Using the Declining Oil Price to Inform about LENR (Brandon Hurd)

The following was submitted by Brandon Hurd

I have posted the comment below, on a number of articles concerning declining oil prices. I think that, regardless of whether or not the oil price decline is linked (I believe it is) to the recent third party report, it is nevertheless a great opportunity to inform readers about LENR.

Here are some of the articles where I have posted this comment:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/meet-the-players-helping-drive-oil-to-new-lows-2014-11-04

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102152020?trknav=homestack:topnews:9

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-04/wti-trades-near-three-year-low-as-u-s-stockpiles-seen-rising.html

Here’s the comment:

In my opinion, the recent independent report on LENR / Cold Fusion, is what is driving oil prices down. Many people including a lot of internet commentators, wikipedia authors and some mainstream scientists believe it is a “scam”.

However, as soon as one digs deep and does a bit of homework on this, investigating who the authors of this report are and who funded it, who owns the technology and whether or not they are likely to have done their due diligence, it becomes apparent that this can not possibly be a scam. It is real and it will hit the mainstream, soon.

See here for an article covering this technology and its implications:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline

See here for comments from the man who owns this technology:
http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/techflash/2014/10/raleigh-investor-darden-still-bullish-on.html?page=all

See here for an oil futures trader’s perspective:
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/?p=443

Here is where you can read the report itself:
http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Omv%C3%A4rld_system/filer/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

 

  • lifeswhatyoumakeit

    Reposting an exchange posted in response on the Bloomberg article:

    H Juengling
    6 hours ago
    You definitely raise some interesting points. I, personally, had not
    previously considered Cold Fusion as a potential cause for recent
    declines in Brent and WTI crude prices. It is definitely something I
    will look into. Out of curiosity, as you seem to be informed regarding
    LENR / Cold Fusion:

    How would you account for the increases in
    production recently at the hands of OPEC (particularly Saudi Arabia) or,
    I suppose more importantly, the deviation from acting as a “swing
    producer” by OPEC in September? I think it is much easier to see the
    declines in Brent and WTI crude prices as being a consequence of recent
    increases in supply due to OPEC and North American oil production than
    it is to see pricing as a result of LENR / Cold Fusion developments.
    Then again, I could be wrong.

    Also, as the price of Brent and WTI are determined by a free market and countless producers (at least for the most part) it would be very hard to manipulate them as some part of a
    conspiracy, especially without their (or our) knowing. On the same
    note, were Cold Fusion leading to a change in pricing of oil it would
    likely be well known since the price would be dropping as a direct
    consequence of Cold Fusion and, at least as far as I can tell, the
    buyers would have to be aware of the influence of Cold Fusion to
    facilitate such drops. I would also like to mention that the influence
    of Cold Fusion would likely pertain to other hydrocarbons and their
    pricing, although there would definitely be some effect on oil were this
    the case.

    I think that it is hard to accept that Cold Fusion could be seen as the source of price drops for several reasons (some of which I mentioned earlier) but especially because, for the price to
    drop, the implications of Cold Fusion would need to be known by the
    market. That is not to say it cannot be accepted, it definitely can if
    there are reliable and credible sources to provide pertinent evidence
    supporting its influence.

    Additionally, were Cold Fusion to affect oil prices, this would likely take considerable time because, even if Cold Fusion were well known to the market, it would take time to retool
    the economy and shift its demand from hydrocarbons towards the energy
    developed through Cold Fusion. As a result, were the current pricing of
    oil the result of Cold Fusion, it would likely be well known to the
    market and much more gradual in its effects since the economy’s reliance
    upon oil and other hydrocarbons would take time to adjust.

    If this reply was fragmented or hard to read, I would like to apologize. I
    had a couple of thoughts regarding your comment and I wanted to address
    them before they escaped. If my points were illogical or lacking base
    then please let me know so I can correct them or clear up any confusion.
    The same holds true for any confusion stemming from my being illegible;
    I will gladly address any confusion or questions should they arise. I
    did not mean to outright disagree with your comment. I think it is very
    interesting. I was just curious as to what your thoughts were regarding a
    couple points that could bring the influence of Cold Fusion into
    question.

