What is the extent of the 'opportunity' in the oil market?

[Uccmal]

All players agree to maintain a price in the US 55-60/bbl range, pay a carbon tax, & the funds go to permanent shut-in of Tar Sands. Could be via outright purchase of Tar Sands, or via their repurposing to sequester CO2 & Methane emissions on behalf of the industry. In broad terms, petro $ re-cycling, via the use of carbon credits.

 

Choose not to participate, & you risk the loss of some of your production facility. Your choice, but the ultimately the result will be the same; stabilized prices in the US 55-60/bbl range.

 

SD

 

 

I like that word unpack.  In plain English, you are proposing that Alberta and Canada meet their GG targets by paying Syncrude not to produce.  It simultaneously takes out supply, and meets GG requirements.  In effect Suncor becomes a finance cap and trade broker company of some sort. 

 

It will only work if the system is workdwide.  That remains to be seen.  We know Opec cheats on pumping - they will cheat on Cap and trades as well.

[Cardboard]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-10/opec-says-crude-production-rose-to-three-year-high-in-november

 

This report caused a fair bit of anxiety this week in the oil market. However, I would like to point out two key elements not discussed by pundits:

 

1- Saudi Arabia production has come down. It is not a large amount vs its recent peak but, two things should be mentioned:

- If you have 2 million barrels a day of spare capacity and you want to flood the market to destroy your fellow producers, then why are you showing a decline in output?

- Before the summer, it was often mentioned that Saudi Arabia was ramping up capacity and drilling to meet its own internal usage during the very hot summer months. Now that this internal demand is gone, where are the extra barrels?

 

2- OPEC is stating that the world will need 30.8 million barrels/day of their oil in 2016. That is kind of bizarre when you think about it and when your intention is to gather market share. Why stating a demand number lower than you could supply and that you are already supplying or roughly 31.5 million barrels/day? Why is the world needing only 30.8 million barrels/day of their oil when it consumes roughly 95 million barrels/day and they are the low cost producer? With operations in the Middle East and South America it seems logistically like an illogical statement unless you want to tell the market that this is your new quota.

 

Cardboard

[SharperDingaan]

A little more complex, but same end result

1. Global industry notionally pays to a ‘fund’. (Mkt price – MC) x production

2. ‘Fund’ pays X% of notional collection to lowest cost producers to shut-in production

3. ‘Fund’ pays (100-X)%  to buy carbon credits – on central bank credit

4. Industry sequester injects CO2, & Methane for carbon credits – on central bank credit

5. Carbon credit, central bank cash settlement process

 

Whole process becomes very sensitive to (mkt price – MC) spread, & much more stable. Those on the bubble are essentially paying others to stay out, & receiving the most benefit. Market price still set by market, producers incentivized to lower MC as much as possible.

 

Cap & Trade is effectively global regulatory carbon emmission control. Cheating is expected; governmental oversight is the standard solution. Broadly similar cooperation examples already exist – global AML/ATF tracking & enforcement.

 

Why Tar Sands? The size rivals SA, & at full production would be profitable at USD 55-60/bbl. It is essentially a price cap, & comes at the cost of high pollution. Use it as a carbon sink & the global industry simultaneously removes the price cap, cleans up the environment, & gets some help restructuring itself. Location in one of the more honest parts of the world is bonus.

 

The seven sisters, & their now big nieces, are state enterprises dressed in corporate clothing. Hence, less difficult to implement that initially meets the eye. Suncor became a state enterprise when it was allowed to acquire Petro Can (the people’s oil company).

 

SD

 

[Cardboard]

For people who are worried about Asian demand for crude, I would keep an eye on copper.

 

Although, copper has its own supply and demand factors, I have noticed that it is on the upswing from its recent low despite the market drama of this week. Like for oil, there has been major supply cuts in the industry but, unlike for oil, demand was truly in question with much reduced construction activity in China.

 

The fact that the price seems to be responding to these supply cuts is encouraging in terms of the world not entering for now into some kind of collapse.

