Just been tracking OOO recently, it appears to fall faster than oil and doesnt correlate that well Could it fall further whilst oil price in rising
This article indicates plenty of tankers have already backed up, filled up including land storage facilities around the world. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-12/something-very-strange-taking-place-coast-galveston
I haven't correlated them, do you know the magnitude of difference you are seeing? Is the basic shape of the price graph the same? (I just checked quickly, and seems to match reasonably well)
Well i bought some OOO at $20.3 when oil was $43 USD per barrel Today OOO is worth $18.6 when oil is $41.5 USD per barrel So to me the drop in OOO is larger in terms of percentage (in the last couple of months)
Ooo is $17.8 whilst oil still $41.2 USD So thats a $0.8 drop in OOO while oil itself only dropped $0.3 since my last post Its even bigger in terms of percentage So comparing to when i bought OOO at $20.3 (oil at $43) Oil price has dropped 4.2% However my investment in OOO has dropped 12.3%
Ouch!! There's more pain to come yet but long term should be a good play.. I'll take a position when crude hits 20-25$ range.
That kind of talk reminds me of the back up the truck talk by posters when silver was at $25, $20, etc., etc., etc. I remember in the 1980s, when oil went to around $8-10USD/barrel on a 3% world oversupply situation. I read at the time that book value was rock bottom for the oil drilling companies like ESV, RIG, etc. Indeed they bottomed in that range back then. Now those companies are trading at .25 of book value. What happens to the long term price of oil with the advent of nuclear fusion or the ever increasing advancements in solar electricity? The only thing I am certain of right now is that there is going to be trillions and trillions of dollars lost and gained in the next few years. Seeing what will lose value is much easier than figuring out what will gain value.
In my unique position, and knowing what I know: don't expect practical net-energy-positive nuclear fusion power generation within the next 30 years. Think closer to 60 years or a Century. The gap that exists between 'current human understanding of high energy physics' and 'practical nuclear fusion power generation' is about as wide as Valles Marineris. There are also non-trivial challenges to overcome in terms of materials science and fabrication techniques. Gauging the development of technology is an amorphous, imprecise business. Its not impossible an intellectual giant (and/or giants) of the same caliber as Issac Newton, Albert Einstein or Nikola Tesla will emerge and bridge the gap within the space of a decade.
I think that the next trend, and one that has gained some mainstream traction courtesy of Musk, is batteries. Batteries for cars are going to start showing their weaknesses as electric cars increase market share as more and more overworked, overheated and over-discharged packs are discussed. However, batteries for fixed locations are making more sense in an environment where the electricity providers are gouging their customers (such as Oz). Solar feed-in tariffs have distorted the market in one direction, then the other. The visceral case for decreasing electricity bills, the willingness of State Government to slaughter the cash cow, the stupidity of the tariff tweaks are all factors. So, we have current tech (Lithium) versus new and developing tech (flow batteries) with a side order of nanotech and supercaps (graphene), and when the batteries get cheap enough, smart grids may be the only way for the grid to remain stable when the sun goes in. So the petrolheads remain, the buzzheads (or whatever) grow slowly, and the solar revolution takes a different direction whilst the shale extractors are sent bust or prosper depending upon the realpolitik.
