Oil Price Collapse Is ‘Permanent’; Analyst Says Fossil Fuel Has Had Its Day

(by Jillian Ambrose – Postmedia Network)

“I usually put a £5 bet on the oil price — and I’m collecting,” smiles Professor Dieter Helm.

It’s not difficult to imagine his tally of modest wagers adding up. The highly regarded Oxford University economics professor is a long-time industry observer. Today, he is in central London after taking meetings with major oil executives. He is also a familiar face in Whitehall and Brussels, where he advises, both formally and informally, on the trends reshaping the global energy markets.

Still, his stakes will be trillions of dollars lower than the energy leaders he advises.

If Helm is to be believed the oil market downturn is only getting started. The latest collapse is the harbinger of a global energy revolution which could spell the end-game for fossil fuels. These theories were laughable less than a decade ago when oil prices grazed highs of more than $140 a barrel. But the burn out of the oil industry is approaching quicker than was first thought, and the most senior leaders within the industry are beginning to take note.

In the past, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has faced down criticism that its global energy market forecasts have overestimated the role of oil and underplayed the boom in renewable energy sources. But last month the tone changed. The agency warned oil and gas companies that failing to adapt to the climate policy shift away from fossil fuels and towards cleaner energy would leave a total of $1 trillion in oil assets and $300bn in natural gas assets stranded.

For oil companies who heed Helm’s advice, the route ahead is a ruthless harvest-and-exit strategy. This would mean an aggressive slashing of capital expenditure, pumping of remaining oil reserves while keeping costs to the floor and paying out very high dividends.

“They’d never do it because no company board would contemplate running a smaller company tomorrow than today. It’s not in the zeitgeist of the corporate world we’re in, but that’s what they should do,” Helm says.

BP and Royal Dutch Shell are slowly shifting from oil to gas and making even more tentative steps in the direction of low-carbon energy. But Helm is not entirely convinced that oil companies have grasped the speed with which the industry is undergoing irrevocable change.

“As the oil price fell, at each point, oil executives said that the price would go back up again,” says Helm. “What the oil companies did was borrow to pay their dividends on the assumption that this is a temporary problem. It’s my view that it is permanent,” he adds.

For a start, there is scant precedent for the price highs of recent decades. Between 1900 to the late Sixties oil prices fluctuated in a range between $15 a barrel to just above $30 a barrel – even through two world wars, population growth and a revolution in transport and industry.

It was geopolitical events which caused oil prices to surge by more than $100 a barrel following the Middle East oil embargoes of the late sixties and early seventies. They collapsed back to $20 by the Eighties.

So, what drove oil prices to the heady levels of $140 a barrel just less than 10 years ago?

“China,” says Helm, barely missing a beat. “If you look at both the rapid growth in emissions and the rapid growth of oil, fossil fuel and all commodity prices, it was while China was doubling its economy every seven years. This is a phenomenal rate.

“It’s all very well to say that with hindsight now, but no one anticipated that this enormous, energy intensive growth would happen,” he adds.

The global oil market has managed to cling on to a fragile recovery with prices now rattling between $50 and $55 a barrel, but Helm argues that the economic drive to keep producing even as the industry shifts to a low carbon future means prices may continue to fall — forever.

“As prices come down you’d expect producers to supply less — that’s normal economics. On the contrary, in oil as output falls the production goes up. Why? Because the marginal cost of production in the Middle East is around $10 and the marginal cost in Russia is $20. So even at $50 you’re making a profit. And if you’re an authoritarian regime and you need $100 oil to balance the country’s budget while surrounded by radicals and insurgents, then you pump as much as you can,” Helm says.

“Even if you’re getting less per barrel, you must get the money to keep your budgets going. And that’s exactly what has happened,” he says of the inevitable price collapse.

“Slowly companies have adjusted to the idea that maybe we won’t see $100 oil again. Then, maybe not even $80 to $90. Now, even $60 oil seems a bit aspirational. But there is still a dominant zeitgeist within the oil majors that there is one last hoorah to come. I don’t think there is,” he adds.

The two major demand centres for oil are petrochemicals and transport fuel. The theory previously held in the corridors of major oil company headquarters is that increasing affluence in Asia means that soon more and more families will own two cars. As population booms the number of cars on the road could increase exponentially, requiring millions of barrels of oil to produce the petrol which will fuel the resulting automobile revolution.