    ***My response***

    lifeswhatyoumakeit
    5 hours ago
    Regarding your (tough) questions, it is difficult to say for sure. I
    can only conjecture. As to who knows exactly how much, about the state
    of development of LENR / cold fusion technology, all I can say is this –
    it is such a game changer that all of the big players MUST know about
    it – if not they are negligent.

    It is quite possible that the Saudis see much lower prices in the future because of LENR / cold fusionand that they are pumping as much as they can while prices are still atbthe levels they are at right now. Who knows what the realistic price of crude will be in a world where cold fusion is rolled out en masse to the market – probably $10 or $15 per barrel.

    You are absolutely correct about the fact that it would only gradually affect the real
    economy due to the need to re-tool etc. Oil will still be needed for
    many different things for a very long time to come. Having said that,
    consider what portion of an oil major’s share price, is considered to be
    a factor of their known reserves and at prices that make extraction of
    those reserves feasible.

    Regarding the impact of this technology on other hydrocarbons – well it stands to reason that coal will be hit the hardest. Especially if (or when) they perfect the engineering to be able to retrofit existing coal powerplants with cold fusion reactors.

    Now the big question – how far is it from market? Very hard to say. My guess – between 5 and 8 years. This is a technology with major implications – very positive long term – but in the short to medium term, highly disruptive.

    **********

    H Juengling
    5 hours ago
    Definitely a solid response. I appreciate your not being blindly
    committed to your own convictions but at the same time backing your
    position. I am sorry if my questions were tough, I didn’t mean for them
    to be too challenging (I promise). I just had some questions that I
    thought you might be able to answer.

    Your take on Saudi Arabian
    production is very interesting and, if I am honest, I didn’t expect such
    a well thought out and articulate answer. That isn’t due to your own
    ability to respond or your arguments, mind you, I just failed to
    consider such a rationale myself (and, frankly, I am a little
    embarrassed by that). Definitely a good point and even while I may be
    reluctant to subscribe to the Cold Fusion theory of oil pricing, I can
    definitely see the logic in your argument and I respect it.

    Your
    response to the type of hydrocarbon impacted by Cold Fusion was also
    very good, in my opinion. I agree that coal would be hit the hardest by
    such a development and definitely if existing coal power plants can be
    retrofitted. I’m not sure how feasible that retrofitting could be based
    on my level of knowledge about coal power, I’m far from an expert on
    that or Cold Fusion, but if it were to be the case it would definitely
    carry significant implications.

    As for your forecast regarding how
    far Cold Fusion is from the market, I honestly don’t know enough to
    comment on the provided timeframe. I do tend to be pessimistic regarding
    development times but if I provided any indication of my own thoughts
    they would be entirely baseless and thus not of consequence. As a
    result, I can neither fault nor encourage your forecast.

    I will
    unequivocally agree with your belief that Cold Fusion is a technology
    with major implications. Someone would have to be a fool to believe
    otherwise without substantial evidence. I also think it would be high
    disruptive, as much good innovation is, and that in and of itself would
    influence the markets. Just throwing around the thought of Cold Fusion
    being disruptive in my head, its implications for the military in
    particular would be tremendously disruptive. Specifically, the Navy
    could see substantial benefits coming from Cold Fusion, in my mind, but I
    am sure that the benefits would be much more far-reaching than that.

  • bachcole

    Be shy about using pronouns. “In my opinion, the recent independent report on LENR / Cold Fusion, is
    what is driving oil prices down. Many people including a lot of internet
    commentators, wikipedia authors and some mainstream scientists believe
    it is a “scam”.” The ‘it” in that sentence makes it sound like the connection between LENR and the fall in oil prices is thought to be a scam. Better to replace “it” with “LENR / Cold Fusion”.

