+ + Wir haben ÖL Peak + +
Israel soll im Irak angriff auf Iran geprobt haben
http://www.finanznachrichten.de/...chten-2008-07/artikel-11261005.asp
Optionen
| Boardmail an "Woodstore" |
Wertpapier: WTI Rohöl NYMEX Rolling |
http://omrpublic.iea.org/supply/ir_cr_ts.pdf
Ich will den Teufel nicht an die Wand malen und die, die mich persönlich kennen, weissen, dass ich "Weltuntergangsszenarien", "Doomsszenarien" und "Verschwörungstheorien" sehr skeptisch und negativ gegenüberstehen.
Aber wie bukubuku schon angedeutet hat: unsere GESELLSCHAFT (OECD Länder) ist auf eine HOHE STETIGE ENERGIEZUFUHR angewiesen und ein erheblicher Anteil dieses Bedarf muss in "flüssigen KWs" gedeckt werden - und davon der Löwenanteil an Öl.
Wenn diese Energiezufuhr ins Stocken gerät und in Folge dessen sehr teuer - dann STEHT die Weltwirtschaft.
Wenn diese Energiezufuhr weniger wird - dann setzt ein sehr schmerzhafter DEGLOBALISIERUNGS-Prozess ein. Dies (nach dem Motto: "wie gewonnen - so zeronnen") - wird die "Benefits", die die Globalisierung uns gebracht hat (Produktivitätserhöhung, Preisdeflation und alle Folgen daraus etc) - auf sehr schmerzhafte Weise wieder WEGNEHMEN.
Allerdings bzgl. GLOBALISIERUNG war/ist nicht alles gut - so wird auch bei der DEGLOABILSIERUNG nicht alles schlecht sein - aber für die Masse sehr schmerzhaft.
Auch die Kredit- Währungs- und Finanzblasen (haben von Globalisierung am meisten profitiert) werden durch die Deglobalisierung am MEISTEN LEIDEN.
Es wird VIELE PLEITEN GEBEN: zunächst trifft es die "schwachen" im Bereich Fluglinien, Autoindustrie und Banken - aber dabei wird es nicht bleiben.
Der "Ölparasit" frisst sich in die gesamte Weltwirtschaft - und (fast) alle werden darunter leiden.....
Physisches Gold und Silber sind noch immer "billig" und in meinen Augen ein absolutes MUSS! Zertis, Aktien, Geld - das alles kann entwertet und vernichtet werden - Gold behält immer einen bestimmten Wert (zumindest war das seit 3000 Jahren so - während viele Währungen seit dem den Bach runtergegangen sind.
Hohe Verschuldung und Peak Oil wird zwangsläufig zu Währungskrisen und Währungs"reformen" (= Entwertungen) führen.
Dabei gab's noch keinen Hurrican und noch keinen Angriff auf den Iran (und hoffentlich bleibt es dabei).
So, da ja nun das Öl immer knapper zu werden scheint kommt der Offshoreförderung mit steigendem Ölpreis eine neue Rolle zu. Dann seh ich heute im Newsletter von einem neuen Zertifikat auf Ölservicegesellschaften im Offshore Bereich. Folgende Unternehmen sind drin. Was haltet ihr davon oder sollte man sich einzelne raussuchen?
Transocean Inc
Fred Olsen Energy ASA
Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc
Subsea 7 Inc
Noble Corp
Drill-Quip Inc
Seadrill Ltd
ProSafe SE
Cameron International Corp
Ocean RIG ASA
FMC Technologies Inc
Hornbeck Offshore Serv. Inc
Pride International Inc
Songa Offshore ASA
Fugro N.V.
Ezra Holdings Ltd
Acergy
Swiber Holdings Ltd
Oceaneering International Inc
Newpark Resources
Odfjell Invest Inc
Gulf Island Fabrication Inc
Hier gibts noch ein paar Infos mehr:
www.abnamrozertifikate.de/MediaLibrary/Document/...efsee_Index_05.pdf
aber die "Gefahr" und die daraus resultierenden Problematiken
wurden schon "eingepreist" wie's immer so schön heißt!!
ob's die Goldenen Sachsen wussten.....
Ein Schelm, wer Böses dabei denkt!
Optionen
| Boardmail an "Woodstore" |
Wertpapier: WTI Rohöl NYMEX Rolling |
denn es wird nicht bei einem Schlag bleiben !
