Sean Corrigan's Commodities Corner

Tyler Durden's picture

From Sean Corrigan of Diapason Securities

Commodities Corner

Regular readers may be aware that two of the author’s greatest bugbears are Malthusianism and mindlessly mathematical macroeconomics.

The two of these come into no sharper focus than when we turn to the hoary old canard of ‘Peak Oil’, especially when it cites the work of those two past masters of wrongly–applied ratiocination, Hubbert and Hotelling.

The former we have recently dealt with already, so let us say a few words about the latter—a gentlemen who was a statistician, not an economist, in an era when there was still an honourable degree of separation between the two disciplines (ironically, he was also, at one time, Murray Rothbard’s professor at Columbia before the latter had a self?declared ‘epiphany’ regarding the flimsy epistemological grounds upon which much statistics lies and quit the course forthwith).

The better to set the scene, let us first note that those who think of themselves as ‘resource economists’ all seem to think of their subject as if they were describing an Easter egg hunt.

In this, an explicitly determine number of eggs are scattered about over a given territory and the seekers are then sent off to find them. Once found and eaten, they can never be replaced. I’m sorry, boys and girls, but the fun’s over and it’s back to spinach and cauliflower from here on in.

From this gross misrepresentation of what John Bratland has tellingly called the entrepreneurial business of ‘resourcing’, the RE crowd then  concocts a mathematically neat, but practically irrelevant, analysis of which the founding tenet was the so?called ‘Hotelling Rule.’

Pondering the question of how one should price a non?renewable stock of a good, Hotelling arrived at the pseudo?rigorous and partly tautologous conclusion that its price should ascend continuously at the rate of interest (by which he really meant the general rate of profit achievable in all  other fields of endeavour), a result which implied that the NPV of the sale proceeds would not only equal the product of the cash price times the stock, but that—and this both an eco?alarmist’s and an asset?pusher’s dream—that the price would mount exponentially along the way to its final and utter exhaustion.

This, however, begs so many questions it is at risk of being arrested for intellectual vagrancy.

Among the many shortfalls displayed by this essentially static schema, it assumes that:?

  • The stock is fixed, now and for all time
  • The quantity so fixed is known to all those perfect automatons so beloved of modern macro as they uncover and distribute it
  • More broadly, the usual neoclassical sine qua nons—such as perfect competition ? apply
  • The costs of finding and extraction (and milling, refining, fabrication, etc., etc.) never alter
  • The technological milieu never changes, whether in respect of the material’s discovery or its later use
  • The expressed demand for it remains constant and no other good arises to offer the same or better satisfaction to its users
  • The rate of profit (and all that effects this, such as time preference, inflation expectations, taxes, central bank policy) is invariant
  • The resource has no effect upon, nor is affected by, the pricing, use, or profitability of any other goods and resources, be they competing or complementary in their application
  • The resource is someone wanted in and for itself, rather than for the services it provides
  • The spot price which grows in such a mouthwateringly exponential fashion appears from nowhere with no further explanation, leading one to wonder just when the causative finiteness of the resource was first recognised by our population of robotic omniscients.

Assuming the relevant real interest rate is positive, its derived guarantee to be the equal of that offered anywhere else in the world of risk and enterprise dissolves into paradox since it suggests that this fully collateralized treasure should be hoarded and not used – negating both the concept of depletion and the economic usefulness of the material!

In short, Hotelling built his little fictional Legoland according to the prevailing dogma of objectivist, aggregative reism and not with regard to a properly subjectivist, individually?centred functionalism of the kind we Austrians insist informs the real world which we all inhabit.

Far from being a special case, ‘resources’ are just goods and productive inputs and are not, in truth, subject to a different kind of calculus. To the extent that men and women can derive some pleasure, protection, or prevention of discomfort from their employment, they will be willing to swap other goods and services to acquire them.

At the point where some entrepreneur supposes that he himself can earn the means to satisfy his own wants by fulfilling those of his fellows in this regard, he will try to put the resource at their disposal: at the point this becomes infeasible, he will stop.

If a second entrepreneur can bring a better or a cheaper means to bear upon his customers’ desires, he will begin to diminish the market for the first good, for it is the function of the good we require, not the tangibility of buckets of glutinous black ooze, or heavy billets of orangey metal.