    • lifeswhatyoumakeit

      Yes, fair enough – should be absolutely clear about “it”. Having said that, the sceptics will call everything and anything linked to LENR, a “scam”.

  • bachcole

    Be shy about using pronouns. “In my opinion, the recent independent report on LENR / Cold Fusion, is
    what is driving oil prices down. Many people including a lot of internet
    commentators, wikipedia authors and some mainstream scientists believe
    it is a “scam”.” The ‘it” in that sentence makes it sound like the connection between LENR and the fall in oil prices is thought to be a scam. Better to replace “it” with “LENR / Cold Fusion”.

    • lifeswhatyoumakeit

      Yes, fair enough – should be absolutely clear about “it”. Having said that, the sceptics will call everything and anything linked to LENR, a “scam”.

      • bachcole

        Including our efforts at understandable copy and good grammar. (:->)

  • Billy Jackson

    Interesting to say the least as a way to break the ice on LENR to the uninformed. Yet i hesitate to come fully into accepting LENR as the sole reason for the plunge. The timing is either hard evidence or coincidence as food for thought with this case. yet a few factors play significant roles before we can say LENR caused and is sustaining this plunge in oil prices.

    1. Fracking/shell oil. the USA as the largest user is now or close to being the top oil & natural gas producer in the world. while our consumption may not have gone down much we are able to get more from home rather than buying from foreign powers.

    2. Market Forces. the production of oil is up by a large amount over the last few years. this has produced a glut if you will, causing a weaker demand overall as such prices are going to drop.

    3. Demand. LENR simply cant fill the demand fast enough to have a lasting impact on OIL in the short term. It may have caused a bump with the announcement that the effect is real and in the future will impact the prices of oil far greater than what we see now. We need close to 2 billion e-cat devices to fulfill current demand let alone future demand (billions of family homes, vehicles and businesses) It will happen, just not fast at the beginning and this alone will cause oil to rise once more. (once the first e-cat plant opens to the public to purchase the e-cat we may see a more permanent drop)

    I think the report was just the proverbial ball that got all the other factors rolling in favor of a decline. Yet i hesitate to say its the main reason due to the demand that market forces will still have on oil as LENR devices are simply unavailable as replacements at the moment.

    • Omega Z

      #1. Yes, as of 2014, the U.S. Is considered the largest producer surpassing both Russia & the Saudi’s. The U.S. is also the largest N-gas producer. We now produce near 60% of the oil we use while reducing imports by nearly 6 million barrels a day.

      And, I just read that due to continuing tech advances & other cost reducing measures, Drilling may be curtailed but will continue as long as oil exceeds $40 bbl.

      Note, Initially costs of oil per bbl in new fields include pipeline construction. Many fields have pipelines built. Additional wells do not need to include this as part of the cost per bbl.

  • Billy Jackson

    Interesting to say the least as a way to break the ice on LENR to the uninformed. Yet i hesitate to come fully into accepting LENR as the sole reason for the plunge. The timing is either hard evidence or coincidence as food for thought with this case. yet a few factors play significant roles before we can say LENR caused and is sustaining this plunge in oil prices.

    1. Fracking/shell oil. the USA as the largest user is now or close to being the top oil & natural gas producer in the world. while our consumption may not have gone down much we are able to get more from home rather than buying from foreign powers.

    2. Market Forces. the production of oil is up by a large amount over the last few years. this has produced a glut if you will, causing a weaker demand overall as such prices are going to drop.

    3. Demand. LENR simply cant fill the demand fast enough to have a lasting impact on OIL in the short term. It may have caused a bump with the announcement that the effect is real and in the future will impact the prices of oil far greater than what we see now. We need close to 2 billion e-cat devices to fulfill current demand let alone future demand (billions of family homes, vehicles and businesses) It will happen, just not fast at the beginning and this alone will cause oil to rise once more. (once the first e-cat plant opens to the public to purchase the e-cat we may see a more permanent drop)

    I think the report was just the proverbial ball that got all the other factors rolling in favor of a decline. Yet i hesitate to say its the main reason due to the demand that market forces will still have on oil as LENR devices are simply unavailable as replacements at the moment.