Einmal niederbomben und alles wieder wie gewohnt ? Das wird es so nicht geben. Iran wird zurückschlagen - sei es mit Raketen auf Öl/ US Basen in Irak, sei es auf die Strasse von H., Sei es auf Isreal, sei es mit der Ölwaffe, sei es über Hisbollah aus Libanonen.
Sie Sache wäre nicht vom Tisch mit einmal drüberfliegen und zurück.
ganz sicher....
Ist, glaub ich, auch schon für alle Beteiligten zu spät noch entsprechend
zurück zurudern....?
Bares für evtl. notwendige Hamsterkäufe habsch grundsätzlich unterm
Kopfkissen, Holz liegt auch en mass auf'm Hof, der jute BullerJahn
ist auch schon eingelaufen....und mit'm Fahrrad gehts morgens in
die Agentur....
Mir solls recht sein, Hauptsache da unten wird für Ordnung gesorgt....
Viel mehr als Selbstschutz ist nicht drin!!
Viel lange ist Bier eigentlich haltbar... habsch irgendwie noch nie
drauf geachte, weil....nicht ausgereizt.... *ggg*
Optionen
| Boardmail an "Woodstore" |
Wertpapier: WTI Rohöl NYMEX Rolling |
Test per Geschmack - wenn der ok ist, dann ist es auch nicht gesundheitschädlich (CAVE ist keiner genereller test für Lebensmittel!).
Mit meinem Juli gehalt werde ich auch ein paar Thunfischkonserven, Pasta (Nudel) u.a. einlagern. Nicht übertrieben - aber doch deutlich mehr als üblich. Und wenn NICHTS passiert - dann umso besser, schaden tut's jedenfalls nicht: billiger werden Lebensmittel sowieso nicht.....
Dazu als normal würd ich die Führung der USA auch nicht bezeichnen
Optionen
| Boardmail an "Hartmut1967" |
Wertpapier: WTI Rohöl NYMEX Rolling |
10 July 2008
BUISNESSWEEK
Saudi Oil: A Crude Awakening on Supply?
The Saudis say they can ramp up production to 12.5 million barrels a day. But a field-by-field breakdown obtained by BusinessWeek shows that's not likely
by Steve LeVine
Saudi Arabia's ability to calm panicky oil markets has been waning for years. With oil prices doubling since last summer, to more than $140 a barrel, Saudi King Abdullah on June 22 convened an extraordinary meeting (BusinessWeek.com, 6/22/08) of OPEC members, international oil industry CEOs, and foreign leaders in an effort to calm the markets. The kingdom's message was clear: Saudi fields can pump oil to market quickly, if demand warrants.
However, it appears that for at least the next five years, and possibly longer, the Saudis are likely to produce less crude than promised, according to fresh data on the kingdom's oil fields obtained July 9 by BusinessWeek. Saudi officials have said they would increase production capacity to 12.5 million barrels a day next year, from the current 10 million barrels a day, and could even ramp up to as much as 15 million barrels a day if the market demanded it. As proof to a skeptical audience, the normally highly secretive Saudis were a bit more more open, escorting journalists on a visit to their new Al Khurais field (BusinessWeek.com, 6/23/08), east of Riyadh, and disclosing some field data.
Oil companies want in
But the detailed document, obtained from a person with access to Saudi oil officials, suggests that Saudi Aramco will be limited to sustained production of just 12 million barrels a day in 2010, and will be able to maintain that volume only for short, temporary periods such as emergencies. Then it will scale back to a sustainable production level of about 10.4 million barrels a day, according to the data. BusinessWeek obtained a field-by-field breakdown of estimated Saudi oil production from 2009 through 2013. It was provided by an oil industry executive who said he had confirmed it with a ranking Saudi energy official who has access to the field data. The executive, who has proven reliable over several years of reporting interaction, provided the data on condition of anonymity to protect his access to the kingdom and the identity of the inside contact who confirmed the information.
Saudi Aramco officials in the kingdom could not be reached for comment on July 9.
Three industry analysts in the U.S. said the document's overall conclusion—that the Saudis cannot sustain higher than 12 million barrels a day maximum production for the next few years—appeared to be reasonable. "My view is that when they finish their expansion program they are unlikely to be above 12" million barrels per day, says Roger Diwan, a Middle East energy expert with PFC Energy, a consultancy in Washington, D.C. Lawrence Goldstein, an analyst with the Energy Policy Research Foundation, an industry-funded research group, said that uncertainty about Saudi production remains a problem for the market. "The only ones who know could be the Saudis," Goldstein says, "and they might not know because they haven't tested the deliverability system in as much as a decade."
