Lessons in Creditability: Matt Simmons and the gulf oil spill

15 posts / 0 new
Last post
crash_watcher's picture
crash_watcher
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 12 2008
Posts: 146
Lessons in Creditability: Matt Simmons and the gulf oil spill

I’ve just finished listening to Jim Puplava’s interview of Matt Simmons on the FSN weekly podcast (http://www.financialsense.com/financial-sense-newshour/big-picture/2010/07/31/02/matthew-simmons-oliver-inderwildi-robert-hirsch/energy-pearl-harbor). I usually look forward to hearing Simmons discuss oil and energy on Puplava’s show, and elsewhere, because he articulates such a clear vision of the future.  Indeed,  Simmons’ book, “Twilight in the Dessert” sits on my bookshelf.

Two articles I’ve read over the last few days, however, have caused me to regard nearly everything that Simmons has being saying about the gulf oil spill with a great deal of skepticism.  Simmons has lost creditability with me.   

 First, I came across this article by Robert Rapier:

I am going to address a touchy subject in this essay, but I simply can’t ignore it any longer. I have noticed that a lot of people are finding my blog through keyword searches of “Debunking Matt Simmons.” About two and a half years ago, I did write an essay called Debunking Matt Simmons. Because of Matt’s recent claims about the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, there has been a spike in interest over whether his claims related to the disaster are actually credible. So now seems like a good time to revisit the subject.

The topic is touchy because Matt Simmons has long been revered in the energy business, and some of his fans will be upset with me for writing this.

But Simmons has lately been making what I feel are very irresponsible and sensational claims that don’t hold up to scrutiny. So I will review his history here to show a pattern of Simmons making sensational predictions based on meager and/or misinterpreted data; predictions that later proved to be grossly inaccurate.

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/07/23/is-matt-simmons-credible/

Rapier's article provides links to many of Simmons’ recent appearances on the main stream media and summarizes some of the claims that Simmons has made:  

In these and various other interviews, Simmons claims:

1. Use of a small bore nuclear device is the “only option” to stop the flow of oil.

I don’t want a banker who doesn’t know what fuzzy logic is being taken seriously on the issue of using nukes in the Gulf of Mexico.

2. BP would be insolvent by July 8, 2010. He has also stated several times that the stock is going to zero.

While I have said that I don’t think the BP brand can continue in the long run, I wouldn’t call them insolvent and it will certainly take some time for the legal issues to play out. A prediction of insolvency by July 8th was ridiculous. Simmons has also shorted BP stock, so some of this may be wishful thinking on his part.

3. The “real, untold story” is another leak that is 5-7 miles away spewing 120,000 bbls/day.

I haven’t the faintest idea where he came up with this, but I have spoken to several experts who say the chance of that is zero.

4. That there is an underground lake of oil that is 500 feet thick, 100 miles wide, and may be covering 40% of the Gulf of Mexico.

As one person calculated, that would equate to 500 trillion barrels of oil; total global reserves are estimated in the region of 2 trillion barrels.

5. The leak could last 24 years.

He believes this, because short of the nuclear weapon idea he sees no other way to stop the leak and thinks we may have to wait for all of the oil to come out of the reservoir. Meanwhile, the news is that BP is starting to get the leak under control.

6. The gulf states need to be evacuated.

Simmons says “We’re going to have to evacuate the gulf states. Can you imagine evacuating 20 million people? . . . This story is 80 times worse than I thought.”

One of the most bothersome aspects raised here, apart from the lack of support for many of Simmons claims concerning the gulf, was that Simmons had shorted BP stock.  In fact, here he is on Bloomberg stating that he is short on BP

 So here we have the media putting Simmons on as an expert to discuss technical aspects of the spill and their expert has a huge conflict of interest, in my opinion.  How many people listening to him say that BP would go bankrupt knew that Simmons had shorted BP and stood to gain financially if BP’s stock went down?  Was Simmons just talking is book?

