54 comments on POLL: CLV08 went through $91/bbl..so, in the next 60 days, the front month price of CL will...
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
54 comments on POLL: CLV08 went through $91/bbl..so, in the next 60 days, the front month price of CL will...
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”
—Gandhi
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
"But, the polls don't get it wrong each time exactly since some people get it right and some get it wrong."
Not Exactly. I understand your point. Some people get it wrong, some right. "The Poll" gets it wrong, since it is represented by the largest voting block.
Bloomberg News runs this same scenario every week with a group of oil analysts. Its results are exactly as good as a coin flip.
1 in 16. Or 6%. Somehow Oil Drum respondents hit that 6% zone. I'm not sure how to describe this. Blind bad luck? If they hit 50% I'd say they were just normal opinions or guesses. If they were right all for times, I'd have to say they were brilliant analysts or at least knew what they were talking about. So what is the reason why they were so wrong? What mistakes did they make and why would I bother listening to them again?
Maybe a better way to do it would be to total the numbers of votes in each category (sorted by right or wrong) and then look at the results. Maybe you wouldn't get 6% percent, but a coin flip would still be a better judge of prices.
If you want to look at individuals, try T.Boone Pickens. Same results. In fact his have been horrible the last 6 months. His fund has lost investors millions. Not as bad as the banks, but a monkey could have made money in the energy margets the last few months. The banks were pre-disposed to lose.
Ironically, the investment bank/analysts who have constantly touted a return to $90 oil all spring and summer are Lehman Brothers.
We could say that the poll is just as good as a coin flip (taking the idea that there are only two real choices) if we take the last eight polls rather than the last four. In that realization the polls are half right and half wrong.
Chris
You could. But the key point there would be that the poll is never better than a coin flip.
There is still no proof that any of the "experts" here or anywhere else have ever had any actionable intelligence better than an inanimate object (the coin).
Look's to me as though we've given up on polls now. At $130/barrel right now we've missed two 10% steps: $110 and $122. Might miss $135 too....
Chris
I think the reason most oil drum readers expect the price of crude to rise is that, for the most part, we are looking at supply and demand. We have no access to specific statistics related to oil futures transactions--neither the quantity, nor the size. Why isn't that information public? Who knows and what do they know about the transactions that are affecting the price of crude? In my view, there should be transparency in these markets while anonymity could be preserved. We don't have that information and we are left guessing about what's going on. Are financial institutions, as many suspect, forced to dump holdings as their positions become compromised? Quite likely.
But besides that matter, we can consider the cost of production of a marginal barrel of oil. And on that basis, I suspect the price of oil is artificially low and will be shooting up as soon as we hit 'peak bankruptcy' of financial institutions holding commodities.
Are we having fun yet?
The cost of production of the marginal barrel of oil is pretty low if demand is low enough that ME crude can supply all of it. Somewhere around $5-15/barrel. It only gets high if you need tarsands and such to meet demand.
Chris
Chris,
You can't throw out numbers about ME cost of production because that is NOT the MARGINAL COST OF PRODUCTION of world supply. Instead, I would point you to a cost analysis of crude derived from tar sands in Canada to get a handle on what I'm talking about.
Demand is NOT falling as dramatically as you are suggesting--far from it. Remember--tar sands operations haven't ceased. WHY NOT? There is where you find the marginal cost of oil!
More here.
What's missing in this article is that tar sands are profitable at a certain threshold for the price of crude oil. What is that threshold? There's the bottom line.
If we reduce demand to the point where the ME could, in principle, provide all the oil that is now coming from expensive sources, then the price will get back to $20/barrel. A barrel from tarsands is not marginal if there is plenty of less expensive spare capacity. It may still get produced at a loss to try to recoup a portion of the inital investment, but there won't be any new investment in tarsands. And this is exactly what we should be aiming to accomplish. Investing in high cost oil is bad for us. We can substitute electricity for oil in transportation at lower cost overall and we can keep that cost down more by conserving strongly now to keep the price of oil low while we make that substitution.
The message of peak oil is that there is going to be less oil no matter what. The question is, do we allow the market to force us into going after expensive to produce oil that does nothing about decline? Since we have the regulatory mechanism to avoid this harm to ourselves, the Economic Regulatory Administration is, by law, part of the Department of Energy, we should use it.
Chris