. PWE also has a very long life projection, as does another, HGT (Hugotan Royalty Trust). So your suggestion that the yield will drop as the production declines, doesn't fit Mr. Wulff's models.

    As a result, you actually make a very good case for investing in these trusts, since your basic premise that production will decline, may well be wrong.

    In times like these, one must decide which 'expert' to listen to. Kurt Wulff has been 'spot-on right' about oil prices and further, his selections for income have also been spot-on. I am going to follow his advice, and not someone who admits to having no background or knowledge on the subject.

    I should also point out that there well could be another way for the yield to decline on the energy income trusts, both the ones you mention above, and the ones you don't mention..........and that would be for the stock price of the trust(s) to go up, and bring the yield more into line with quoted interest rates. I think that this is the more likely route, and makes these trusts even more attractive as an investment.

    IMHO
    Jun 08 08:58 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article

redbaron's Comments Stream Stats

  • 174 Comments, 46 , 24
  • Total Comment Stream rating - = 22