The subjective nature of this can be seen in the (contested) etymology of that stock villain, the snake?oil salesman—i.e., the charlatan peddling medicinal goods of dubious efficacy whose descendants find themselves very much at home on Wall St. today.

The popular derivation is that what these hucksters were touting as a miracle cure?all was in fact Seneca oil, named for the Indian tribe on whose lands raw petroleum seeps were common enough to pollute Samuel Kier’s salt wells. Initially dumping this noxious waste in the local stream, Kier serendipitously discovered it was flammable and began a series of amateur chemical experiments which would eventually lead to his distillation of kerosene, and the building of the world’s first refinery, but not before he tried to recoup some of his costs by bottling one by?product to be sold as a patent medicine for 50¢ a go.

The point of this digression—beyond its own entertainment value—is that oil has no value whatsoever, outside of that conferred upon it by the  imagination and dedication of acting men who have found ways to make it meet one of Man’s most enduring needs—for a reliable and easily transported store of energy.

The innovation involved, as well as the business acumen, legal nous, and political savvy, is what creates and spreads the wealth associated with  this chemical combination of hydrogen and carbon atoms: it is neither implicit in the thing itself, nor fore?ordained to remain attached to it. While it may be part of the Green Dominican liturgy to speak mournfully of the appalling stewardship we capitalists exercise over the hermetically?sealed bubble of ‘Spaceship Earth’, the truth is that we live in an open system – both thermodynamically and intellectually.

Indeed, in a Universe overflowing with unimaginable quantities of the stuff, the fulfilment of our energy requirements – and by extension the accomplishment of anything else we care to set our hands to ? only awaits the application of that quantum of human ingenuity and husbanded capital which is commensurate with the expressed urgency of the task. Hence why it is better to speak, with Bratland, of ’resourcing’ as one particular branch of entrepreneurial activity, rather than of the fatuous ’resource economics’ as some priesthood of fashionably millennial pessimism or ’super?cycle’ salesmanship.

As we often remark, this can be summarized as the operation of the process of I³E³S³ ? “Any Insecurity of supply, any Escalation of prices, any  increased Scarcity of a given productive input leads to Innovation, Economisation, and Substitution via a process of Investment, guided by Entrepreneurship and fuelled by Savings ? assuming the market is allowed to function.? This works for tin tacks as much as it does for tin, for nachos as much as for natgas, for knickers as much as for nickel.

Theoretical considerations aside, two brief examples should suffice to give the lie to the Hotelling Rule—showing it to be one which simply doesn’t check out (groan).

Take the case of copper. In 1970, best estimates had it that the global total of exploitable reserves was some 280 Mt, a viable sub?set of a putative planetary resource (loosely, the physically present amount) of some 1.6 Gt.

Move forward 40 years (and through several editions of the ludicrous ‘Limits to Growth’, first penned around that time) and the current  guesstimate is that reserves sum to around 630Mt (125% greater than before) with resources up to more than 3Gt (not including oceanic sources of the metal) and this after we have mined more than 400Mt and used 500Mt (with recycling accounting for the difference) in the interim.

Now consider good ole’ crude oil itself, the main poster child of Gaian exhaustion and imminent civilizatory collapse.

Back in 1970, once more, BP tells us that estimates of world crude oil recoverable reserves (not by any means a comprehensive reckoning of the world’s endowment of hydrocarbons, you will note) amounted to 613 billion barrels—some 36.8 times then?annual use of 45.7 Mbpd. Four decades and 1 trillion burned barrels later, the latest count is of 1,383 bln bbls in conventional reserves, or 43.4 times 2010’s consumption of 87.4 Mbpd. Even if we strip out the somewhat suspicious—but not conclusively invalidated—OPEC upward revisions of the late 1980s, today’s numbers still come to 1,084 in reserves (+77%) and a barely?changed 34 times a near?doubled consumption.

The implication of this is that even if, after all we have argued above, you still suspect that Hotelling’s calculations do somehow hold water, the cold, hard fact is that these two commodities (among many) are anything but a depleting resource, in any case!


Another needless reinvention of the wheel—albeit as one with bent spokes and a buckled rim—was the NY Fed researchers’ ‘revelation’ that they couldn’t fit a ‘model’ to forecast the price of commodities and that this somehow meant that their bosses were justified in ignoring their rise in setting monetary policy!

