Mr._johngalt
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2002
- Messages
- 4,801
HaHa said:
My short term movements have been good, but then I eat a lot of bran.
JG
Peak Oil
- Thread starter Marshac
- Start date
My short term movements have been good, but then I eat a lot of bran.
JG
Brewer, you might want to find a neighborhood PV system owner to tell you what their actual power generation is. Most inverters carry RAM & software to track their performance and you may find that a 2 Kw system generates less than the math predicts. Especially if that math is coming from a vendor or installer.brewer12345 said:
Hawaii has one of the nation's highest rates of sunny days and we live in an area of Oahu that has some of the island's highest insolation (22 degrees latitude). Yet our 1.1 Kw system had several days in March that were less than 3 KWhr, and we don't have to shovel snow off our array. This month, at the height of Hawaii summer, we have mostly 5 KWhr days with a number of 4s. We have yet to break 6. Even if our array keeps chugging all winter at 140 KWhr/month, as it produced in June, that's only 1680 KWhr/year. But you're expecting 95% of that optimistic performance in an area of the country that's considerably farther north-- and I suspect it's also rainier & cloudier in New Jersey.
But I nitpick. Even if you barely clear 1500 KWhr a year, your 2 KW system retails at only about 75% of a comparable Oahu system-- but your rebates are far higher. You're paying 25% of the net cost that Oahu buyers pay ($10K/KW) and your electricity is still 65% of our costs. So your cash-on-cash yield could still easily beat 8%-- and if generation costs keep rising then your payback could be under a decade.
You know you'd buy a cheap stock with an 8% yield if you could hold onto it for the dividend. So if you're planning to stay in that house for a while then I'd jump in with both feet.
If New Jersey will buy power from you (or if you use enough of it) then you might want more than 2 KW. After you get a great deal on the first 2 KW, buy cheap/used panels to boost total power to match your inverter's capacity.
I think it's caused by under-exploration and insufficient pumping!TromboneAl said:
Many oil reserves are difficult to extract for various reasons that make them uneconomical. Yet when the price rises, somehow those old wells are persuaded to part with a few more barrels. When the price rises, exploration technology also seems to improve and soon there are more discoveries.
If we were running out of oil then I'd expect the price to be rising faster & higher than even the wimpy hedonics version of the CPI. However it's lagged the CPI for decades. And gasoline in some areas is cheaper than bottled water...
T
TromboneAl
Guest
Well, in 1968, when population was a popular issue, the world population was about 4 billion, compared with over 6 billion now (U.S. 200 M vs. 270 M today). If at that point the world obtained and maintained zero population growth (I know, unlikely), I don't think we'd be talking about peak oil for another 20 years.
TromboneAl said:
While overpopulation may be an issue for some areas, I don't think it plays as large a part wrt fossil fuel consumption. The countries that consume the most and have the greatest increase over the last half century have had slow (U.S.), flat(Japan), or even negative(some countries in Europe) population growth. Even China has only a very small percentage of the population driving cars, most are still living in the 19th century....
Greetings wildcat:
In a recent article on moneycentral, David Dreman believes that oil stocks are still a wise play. Interesting, coming from a value maven:
The integrated oil companies, which encompass everything from drilling to gas stations, and the pure exploration-and-development companies still provide good value despite large rises in their stocks. Because their profits are up smartly as well, their price-earnings multiples have stayed low.
If oil prices hold near current levels, significant room for multiple expansion exists. Most companies have already paid down a good part of their debt and can now apply their enormous cash flows to share buybacks and dividend increases
Bookm
In a recent article on moneycentral, David Dreman believes that oil stocks are still a wise play. Interesting, coming from a value maven:
The integrated oil companies, which encompass everything from drilling to gas stations, and the pure exploration-and-development companies still provide good value despite large rises in their stocks. Because their profits are up smartly as well, their price-earnings multiples have stayed low.
If oil prices hold near current levels, significant room for multiple expansion exists. Most companies have already paid down a good part of their debt and can now apply their enormous cash flows to share buybacks and dividend increases
Bookm
O.K., so I started this thread with one opinion and I can honestly say I'm being swayed, I'm considering an oil play of some sort. Wildcat mentioned PRCIX, any others? If you held nothing oil related right now (except for what falls in the basket of index funds) what would you be buying right now, y'all?