 

Cardboard

[TheAiGuy]

A little more complex, but same end result

1. Global industry notionally pays to a ‘fund’. (Mkt price – MC) x production

2. ‘Fund’ pays X% of notional collection to lowest cost producers to shut-in production

3. ‘Fund’ pays (100-X)%  to buy carbon credits – on central bank credit

4. Industry sequester injects CO2, & Methane for carbon credits – on central bank credit

5. Carbon credit, central bank cash settlement process

 

Whole process becomes very sensitive to (mkt price – MC) spread, & much more stable. Those on the bubble are essentially paying others to stay out, & receiving the most benefit. Market price still set by market, producers incentivized to lower MC as much as possible.

 

Cap & Trade is effectively global regulatory cabon emmission control. Cheating is expected; governmental oversight is the standard solution. Broadly similar cooperation examples already exist – global AML/ATF tracking & enforcement.

 

Why Tar Sands? The size rivals SA, & at full production would be profitable at USD 55-60/bbl. It is essentially a price cap, & comes at the cost of high pollution. Use it as a carbon sink & the global industry simultaneously removes the price cap, cleans up the environment, & gets some help restructuring itself. Location in one of the more honest parts of the world is bonus.

 

The seven sisters, & their now big nieces, are state enterprises dressed in corporate clothing. Hence, less difficult to implement that initially meets the eye. Suncor became a state enterprise when it was allowed to acquire Petro Can (the people’s oil company).

 

SD

 

Won't work. Cartels only work if they control the bulk of marginal production and they share the same incentives. The Texas railroad commission worked b/c the marginal production was in Texas and there was a single actor, OPEC worked (in the 70s and precisely zero times afters) b/c they all hated Israel and the ME was the marginal supplier.

 

Now the swing producer is a large group of independent producers acting under no legislative control under a political system without the appetite to force collusion (Frackers in NA). Development times are fast, technology is lowering costs and everyone has an incentive to drill.

[bmichaud]

SD,

 

Is what you propose a real proposal that is actually in the works? Do you have an 'ear to the ground'? Has anything like this been globally implemented over the course of history?

[SharperDingaan]

The 1940-1970’s petroleum industry was the creation of the seven sisters. Each of them was backed by their respective states; & many of the current ME states (SA, Iraq, Iran) owe their existence to this global agreement drawn up in the concluding days of WWII. We also know from other industries (sugar, fruit, chemicals, arms, drugs, etc.) that this was the standard global industry practice of the time. It is common, & routine.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sisters_(oil_companies)

 

We know the new sisters are suffering under the current pricing regime (scan their financials). Many of them are also sitting on higher cost reserves that will be developed for strategic interests, not economic ones. It is in no sister’s interests to acquiesce to an extended pissing match; & their state backers have a history of routinely changing opposing governments.

 

Environmentalism is an industry built on opposition; take away the opposition, & you destroy the shtick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtick. Opponents do not disagree with the basic argument, they disagree on how to get there. Carbon credits are a way forward, & in our version – would be controlled by the petroleum industry. Support it, & you can claim your legacy is done; oppose it, & you risk coming across as an aged hippy – unable to move with the times. Two can play the PR game.

 

There have been private rumblings in various parts of the world for quite some time; some of which were quite probably climate conference related trial balloons. We will not wake up to a market solution tomorrow morning, but it seems pretty clear there will eventually be one; by the grace of the new sisters - & their supporting states.

 

We floated a trial balloon. We think it has potential, we know this is a public board, & we are pretty sure it is going to be picked up. If it privately gets fleshed out later; I’m sure I will get a PM. If nothing occurs; nothing ventured, nothing gained.

 

O&G is a strategic investment. We think the Tar Sands are essentially in the wrong industry, & that they would be far better off in the ‘saviour’ business.

 

SD

 

[tombgrt]

Isn't the question more "Is there any region that would actually benefit from lowering it's own production?" versus "What is a correct price level for oil?" ? Short and medium term, 101 economics don't seem to matter much. All parties need oil income and don't want to cave in because if you do, you are just going to be replaced by someone else. For some isn't the question also "Why not increase production even further"? No need to delay the inevitable? Idk, I'm quite clueless on these things but then again so is almost everyone else. :)

 

Everyone is pumping the max they can. Years of 100$ oil financed this. Projects still came online in 2015. Now at 40$ it is getting harder just to maintain production in 50+% of prod and what they called a glut has already narrowed down from 2.5mboe/day to 1-mboe/day in the last year. Stocks is the thing that allows for all these shorts to feel confident for now. Shale I think puts a soft cap on prices close to 60+$/boe.