Incidentally, a difference in opinion about BP, between Simmons and Simmons & Company International, at least in part, lead to Simmons resigning from the company that he founded:

 Several of the recent statements on the part of Mr. Simmons relating to the Macondo blowout and the implications for the industry and the individual companies involved in this incident are discordant with the views of Simmons & Company International. This accident has tragic consequences for the families of the deceased and injured, and potentially exceedingly serious ramifications for the principal companies involved in the MC252 well in addition to the natural habitat of the broader Gulf of Mexico and Gulf Coast areas. We view this tragedy as an unfortunate and isolated accident for an industry otherwise known for its steadfast devotion to safety. We believe constructive changes will be made in order to further enhance safety and that the future for offshore drilling will remain vital.

 Separate and apart from the Macondo blowout, Mr. Simmons’ views and opinions regarding the productivity of the North American unconventional natural gas and oil resource plays are in direct contradiction to the conclusions Simmons & Company International has reached from the in-depth and lengthy research we have conducted on the subject. Our view is that were it not for unconventional gas, the North American natural gas resource base, which is presently witnessing compelling productivity, may otherwise have entered into a period of sustained decline.

 http://www.businessinsider.com/letter-matthew-simmons-is-resigning-from-simmons-and-co-2010-6

Second, I came across this article on The Oil Drum, also posted by Rapier, but contributed to by several authors.  

The article examines Simmons claims in much more detail than the first article, and is way too long to cite here.  

The article concludes:

Those who suggest that Simmons might be right, based on some new information that arises or some misinformation supplied by BP, should identify which parts of his story are right: the gravity-defying lake of oil? Flying BOPs? Methane death clouds?

In addition, for those who ask the question "what if Simmons is right?", the answer would be that all textbooks on basic physics, chemistry, and toxicology would have to be rewritten to handle the discrepancies between what is currently believed vs. what Simmons suggests has occurred.

In conclusion, the claims made by Simmons and documented in this essay are not credible. Some - such as the idea that methane is toxic - are factual errors. Other claims, such as an open gusher that BP is covering up, defy logic. How Simmons will respond if no evidence of his claims emerges remains to be seen.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6789 

So, back to the Simmons' interview on FSN, which apparently was conducted last Thursday.   Simmons basically repeated all his claims, and, Puplava, as is his custom, just let him talk. 

Rather than challenge Simmons for evidence to backup these claims, at the end of the interview, Puplava just tossed him a real soft-ball, asking, “is there anything out their Matt that’s a silver bullet, or will it take a combination?"

 To which Simmons replied, “Not only is there a silver bullet there is a solution.”

 That solution is none other that the Ocean-Energy institute located in Maine:

 The Ocean Energy Institute, founded in 2007 by Matthew R. Simmons, is a think-tank and venture capital fund addressing the challenges of U.S. offshore renewable energy. http://www.oceanenergy.org/

 I couldn't help but think, is this just Simmons talking his new book ?  I'm not sure I will ever listen to a Matt Simmons interview again without a great deal of skepticism.

 

Who knows, Simmons may eventually be vindicated and proven right.  Maybe they did, “kill the Gulf," has he has repeatedly said in his interviews.    At this stage I do have my doubts, however.

 If he not vindicated, what then?  Well, for Simmons, he will have lost a good deal of his creditability, in my opinion.  For example, what are we to make now of this project of his in Maine?  Has he made claims about this project that are also not creditable?  Doubts such as these will not advance his cause in Maine.

 And what of Peak Oil?  This is only starting to hit the public’s attention though main-stream media outlets.   If Simmons is not vindicated, we will have one of PO’s strongest proponents having made outlandish, hyperbolic claims about the Gulf.   I can hear it a few years from now, the main stream media will bring out these interviews of Simmons, and say, “look the Gulf is not dead, why should we believe this Peak Oil thing?“

 I know that there are many, many other creditable sources and data that support PO, so please don’t reply with scads of links evangelizing on behalf of PO.  The purpose of my post is not to discredit PO, or even to discredit Simmons (although, I really am hoping that he is wrong and “they didn’t kill the Gulf”). 

 The lesson I take home from watching Simmons these past months is, don’t lose your creditability—its hard to gain and even harder to get back once you lose it.  