You probably meant Pimco's commodity fund - PCRIX and not a T Rowe Price fund, I assume. If you want oil, you'd be very disappointed with Pimco's fund. Fourteen of its top 15 holdings are U.S. Treasuries. Perhaps Bill Gross had something to do with that. But right now, that fund is off doin' its own thing.
There aren't many inexpensive energy funds available unfortunately. I found UMESX several months ago, which has a very high ER for my normal tastes. The larger holdings had relatively low P/E's, and it didn't have too many holdings when I bought (less than 50 then). But with an annual return this year of over 34% right now, and considering its 3-year annualized return is over 31%, it's hard to envision the upside potential Dremen mentioned. Then again, I haven't found much that I consider cheap among the diversifying asset classes like oil, REITs, EM, etc.
Bookm
Perhaps Bill Gross had something to do with that. But right now, that fund is off doin' its own thing. There aren't many inexpensive energy funds available unfortunately. I found UMESX several months ago, which has a very high ER for my normal tastes. The larger holdings had relatively low P/E's, and it didn't have too many holdings when I bought (less than 50 then). But with an annual return this year of over 34% right now, and considering its 3-year annualized return is over 31%, it's hard to envision the upside potential Dremen mentioned. Then again, I haven't found much that I consider cheap among the diversifying asset classes like oil, REITs, EM, etc.
Bookm
Ed_The_Gypsy
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
There is a lot of oil in the world, but some is harder to get than the rest. The easy stuff has pretty well been gleaned by now. The rest keeps getting more and more expensive to get out. Alternatives become available as costs rise and conservation helps, too. There is an unknown but finite amount of oil in the ground in various forms. We are certainly consuming it, so there is less and less left. Oil prices go up and down but the long term trend will certainly be up.
I was recently thinking about this at the same time that I was thinking that I needed more international in my funds. My solution was to commit the dividends collected in my MMF to FICDX (Fidelity Canada Fund). FICDX has more bounce than VEIEX or VTRIX (but I still have those), and the volatility should make rebalancing more interesting. Canada has a resource/extraction economy which is doing quite well these days and owing to the incredible potential of the oil sands, should continue to do well into the future. However, pure plays bother me, so I did it this way.
I was quite surprised (try astounded) to learn recently that the federal government of Canada does not run a deficit. They overestimate liabilities, obligations and costs and underestimate revenues--on purpose. Some may say that the Canadian economy is in lock-step with the US economy, but I think the currency issues will bring us some divergence.
More divergence, that is. I have been working up here for almost two years now and I keep getting raises as the US dollar falls against the Canadian dollar.
Not only is my job dependent on oil being dear and getting dearer, I am betting a portion of my retirement money on it. I think this is one of my safer bets.
What do you think, HaHa? You are stuck in the tar baby, too.
Cheers,
Ed
I was recently thinking about this at the same time that I was thinking that I needed more international in my funds. My solution was to commit the dividends collected in my MMF to FICDX (Fidelity Canada Fund). FICDX has more bounce than VEIEX or VTRIX (but I still have those), and the volatility should make rebalancing more interesting. Canada has a resource/extraction economy which is doing quite well these days and owing to the incredible potential of the oil sands, should continue to do well into the future. However, pure plays bother me, so I did it this way.
I was quite surprised (try astounded) to learn recently that the federal government of Canada does not run a deficit. They overestimate liabilities, obligations and costs and underestimate revenues--on purpose. Some may say that the Canadian economy is in lock-step with the US economy, but I think the currency issues will bring us some divergence.
More divergence, that is. I have been working up here for almost two years now and I keep getting raises as the US dollar falls against the Canadian dollar.
Not only is my job dependent on oil being dear and getting dearer, I am betting a portion of my retirement money on it. I think this is one of my safer bets.
What do you think, HaHa? You are stuck in the tar baby, too.
Cheers,
Ed
I don't think you understand how the fund works then
ETFs offer low expense ratios. Oil stock despite gains still trade at the low end of the P/E range. That is normal so I wouldn't say oil stocks are terribly overvalued and I do think Dreman's analysis could happen. But Dreman usually just buys the cheapest large companies and I don't think he cares as much about what is happening to the fundamentals of sectors.
greg
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,071
Re: PIMCO's commodity fund. I heard in the past that this fund bought treasuries and then used the interest and loans on them to buy various commodity derivatives, i.e. bought long and borrowed short to make a little extra money on the spread.
Laurence: I still like tar sands for a long term hold. I'll be buying on the (serious) dips. Suncor (SU) has a break even price of about $20/barrel. I still think we have an oil price pull back at some point. But I'm wrong alot, especially about timing buys and sells.
