Jason1
Well-Known Member
Well I guess the USA isnt going any where if your test is about gold reserves, because the USA has the largest gold reserves and by a long shot
Negative Oil Price
- Thread starter Court Jester
- Start date
Well I guess the USA isnt going any where if your test is about gold reserves, because the USA has the largest gold reserves and by a long shot
sterling-nz
Well-Known Member
This really pisses me off.
It annoys me because Australia could easily have ample storage if they invested in it.
It is the same with water in Aus and NZ ,there is actually plenty of water it just happens to be in the wrong places and for some reason both countries do not bother to put the infrastructure in place to make it a non issue.
Fuel costs and water costs just on the face of it are disgustingly high and if you move past the face to the flow on effects the costs are exorbitant.
Australia has had nukes in the outback but they do not bother to build storage for water or oil.
NZ is the same , we have literally meters of rainfall on the Sth Island west coast each year ,yet we still have areas of drought in summer and spring and winter.
It is all about infrastructure and i'd like to think we will get that infrastructure in NZ NOW to keep people employed ,but i bet we do not because they like to procrastinate.
Its funny they warn us of climate change and the effect it will have in 100 years and tax us for that, yet i can guarantee we will have drought in areas next year but they stand idle and waffle crap without taking action that could absolutely fix the issue.
sterling-nz
Well-Known Member
As far as the Aus/USA deal goes this particular comment has stood out to me
" But the fact Australia's deal involves leasing facilities in the US - rather than shipping the oil directly to Australia - helped assuage some worries in Washington"
Because if there is a massive problem and the oil is required in an emergency and the USA needs it Australia WILL NOT be getting it.
A stupid deal that only shifts money from Aus to the USA and will not hold up in times of genuine need.
" But the fact Australia's deal involves leasing facilities in the US - rather than shipping the oil directly to Australia - helped assuage some worries in Washington"
Because if there is a massive problem and the oil is required in an emergency and the USA needs it Australia WILL NOT be getting it.
A stupid deal that only shifts money from Aus to the USA and will not hold up in times of genuine need.
Lol the vitriol for Merica. And I’m sure our new overlords will be just brimming with gay integrity and pleasantries for all
Jason1
Well-Known Member
could you rephrase this one? thanks
I’m saying the cries for death to America and assuming utopia is on the other side of that outcome is insane.
Jason1
Well-Known Member
I figured thats what you were saying but just wanted to confirm. cheers mate
Definitely agree with that. Better the devil you know
America shouldnt be let off with out criticism as they do like to poke the hornets nest but they arent completely worthy of full condemnation or the wishing of their demise, as their demise would be very bad news.
The only people who should be cheering their demise on are those who like the idea of being a Chinese communist, lol
Last edited:
ETF are mostly designed to track, so for USO to be tracking oil to $1.03 its not ETF fault
as investors, may be it is just better to wait for negative oil price to be over first before going in to be riding on a sinking ship
how do you buy -$50 oil ???
can we have this on silver, see how much tonne our legs can take them without breaking us, its better to just leave the junks on the floor, for walking-abiity sake
Will never happen with silver because the contracts requiring delivery can easily be accepted in worst case scenario, just need a warehouse, unlike with oil requiring specialized bunkerage.