Well, we may have a lower standard of statistical certitude than such eminent doctors of the wizard’s art, but it is pretty obvious that commodity prices broadly follow the ups and downs of world trade and industrial output, albeit with varying degrees of sensitivity—as well as with the occasional over– and undershoot: these, in turn, depend upon the prevailing monetary conditions.

Then again, the business cycles which largely determine the ’real’ side fluctuations in industry and commerce are themselves a monetary phenomenon, meaning that changes in money influence changes in real activity (and, naturally, the prices at which these take place). Feedbacks from these can also affect money creation, in their turn, often in a destabilizing manner.

Commodities are obviously subject to such fluctuations directly and can also feature among the channels through which a swollen supply of money and credit may preferentially flow. Since commodities, too, are part of the matrix of inputs and outputs which constitute ‘real’ activity, they cannot fail to leave their own mark upon a topology within which are laid out the so?called ‘fundamentals’ of supply, demand, and inventory upon which so much attention is focused – quantities which we are therefore never justified in considering as somehow independent of all that goes on around them.

Thus, even when the ebb and flow of commodity prices seem to be at their most closely synchronised with demonstrable variations in ‘real’ output, we must never lose sight of two possibilities: that it is the commodities which may occasionally be the drivers, rather than the driven; and that the real is often no more than a reflection of the sometimes dominant vicissitudes of monetary activity.

The web we weave is a tangled one – we should never practice to deceive ourselves, of all people, that it can ever be otherwise.

Markets, as we started by saying, are trying to rally and are being aided by powerful shift out of fixed?income. We have to respect that, but we are also at a loss to see whither the selfsustaining flow of positively reinterpretable news will emanate in the coming days.

Agriculture has come right down to the old TWI?weighted high we saw as key last week, as the reports turn bullish for crops and bearish for stale longs. We got our projected wheat slump on the H&S violation, too, as an added bonus. Whether that support will give way only time will tell, but if it does… Tim?berrr!

Despite the rally in energy, WTI has still not been able to trace out a pattern which would preclude a continued slide to our old $85 area. Brent is more equivocal, but could just as easily move down from the post?peak high?volume/ POC line it has regained as move decisively above it. It must surely be worth a re?set short with a tight stop while we find out which sentiment prevails.

Copper, likewise has cast off its bearish tint and is probing towards the mean of the winter balance area around $9580 even as the contango, paradoxically increases. We have to be out for now until more clarity can be had.

One commodity we still cannot be sanguine about is silver which should be revelling in the current predominance of the Risk?On herd (UST5yrs up 50 bps in as many days!). Having broken trend, and having failed to stay above it in the retest, May’s $32.31 is still all that stands between us and a possible $26 handle.

A good deal of liquidation has taken place in the last month or two— and the drop in positioning has been magnified by the resulting fall in prices. Even so, this only appears to have taken the market back to the exposures typical of those we saw before QEII began, with no individual commodity actually showing a net short (excepting that perennial Aunt Sally—natgas).

Whether that is a sufficient base upon which to build a lasting rally— absent some Big 4 central bank encouragement—is perhaps not as evident as the permabulls would have us believe.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
narapoiddyslexia's picture

Global oil production has been flat for seven years.


narapoiddyslexia's picture

Global production has been flat for seven years. If you have other data show it. Otherwise go fix a bike.

Bicycle Repairman's picture

Who supplied the data you are using?  Who funds the data suppliers?  What are the motives of these people?

Wake the fuck up.

-273's picture

My god you cracked it repairman, its a conspiracy! The 89 million barrels of oil we use each day is really being replenished! dam those oil companies and oligarchs! It's great to be awake and know we can keep on growing the world economies exponentially thanks to plentiful cheap oil! To hell with EROEI! Dam their fake depletion rates, stupid England for faking the north sea oil peaking and becoming a net importer and becoming poorer by the day as a result! it's all a conspiracy!

If this is how you think when awake, better off just sleeping through it all man.

Look at the drop in production of the countries in this list, yes it's compiled by BP but most of this is common knowledge in the oil industry. Why would countries wish to become net oil importers? Egypt becoming a net importer this year was partly what led to the riots as the government had no more oil revenue so had to cut subsidies on food and fuel:


narapoiddyslexia's picture

Bicycle Repairman is almost certainly a paid troll. Obvious technique. They love this site.