--Greg
Laurence: I still like tar sands for a long term hold. I'll be buying on the (serious) dips. Suncor (SU) has a break even price of about $20/barrel. I still think we have an oil price pull back at some point. But I'm wrong alot, especially about timing buys and sells.
--Greg
Which brings up an interesting side effect of marketing investments to the general public.Apocalypse . . .um . . .SOON said:
My FIL showed me the PIMCO prospectus and said "This fund is all treasuries. How did they make so much money and what are these derivative things?"
When you read the document, it only lists the fund's treasuries. It doesn't list the derivatives as assets, show their marked-to-market value, or tell you any details about them. Yet when I read Tweedy Browne's reports, they list those details for their currency-hedging contracts. So, where are you guys getting PIMCO's additional info-- from their reports, their SAI, or some other document?
haha
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Hi Ed,Ed_The_Gypsy said:
I am definitely still a bull on Canadan oil sand plays. Right now, I am trying to get a grip on Firebag and other in-situ extraction methods, and to figure out who does what well. BY far my largest holding is Suncor. I am getting close to a 3 bagger on this.
I am also interested in energy other than oil-BP is well into wind farms, Texaco has a patented process to make diesel from coal, etc.
Nords mentions tertiary recovery in conventional wells. IMO, that will not do much to make up for decline in Saudi Ghawar, but still the right service companies should get big run. Even the OIH was up 5% yesterday, so it might be dicey in the short term.
Any of your on the spot observations about oil sands would be very much on topic to me.
Ha
Ed_The_Gypsy
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Yo, HaHa,
With respect to technologies, I cannot be very specific because I have special knowledge that I cannot share. However, it is safe to say that the newer, the better.
I find SAGD (Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage, for outsiders) interesting because it does not involve handling enormous quantities of solids, does not tear up the ground all over the place and is the only way we can get at 80%+ of all oil sands deposits. By not bringing solids into the process, the astoundingly high maintenance costs--and the associated labor costs of a high-staff plant--of other designs are avoided. (I do not work in SAGD at this time, so no confidentiality problems.) Energy consumption is high because you have to literally heat up the world. I hear that plant capacities are less than originally anticipated, perhaps due to higher than planned heat loads. Water recovery is challenging but not impossible. (This is something I know about. I sense many opportunities for a knowledgable consultant in this area.)
Someday I will run some process calculations on SAGD to see what it really looks like. I suspect that some of the business models up here have failed to take into account realistic staffing loads and high maintenance costs, where SAGD may have important advantages. I imagine that it comes down to "Ohboyohboy! Let's dig another mine!" in the board rooms.
I would not buy one of these stocks based on technology. (I have done that before and learned that good technology does not make a good stock.) Buy a proven business: longevity, record of ability to make a profit, etc. Only consider companies that actually own the leases. I am skeptical of pure plays. Buy the industry.
Serious tip: If you would like to make the big money, buy a scaffolding company up here.
I agree that the right sevice companies may be a good way to play this.
Cheers,
Ed
With respect to technologies, I cannot be very specific because I have special knowledge that I cannot share. However, it is safe to say that the newer, the better.
I find SAGD (Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage, for outsiders) interesting because it does not involve handling enormous quantities of solids, does not tear up the ground all over the place and is the only way we can get at 80%+ of all oil sands deposits. By not bringing solids into the process, the astoundingly high maintenance costs--and the associated labor costs of a high-staff plant--of other designs are avoided. (I do not work in SAGD at this time, so no confidentiality problems.) Energy consumption is high because you have to literally heat up the world. I hear that plant capacities are less than originally anticipated, perhaps due to higher than planned heat loads. Water recovery is challenging but not impossible. (This is something I know about. I sense many opportunities for a knowledgable consultant in this area.)
Someday I will run some process calculations on SAGD to see what it really looks like. I suspect that some of the business models up here have failed to take into account realistic staffing loads and high maintenance costs, where SAGD may have important advantages. I imagine that it comes down to "Ohboyohboy! Let's dig another mine!" in the board rooms.
I would not buy one of these stocks based on technology. (I have done that before and learned that good technology does not make a good stock.) Buy a proven business: longevity, record of ability to make a profit, etc. Only consider companies that actually own the leases. I am skeptical of pure plays. Buy the industry.
Serious tip: If you would like to make the big money, buy a scaffolding company up here.