I think there may also be a lesson for this online community.  As you give your friends and family the message of the crash course, don’t lose your creditability.   There are many uncertainties ahead, especially regarding the timing of the events presented in the crash course, in my opinion. I think that Chris, in the crash course and in his posts, has gone to great lengths to separate facts, opinions and beliefs.   

We should all strive to do the same.  

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3124
Re: Lessons in Creditability: Matt Simmons and the gulf oil ...

Crash,

I have had exactly the same reaction to Simmons' pronouncements over the past couple month that you are having,  I read or heard all the same assertions you cite except the shorting BP part.  His credibility has been severely strained.  The off-shore Maine project I have only heard him speak of.  I haven't looked into it and have no idea if there is anything to it or if its pie-in-the-sky stuff.

Puplava lost a lot of credibility with me a couple months ago when he made some dismissive remark about climate change that only showed his complete ignorance of subject.  You would think someone whose business depends on credibility would at least make a half hearted attempt to understand a subject before making sweeping claims that are completely unsupported.

I might add, Michael Ruppert has been making some end-of-the-world noises lately about the GOM spill.  He even linked Simmons' interview with Puplava on his site.

I think the lesson is to doubt apocalyptic assertions until you have a chance to check them out.

That's what I appreciate about CM.  He is always measured in his remarks and looks for factually material support in any warnings or alerts.  Although, sometimes I do wish he would be a little more forward about debunking some of the crap that turns up in the blogosphere like you've discussed above.

Doug

crash_watcher's picture
crash_watcher
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 12 2008
Posts: 146
Re: Lessons in Creditability: Matt Simmons and the gulf oil ...

Doug, 

I have mixed feelings about Puplava’s interview style.  On one hand, I like it that he lets his guests speak without talking over them or shouting them down.  At least the listener can hear what the guest has to say, relatively unfiltered by Puplava.  This is much better than what often passes for an “interview” on the main-stream media.  On the other hand, as exemplified by the Simmons interview, many times the guests' stated opinions and beliefs are not challenged, and so the listener is left hanging somewhat at the end of the interview.

 In my opinion, his show is still a useful source of information, provided that you are ready to question and research all of the ideas that are presented by the guests (and by Puplava), and come to your own conclusions. 

Woodman's picture
Woodman
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 26 2008
Posts: 1028
Re: Lessons in Creditability: Matt Simmons and the gulf oil ...

 The lesson I take home from watching Simmons these past months is, don’t lose your creditability—its hard to gain and even harder to get back once you lose it.  

I think there may also be a lesson for this online community.  As you give your friends and family the message of the crash course, don’t lose your creditability.   There are many uncertainties ahead, especially regarding the timing of the events presented in the crash course, in my opinion. I think that Chris, in the crash course and in his posts, has gone to great lengths to separate facts, opinions and beliefs.   

We should all strive to do the same.

Great statement cw.  The way I try to present is there are significant risks we can't afford not to hedge against,and we should not bet it all on one particular outcome. 

JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2492
Re: Lessons in Creditability: Matt Simmons and the gulf oil ...
crash_watcher wrote:

 On one hand, I like it that he lets his guests speak without talking over them or shouting them down.  At least the listener can hear what the guest has to say, relatively unfiltered by Puplava.  This is much better than what often passes for an “interview” on the main-stream media.  On the other hand, as exemplified by the Simmons interview, many times the guests' stated opinions and beliefs are not challenged, and so the listener is left hanging somewhat at the end of the interview.

 In my opinion, his show is still a useful source of information, provided that you are ready to question and research all of the ideas that are presented by the guests (and by Puplava), and come to your own conclusions. 

Great thread Crash. I almost started one on the same topic about a month ago, after I read on Zerohedge that Simmons was buying up BP stock after he cryed wolf and shorted it. (I was going to link to that ZH post here, but I'll be damned if I can find the search field on the ZH site anymore.)

Needless to say, as someone who lives on the Gulf Coast, I think Simmons' actions were/are despicable. 