SWRichmond's picture

Peak Oilers are morons.  Or worse, they are shills for the oil business, paid to preserve the mysterious sanctity of oil, to explain why we should remain willing to invade and kill for it.

Which means that most peak oilers are useful idiots.

-273's picture

If you have the ability to understand it (I'm sure you do, it's not that complicated), watch this video and then come back and tell me if you still think the same:

Bicycle Repairman's picture

I'm not a paid troll.  Information is power.  Data on Oil reserves are state secrets.  Money can be made manipulating markets and people.  Do you think the powerful will simply share this information?

-273's picture

Your right man, all these broke net importing oil countries are just keeping all their oil secret for future generations. Maybe the Greek elites should forget that though and just dig deep under their islands and start tapping all that Abiotic oil, money problem solved.

Back to reality and that information is power thing you speak of, only 14 out of 54 oil producing countries and regions in the world continue to increase production, while 30 are definitely past their production peak, and the remaining 10 appear to have flat or declining production [1]. Put another way, peak oil is real in 61% of the oil producing world when weighted by production.

Bicycle Repairman's picture

"only 14 out of 54 oil producing countries and regions in the world continue to increase production"

Who controls the production?

"while 30 are definitely past their production peak"

Again, who supplied your information?

"and the remaining 10 appear to have flat or declining production"

According to whom?

I know these guys would never lie to you.  Go back to sleep.

-273's picture

Shit you got me man, every country must clearly be lying!! Why didnt I see that before?!! Forget the bicycles, you should become a car mechanic, invest in your long term future.

Bicycle Repairman's picture

"Shit you got me man"


-273's picture

lol, only person you are fooling is yourself. It's good to be a skeptic, but dont be an idiot, clearly you cant take 89 million barrels of oil a day out of the ground indefinitely now can you ace.

Bicycle Repairman's picture

"Look at the drop in production of the countries in this list, yes it's compiled by BP but most of this is common knowledge in the oil industry."

Oil industry? You mean the handful of people who run the industry?

"Why would countries wish to become net oil importers?" 

Do third world countries get to have their wishes?  How about first world countries?

-273's picture

Ah, I get it, the third world countries must keep their oil in the ground hidden, same with the 1st world countries right? Your logic is mesmerising. The only way oil companies are keeping their reserves up is by taking over other smaller oil companies, they are not finding any new supergiant fields. Since the mid 1980s, annual production has been greater than annual discoveries. Replace your theories with maths and it should be quite clear where we are heading.

Sparkey's picture

Wonderful writing, beautiful charts, I can only hope his optimism is founded on more than hope and wishful thinking.

Unfortunately I'm afraid this fellow (below) has a chart which perhaps tells a clearer view of our reality.                                                  There are many who seek to treat reality as irrelevant, "It's what you believe that creates reality" they've been taught and  believe this, and implicit in their approach is a confidence that their repertoire of nostrums has, (fueled by their beliefs), unlimited power to ward off unwelcome realities.

I don't think the world works like that, I also think that, probably, there are no modern men, (myself included), who have a clear encompassing view of reality that is not shaded by the relentless programing of all media, like the way the things in our food permeates our physical beings, so are our minds being shaped by the thoughts, and desires being embedded in our core without our conscious knowledge, certainly without our permission. We have imagination to solve the problems reality raises, we cannot conger reality we must react to it!

Take a look at this, it really seems it could well be the end result of the trends I've noticed over the last sixty years!

Orly's picture

That's just silly.  The idea assumes that what we know is a permanent reality and that nothing we can not possibly imagine could ever happen to the energy availibility, space and time travel and on and on.

When it comes time, take stock in the Mr. Fusion company.  You won't regret it!

el Gallinazo's picture

If you can't dazzle them with your dance steps, then baffle them with your bullshit. Corrigan must write this drivel for the NY Times Pulitzer Prize winning economic journalists who will appreciate his refined literary style.

malek's picture

He has put all his arguments in the essay, you should read it once more.

For completeness please also give us your opinion on the continued falsehood of doomer predictions, for example The Club of Rome since the early 70's.

Crawdaddy's picture

I agree it is great writing and I dig the direction his argument travels. A similar argument here:

By Jude Wanniski

Before the US abandoned the gold standard on 15 August 1971, there had been a traditional relationship between gold and oil: One ounce could be exchanged for 15 barrels.