I agree that the right sevice companies may be a good way to play this.
Cheers,
Ed
Calgary_Girl
Full time employment: Posting here.
Laurence said:
ConocoPhillips for the oil play and Encana for the gas play. I'm buying Encana on the dips and I've made some nice change in the past week alone.
Yes, oil is running out. So? The decline will be gradual and will allow free market forces to identify and product substitute products.
Once whale oil was the main energy source used in lighting; once most of the whales were killed, prices for whale oil quadrupled in a short period of time, in today's dollars whale oil reached $35.00 a gallon. Technology and a free market economy found a solution to the problem after a short period of readjustment; I have no doubt that the same will happen in this case.
Less energy is being used to generate each dollar of GDP than previously. This trend will continue in the future. We are always finding more efficient ways to use energy all the time.
There are many alternative energy sources. A few are;
a) Turning garbage and agricultural waste to oil. Far fetched? Changing world technologies is turning turkey offal to 100 to 200 barrels of oil a day (in addition to natural gas, liquid and solid fertilizer and solid carbon) at their pilot plant today. (http://www.changingworldtech.com/information_center/press_releases.asp?id=19)
b) Wind power and solar power is becoming more cost effective as the technology improves. Solar Panels no longer need to use glass and can be manufactured on plastic reducing their cost.
c) There are many alternate sources of carbon based fuels, some which have already been mentioned. These include tar sands, coal and methane hydrates.
d) There is a tremendous amount of energy stored in the oceans both thermally and kinetically that can be utilized to generate electricity.
e) A new generation of nuclear power plants that cannot “melt down” are on the drawing board.
There have been many doom and gloom reports from prognosticators throughout history that the human race is running out of one substance or another. Usually a higher price for a substance increases the supply as there is more of an economic incentive to look for more of the substance. In addition, an increased price allows other substances to be substituted for the original substance. I have no doubt this will again happen in this case.
In my opinion, I believe the increase in price that we are seeing now is related more to speculation than to any real shortage. When the price breaks lower, it may fall quite a bit before it stops.
8)
Once whale oil was the main energy source used in lighting; once most of the whales were killed, prices for whale oil quadrupled in a short period of time, in today's dollars whale oil reached $35.00 a gallon. Technology and a free market economy found a solution to the problem after a short period of readjustment; I have no doubt that the same will happen in this case.
Less energy is being used to generate each dollar of GDP than previously. This trend will continue in the future. We are always finding more efficient ways to use energy all the time.
There are many alternative energy sources. A few are;
a) Turning garbage and agricultural waste to oil. Far fetched? Changing world technologies is turning turkey offal to 100 to 200 barrels of oil a day (in addition to natural gas, liquid and solid fertilizer and solid carbon) at their pilot plant today. (http://www.changingworldtech.com/information_center/press_releases.asp?id=19)
b) Wind power and solar power is becoming more cost effective as the technology improves. Solar Panels no longer need to use glass and can be manufactured on plastic reducing their cost.
c) There are many alternate sources of carbon based fuels, some which have already been mentioned. These include tar sands, coal and methane hydrates.
d) There is a tremendous amount of energy stored in the oceans both thermally and kinetically that can be utilized to generate electricity.
e) A new generation of nuclear power plants that cannot “melt down” are on the drawing board.
There have been many doom and gloom reports from prognosticators throughout history that the human race is running out of one substance or another. Usually a higher price for a substance increases the supply as there is more of an economic incentive to look for more of the substance. In addition, an increased price allows other substances to be substituted for the original substance. I have no doubt this will again happen in this case.
In my opinion, I believe the increase in price that we are seeing now is related more to speculation than to any real shortage. When the price breaks lower, it may fall quite a bit before it stops.
8)
Good Post Bruce. Of course you are correct. Technology is awesome, and I don't believe we have any idea what will be going on in, oh say 2020 or 2025. I've heard that soybeans are being used now in gas pumps in Illinois, and perhaps other places. If that's true, then it's possible to grow a lot of the energy we need, if we make changes to vehicles. You are hereby apprised of one of Eagle's deep and profound maxims: "Follow the money." When it becomes profitable to use other sources of energy, we will. And contrary to popular opinion, the sky is not falling; it's merely readjusting. After readustment, we will be better off than now.
haha
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Eagle43 said:Good Post Bruce. Of course you are correct. Technology is awesome, and I don't believe we have any idea what will be going on in, oh say 2020 or 2025. I've heard that soybeans are being used now in gas pumps in Illinois, and perhaps other places. If that's true, then it's possible to grow a lot of the energy we need, if we make changes to vehicles. You are hereby apprised of one of Eagle's deep and profound maxims: "Follow the money." When it becomes profitable to use other sources of energy, we will. And contrary to popular opinion, the sky is not falling; it's merely readjusting. After readustment, we will be better off than now.