A principal reason for the dramatic surge in world oil prices has been a tight balance of global supply and demand, combined with a lack of spare capacity to produce more crude in a pinch. So that what previously might be considered a barely consequential guerrilla attack in oil-rich Nigeria, or an empty Iranian threat to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, results in a far more dramatic oil market reaction than ever before.
Once again Saudi Arabia has emerged as the central energy player, the only oil producer on the planet seen as having the spare capacity to rapidly boost crude exports. The kingdom also has close ties to the West, and until 1980 the precursors of Exxon (XOM), Chevron (CVX), and Mobil were partners with the Saudi state oil company. Now most of the major oil giants are hoping to get back in, and one way they have suggested is by helping the Saudis maintain the fields, an overture that has been rejected.
"A Bunch of Empty Boasts"
On oil matters, the kingdom's credibility has been clouded by intense secrecy. The Saudis, for instance, refuse, unlike Russia, Venezuela, and Norway, to release detailed assessments of their oil reserves, which has made many skeptical. "They are just a bunch of empty boasts," Matthew Simmons, chairman of Houston investment bank Simmons & Co. International, says of the kingdom's recent promises of 12.5 million barrels a day. He is also skeptical of Saudi reserve estimates.
One dramatic part of the data concerns a site called Ghawar, which has been the kingdom's workhorse field for decades. It shows the field producing 5.4 million barrels a day next year, but the volume then falling off rapidly, to 4.475 million daily barrels in 2013. "That's why Khurais is so important—to make up for that decrease," said the oil industry executive who released the data. He was referring to a supergiant field that is to come online later this year and produce an estimated 500,000 barrels a day of crude. In last month's gathering in Saudi Arabia, officials of the kingdom told journalists that Ghawar had produced just under 5 million barrels a day from 1993 through 2007.
Mainly the data show flat production; apart from the addition of Khurais and a heavy oil field called Manifa, no increases appear in any of the fields during the next five years. Production at Manifa is to begin in 2011 with 125,000 barrels a day, according to the data, and rise rapidly to 900,000 barrels a day two years later. Though 2014 is not included in the data, one of the fields listed—Shaybah—is to have a volume increase to 1 million barrels a day that year, from 750,000 barrels a day from 2009 to 2013, according to the oil executive.
Still, despite its enormous reserves and bullish statements, Saudi Arabia appears likely to fall well short of the daily production it has targeted in the near term.
LeVine is a correspondent in BusinessWeek's Washington bureau.
Es gibt erhebliche Zweifel an der Kapazität der Saudis von leuten, die sich konkret mit den Saudischen Projekten und dem Zustand der handvoll saudischen Gigantenfelder (besonders Ghawar) beschäftigt haben.
ABER, da Saudisarabien immer noch über die mit Abstand grössten nachgewiesenen Rserven verfügt - ist eines auch klar: wenn Saudiarabien's produktion fällt - wurde der PEAK bereits VORHER erreicht ! (und einige meinen eben, wir haben bereits den peak erreicht)
Obiger BUISNESS WEEK Artikel steht im Einklang mit "Peak oil"
Zitat oben: "5.4 million barrels a day next year, but the volume then falling off rapidly, to 4.475 million daily barrels in 2013."
deutet also an, dass Ghawar etwa ab 2011 in den deutlichen decline geht - wäre determinierend mit dem Saudischen Ölpeak in etwa dem selben Zeitraum. Der globale PEAK OIL kann nur VOR dem saudischen Peak Oil erreicht werden. Wie auch im obenigen Artikel impliziert - auch die anstehenden Projekte in den nächsten 5 Jahre - können einen DECLINE von GHAWAR NICHT KOMPENSIEREN.
Angehängte Grafik:
safaniyah.jpg
safaniyah.jpg
Dann würde sich das Luischen doch besser die Gummikleidung anziehen.
Also warum 142,79 nach Hoch bei 147-ungerade...
Luischen-fragend
PS: Ich glaube nicht an das Platzen...
das beispiel TEXAS zeigt ziemlich gut: wenn einmal PEAK OIL erreicht wurde - dann kann auch eine VERVIELFACHUNG der Bohrtürme keine Produktionserhöhung mehr bringen - sondern nur noch den decline für einige Jahre verzögern (danach dafür um so schneller down).
ich will jetzt hier keine Hausnummern nennen, aber die Anzahl der Bohrtürme hat sich in der Tat seit PEAK OIL TEXAS in diesem Bundestaat VERVIIIIIEEELFACHT - produktion dennoch down.
