"Slowest growth in oil demand in 6 years" to drive tanker rates down 65%

And will later be retro-fitted for wheat.....

When plug ins become the norm....

A country should never subject itself to energy interruptions
caused by fuel creation oligopolies, shipment, fuel depot/distribution, scarcity, and price failures....

Good riddance.....
 
ByLo, what is your point? The article simply says that because lots of new cargoships coming online in the next 2 years, there will be more shipping for less oil, so that is not good for cargo business.

The quote saying slowing demand is just an effect of slowing production/rising prices,
also called demand destruction.

You can not have rising demand with limited or staggering production, it is pretty simple.

So again, what was your point??? I think you missread slowing demand>>>wishful thinking....
 
Quote from Pekelo:

ByLo, what is your point? The article simply says that because lots of new cargoships coming online in the next 2 years, there will be more shipping for less oil, so that is not good for cargo business.

The quote saying slowing demand is just an effect of slowing production/rising prices,
also called demand destruction.

You can not have rising demand with limited or staggering production, it is pretty simple.

So again, what was your point??? I think you missread slowing demand>>>wishful thinking....
More...

I don't think I misread anything. In fact, the first post contains only a link and a quote.

"The increase in vessels will combine with the slowest growth in oil demand for six years as the global economy loses steam, driving tanker rates 65 percent lower by 2010, futures contracts show."

There. I quoted it again.

Maybe you're reading too much into it.
 
Quote from libertad:

And will later be retro-fitted for wheat.....

When plug ins become the norm....

A country should never subject itself to energy interruptions
caused by fuel creation oligopolies, shipment, fuel depot/distribution, scarcity, and price failures....

Good riddance.....
More...

You don't mean do you... that America should have implemented an "energy policy"* 35 years ago when OPEC held us hostage over an oil barrel?

*BTW... We STILL don't have one! Our "leaders" (cough, cough) deserve to be kicked in the balls and run out of town on rail for this point alone!!!
 
Quote from ByLoSellHi:


Maybe you're reading too much into it.
More...

So let me ask you again: What is the point of the post? So we should short oiltankers? Gladly...

You can replace the word "demand" with "usage" or "production" in the twice quoted sentence, it really doesn't matter the point is there is going to be more eskimos for the same or less amount of fish in the oilshipping business.

If I missread your not stated point, please clarify....
 
Quote from Pekelo:

So let me ask you again: What is the point of the post? So we should short oiltankers? Gladly...

You can replace the word "demand" with "usage" or "production" in the twice quoted sentence, it really doesn't matter the point is there is going to be more eskimos for the same or less amount of fish in the oilshipping business.

If I missread your not stated point, please clarify....
More...

Well, the article quotes (presumed) insiders in high places at one of the largest shipping firms in the world, who claim that they're seeing the "slowest growth in oil demand" in six years.

I don't think changing the word "demand" with "usage" would materially affect the meaning, do you? If you do, why?

So, it would appear that - again, it's repetitive, but it's their words, not mine - oil demand growth may be slowing at the fastest pace in 6 years?

Am I misreading or misinterpreting this?

If not, my point is Frontline is seeing the slowest growth in oil demand (or usage, per your preference) in six years.
 
Quote from ByLoSellHi:

Well, the article quotes (presumed) insiders in high places at one of the largest shipping firms in the world, who claim that they're seeing the "slowest growth in oil demand" in six years.

I don't think changing the word "demand" with "usage" would materially affect the meaning, do you? If you do, why?

So, it would appear that - again, it's repetitive, but it's their words, not mine - oil demand growth may be slowing at the fastest pace in 6 years?

Am I misreading or misinterpreting this?

If not, my point is Frontline is seeing the slowest growth in oil demand (or usage, per your preference) in six years.
More...

I owned FRO until several days ago. It was the best stock trade I've ever made. At a yield of 16% I'll liberally buy it again on a more significant concession from here. (i.e. 52ish)
 
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

I owned FRO until several days ago. It was the best stock trade I've ever made. At a yield of 16% I'll liberally buy it again on a more significant concession from here. (i.e. 52ish)
More...

I agree.

I think Pekelo's questions of me go to the issue of oil demand/usage, when I'm not the one making the statement that apparently generated some interest.

Frontline did.
 
Quote from ByLoSellHi:

If not, my point is Frontline is seeing the slowest growth in oil demand (or usage, per your preference) in six years.
More...

OK, then my view agrees with them. (and I can even explain it, not just guessing about the future)

Since we have peak oil happening with a plateau right now, I (or anybody with common sense) can see that demand/consumption can not be bigger than supply (thus I said you can use useage or production instead of demand), thus yes, they just built all those tankers in time for very,very limited or no growth....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top