    • Omega Z

      #1. Yes, as of 2014, the U.S. Is considered the largest producer surpassing both Russia & the Saudi’s. The U.S. is also the largest N-gas producer. We now produce near 60% of the oil we use while reducing imports by nearly 6 million barrels a day.

      And, I just read that due to continuing tech advances & other cost reducing measures, Drilling may be curtailed but will continue as long as oil exceeds $40 bbl.

      Note, Initially costs of oil per bbl in new fields include pipeline construction. Many fields have pipelines built. Additional wells do not need to include this as part of the cost per bbl.

  • psi2u2

    “as soon as one digs deep and does a bit of homework on this, investigating who the authors of this report are and who funded it, who owns the technology and whether or not they are likely to have done their due diligence, it becomes apparent that this can not possibly be a scam. It is real and it will hit the mainstream, soon.”

    Sure looks that way to me.

    • bachcole

      In my opinion, epistemologically speaking, that is all that ANY of us have, although I confess that seeing the glowing cylinder of the 1st test in May 2013 was very exciting. All we have is social evidence. We got nothing else. Even if we were all nuclear physicists, that would only hurt our faith in the E-Cat. Now, there may be some rare individual reading this who has actually burned their finger on an E-Cat and perhaps even tested it to their satisfaction, but otherwise, 99.99% of us have nothing but social evidence. But we find this social evidence to be overwhelmingly compelling and getting better all of the time.

      • psi2u2

        I agree, mostly.

        I would say that *the majority* of the evidence is “social” in character. What little technical evidence is available can only be debated by those with greater knowledge of the particular areas of inquiry than I have. But the social evidence has been strong for several years now, and it continues to grow. It is noteworthy, for example, that not a single person who has worked closely with Rossi has ever indicated any serious doubt that he essentially has what he says he has.

        On the contrary, the claims of fraud or incompetence are robustly contradicted, not only by the technical arguments, but at least as importantly, by the continued silence of a very savvy company that has spent $11 million or more to acquire the technology, and the interest bordering on enthusiasm shown by Elforsk and similar entities. The fact that Brillouin is simultaneously meeting with energy sector leaders in Norway is the icing on this cake.

        The skeptics are running out of places to stand. Should compelling counter evidence be forthcoming, I will consider modifying my position — as would I am sure many others currently supporting Rossi — who are the real, not pseudo-skeptics.

        Here’s what I wrote about this matter a couple of years ago:

        http://shake-speares-bible.com/2012/03/15/andrea-rossi-and-charity-or-the-ox-the-cart-and-the-cow/

        • Manuel Cruz

          Solar panels lose efficiency because they get tidy and scratched by dust, in fact, they efficiency loss is pretty dramatic in only a few years which is why this scam requires politicians to write “ironclad contracts” to make the subsidies last 20-25 years, regardless of production, as it will become obvious very soon how useless they really are.

  • psi2u2

    “as soon as one digs deep and does a bit of homework on this, investigating who the authors of this report are and who funded it, who owns the technology and whether or not they are likely to have done their due diligence, it becomes apparent that this can not possibly be a scam. It is real and it will hit the mainstream, soon.”

    Sure looks that way to me.

    • bachcole

      In my opinion, epistemologically speaking, that is all that ANY of us have, although I confess that seeing the glowing cylinder of the 1st test in May 2013 was very exciting. All we have is social evidence. We got nothing else. Even if we were all nuclear physicists, that would only hurt our faith in the E-Cat. Now, there may be some rare individual reading this who has actually burned their finger on an E-Cat and perhaps even tested it to their satisfaction, but otherwise, 99.99% of us have nothing but social evidence. But we find this social evidence to be overwhelmingly compelling and getting better all of the time.