NICHT die grossen ÖLFÖRDERER - sondern die Service Companies machen dann das grosse Geschäft (aber auch jene Förderer, die zwar noch nicht so viel produzieren, aber relativ zur börsenbewertung hohe nachgewiesenen Ölreserven haben.)
Ferner glaube ich nach wie vor, dass diese extreme Preissteigerung nicht ohne den Zusammenhang mit der großen Finanzkrise betrachtet werden darf. Ich weiß, dass der Aufwärtstrend beim Öl schon seit 2000 vorhanden ist, bitte schaut aber mal auf die Steilheit des Ölcharts ab Juli 2007 - dem Beginn der Finanz- und Subprimekrise...
Und dass die aktuellen Preise bezahlt werden, ist nicht unbedingt ein Wunder. Auf den Ölpreis wurden die meisten -wie auch ich- erst mit den extremen Steigerungen aufmerksam und die Zeit reicht einfach nicht aus, um sich verkehrs- und heiztechnisch vom Öl zu befreien - und wer es sich leisten kann, bezahlt eben zähneknirschend.
Meine Vermutung ist, dass der Ölpreis ohne Finanzkrise und ohne den Irankonflikt bei rund 100$ liegen würde. Dies leite ich einfach aus einer halbwegs linearen Fortsetzung des Trend seit 2000 ab...sollte der Preis tatsächlich noch einmal auf dieses Niveau fallen -davon gehe ich nur im Falle einer überstandenen Finanzkrise und eines "gelösten" Irankonflikt aus- so wäre vielen Menschen "Peak Oil" ein Begriff und wüssten, dass es gilt, sich vom Öl zu verabschieden. Evtl. vergehen dann noch einmal 3-5 Jahre, bis sich der Ölpreis wieder auf heutigem Niveau bewegt und wir alle wären, was Alternativen betrifft schon etwas weiter. Ferner würde evtl. die Wirtschaft bei diesem Szenario nicht ganz so horrormäßig leiden...
...wir werden es erleben...und: ich bin kein Anhänger der "oil is a bubble"-Fraktion, ich versuche nur, nicht jeden Dollar Aufschlag in einer möglichen zukünftigen Angebotsverknappung zu sehen...Schönes Wochenende...
Ich muss ehrlich gestehen, dass hätte ich nicht für möglich gehalten in der kurzen Zeit.
Echt schlimm, man kann nur hoffen dass die Iraner und die Israelis zur Besinnung kommen.
ich fürchte nur, die welt lässt sich vom THEMA IRAN zu sehr ablenken und erkennt das wahre zu grunde liegende problem nicht.... (obwohl "Iran" derzeit sicher einen gewissen Aufschlag begründet - aber auch nicht mehr.)
Passend zu der Diskussion hier an Board - ein Artikel vom dieswöchigen Economist, der eines bestätigt: ist ein Ölförderland oder eine Ölförderregion wie die Nordesee einmal POST PEAK - dann helfen auch noch so hohe Preise nicht mehr, um den OUTPUT zu erhöhen. Und was für ein Land oder eine Ölregion gilt - gilt auch für die Welt - denn die globale Förderung ist nichts anderes als die Summer aller Länder/Regionen.
Wie ich in den letzten Tagen mehrfach argumentiert habe:
ein hoher Preis mag zwar die Nachfrage dämpfen - aber in Richtung Angebot kann der Markt nicht mehr so funktionieren wie gewohnt, wenn einmal der Zenit (peak oil) beim Öl erreicht wurde - dann kann trotz aller Investionen der Öloutput nicht mehr erhöht werden.
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/...story.cfm?story_id=11707772
North Sea production
Ebbing
Jul 10th 2008
From The Economist print edition
Record oil prices fail to halt the North Sea’s decline
WHENEVER he is asked about the viability of an independent Scotland, Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish National Party, points to the hydrocarbons pumped from beneath Britain’s part of the North Sea. Most of the deposits lie in what would be Scottish waters, argues Mr Salmond, meaning that petropounds could replace much of the subsidy that Scotland currently receives from England.