So when you optimists are lined up at the craps table, and our comfortable society is rolling, the white-haired guy you see with a pile of chips on the "Don't Pass" will be me.
The whale oil analogy is completely inappropriate. At that time, whale oil was not the major source of energy. The sun was, as wind to power ships, and fodder to power horses and oxen. Whale oil was a niche product.
Of course today, we do have coal, and we do have nuclear. How many of you drive coal fired or nuclear cars?
One other thing, if we are worried about global warming now (and we should be, even if we aren't) we aren't going to like it much if coal takes over the portion of US electricity generation that is now done by natural gas, as gas is shifted to cover shortfalls in transportation fuel.
"I see a bad moon rising, I see trouble up ahead..."
Ha
wabmester
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2003
- Messages
- 4,459
HaHa said:
Wait a minute, aren't you the same guy I saw at the "Don't Pass" line of the QQQQ table? How's that been going for you?
I can imagine lots of doom and gloom scenarios, but I always place at least half my bet on American Ingenuity. Besides, I like to ride my bike, and I live in a house that gets all-day sun (looking for an excuse to buy solar panels), a nice breeze (waiting for personal windmills), and sits right by the ocean (can't wait for these generator buoys).
haha
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
wabmester said:Wait a minute, aren't you the same guy I saw at the "Don't Pass" line of the QQQQ table? How's that been going for you?
One and the same!
But that game isn't over yet; and anyway it has allowed me to maintain market exposure that given my attitudes I otherwise would not have done. Thus I've made money on balance, and pushed capital gains into a later year.
It's not perfect I admit. But then, nature has a long time horizon, and she grades on a curve.
Ha
O.K., so DW and I have applied to jobs much closer to home, with the pluses we originally talked about being more money, more time at home/smaller commute, and being able to have lunch together because they are less than a mile apart. But we happened to discuss the impending oil crisis this weekend, and realised we could bike to these jobs as well (about 5 miles). Hmmm.....bring it on!
wildcat said:
Been off line for a few days, apologize for returning to this so late. I should have been more specific RE PCRIX's holdings.
The fund holds those U.S. Treasuries I warned of as collateral against commodity futures. Since mutual funds cannot buy comodities directly, most simply purchase shares of those stocks involved in the production and servicing of commodities instead. PCRIX went off using another approach, buying derivatives that track commodity prices.PIMCO has several years experience using this strategy, and they're actually trying to create a new and improved equal-weighted index for large-cap stocks, with the aid of Robert Arnott, editor of the FAJ (watch out VFINX). This fund will also use derivatives and prolly some form of bonds (indexed securities, notes, etc), similar to PSTKX, which Gross runs as well. We've discussed this approach a few times at NFB.
Bookm
Many Historical Economist consider the increase in whale oil cost and the shortages of whale oil as the first true energy crisis. At the time almost all interior lighting in the world was whale oil (sperm whale) based; there were no economical alternatives at the time. This whale oil burned cleanly and brightly and did not have a disagreeable odor.
Once the shortage and high prices of whale oil began, some enterprising company started producing Kerosene from COAL (yes you can produce a liquid fuel from a solid). Kerosene started to replace whale oil for interior lighting.
Other companies produced gas from coal (many of the older cities in the United States had a "Gas Works"conversion factory.
After Kerosene and coal gas started to be used, a major oil find in Pennsylvania in 1859 started the United States petroleum age. It because more economical to produce kerosene from oil then from coal so its use increased.
While I do not disagree with Hubbert and his bell curve of oil production, he does not take into account productivity improvements in extraction of oil; I think if these was put into his bell curve it would skew it to the left:
One of the first techniques that oil companies started using to increase the amount of oil that can be extracted from the ground were hydraulic fracturing and water flooding to drive more oil from the ground. Some other methods include CO2 injection, horizontal drilling, better computer 3 dimensional visualization technology. Maybe in the near future bacteria that will seperate oil from rocks will be injected down oil wells increasing the supplies evern more.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it!
In my arrogant opinion, oil may not continue to increase in price until all the oil in the world is used; it worries me greatly when I hear some people say that "Its different this time".