      • psi2u2

        I agree, mostly.

        I would say that *the majority* of the evidence is “social” in character. What little technical evidence is available can only be debated by those with greater knowledge of the particular areas of inquiry than I have. But the social evidence has been strong for several years now, and it continues to grow. It is noteworthy, for example, that not a single person who has worked closely with Rossi has ever indicated any serious doubt that he essentially has what he says he has.

        On the contrary, the claims of fraud or incompetence are robustly contradicted, not only by the technical arguments, but at least as importantly, by the continued silence of a very savvy company that has spent $11 million or more to acquire the technology, and the interest bordering on enthusiasm shown by Elforsk and similar entities. The fact that Brillouin is simultaneously meeting with energy sector leaders in Norway is the icing on this cake.

        The skeptics are running out of places to stand. Should compelling counter evidence be forthcoming, I will consider modifying my position — as would I am sure many others currently supporting Rossi — who are the real, not pseudo-skeptics.

        Here’s what I wrote about this matter a couple of years ago:

        http://shake-speares-bible.com/2012/03/15/andrea-rossi-and-charity-or-the-ox-the-cart-and-the-cow/

  • Hi all

    I have been doing this for some time 😉

    Kind Regards walker

  • Achi

    An interesting perspective that I haven’t seen is the effects on coal pricing, the industry most likely to be affected by lenr. Take a look at this chart, it all started dropping when Rossi went public, among other more localized drops near specific lenr dates. http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/coal/5-year/

    I know there are a lot of things to consider for the swing in prices, but the fact that it’s not only oil that’s dropping considerably I find that interesting.

    • lifeswhatyoumakeit

      Now that is very interesting news. Much stronger evidence, I would say, for the behind-the-scenes role of LENR, in energy pricing.

    • Omega Z

      No. Sorry, It has much to do with Coal plants converted for N-Gas.
      Not only is N-gas cheap, but no rail transport costs which can add $30 a ton to costs & No scrubber maintenance costs as it burns clean.

      Warren Buffet lost money on this transition & if the Keystone pipeline goes through, he’ll lose even more due to losses on the Oil trains. He’s been depending on the pipeline being delayed for many years. Guess we’ll see him selling his Railroad shares soon.

  • Will the change in Congress help LENR progress faster?
    Will the new Congress end the renewable energy hoax?
    Will Obama be impeached?

    • bachcole

      1. Probably not.
      2. Probably yes, and maybe including hot fusion.
      3. Maybe.

    • wonder

      impeached? what will happen is what always happen… Grid lock silly goose!..

      just read a history book or rules around impeachment.

    • Hi all

      In reply to Christopher’s post.

      1) No. They are in the pocket of Big Oil, but it does not matter they are irrelevant now any way.

      2) No Hoax renewables are already most of Germany’s energy US is not so far behind, but it does not matter they are irrelevant now any way.

      3) No Americans are sick wasting time on partisan politics, but it does not matter they are irrelevant now any way.

      Kind Regards walker

      • SEE:

        http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/456961/reality-check-germany-does-not-get-half-its-energy-solar

        “Last year only 4.5% of Germany’s gross electricity generation came from solar panels”

        “And if you want to think that half of Germany’s electricity comes from something green you will be disappointed. 46% of generation comes from coal. And just over half of coal powered electricity in Germany comes from burning lignite, perhaps the most polluting way to generate electricity on the planet.”

        Germany gets about 16% of its power from nuclear energy, about 11% from natural gas, and about 8% from intermittent, unreliable wind power.

        Also see Germany’s Green Energy Disaster at:

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/14/germanys-green-energy-disaster-a-cautionary-tale-for-world-leaders/

        • Hi all

          In reply to Christopher Calder

          You need to stop using partial quotes and out of date sources it makes you look incompetent.