 

 

But production still > than demand and no one will be willing to slow production before they are economically forced. So doesn't that simply mean that all those NA shale producers will simply go bankrupt or taken over by majors as they are the weakest players by far?

 

No one knows where the price goes from here but there sure seems to be little incentive for oil to go up given that all players are still hanging on. Many claim we won't see sub $30-$35 simply because ... ? Idk honestly. It seems unlikely but given everything, why not? $40 seemed just as unlikely a year ago.

 

So can someone tell me why all those North American producers aren't fucked?

 

Oh, ok...  :-\ ;)

[Guest Grey512]

Isn't the question more "Is there any region that would actually benefit from lowering it's own production?" versus "What is a correct price level for oil?" ? Short and medium term, 101 economics don't seem to matter much. All parties need oil income and don't want to cave in because if you do, you are just going to be replaced by someone else. For some isn't the question also "Why not increase production even further"? No need to delay the inevitable? Idk, I'm quite clueless on these things but then again so is almost everyone else. :)

 

Everyone is pumping the max they can. Years of 100$ oil financed this. Projects still came online in 2015. Now at 40$ it is getting harder just to maintain production in 50+% of prod and what they called a glut has already narrowed down from 2.5mboe/day to 1-mboe/day in the last year. Stocks is the thing that allows for all these shorts to feel confident for now. Shale I think puts a soft cap on prices close to 60+$/boe.

 

 

But production still > than demand and no one will be willing to slow production before they are economically forced. So doesn't that simply mean that all those NA shale producers will simply go bankrupt or taken over by majors as they are the weakest players by far?

 

No one knows where the price goes from here but there sure seems to be little incentive for oil to go up given that all players are still hanging on. Many claim we won't see sub $30-$35 simply because ... ? Idk honestly. It seems unlikely but given everything, why not? $40 seemed just as unlikely a year ago.

 

So can someone tell me why all those North American producers aren't fucked?

 

Oh, ok...  :-\ ;)

 

Anyone here interested in (or actively long) refiners?

Decent dividend yields; likelihood of lower crude prices for longer could be positive for spreads. Etc.

[shhughes1116]

Isn't the question more "Is there any region that would actually benefit from lowering it's own production?" versus "What is a correct price level for oil?" ? Short and medium term, 101 economics don't seem to matter much. All parties need oil income and don't want to cave in because if you do, you are just going to be replaced by someone else. For some isn't the question also "Why not increase production even further"? No need to delay the inevitable? Idk, I'm quite clueless on these things but then again so is almost everyone else. :)

 

Everyone is pumping the max they can. Years of 100$ oil financed this. Projects still came online in 2015. Now at 40$ it is getting harder just to maintain production in 50+% of prod and what they called a glut has already narrowed down from 2.5mboe/day to 1-mboe/day in the last year. Stocks is the thing that allows for all these shorts to feel confident for now. Shale I think puts a soft cap on prices close to 60+$/boe.

 

 

But production still > than demand and no one will be willing to slow production before they are economically forced. So doesn't that simply mean that all those NA shale producers will simply go bankrupt or taken over by majors as they are the weakest players by far?

 

No one knows where the price goes from here but there sure seems to be little incentive for oil to go up given that all players are still hanging on. Many claim we won't see sub $30-$35 simply because ... ? Idk honestly. It seems unlikely but given everything, why not? $40 seemed just as unlikely a year ago.

 

So can someone tell me why all those North American producers aren't fucked?

 

Oh, ok...  :-\ ;)

 

Anyone here interested in (or actively long) refiners?

Decent dividend yields; likelihood of lower crude prices for longer could be positive for spreads. Etc.

I haven't checked in the last two weeks, but it looked like crack spreads were contracting.  If you are investing in refiners in the United States, you are either betting on them taking advantage of differences in regional pricing (slowly going away as more crude pipelines come online), or differences between WTI/WCS/etc and Brent (possibly narrowing if the export ban is lifted, which seems like a distinct possibility given current discussions in Washington).  Things are good right now, and I can only see things getting worse relative to the current situation. 