But slowly, the oil companies are beginning to come around to Helm’s view that the burgeoning market for electric vehicles may have been underestimated and could radically change the outlook for oil demand.

In its latest annual report on future energy trends BP admitted that it is bracing itself for a revolution in electric car use that could halve the demand of drivers for oil.

In previous years the oil major has downplayed the potential of electric cars in dampening demand but has now almost doubled the number of electric vehicles it expects on the world’s roads in 2035 from 57 million in last year’s report to 100 million.

In addition to the soaring popularity of low-cost electric taxis and falling costs of electric battery storage, more people in emerging economies are expected to become car-owners for the first time, and will be buying electric or high efficiency vehicles.

“Everyone is repeatedly surprised at how fast electric cars are coming forward, but the political pressure to adopt this technology is increasing all the time. And it’s not due to concerns over climate change — it’s city air pollution,” Helm says.

BP’s chief economist, Spencer Dale, added that the company is also preparing to study the future impact of artificial intelligence technology and 3D printing which could dramatically reduce the energy used in manufacturing and shipping parts.

“Many low-cost producers have rationed supply with a view that if they do not produce a barrel today they can produce a barrel tomorrow,” Dale said earlier this year. “I think it is increasingly likely that there will be technically recoverable oil reserves which will never be extracted.”

Typically BP’s focus has been 60% oil and 40% gas but this trend flipped last year as the major focused more on gas for the first time.

The global dash for gas is a multi-billion-dollar bet that Shell was happy to take last year, when it defied tumbling oil market prices to snap up BG Group for pounds £40 billion. The former British Gas subsidiary is now a global leader in producing and transporting gas that is compressed into liquid form to be carried on tankers and sold on the international market.

After the oil market downturn, Shell says the new BG tie-up will be a springboard to profitability in the near term and will help to “future-proof” the company against diminishing demand for oil.

Helm says the low-demand trend is reinforced by one further complexity.

“Suppose you’re sitting in Saudi Arabia: until now you’ve been reasonably confident in assuming that if you don’t pump the oil today it will be worth more tomorrow. But if you believe in my view that oil will be worth even less tomorrow, then what do you do? You pump even more now which will take the price down even further,” he says

“Short of a nasty war — which itself would bring a price spike but not a recovery — I can’t see any reason for oil prices to go up,” Helm says. “Curiously, I think many of the people in oil companies agree with me on that. What they don’t agree with is the short term.”

So, is BP’s Spencer Dale likely to be reaching for a fiver any time soon?

Helm laughs. “For most of the second half of the last decade I have been the odd maniac in the room – the madman who thought that prices were going to fall,” he said.

There has been no bet with Dale, but if Helm is eager to take on BP’s top forecaster he isn’t showing it. He’s probably won enough wagers already.

Article can be found here: Oil price collapse is ‘permanent’; analyst says fossil fuel has had its day.

This was an excellent article by Jillian Ambrose.  Here we can see that more analysts understand the dire ramifications facing the oil industry going forward.

However, I don’t place a lot of faith in Electric Vehicles (EV’s) taking the place of the internal combustion engine.  If we wanted to do so, we should have made the transition 25-30 years ago.

We have just run out the clock.

Check back for new articles and updates at the SRSrocco Report.  You can also follow us at Twitter, Facebook and Youtube below:

Enter your email address to receive updates each time we publish new content.

I hope that you find SRSroccoReport.com useful. Please, consider contributing to help the site remain public. All donations are processed 100% securely by PayPal. Thank you, Steve

58 Comments on "Oil Price Collapse Is ‘Permanent’; Analyst Says Fossil Fuel Has Had Its Day"

  1. Northwest Resident | May 6, 2017 at 10:45 am | Reply

    “the burgeoning market for electric vehicles”

    Not quite. As I read through the article, I found a lot of good points, the main one being that oil price is not likely to ever recover except in brief (war-induced?) spikes. But seriously, the market for electric cars is far from “burgeoning”. And without plentiful cheap (oil) energy for years to come, the electric car industry is going nowhere but down.

    Art Berman says that oil is now at the price it should be at based on fundamentals, and that the $50 – $55 per barrel price that we now see in the rear view mirror was nothing but an “OPEC expectation premium”. Short but to-the-point article here:


  2. This author made some good points I don’t care about climate change carbon garbage the climate always changes sometimes it happens quickly and sometimes slowly so who gives a shit. The bottom line is this if it takes 1.1 gallon of oil to get 1 gallon out of the ground that 1 gallon in the ground has a value of zero. There’s nothing replace oil with and all this talk about renewables and electric cars are nothing more than fantasies who don’t understand how our energy system is structured.