          “Germany Sets New Record, Generating 74 Percent Of Power Needs From Renewable Energy

          On Sunday, Germany’s impressive streak of renewable energy milestones continued, with renewable energy generation surging to a record portion — nearly 75 percent — of the country’s overall electricity demand by midday. With wind and solar in particular filling such a huge portion of the country’s power demand, electricity prices actually dipped into the negative for much of the afternoon, according to Renewables International.

          In the first quarter of 2014, renewable energy sources met a record 27 percent of the country’s electricity demand, thanks to additional installations and favorable weather. “Renewable generators produced 40.2 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, up from 35.7 billion kilowatt-hours in the same period last year,” Bloomberg reported. Much of the country’s renewable energy growth has occurred in the past decade and, as a point of comparison, Germany’s 27 percent is double the approximately 13 percent of U.S. electricity supply powered by renewables as of November 2013…”

          http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3436923/germany-energy-records/
          Follow the link to see the article in full.

          Kind Regards walker

          • “According to Renewables International”

            Give me a break. The church of renewable energy is as devious as any religion on Earth. They spout out BS so thick and so heavy that the naive fall for it. Google *The Renewable Energy Disaster* and do the math. Solar and wind can never be anything more than window dressing mandated by government. The free market always rejects them because they are too expensive and inefficient.

          • bachcole

            Chris, I am confused, but just a little. I trust your appraisal, but the only way that it can be true is if solar and wind DECLINE in efficiency, or if they just stop working at some point. I used to know a lot about solar, but I keep looking for a rate of decline in efficiency but have not yet found it. If a solar system was 20% efficient and stayed 20% efficient FOREVER, then it would be very cost effective, eventually. Please tell me where I am wrong.

          • Manuel Cruz

            Solar panels lose efficiency because they get tidy and scratched by dust, in fact, they efficiency loss is pretty dramatic in only a few years which is why this scam requires politicians to write “ironclad contracts” to make the subsidies last 20-25 years, regardless of production, as it will become obvious very soon how useless they really are.

      • Omega Z

        Total wind & solar makes up about 4% of energy production capacity tho actual use is lower then this as wind turbines usually do good to meet 25% of rated capacity. Solar only marginally better.

        The U.S. only fairs good when comparing capacity against other nations capacity. That’s due to the fact that the U.S. energy use is so much higher to begin with. Our meager output could supply Spain with nearly 100% of their needs.

    • Omega Z

      1. No. LENR is taboo to both parties. Even tho both are aware of it.
      2. No, But likely reduced incentives, so a major slowing.
      3. No. But he is already rated lower the J. Carter. What could be worse then that in the history books.

    • we want LENR Fusione Fredda
      • bachcole

        Nice catch. I left the following comment: “I am a “settled science” denier, and proud of it, and I will be until the day that I die. Anyone who is not a “settled science” denier is a piss-poor scientist or just not a scientist at all.”

      • Senator Jim Inhofe seems to be in line to get the Senate’s top environmental post. I sent him a message asking him to put pressure on the United States Patent Office to stop blacklisting Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) patent applications. If you have anything to say to the Senator, you can reach him at this link.

        http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/contact

        Those who do not believe in man made global warming and those who do believe in man made global warming should unite in their effort to get LENR to the marketplace ASAP. We all need low cost energy.

        • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

          …and what “benefit” will the Senator receive for spending his time and energy trying to foster LENR against the interests those companies who are largely funding his party?
          Politics are a ‘do ut des’ dynamic, do we really think the betterment of humankind is their goal?

          • I used a range arguments, including national defense. I said “Do we want the USA to be the first nation on Earth or the last nation to have LENR powered jets and ships?”

            Not all politicians are so corrupt that they do not care about the survival of the USA.

  • GreenWin

    Of course the Lugano Report is affecting oil prices. It’s been downloaded nearly 100k times. Many of those readers are paid analysts for commodities and stock traders. The major pressure comes from the perfect storm of lower demand, greater production AND the LENR black swan. Fund managers have been cautioned about this for nearly three years now.

    • bachcole

      So many claims, so little data.