 

[bmichaud]

The 1940-1970’s petroleum industry was the creation of the seven sisters. Each of them was backed by their respective states; & many of the current ME states (SA, Iraq, Iran) owe their existence to this global agreement drawn up in the concluding days of WWII. We also know from other industries (sugar, fruit, chemicals, arms, drugs, etc.) that this was the standard global industry practice of the time. It is common, & routine.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sisters_(oil_companies)

 

We know the new sisters are suffering under the current pricing regime (scan their financials). Many of them are also sitting on higher cost reserves that will be developed for strategic interests, not economic ones. It is in no sister’s interests to acquiesce to an extended pissing match; & their state backers have a history of routinely changing opposing governments.

 

Environmentalism is an industry built on opposition; take away the opposition, & you destroy the shtick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtick. Opponents do not disagree with the basic argument, they disagree on how to get there. Carbon credits are a way forward, & in our version – would be controlled by the petroleum industry. Support it, & you can claim your legacy is done; oppose it, & you risk coming across as an aged hippy – unable to move with the times. Two can play the PR game.

 

There have been private rumblings in various parts of the world for quite some time; some of which were quite probably climate conference related trial balloons. We will not wake up to a market solution tomorrow morning, but it seems pretty clear there will eventually be one; by the grace of the new sisters - & their supporting states.

 

We floated a trial balloon. We think it has potential, we know this is a public board, & we are pretty sure it is going to be picked up. If it privately gets fleshed out later; I’m sure I will get a PM. If nothing occurs; nothing ventured, nothing gained.

 

O&G is a strategic investment. We think the Tar Sands are essentially in the wrong industry, & that they would be far better off in the ‘saviour’ business.

 

SD

 

Appreciate the color. Extremely helpful  8)

[RRJ]

I agree with this and think there is something off about all this.  I've been wondering if OPEC's announcement is a policy that Saudi Arabia dictated, or one that was putting a good look on a de factor policy because the other OPEC members (Venezuela, Nigeria) were basically up front telling the Saudis they were not going to curtail output.  In other words, was this a strategic decision by the Saudis and OPEC members, or just making the fact that they can no longer exert control over their members look better by making it "our policy."  Has anyone got any insight into this possibility and what it would mean if OPEC were losing control of its members (assuming it has not already)?  I apologize if this has been covered already on this strand. 

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-10/opec-says-crude-production-rose-to-three-year-high-in-november

 

This report caused a fair bit of anxiety this week in the oil market. However, I would like to point out two key elements not discussed by pundits:

 

1- Saudi Arabia production has come down. It is not a large amount vs its recent peak but, two things should be mentioned:

- If you have 2 million barrels a day of spare capacity and you want to flood the market to destroy your fellow producers, then why are you showing a decline in output?

- Before the summer, it was often mentioned that Saudi Arabia was ramping up capacity and drilling to meet its own internal usage during the very hot summer months. Now that this internal demand is gone, where are the extra barrels?

 

2- OPEC is stating that the world will need 30.8 million barrels/day of their oil in 2016. That is kind of bizarre when you think about it and when your intention is to gather market share. Why stating a demand number lower than you could supply and that you are already supplying or roughly 31.5 million barrels/day? Why is the world needing only 30.8 million barrels/day of their oil when it consumes roughly 95 million barrels/day and they are the low cost producer? With operations in the Middle East and South America it seems logistically like an illogical statement unless you want to tell the market that this is your new quota.

 

Cardboard

[TheAiGuy]

one that was putting a good look on a de factor policy because the other OPEC members (Venezuela, Nigeria) were basically up front telling the Saudis they were not going to curtail output.

 

This. 100%

 

People underestimate the cohesiveness and power of OPEC. If the puppet masters could pull the strings, wouldn't they have already?

 

[Cardboard]

ALERT!!!

 

My ex-girlfriend called last night and said that she saw that the oil price had dropped 65%.

 

Bottom has to be in. When an avid watcher of The Kardashian notices such thing then we are normally at a turn.

 

Cardboard

[TwoCitiesCapital]

ALERT!!!

 

My ex-girlfriend called last night and said that she saw that the oil price had dropped 65%.

 

Bottom has to be in. When an avid watcher of The Kardashian notices such thing then we are normally at a turn.