Re Puplava: I have stated many times that Puplava's site and podcast are just marketing for his investments, personal and professional. His show's one redeeming factor is that he does interview guests that don't share his views. Though he never shouts-down a guest's opinions, he does challenge them if they oppose his, and lets them go unchallenged if they are in accord with his own. His Pretcher interviews are a good example of this bias. Last year, I downloaded every one of Puplava's podcasts over the last 5-6 years and listened to them while building a deck. His marketing bias becomes very clear when digested in this manner., even my wife caught on to it and she is completely indifferent to these topics.

Thanks again for the thread. Now I'm headed to the beach, which is still oil-free in my neck of the woods.....Jeff

Nichoman's picture
Nichoman
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 1 2008
Posts: 422
Re: Lessons in Creditability: Matt Simmons and the gulf oil ...

CW...

Well done.  Your post reflects my view.  

For over two years now...found Dr Robert L. Hirsch to better articulate the PO issue...who follows the Matt Simmons interview.  His upcoming book should be quite interesting, he states the book will include a range of ideas and potential workaround solutions.  

 

Nichoman

crash_watcher's picture
crash_watcher
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 12 2008
Posts: 146
Re: Lessons in Creditability: Matt Simmons and the gulf oil ...

The way I try to present is thereare significant risks we can't afford not to hedge against,and we should not bet it all on one particular outcome

Woodsman, excellent advice; I couldn't agree more: increasing resilience to mitigate against risks.

crash_watcher's picture
crash_watcher
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 12 2008
Posts: 146
Re: Lessons in Creditability: Matt Simmons and the gulf oil ...

I have stated many times that Puplava's site and podcast are just marketing for his investments, personal and professional.

 Jag, I guess I'm willing to give some slack in this regard. 

No doubt the FSN website and pod cast are justified on the grounds that they provide the firm marketing and a new source of clients.  I doubt, however, that the time that Puplava puts into the show can be justified in terms of a financial ROI.  Rather, I suspect that Puplava has gotten to a stage, and level of financial security, in his life where he can do what he wants to, and, the show is what he wants to do.   

 Moreover, he does give advice, that is “out of the box,” from the standpoint of self promotion.  For example, in the first hour of this weeks' show, I believe that he stated that it is important for investors to be balanced, that included being in cash, and bonds, and, not being all in one thing, such as PMs.  (hey, maybe he’s been reading the automatic earth?)

crash_watcher's picture
crash_watcher
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 12 2008
Posts: 146
Re: Lessons in Creditability: Matt Simmons and the gulf oil ...

Dr Robert L. Hirsch to better articulate the PO issue...who follows the Matt Simmons interview.  His upcoming book should be quite interesting, he states the book will include a range of ideas and potential workaround solutions.

Yes, Nichoman, I enjoyed both the Inderwildi and Hirsch interviews much more; I look forward to that book by Hirsch and Schlesinger.

(correction Schlesinger does the forward; he's not an author: http://www.apogeeprime.com/prime/bookpages/9781926837116.html)

 

Erik T.'s picture
Erik T.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 5 2008
Posts: 1234
Re: Lessons in Creditability: Matt Simmons and the gulf oil ...

Great thread, CW!

Since I had something to do with the recent Simmons interview, I'll break my usual rule of not posting on this site, and provide a bit of context.

The most recent Matt Simmons interview came about after an e-mail exchange between Jim Puplava and myself, in which I strongly encouraged Jim to get Matt back on the show to substantiate his previous statements that "Relief wells won't work if the well casing is compromised down-hole" and "A nuclear detonation is the only viable option". For many of the reasons stated above by CW and others, I had become very skepitcal of Mr. Simmons' claims on KWN and in other venues, so I encouraged Jim to get him back on the show to specifically address what I thought were some holes in his story.

Specifically, I felt that Matt had not adequately explained why he thought that a compromised well casing would prevent a cement-thru-relief well solution from working. I am not an expert in this field, but it seemed to me that if you could temporarily stop the flow of oil (as the present cap appears to have achieved to a large extent, save for possible seeps away from the well head), then pumping the whole damn thing full of enough cement to fill the well bore down several thousand feet ought to work. If Mr. Simmons knows a reason it wouldn't work, I wanted him to explain it in detail. In my opinion, he failed to adequately explain why this couldn't work in the recent interview.