    • robert sinclair | May 7, 2017 at 6:04 am | Reply

      if the climate change views are garbage how do you know the rest isn’t. if they can kid everyone that oil prices are going down permenantly and then buy up the market. They have complete control.

      • robert sinclair,

        The ELITE will lose the most when the U.S. and Global Oil Industries disintegrate. Remember the Ancient Roman Empire. The Elite were crushed just as much as the poor when the Empire collapsed.


        • The fundamental question is why would the silver price decouple from the oil price. Both prices are correlated, so in the coming years one should expect lower silver prices due to lower production costs. How do you solve this conundrum?

    • It’s worse than that. You have to have functional infrastructure to get the barrel out of the ground. If the money/value has already been spent, the oil will keep being pumped, but no new exploration and not much drilling. Old wells will go dry or become tiny trickles (a site tank full every 60 days?) and may be worth keeping going, providing “some” POL to the market in the local area. Oklahoma Texas Bakersfield will have some fuels, but it won’t be worth transporting when the places that need it don’t make anything or have pm’s to trade. Wool hats and long underwear will be the treasures of the future.

  3. Steve, do you still speak with Vic Fontaine?

    • Adam,

      Who is Vic Fontaine? I you joshing about the character from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine?


      • Lol maybe I got his name wrong he was in financial industry for 30 yrs and he dealt munis if I remember correctly. You two would have recorded conversations about the current state of the system and he would his insights

      • Vic pantane

        • Adam,

          Okay. I know what you mean. Actually, Vic and I went separate ways. So, he will no longer be contributing to the site.


  4. That was good for a laugh Steve-thanks-particularly enjoyed the shifting to a low carbon future. I’m 50% with NWR- agree about EVs disagree (as per your previous work) about years of cheap plentiful oil.

  5. Electricity is not an energy source. It is an energy transfer. Most electricity is generated by oil, gas, and coal. With more electric vehicles, more oil, gas, and coal will be needed to generate it. Nuclear is also a transfer, not a source. Unfortunately, sustainable sources like solar, wind, and hydro are not very dense. Density is one of the crucial factors. Fossil fuels are extremely dense. We have no solution for business as usual.

    • Indeed Agnes, no solution for bau. Financial assets are being socialized as we speak; central banks buy financial assets like madman, to keep up promises like pensions, keeping things ‘elevated’. The real panic buying. With no solution for bau, what can we do? Pray, and stack some hard assets.

      I even “bought” myself a shopping cart so i can barbecue my neighbors when the time comes. Upside down it gives you opportunities you never thought of before. For just €0,50

    • Hydro power is dense enough for industry. There is good ROEI with hydro (30:1?) but it is long term and non-portable. But, it’s tough to run a truck with electricity or make Diesel from electricity. You can’t build a dam without a lot of slaves or a bunch of Diesel.

  6. Laughing economic profeesor telling stories of low carbon future is a first class lunacy show mixing horrible truth and acid-grade fantasy.

    Yes, the oil industry model is dying; most of all the oil pricing model is dead and going bad swiftly.
    Yes, EROI — we all know that.
    No, there is no low carbon future without billions dying first, without extermination wars for low-EROI oil, which matches well with billions dying in the process.
    No, electricity is not low carbon. It is closer to pure carbon for modern grids — in China. Nuclear choices, for most of the world, were made — now countries have to live or die with them.
    No, solar and wind is not low carbon either, unless there is evidence of a self-sufficient economy running on wind and solar. There is none, hence “low carbon economies” draw energy from “pure carbon economies” via the complexities of global financial system and trade. Making a wind turbine in Germany, using aluminium, steel and chemicals made elsewhere with carbon-powered processes, is good for policy delusions and PR campaigns, but does not change reality. If base load power generation is low carbon, and given the dire absence of horses and trees left to cut, it makes for abut a billion people economy, the level of early 19th century, when coal opened the window for the second billion. Definitely, a low carbon economy has no room for economic professors, especially of a laughing type. He obviously forgot to consider that little part.
    And the best part, the policy. The low carbon policy, as it goes, will end with the lunatics that made it, same as earlier policies ended every single Mediterranean regime at about 1200BC, when they ran out of trees to cut, and in about 50 years every city from Greece to Egypt was destroyed and most never repopulated. That was “the collapse of Bronze Age”, and just before it happened, there was the usual number of lunatics making policies and hoping to force their will on reality. Reality won, it always does.