 

Cardboard

 

+1

 

Thanks for the heads up. Tripling down today.

[rkbabang]

ALERT!!!

 

My ex-girlfriend called last night and said that she saw that the oil price had dropped 65%.

 

Bottom has to be in. When an avid watcher of The Kardashian notices such thing then we are normally at a turn.

 

Cardboard

 

Doesn't everyone have a pretty good idea of how much oil prices have dropped?  You see gas stations everywhere with huge signs showing the gas prices wherever you go.  Anyone who heats with home heating oil knows as well.

 

[shhughes1116]

one that was putting a good look on a de factor policy because the other OPEC members (Venezuela, Nigeria) were basically up front telling the Saudis they were not going to curtail output.

 

This. 100%

 

People underestimate the cohesiveness and power of OPEC. If the puppet masters could pull the strings, wouldn't they have already?

 

 

This goes back to the idea of Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait/UAE to a lesser extent, acting as the Central Bank of oil.  They've played this game before, and know that when they curtail output to raise prices, not only do the banana republics (of South America and Africa) continue to cheat on the quotas, but Saudi Arabia gets screwed on market share.

 

Saudi Arabia's decision to produce full-throttle (and if you noticed, Russia is also going along with this), and their recent decision to further cut prices while also subsidizing the insurance for oil tankers delivering Saudi crude has everything to do ensuring long-run adherence to OPEC quotas.  In America, we would bomb the s**t out of these Banana Republics to effect a regime change.  Instead of bombing the s**t out of these Banana Republics, Saudi Arabia is going to depose their governments by bankrupting them and forcing a regime change, with the idea that a new regime might be more "receptive" to OPEC policy on oil production. 

[TheAiGuy]

This goes back to the idea of Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait/UAE to a lesser extent, acting as the Central Bank of oil.  They've played this game before, and know that when they curtail output to raise prices, not only do the banana republics (of South America and Africa) continue to cheat on the quotas, but Saudi Arabia gets screwed on market share.

 

This is why cartels don't work.

 

Saudi Arabia's decision to produce full-throttle (and if you noticed, Russia is also going along with this), and their recent decision to further cut prices while also subsidizing the insurance for oil tankers delivering Saudi crude has everything to do ensuring long-run adherence to OPEC quotas.  In America, we would bomb the s**t out of these Banana Republics to effect a regime change.  Instead of bombing the s**t out of these Banana Republics, Saudi Arabia is going to depose their governments by bankrupting them and forcing a regime change, with the idea that a new regime might be more "receptive" to OPEC policy on oil production. 

 

(sigh), no. Why would a bankrupt, oil producing nation decide to pump less oil? Why would it be less incentivized to cheat on quotas in a cartel?

 

The Saudis are pumping oil because it's their only option. In the past (100+ years ago in the US), opening the oil spigots to drive down prices was a good strategy because a stronger financed company could whether the storm, and then buy the assets of its bankrupt competitors cheaply. It could then rationalize production. This cannot work for the Saudis because a) they can't afford to buy up enough of production and b) oil is a sovereign issue: Venezuela, Nigeria, etc won't seed control of their oil assets to a foreign government.

[Uccmal]

ALERT!!!

 

My ex-girlfriend called last night and said that she saw that the oil price had dropped 65%.

 

Bottom has to be in. When an avid watcher of The Kardashian notices such thing then we are normally at a turn.

 

Cardboard

 

Yeah, Last nght a friend of mine asked me how my stocks are doing with the TSX crash.  He's never asked before. 

 

To non Canadians.  Our pump prices are down only 30% from the peak.  The government has to get their slice you know. 

[Uccmal]

ALERT!!!

 

My ex-girlfriend called last night and said that she saw that the oil price had dropped 65%.

 

Bottom has to be in. When an avid watcher of The Kardashian notices such thing then we are normally at a turn.

 

Cardboard

 

Doesn't everyone have a pretty good idea of how much oil prices have dropped?  You see gas stations everywhere with huge signs showing the gas prices wherever you go.  Anyone who heats with home heating oil knows as well.

 

rbang, You live in NH right.  Take a spin to Montreal.  Prices are still around 1.00 per litre.  It isn't obvious to us.

