User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Why, when all that is required is a rudimentary understanding of Physics and Geology do TPTB continue to insist on situation normal?
Why do both Government, Editors of papers of record such as the Times, Sunday Times, The Daily Telegraph and associated Economists still insist that the oil price is a blip?
Why do industry heavyweights effectively deny PO, insist that technology will reverse the problem and `other sources' will come on stream in time?
Share prices.
Share buy-backs can be described as slow motion liquidation. If you cannot find suitable candidates for exploration and development, if you cannot access Nationalised Oil Provinces, then as a Director, you have a fiscal responsibility to the share holders to return an investment on capital plus interest. If this means liquidation, then liquidation it is. You cannot collapse the share price, you must buy back at market rates.
Other alternatives are actual Exp /Dev drilling campaigns . Some of this is happening (within the constraints of rig utilisation, personnel availability, access to candidate oil provinces and acreage in Nation States)
While doing this, the last thing you need is a Cassandra or other Prophets rocking the boat.
What people fail to remember is that there is no moral obligation on any Oil Company Director to `find more oil for the people' or save a nation from harm. There is only one imperative: A fiscal responsibility to the share holders.
The problem is that the Government is still really only hearing one side of the argument and it is that of the Establishment.
It is not convenient right now for a Government to listen to the PO argument.
It would collapse the stock market.
In addition - advertising. If we look through almost any newspaper it would seem that some 25% of their advertising is coming from the auto industry and another decent chunk from the travel / hotel industry. Much of the products being promoted represent discretionary spending i.e. one does not have to go on holiday, buy a new car (when a 2nd hand model would suffice) etc.
If / when PO really is widely accepted and understood it would surely greatly impact Joe Public's spending patterns leading to a major downturn in income by suppliers of discretionary goods and services and hence a big downturn in advertising revenue for the MSM. The newspapers are hardly likely to want to upset their best paying customers by drawing attention to PO before it becomes too obvious to ignore. The party therefore continues.