That may be true today, but it is unlikely to remain so for much longer. Once the world’s sixth-biggest producer of oil and gas, Britain has seen production drop by around 40% since its peak of 4.5m barrels a day in 1999. On July 8th Oil & Gas UK (OGUK), the offshore industry’s trade association, released its annual report. Record oil prices mean a massive windfall for the taxman—forecast at around £15 billion, roughly double the tax take last year—but have conspicuously failed to halt the slide in production, which fell from 2.9m barrels per day in 2006 to 2.8m in 2007.
The problem is not that there is no oil left—the government reckons that 16 billion-25 billion barrels remain beneath the ocean floor—but that it is becoming harder to extract. Almost all of the North Sea’s big fields have been tapped, and most of the new discoveries contain less than 50m barrels, making them tiddlers by international standards. And many are geologically difficult, with their hydrocarbons stored at high pressures and temperatures. This makes them difficult to develop.
As the North Sea becomes tougher to exploit, the bigger oil firms are abandoning it for more productive pastures elsewhere. On the day that OGUK launched its report, Shell and Exxon said they were selling several fields to Taqa, an energy firm from Abu Dhabi. In theory, this will help to extend the basin’s productive life, as small, nimble companies extract reserves that are too little to interest the majors.
But the rising price of oil has pushed up operating costs too. Skilled labour is in short supply, and the price of renting drilling rigs has more than doubled since 2006 (although it seems to have levelled off now). Capital investment in the North Sea fell to £4.9 billion last year, an especially worrying trend given that, thanks to higher costs and smaller finds, a pound of investment generates around a third as much oil today as it did in 2002 (see chart).
Not all hope is lost, and oilmen list three possibilities for boosting production. Besides using high-tech drilling to recover more oil from existing wells and making smaller fields cheaper to develop, they are keen to see more activity west of the Shetland islands. This relatively unexplored frontier is thought to contain around four billion barrels of oil and gas (and that figure could increase if significant prospecting is done), but development is hamstrung by a lack of pipelines to carry oil and gas to shore. Ministers are negotiating with a group of oil firms with interests in the area, including Total and Chevron, in an effort to get one built.
In practice, that could mean granting tax relief on capital investment, something that Malcolm Webb, OGUK’s boss, sees as essential to slowing the North Sea’s decline. That puts Gordon Brown in a tricky position. In May, propelled by record-breaking oil prices and public discontent, the prime minister made a conspicuous visit to Aberdeen to discuss what could be done to boost production. But giving tax breaks to oil companies at a time of record industry profits and rising fuel bills could be politically tricky, to put it mildly.
Angehängte Grafik:
investing_more.gif
investing_more.gif
http://www.economist.com/research/...bjectid=381586&story_id=11702995
The only way is down
Jul 10th 2008
From The Economist print edition
The high priest of “peak oil” thinks world oil output can now only decline
Fifth RingFOR a man who believes that the world as we know it is coming to an end, as least as far as energy is concerned, Matthew Simmons is remarkably cheerful. He magnanimously excuses The Economist’s poor record of predicting the price of oil: our suggestion in 1999 that oil would remain dirt cheap was conventional wisdom at the time, he says soothingly. He also shrugs off our more recent scepticism about his belief that the world’s production of oil has peaked: he, too, hopes that “peak oil” proves to be a myth, he says. But over a 40-year career in investment banking, Mr Simmons adds, he has learnt never to rely on wishful thinking. Most of the world’s oil analysts, he believes, are far too optimistic about how long existing fields will last, the prospects for new discoveries, technology’s ability to unlock new sources and to extend the life of existing ones, and so on. He prefers to rely on data rather than daydreams. And according to the American government’s own numbers, the world’s oil output has been more-or-less flat since 2005.
It was data that made Mr Simmons famous. He spent the summer of 2003 at his holiday home in Maine, poring over technical studies describing the state of Saudi Arabia’s oilfields. Although the Saudi authorities do not release much evidence to support their claims of vast oil reserves, engineers from Saudi Aramco, the state-owned oil firm, do give talks at conferences and publish papers about their experience of reservoir modelling and management. Based on these, Mr Simmons concluded that Saudi Arabia’s biggest fields were already past their peaks, required ever more expensive technological fixes to prop up production and would soon enter a period of inevitable and rapid decline.
Saudi grandees pooh-poohed Mr Simmons’s 2005 book on the subject, “Twilight in the Desert: the Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy”. But others held it up as convincing proof of the notion that the world’s oil production would soon reach a pinnacle, never to be exceeded. Saudi Arabia, after all, is already the world’s biggest producer, and is expected to cater to most of the growth in demand for oil over the next few years by expanding its output yet further. If, instead, it pumps less, there is little hope that other countries could make up the shortfall. In that scenario, as demand for oil continues to grow despite dwindling supplies, and as the search for substitutes proves fruitless, economic catastrophe ensues.