[shhughes1116]

This goes back to the idea of Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait/UAE to a lesser extent, acting as the Central Bank of oil.  They've played this game before, and know that when they curtail output to raise prices, not only do the banana republics (of South America and Africa) continue to cheat on the quotas, but Saudi Arabia gets screwed on market share.

 

This is why cartels don't work.

 

Yes, we are in agreement here. 

 

Saudi Arabia's decision to produce full-throttle (and if you noticed, Russia is also going along with this), and their recent decision to further cut prices while also subsidizing the insurance for oil tankers delivering Saudi crude has everything to do ensuring long-run adherence to OPEC quotas.  In America, we would bomb the s**t out of these Banana Republics to effect a regime change.  Instead of bombing the s**t out of these Banana Republics, Saudi Arabia is going to depose their governments by bankrupting them and forcing a regime change, with the idea that a new regime might be more "receptive" to OPEC policy on oil production. 

 

(sigh), no. Why would a bankrupt, oil producing nation decide to pump less oil? Why would it be less incentivized to cheat on quotas in a cartel?

 

 

Because in a bankrupt banana republic, there is generally a regime change.  And politicians in all parts of the world (and particularly in countries with less-than-developed democratic institutions such as Venezuela, Angola, Nigeria, Iran, etc) tend to make decisions that consolidate their grip on power.  Venezuela is a prime example of this, by spending 100% of oil revenues on social programs, at the expense of setting aside money to maintain/enhance their oil production.  You can bet that a new regime will realize that a stable price of oil makes it easier to consistently fund the social programs, and funded social programs (as opposed to bankrupt social programs) are ultimately what keep these autocrats in power.     

[rkbabang]

 

 

rbang, You live in NH right.  Take a spin to Montreal.  Prices are still around 1.00 per litre.  It isn't obvious to us.

 

I didn't realize that. Yes, I live and drive in NH and heat with oil.  The large drop in oil prices is very obvious to everyone around here.

 

Home heating oil:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=W_EPD2F_PRS_SNH_DPG&f=W

 

Gas:

http://www.newhampshiregasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=NewHampshire&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=36&units=us

 

 

[TheAiGuy]

  You can bet that a new regime will realize that a stable price of oil makes it easier to consistently fund the social programs, and funded social programs (as opposed to bankrupt social programs) are ultimately what keep these autocrats in power.   

 

Are there cases in history were a commodity exporting country lowered output in a response to a regime change in an effort to stabilize prices? I'm actually asking -- I don't know but it seems far fetched.

[Uccmal]

 

 

rbang, You live in NH right.  Take a spin to Montreal.  Prices are still around 1.00 per litre.  It isn't obvious to us.

 

I didn't realize that. Yes, I live and drive in NH and heat with oil.  The large drop in oil prices is very obvious to everyone around here.

 

Home heating oil:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=W_EPD2F_PRS_SNH_DPG&f=W

 

Gas:

http://www.newhampshiregasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=NewHampshire&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=36&units=us

 

Add some colour to my comments: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bmo-gasoline-prices-oil-1.3365821

 

 

[Cardboard]

Hi guys,

 

She is a wannabe diva but, she had still noticed like most that the oil price had declined. It is just that when non-financial types notice something on TV, like that jaw dropping 65% decline, and find it horrible and would never touch it that we are normally close to a bottom.

 

It would happen often when an old friend would call me to see how I was doing with my investments. They would never ask such thing when things were going well. They would only call to ask about that stuff when mainstream media was talking about a crash or with the general market already down 10%, 20% or more.

 

The inverse works good too. Back at a Christmas party in 1999, one of my friends approached me with an IPO idea. He had never bought a stock in his life (other than employer's plan) but, was convinced that it would double or maybe triple on the open. Most IPO's were at the time. He could not understand that I was not excited at the idea knowing that I was an active investor. Free money he said...

 

I should have also paid more attention to something that I was worried about back in January this year. Two friends of mine, also non-financial types, were asking me how they could invest in oil? They were absolutely convinced that it would rebound. How is it that two uniformed people are so easily willing to put their hard earned money at risk? In fact, it did rebound for a short while but, see how that turned out? I should ask them if they have any interest now?

 

Cardboard