The relationship had held steady for decades as the US fixed the dollar price of gold at $35 and the world oil price fluctuated narrowly around the $2.50 a barrel mark.

Since 1971, the gold/oil relationship began to vary as the US dollar "floated" on international currency exchanges, but until recently it still moved around that 1-to-15 ratio.

Now, an ounce of gold at $420 (when this essay was written) buys only eight barrels of oil at $52 a barrel (bbl). Around the world, industrial and financial analysts are puzzling over why this has happened.

Does it mean a new, permanent shift in the traditional relationship? Is it the result of a coincidental series of supply interruptions due to hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and strikes in Nigeria, compounded by the geopolitical threats in the Middle East?

Is it the sudden demand for energy in the rapidly growing economies of China and India, where two billion people have developed a great thirst for energy? Is the world running out of easy-to-get, cheap oil?

None of these questions lead to satisfactory answers.

...follow the link the see the rest






long-shorty's picture

Don't worry. The more we consume, the more reserves will increase. For ever and ever. Amen.

Bicycle Repairman's picture

That's right.  Have you figured out why?

Orly's picture

Because crude oil is not derived from dead dinosaurs but instead bubbles up from the center of the Earth?

Bicycle Repairman's picture

Beause the people who know the truth feed misinformation to "nosy" people to keep the "nosy" people chasing their tails.

Orly's picture

Kinda like lumping "Warmers," "Truthers," "Birthers" and "Peakers" into the same category so that the CIA and DHS trolls don't have to work so hard?

Wow. What a revelation!  You mean to say that those people are lazy?

Misinformation.  Whoda thunk?

el Gallinazo's picture

Orly, I have been following your comments and you are a very bright woman. There is a physicist by the name of Brooks Agnew ( Ph. D. from BYU) who stipulates that the earth is, in fact, hollow, and there are 208 races of sentient beings that live on the inner face of the crust. Among them are the lost tribes of Israel. This can be found by looking his name up in the Italian Wikipedia and then asking them to translate it into English. So assuming that Dr. Agnew has this correct, my theory is that these sentient beings have manual fluid pumps and are trying to pump more crude oil back into our depleted reserves as fast a they can. Otherwise, the oil we have already extracted will induce a low pressure area in the mantle and create a devastating climate change for them on the inner face of the earth's crust. I am rather surprised that Mr. Corrigan didn't refer to these near indisputable theories to back up his arguments.

Orly's picture

Shows you what you know, which is apparently not a whole lot.

What we call crude oil is the by-product of a pressure differential between the surface tension of our planet and the intense heat at the core.  It bubbles up because it is relatively light and rock near the surface is relatively porous.

I suppose that you would rather believe that there are 208 missing species of humans beneath the surface.  It is possible.  Maybe their mode of transport is to ride around on the 1.88 billion T. Rexs that are down there- or maybe they can be like Fred Flinststone and simply use the 18.47 billion Allosauri as bridges and slide down their necks to get from place to place.

At the rate of global oil-reserve discovery, it should be apparent that there must have been a massive overpopulation in dinosaurs on (or in...) our planet.  With such an obvious warning to modern man, I am very surprised that some good-intentioned leftist hasn't picked up on that yet.

Someone get Al Gore on the phone.  Tell him I have his next boondoggle...erm...documentary right here in my head!  Alert him that the lost tribes of Israel must be drowning in dinosaur shit.

el Gallinazo's picture

Orly, this was suppose to be humor. Guess it didn't work :-( Of course it is totally ridiculous, but the article Tyler chose to post was ridiculous, so it was appropriate. However the part about Brooks Agnew is real and his exploits make amusing reading.

Orly's picture

I understand and I thank you very kindly for helping me make my points very clear, Gallinazo.

I hope I wasn't mean but I wasn't speaking to you directly, really.  I was speaking to all the people who don't understand that the Earth is a living being beyond the comprehension of modern man and to believe that we understand her, in our limited and basic capacity, is absurd.

I thank you for throwing the absurdity into the mix.

Please have a wonderful week!


Bicycle Repairman's picture

The deep water Horizon rig was drilling below 10,000 feet.  BP stuck quite a bit of highly pressurized oil.  No dinosaurs or plant matter have ever lived below 10,000.

Nor have any races of humans, I might add.

Orly's picture

"...quite a bit of highly pressurized oil."