    China will not go low carbon before and unless they are ready. China is about a half of material everything on this planet. They will burn coal just as long as they need to, but not longer; they will upscale nuclear; they will get cheap oil, be it Russian (not for long due to depletion), Arab or any other. They are converting to gas, they have designs to convert coal plants to gas-cooled nuclear, they have a collossal solar and wind program — their objective is to survive economically, not to please some perv policy of low something, as they had plenty of their own collapses before and want to avoid the next one. Som the world of the future low carbon energy will consist of two parts: the hated dead, and the survivors. The professor has won a place in the first part, along with the politicians and their followers.

    As for the price, no one knows really, because the price has two parts: physical units and monetary units. As the total (net available) quantity of physical units of oil decreases, monetary systems bassed on debt will have to die, which makes the eventual value of their units zero– price will go into infinity. In physical terms, be it gold or labour, the price will vary: in gold it may be more or less stable due to simultaneous depletion or ores and collapse of economic productivity (gold is essentially a discretionary good after all); in labour it will definitely have rise (pure case of EROI), but the collapse in market size creates unanalysable complexities. Essentially, the price will not matter in the world where billions die slowly, economies collapse, and the main global growth is in border walls construction, as isolation a natural reaction to preserve self from adverse environment. What was the price of oil in early 19th century? It did not really matter to 99.9% of people, just as much as the price of plutonium does not matter in early 21st century to 99.9% of people, which does not reflect on either substance’s energy value — it was not an oil economy back then, it is not a plutonium economy now. It is oil, coal and gas economy, the rest is mostly fun and games.

  7. I was following along until the electric cars started rolling out. Whom do they think they are kidding? No way an electric car can compete with the gasoline internal combustion engine, i.e., a gallon of gas.

    My eyes roll when I see these oh so politically ecologically correct tree huggers driving their hybrid /electric cars. Pure feel-good blind sightedness.

    Now, how much energy and materials does it require to make a nice bicycle and what is the miles per calorie expenditure?

  8. The cost per BTU of energy is higher for electricity than gasoline. 30 kw hrs. @ 10 cents/kwh = $ 3.00 which is more than a gallon of gas (which has about 30 kwh equivalent).

  9. Do you expect to see Gold follow oil as it done for the past decades? Or, do you expect Gold to go on its own?

    • Ric,

      No… Gold & Silver will disconnect from the price of oil going forward. This is due to Gold & Silver’s HIGH QUALITY STORE OF VALUE compared to most STOCKS, BONDS & REAL ESTATE. 99% of investors are in STOCKS, BONDS & REAL ESTATE. I see the value of these assets declining substantially within the decade.

      Thus, investors who want to protect wealth, will have to move into GOLD & SILVER… regardless of the falling oil price.


  10. How about those carbs of the 60’s that got 100 to 200 MPG. People would do more driving if they got that kind of mileage. The patents do exist.

  11. Well, what are the patent numbers so I can research them?

  12. Not So Free | May 6, 2017 at 8:38 pm | Reply

    OK. Off topic, at least to a degree. Not talking the financial, or even the bottom line.
    Does anyone remember that the Nazis in the 1940s were converting coal to liquid fuel?

  13. Alfred (Melbourne) | May 6, 2017 at 10:48 pm | Reply

    While I agree that the oil price is going to go down much more, I believe that this is simply because the economies are unwinding. Productivity is dropping and people have less money to spend. Gail Tverberg explains it very well


    As for electric cars, forget it! Where do you think the electricity is going to come from – intermittent fake Renewable Energy? Give us a break. I don’t know anywhere in the planet where either the sun is guaranteed to shine 8 hours per day or where the wind will always be at a steady 50-80 KPH.

    The capacity factor of wind turbines in the UK is around 25% – and that is supposed to be a windy place. In Germany, they had 10 days last December with no wind and no sun:


    Batteries have been around for almost 200 years. The last big thing was lithium batteris – 30 years ago. Basing your hopes on a cheaper or more efficient battery is delusional. The price of colbalt and lithium is not going to drop any time soon.

    • Actually North of Chile, you can guarantee 8 hours sun with a 98% certainty

    • Wind is fast and steady in Antarctica and a number of spots, sun is rather predictable in Saudi and north Africa. Problem is, all that it is way off the industrial core of the world, hence irrelevant.