Mr Simmons helps to lend credence to this view in part because he is an old and respected hand in the oil business. He first stumbled into it in 1969, thanks to a chance encounter at a hotel in Palm Springs. He was two-thirds of the way through a doctorate in economics and had planned to join his father’s bank in Utah when he finished. Instead, he ended up abandoning his studies to help raise venture capital for a pioneering firm of divers working on California’s offshore oil-rigs.
Simmons & Company, the investment bank Mr Simmons went on to found (along with Michael Huffington, an oilman and politician), helped to funnel money and financial advice to the nascent “oil services” industry, which performs tasks such as seismic surveys and drilling wells on behalf of oil firms. Indeed, Mr Simmons says it was his bank that coined the very phrase “oil services”. It has handled over 500 merger-and-acquisition deals in the industry—49 of them last year alone.
All this means that Mr Simmons can draw upon long experience and deep knowledge of the oil industry. He does not dispute the main criticism of the “peak oil” theory: that improvements in technology, spurred by high prices, will eventually allow new fields to be found, more oil to be recovered from existing fields and artificial oil to be conjured from substances such as tar sands, coal and shale. But he thinks such advances will take longer to appear and have less of an impact than his detractors assume.
As it is, he points out, all the world’s drilling rigs are working flat out, and old ones are being retired faster than new ones can be produced. The same is true of geologists and many more of the industry’s essential inputs. This is slowing the development of new fields and pushing up the cost. By the same token, the technology being used to extract oil today has been in the works since the 1970s. It will take a long time for the next generation of clever kit to come into widespread use. Besides, many technological improvements seem to have simply speeded up the extraction of oil, rather than increasing the share of each reservoir that can be recovered.
Oil clocks out
In short, as Mr Simmons readily concedes, the debate between proponents and critics of “peak oil” boils down to an argument about timing. The optimists think that technology will advance quickly enough to offset declining production from mammoth fields such as those Mr Simmons studied in Saudi Arabia. But he and his disciples think the declines will come too soon, and be too sharp, for the world to adapt in time. The whole row could easily be solved, he says, if Saudi Arabia would only allow independent auditors to assess its reserves.
In the meantime, Mr Simmons is taking no chances. He plans to start up a farm near his house in Maine, in case the supply chain that provides America with food breaks down for lack of fuel. He plans to fertilise his fields with manure, rather than chemicals derived from oil and natural gas. He thinks globalisation must stop, and that as much trade as possible should be conducted by boat, to conserve whatever oil remains.
But Mr Simmons has not despaired. He holds out great hope for wave energy, and believes that at least one of the many different species of seaweed found along Maine’s coast will yield oil that can be turned into biofuel. He has got Simmons & Company involved in alternative energy. It is a brave choice for someone who is so pessimistic about technology.
Angehängte Grafik:
matthew_simmons.jpg
matthew_simmons.jpg
Volatoil
Jul 9th 2008
From Economist.com
Oil prices fall, but not for long
THE oil price fell by nearly $6 to $135.89 a barrel on Tuesday July 8th, the biggest drop in dollar terms this year (and the biggest fall in percentage terms since March). This third consecutive daily decline wiped 6.5% off the price as a stronger dollar and signs of a weakening world economy contributed to a retreat from commodities. But so far this year the oil price has not fallen for more than three consecutive days. And it looks set to stay that way, as the price rose in trading on Wednesday after a sabre-rattling missile launch by Iran.
Angehängte Grafik:
oil2.jpg (verkleinert auf 92%)
oil2.jpg (verkleinert auf 92%)
Besser kann man es kaum demonstrieren: auch ein noch so hoher ÖLPREIS kann das Angebot nicht mehr gegenüber PEAK erhöhen, wenn PEAK OIL einmal erreicht ist.
Grossbritanniens Ölproduktion fällt seit 1999 um ganze 40 % - "ironischer Weise" genau im Zeitraum des aktuellen Öl-Bullenmarktes.
UND: man kann gerade bei GB wohl kaum sagen - dass hier zuwenig investiert wurde oder, dass "geopolitische Gründen" den Zugang erschwert hätten....
http://www.economist.com/research/...bjectid=381586&story_id=11707772