      How do you know that “many of those readers are paid analysts for commodities and stock traders”? Surely these analysts, if even one knows about the E-Cat, realize that the E-Cat is a long way from powering cars and heating homes.

      This sentence is merely repeating your original claim: “The major pressure comes from the perfect storm of lower demand, greater production AND the LENR black swan.”

      How do you know that “Fund managers have been cautioned about this for nearly three years now.” There are all kinds of silly-ass claims among the multitude of free energy goofs; why should they take Rossi seriously?

      I admit that the current drop in oil prices, which does not seem to be local to my neighborhood, my town, my state, or even my country but is worldwide, is very intriguing and appreciated by me and my bank account. And I admit that it is possibly because of the E-Cat, and I hope that it is because of the E-Cat. But I think that you are getting ahead of the data with your hopes and speculations. This WILL happen; whether it is actually happening right now, for me, needs much more data, like a high level analyst or broker saying, “Hey, the E-Cat is here and it is real.”

    • Obvious

      That 100k download figure may be slightly bulked up by people downloading it every day to see if the updates and answers to questions have been appended…
      Just sayin’…

      • bachcole

        I haven’t fully figured out what “Just sayin'” means, but I think that it means “Please don’t get angry at me for saying something that you may not like.” (:->) It is obvious that to some degree Obvious is right, but how much is uncertain.

  • Terram Lux

    The price war involving the US and Saudi is the reason for the current drop in oil prices. I know that isn’t very exciting nor what anyone wants to hear but the easiest explanation is usually the correct one. There are likely other factors and maybe one of them is the report on the e-cat but it is small potatoes currently if it’s having an effect at all…And I really like the e-cat. 😉

    • Paul Bennett

      I have to agree with you. While I am sure that oil traders are aware of the e-cat and are factoring in their expectation of its impact, it appears that that expectation is still having only a very small impact on futures prices. One reason for this opinion is the shape of the futures curve. I would expect the e-cat to have a stronger impact on more distant futures than on near future prices. At the end of November, the futures prices were fairly strongly downward sloping, but now they are essentially flat or slightly upward sloping. (A barrel of oil for delivery in 2022 is over $80 vs $77/78 for Dec 2014.) So I have to agree that the most recent drops in oil price are more the result of the price war with Saudis than the e-cat.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Saudi Arabia and other traditional oil producers are interested in a low price, since it will hinder the expansion of the new, expensive production methods in the USA and elsewhere. They know that a higher price would only be a short-term advantage for them. With an increase of the worldwide production capacities the prize would drop anyway.

      • bachcole

        You forgot to mention that the USA oil coming out of the ground costs more than their oil coming out of the ground. So if the price at the pump goes down, it is possible that the USA oil industry would have shut down for a while until the price at the pump went back up, or it could even die.

        Little do they know that a black swan of ginormous proportions is headed their way. It would be in their interests to garner as much money as possible now because the flow of money from us to them is going to be shut down soon.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          “You forgot to mention that the USA oil coming out of the ground costs more than their oil coming out of the ground. “

          That is exactly what I meant when I spoke of “new, expensive production methods”.

  • Omega Z

    No. Sorry, It has much to do with Coal plants converted for N-Gas.
    Not only is N-gas cheap, but no rail transport costs which can add $30 a ton to costs & No scrubber maintenance costs as it burns clean.

    Warren Buffet lost money on this transition & if the Keystone pipeline goes through, he’ll lose even more due to losses on the Oil trains. He’s been depending on the pipeline being delayed for many years. Guess we’ll see him selling his Railroad shares soon.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Saudi Arabia and other traditional oil producers are interested in a low price, since it will hinder the expansion of the new, expensive production methods in the USA and elsewhere. They know that a higher price would only be a short-term advantage for them. With an increase of the worldwide production capacities the prize would drop anyway.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    “You forgot to mention that the USA oil coming out of the ground costs more than their oil coming out of the ground. “

    That is exactly what I meant when I spoke of “new, expensive production methods”.