So before I would put too much money in energy stocks, I would look at the performance of energy stocks in the 1980's after a period of extended high prices during the 1970's.
Can anyone answer this question: How much of the price of oil being driven higher by speculation? Do some research; why is the price of finding a barrel of oil in the ground not rising as fast as the price of oil?
An aside to the energy crisis and new technology; LED lights are about to become a mainstream fixture in American Homes. These lights are already being used in traffic lights throughout the country; for every bulb replaced $75.00 dollars in electricity is saved a year (at 12.5 cents KWH). On four way traffic light has 12 bulbs; by switching this will save $900.00 dollars in electricity a year. 150,000 traffic lights throughout the country already have been replaced. They also save more energy if you add in that they do not need to be serviced and replaced as often (shipping of replacement bulbs, trucks driving to the lights to replace the bulbs, etc.). (You also are seeing this lights more and more in tractor trailers on the highways; the savings in this case are not for the energy but that they last longer reducing the amount of maintenance that needs to be done on these trailers.
I saw one estimate that if every light in the country was replaced by LED lights, an amount of energy equivalent to what the USA imports in oil could be saved. Technology is already working on the problem and coming up with economic solutions.
If energy prices stay high, this will hasten this change. LED lights are as bright as regular lights, use 80 to 90 percent less energy and last up to 100,000 hours (over 11 years). I am sure there are many more energy saving technologies on the way!
8)
Once the shortage and high prices of whale oil began, some enterprising company started producing Kerosene from COAL (yes you can produce a liquid fuel from a solid). Kerosene started to replace whale oil for interior lighting.
Other companies produced gas from coal (many of the older cities in the United States had a "Gas Works"conversion factory.
After Kerosene and coal gas started to be used, a major oil find in Pennsylvania in 1859 started the United States petroleum age. It because more economical to produce kerosene from oil then from coal so its use increased.
While I do not disagree with Hubbert and his bell curve of oil production, he does not take into account productivity improvements in extraction of oil; I think if these was put into his bell curve it would skew it to the left:
One of the first techniques that oil companies started using to increase the amount of oil that can be extracted from the ground were hydraulic fracturing and water flooding to drive more oil from the ground. Some other methods include CO2 injection, horizontal drilling, better computer 3 dimensional visualization technology. Maybe in the near future bacteria that will seperate oil from rocks will be injected down oil wells increasing the supplies evern more.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it!
In my arrogant opinion, oil may not continue to increase in price until all the oil in the world is used; it worries me greatly when I hear some people say that "Its different this time".
The longer the price of energy (oil, natural gas, etc) stay high, the more exploration that will take place, increasing the supply.
The longer the price of energy stay high, the more alternative energy supplies will become economically viable.
The longer the price of energy stays high, the more people will begin to use less (the short term prices of energy are inelastic but longer term they become more elastic).
The longer the price of energy stays high, the less economic growth that there will be;
The longer the price of energy stays high, the greater the price of energy will fall; I would not want be an energy investor when this happens.
So before I would put too much money in energy stocks, I would look at the performance of energy stocks in the 1980's after a period of extended high prices during the 1970's.
Can anyone answer this question: How much of the price of oil being driven higher by speculation? Do some research; why is the price of finding a barrel of oil in the ground not rising as fast as the price of oil?
An aside to the energy crisis and new technology; LED lights are about to become a mainstream fixture in American Homes. These lights are already being used in traffic lights throughout the country; for every bulb replaced $75.00 dollars in electricity is saved a year (at 12.5 cents KWH). On four way traffic light has 12 bulbs; by switching this will save $900.00 dollars in electricity a year. 150,000 traffic lights throughout the country already have been replaced. They also save more energy if you add in that they do not need to be serviced and replaced as often (shipping of replacement bulbs, trucks driving to the lights to replace the bulbs, etc.). (You also are seeing this lights more and more in tractor trailers on the highways; the savings in this case are not for the energy but that they last longer reducing the amount of maintenance that needs to be done on these trailers.
I saw one estimate that if every light in the country was replaced by LED lights, an amount of energy equivalent to what the USA imports in oil could be saved. Technology is already working on the problem and coming up with economic solutions.
If energy prices stay high, this will hasten this change. LED lights are as bright as regular lights, use 80 to 90 percent less energy and last up to 100,000 hours (over 11 years). I am sure there are many more energy saving technologies on the way!
8)
