The why don't you bet on it schtick is stupid.

But if oil prices are going to absolutely skyrocket, surely the risk is worth it. And it doesn't need to be that risky - they can be a small part of a small portfolio.

OMG! r u riding to muh res-Q?

Those prices could collapse just as quickly with a new round of crushed demand (caused by recession, war, Saudi unrest etc.).

It's the volatility that keeps smart investors away. Sorta like why I don't play 6-max.

Nonetheless, my meager investment portfolio will remain in renewables.

yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

It's a good way to test sincerity of beliefs. If you're proposing an investment with extraordinarily high expected returns but claim that it's not for you, the possibilities are:

a) You don't actually believe what you're claiming.
b) Your portfolio is such that it would actually be a bad investment. I tend to be very sceptical of such claims, because said investments would be incredible to any normal portfolio. Even if you're highly risk-averse, you can still include it in your portfolio, just as a very small proportion of it. And no, "my poker bankroll has higher growth" is not a good argument. (The distinction is between average and marginal return).
c) You're a financial ******.

if I thought oil was going to skyrocket, I'd buy a portion of oil at ~$100/barrel before considering renewables.

Yeah for sure. The best way to profit on a sure thing rise in X commodity is to buy X.

Thanks for your logic but no thanks. I'm on a poker forum and hate money.

Post 78.

Ah, the perpetual profit motive. The whole reason we're as unprepared for this as we are in the first place.

Anyhow, Even if I followed your "get rich" advice, how does that change the condition for anyone but me?

If "everyone" did it, how would it change the geological condition?

"Energy IS the ability to do the work. Money only represents that ability."

In my firm opinion, it's energy that dictates to the markets. Not the other way around.

prices would reach new heights making renewables more feasible? isn't this the logic behind your renewables play anyway? why not profit from the oil directly over indirectly?

Renewables currently are feasible. Maybe not in the way you demand of a growth company, but certainly in terms of necessary sustainability for advanced societies.

Jiggs, assuming you are right and oil futures are severely under-priced, what do you think would happen if they were correctly priced (oil became $250-400 barrel?)? Would this get the reaction you would deem necessary (ignore the actual price I gave, maybe you think it's $1000 or $10000/barrel, it's not really important) to act? I'm assuming your actions (It's been a long time since I've read your threads) recommended would be increasing research in alternatives, lowering consumption, anything else?

oil prices go higher, encourages substitutes (ergo alternative energy). ezgame

If you admit you chose to ignore my threads, I'm not sure why I should answer your questions suddenly.

Anyhow, I'll just say this: I believe oil is correctly priced at $100 (and never should have dipped below $100 in early 2009. Anything more is unfeasible for a global economy utterly dependent upon growth. Anything less discourages awareness, conservation, and innovation.

It already is getting the reaction I deem necessary.

None of this changes the fact that most major fields are past peak.

There are lots to read, and they tend to be threadzillas, which although the topics are interesting, sometimes it becomes hard to keep up with and hard to enter in the middle of a topic.

If oil is correctly priced, does that mean that it will be treated as scarcely as necessary (by your subjective opinion)? Is the "optimal" level of investment happening in alternative energy? Is there an optimal "usage" of petroleum right now (or should we be using less right now)?

if you think we're near peak oil, then how can you not be long for a fraction of your portfolio (like 3%-10%)? this does not make sense to me. granted, my station in life is not exactly ideal, so perhaps its not my place to say, and I won't be pretentious at this time. this just seems like 101 investing to me though.

I would say no, it's still not treated scarcely as necessary. Mainly because there is such irrational pushback by the flat earthers who continue to muddy the waters and deny this is a real problem ... A perfect example being the Austrian school "economist" in the original post.

If you think that oil is correctly priced at $100 then how can you think that we face a looming energy catastrophe? A correctly-priced commodity takes into account what future production looks like. And oil priced correctly at $100 today absolutely means that we do not face the sort of peak oil situation you have been describing.

Ummm... because it's still trending up?

If it stayed relatively flat between $95-105 over the course of 6+ months or so, you'd have something.

If it's not being treated as scarcely as necessary, I would expect the price to be too low. But ignore financials on it for a minute, I think that's confusing the situation.

If the price were $200/barrel, you'd see lower usage and alternatives would be more likely to be developed, right? Or if $200 isn't enough to drive people to it, maybe $2000. But forget the exact price for a moment. Would you agree that there is some price that would lead to an optimal amount of conservation and investment in alternatives? And it's also possible for that price to be too high (if we made it $2M/barrel, there would be mass starvation as bad as or worse than what you are predicting)?

Is there anything I've said that is incorrect with your beliefs? Are there any other major alternatives that I'm missing (besides conservation and alternative energy)?

No. The price of oil will not continue to trend up if it is correctly priced. Well it will, but only at the cost of carry.

If the price were merely $200/barrel, the recovery mirage would not only be over, but we'd be at the brink of global depression and enormous risk of war (mechanized, cyber and/or trade).

That IS the ramification of peak, in my opinion.

It's not just price point that will effectively lead to conservation and necessary investment towards innovation. It's education, and a real change in social consciousness. Unfortunately, those who cling to market solutions and nothing more (like Horowitz), continue to lock themselves into the old paradigm, and bring Beltway policy along with them.

lol, we're talking about basic micro itt

nobody disputes (I think) that sudden scarcities can/does result in moarz warz.

you don't have to be a market nihilist to act on peak oil if that's your premise. you just have to realize that crisis meets opportunity somewhere down the line.

Personal opportunity says nothing about societal well-being.

So, while you guys can insist over and over that "there is money to be made here" for those who can afford to invest, it's really quite irrelevant.

Those who engage in riots over food prices or municipal budget cuts don't really care how much money you made on oil futures. The condition remains, and market solution for alternative investment is not keeping up with rampant sickness.

lolololollllool...oh and did i mentioon, lol?