      • Alfred (Melbourne) | May 8, 2017 at 8:41 pm | Reply

        Thank you Reader for stating the obvious. I hope Pedro has his wish and moves to the Atacama desert. 🙂

  14. This article implies a permanently low oil price – your last suggests a link between input energy costs and precious metal prices…. does this mean we can expect permanently low precious metals? As long as input costs don’t rise the market price can be managed by those with with the will to do so?

    • Jim,

      No. Gold & Silver will disconnect from their “COMMODITY PRICED MECHANISM” to their “HIGH QUALITY STORE OF VALUE”. The reason for this is… most STOCKS, BONDS and REAL ESTATE get their value from burning energy in the future. However, a falling liquid oil supply will destroy the valuations of most STOCKS, BONDS & REAL ESTATE.

      So…. the value of Gold & Silver will rise, regardless of falling costs due to falling oil costs.


  15. Here is a good example of people unable to read the symptoms to discern the cause. Evidently the collapse in oil prices is being caused by the surge in electric cars which is now at 0.2% and somehow is projected to reach 100 million by 2035. And that would be 10% without growth? At present extraction rates of lithium it would take 220 years to have enough for those cars but I guess no one has done the math. If it was possible lithium production would immediately need to reach 375,000 tons per year a 10 fold increase from current levels. Nothing has ever grown that fast not even the heady oil days. 1000 % production increase??? Even if you try to argue that it will grow to that level by 2035 we’re talking about growth rates of 35% or better for 20 years. Never happened never will.

    • JT Roberts,

      Yes…. I agree. The Electric car part of the article was pure bogus. There is no way in hell EV’s are going to make much of a dent in the next 10-15 years as the U.S. and Global Oil Industry disintegrates.

      Rather, I see less technology in the future…. not more.


      • Less tech means lower or much lower standard of living, and much smaller population. Any way of transition from now to that is a prime tour through hell, which makes pretty much everything irrelevant, except hideouts in remote areas. People will turn every populated area into a jungle style survival arena — uninhabitable, really. Neither gold, nor silver or anything else would make a meaningful difference in that situation; only physical deparation into a low-profile enclave of good old days lifestyle. A lifeboat, really.

  16. Think I will get back in the horse business, got a son inlaw who is a carpenter who could start building carts and wagons. Might not work since he uses only power tools.😩
    Hey maybe invest in Volkswagen beetles. Replace rear engine with wood stove to heat passengers. Would make great 2 horse buggy.
    Can you imagine passing old speed limit signs so slow folks could actually read em?

  17. For the record, some energy math:

    Human labor is estimated to be on average 75 watts of power maximum. Industrial data uses 50 watts on a continuous 8 hour day. That’s 400 watt hours of energy provided to the system. Divide by 1000, that’s 0.4 kilowatt hours per day. You can compare that figure to your electricity bill. We are described as dim bulbs for a valid reason.

    A draft horse is estimated to provide [surprise!] one horse power of power on a continuous basis. That’s 746 [I use 750 for simplicity] watts. Over an 8 hour day, that’s 6000 watt hours, or 6 kilowatt hours to compare to your electricity bill. And compare 1 horse power to your car’s engine. Do the math. It’s overwhelming.

    We humans are not the labor. Directed fossil fuel is the labor running our economy. Even draft animals would make a puny contribution. And they eat a lot.

  18. Slithereen guard | May 7, 2017 at 10:10 am | Reply

    You should write about how the oil trade is done.

  19. So if gold and silver are a store of value, we who have some will be able to bid on that piece of bread or carrot we may find at whatever passes for a market?

    • I can imagined new, gold-backed currencies in the future, and as such, gold holders being the ones that actually help to reboot the system after the fall/reset. Time will tell if this will happen or if this is just fancy and wishful thinking.

      • “gold-backed currencies”

        no such thing. any currency “backed” by gold will be subject to the same manipulations and abuse as any fiat currency, and for the same reasons.

        • Hanging some of the current banksters and building some checks in might set an example for a few years.