The lost tribes have a hella manual pump action working, I guess.  But even if they're below 10,000 feet, how can they breathe?

All kidding aside, it seems sort of sad that very, very bright people- petrochemical engineers- hold to the tenets of what they had been taught to believe.  There are petrochemical engineers in my family, so I can attest to their ability to reason but, in this instance, they are allowing what amounts to a religious fervor to cloud their ideas when the mathematics (of all things...) clearly shows that the idea of "fossil fuels" is totally bogus.

Just read some of the posts in this thread and it is plain to see that many of us have some emotional interest invested in this belief.

Has anyone done the calculations of how much algae, how many dinosuars and how many pine trees would be necessary to deposit so much fossil fuel?  An earnest algebraic formula would clearly demonstrate that it would take multiple billions of years to deposit that amount of fuel below the surface of the Earth.  The closest calculation I can find is that the Earth became a living being only about three billion years ago- not 37 billion years ago, as would be necessary to create these deposits.

What tipped me off into thinking about it was the exact same fervor I experience back in '02, when I started to question the validity of the government's assessment of 911.  Firefighters, teachers, people from all walks of life simply refused to believe that their government would lie to them in such an unholy way.  Now, it seems quite obvious to anyone who seriously thinks about it that the US government not only lied about it, they had a direct hand in making it happen.

Same thing here; very smart and honest people simply refuse to believe anything other than what they have been told.  In ten years, maybe it will become obvious to everyone as well that there is no "Peak Oil," that the Earth replenishes its own supply of what humans call "fuels" and that the idea that dead dinosuars make oil is embarrassingly silly.

"No dinosaurs or plant matter have ever lived below 10,000."

As my father used to say, "I rest my case."

BigJim's picture

No dinosaurs or plant matter have ever lived below 10,000.

Please tell me you're kidding me.

francis_sawyer's picture

What a fucking load of horseshit...

"The point of this digression—beyond its own entertainment value—is that oil has no value whatsoever, outside of that conferred upon it by the  imagination and dedication of acting men who have found ways to make it meet one of Man’s most enduring needs—for a reliable and easily transported store of energy."


Yeah, my fucking penis has no value either (outside of...)




W T Effington's picture

If you or no one else has any use for your penis then it has no value economically. You shouldn't talk about your penis like that. I am sure its not that bad.

francis_sawyer's picture

OK then it oes have value...

I'll use the "authors" words & place its value as "that conferred upon it by the imagination and dedication of acting men who have found ways to make it meet one of Man’s most enduring needs"...


But the dude wasn't talking about the fallacy of PEAK PENIS theory... Instead - he just seems to want a Pulitzer for writing, essentially, about his technical analysis of candlestick charts...



W T Effington's picture

Peak Penis Theory would be an interesting topic, in a totally not gay way. I wonder if all the charts would look like a steep bell curve.

francis_sawyer's picture

Well anyway... I don't want to harsh out on the guy... But Jesus Tapdancing Christ... If your charts tell you that silver is going to $26 then just SAY IT (& spare us all the crap)...

Orly's picture

Link don't work, yo.

Hohum's picture

And, of course, the cost of all extracted oil is the same.

chistletoe's picture

This is canard no #1 whenever anyone -- anyone -- tries to refute "peak oil"

(which is no longer a theory, but simple fact)..

Always, they start by discussing the known quantity of recoverable reserves.


Neither Hubbert nor Matt Simmons nor any of the other myriad illuminati

who have discussed peak oil


ever, ever, ever said anything about known reserves.

"Peak oil" refers to the quantity over time of the commodity which can be produced.

It refers to "maximum flow".

The case is now open and shut.  The peak in the continental US took place, just as predicted, in 1973.  And the world peak took place, just as predicted, in the middle of the first decade of the 21st century.

Anyone, absolutely anyone,  who wants to argue differently has a hidden agenda up his sleeve,

in the great tradition of patent medicines, perpetual motion machines,

recharging your lightning rods, or selling you a bridge ....

Bicycle Repairman's picture

LOL.  I'm not buying a Prius and you can't make me.

HungrySeagull's picture

I ain't buying a car that fits in the short bed pickup truck either

Event Horizon's picture

The State will buy you a Volt with your own money ,, err debt

css1971's picture

I think his point is that when oil becomes too expensive. We'll replace it with something else; natural gas, electric power etc.