        • We’ll see, certainly not emerging in the West, that’s for sure. There will always be debt and fiat IMHO, however, should gold become the principle store of value – and many think it will, read some FOFOA for instance – then its “price” may well be so high that the physical metals de facto “cover” all outstanding fiat / debt WITHOUT an official (even partial) gold standard; gold would then be the factual denominator or EVERYTHING (even the price of silver). I let you do the math and some assumptions, but even old jim sinclaire’s 50k per ounce of gold could become a very conservative low-ball estimate. There are no free markets for gold right now, so there can be no true price-discovery – but there will be, and expect it’s going to be memorable. But till then, *THEY* might even push it down to 800 / below 13 if they think this serves them best. I doubt it though and if that happened, I’d still be a buyer.

    • So if gold and silver are a store of value”

      g/s store nothing. they are money, nothing more, and no money of any kind or quantity is ever worth more than what is available for purchase.

      “we who have some will be able to bid on that piece of bread or carrot we may find at whatever passes for a market?”

      more likely the bidding will be conducted with bullets.

      • When compared to a market with circulating paper printed to worthlessness, silver and gold are excellent markers of value. I want value for my labor and skills.

        • “I want value for my labor and skills.”

          money is not value.

          • THAT depends on your definition of value. Ultimately “economic value” will have a price tag and as such, gold and silver will always have a fiat price as long as there is fiat money (gold standard or not) and thus some “value”. If you talk about moral or personal values like kindness, humour, benevolence, or happiness then these are not personal attributes that can (easily) be bought, but rather are part of our individuality and mind set, which is not really markets its inner feelings – for mine there is no such market.

  20. Robert Happek | May 7, 2017 at 12:51 pm | Reply

    The quoted article says that oil prices will stay low permanently because Saudi Arabia and Russia can produce oil at a cost of $20 or lower per barrel. Since oil demand is falling due to the explosion of demand for electric cars, Russia and Saudi Arabia will be forced to supply the market at permanently low prices because they need to balance their budgets with oil revenue (they can not print Dollars, hence they must pump oil). That theory completely contradicts Steve’s theory that oil prices will be low permanently due to falling EROI numbers and thermodynamics. Apparently the EROI numbers in Russia and Saudi Arabia are still pretty good that they can pump at the cost of less than $20 per barrel. My conclusion: In the peak oil business, there are too many smart people who contradict themselves. I better stop having any opinion at all. This business is too mind boggling.

    • Robert Happek

      This business is too mind boggling.

      So true Robert. Any opinion I have has to be essentially uninformed. I am not and never will be close enough to the energy source to know any different. I use personal charts because that is where the money is. If the smart money starts to move I will see it in the charts before the MSM. Well that’s the logic anyway.

      Having said that; this is why I am a fan of Steve’s. Steve does his magic with his interpretation of the actual numbers from the companies own reports and that of the recognised official bodies who process the market numbers worldwide.

      So when you read a report in here about major oil companies being in th RED, one should sit up and take notice. They are in the RED for a reason. We can all have our opinions BUT th e bottom line is; If these companies are in the RED; we are in trouble BIG trouble whether we like it or not. We know where the BALL is we should not get distracted by uninformed opinion.

  21. DisappearingCulture | May 7, 2017 at 6:20 pm | Reply

    The oil price could stay low. The income greedy or starved governments [sovereign, state, province, or local] could tax it more in the future.

  22. This article is rubbish.

    Hands up if you are buying an electric car to replace your ICE car?

    Electric cars to not even register in terms of overall auto sales. They are not even close to 1% of total vehicle sales.

    That is in spite of enormous subsidies.

    Obviously nobody wants an EV other than the deluded cultists who buy these toxic waste dumps https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/19/tesla-motors-dirty-little-secret-is-a-major-proble.aspx

    Why would this suddenly change?

    • “Why would this suddenly change?”

      legal mandates, grants of monopoly, banning of alternatives. for starters.

  23. oil at $140+. “IT’S NEVER COMING DOWN AGAIN!”

    oil at $48-. “IT’S NEVER GOING UP AGAIN!”

  24. Hello Steve, love your stuff, excellent analysis
    Is gold prices are a function of production costs, if oil falls in price, will gold production costs fall and the price as well?


  25. so what happens after the collapse?
    What could be the next energy source? I sincerely doubt we’ll just go back to medieval times or the stone age or whatever.Sure the oil and gas industry will die out eventually,that is the nature of their game,simply put its limited resource and when we reach the point of not realsing any profit from that source we’ll just use something else,like solar or wind or nuclear ,or Helium-5 from the moon or Thorium.Sure it may take some time to adjust but I doubt it’ll be anything more than 5-10 years.Heck even 20.But the future is green?
    So what do you think ?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.