My other argument (posed to Jim before this recent interview) was that when they tried to cut the riser pipe off, they were using a well-tested hydraulic saw, but working at that depth with only ROVs, they kept getting the thing stuck just trying to cut the riser pipe. The engineering challenge of enclosing a nuclear bomb (within the very stringent engineering controls for nuclear weapons), fitting it into some sort of enclosure  that would be water-proof to depths of several thousand feet, pressure-proof given the 30,000psi pressure in the reservoir, oil and gas proof, heat proof, etc... Then somehow inserting this thing into the well bore using ROVs, and pushing it down 18,000' against a 7,000psi errupting flow of oil and gas (how would you do that anyway?)... All this seems highly impractical to me. Then how would you detonate it? A hard cable for command/control of the device would be necessary because radio control so far underground is impossible. They're not going to have a guy sitting on the surface just push the button with men and equipment at risk on the surface if something went wrong, so they would have to rig some sort of super-secure radio control repeater that connects to the detonation signal cable to the submerged bomb, then evacuate the area, then detonate it by radio control. That's a HUGE engineering effort. Bottom line, I don't think it could be done (remember, when the Russians did this it was an above-ground well).

Matt really lost credibility with me in the recent interview when he said a Navy Sub would have to do it. First of all, 5000' is WAY below the max operating depth of any (manned) submarine. Second, what sort of tool or apparatus would a submarine use to push the nuke down 18,000' of well bore. And how would they work around the shattered pieces of well casing still in the hole if Simmons' analysis of how the blowout happened were accurate?

All and all, my conclusion is that Matt Simmons is still a really good guy in my book. I don't think he's "talking his book" in a sleazy or intentionally deceptive way, but I do think that his well-deserved passion for the work he's doing in Maine has caused him to take some reasonable conclusions (BP really screwed up big time) and extrapolate details that just aren't supported by the facts.

I got back in touch with JP today after reading this thread. Jim has now read this thread himself, and has agreed to try to get Robert Rapier on the show to provide an opposing viewpoint.

To those of you who are criticizing both Jim Puplava and Matt Simmons for having self-serving interests, I respectfully think you're wrong - dead wrong - about that. Yes, Jim Puplava derives some benefit to his money management business from having the show. Duh. That should come as no surprise, and should not offend anyone. If anything, I think he is beyond reproach in terms of doing the show ethically, fairly, and not abusing his editorial position to "talk his book" or otherwise mislead anyone. If anything, I think he's more understated than necessary when it comes to never directly talking up his money management business. His willingness to organize the recent Simmons interview on my request stands out in my mind as testament to his commitment to his listeners. I agree that Jim didn't "push back" on Matt Simmons and demand that he substantiate his claims, but that should come as no surprise either. Jim's policy - applied equally and fairly to both people he agrees and disagrees with - is to bring up the topics and then let the guest say what they have to say about it. It should come as no surprise that he applied that same policy for this interview. As for Matt Simmons, as I said earlier I think he's a good guy whose passion and angst with BP have gotten the best of him. I think he's exaggerating and presenting dubious speculations as facts, but I don't think he's being deceptive or intentionally misleading. Yes, he "talked his book" a little by portraying the Ocean Institute work as "the solution", but again I think that's a reflection of his passion for the value of the work they are doing to the planet and society, not a money-grubbing attempt to attract investors.

Anyway, bottom line is stay tuned for Robert Rapier (assuming he agrees to an interview).

All the best,

Erik

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3124
Re: Lessons in Creditability: Matt Simmons and the gulf oil ...

Erik T.

I don't believe I inferred that either Puplava or Simmons are saying things our of selfish interests, just that they were really wrong.  That said, I'm only aware of one off hand derisive remark by Puplava that was untrue, but Simmons seems to have gone 'round the bend with his claims.  I'll look forward to the Rapier interview.

Doug

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3124
Re: Lessons in Creditability: Matt Simmons and the gulf oil ...

fwiw at Kunstler's blog

http://www.kunstler.com/Grunt_replytoSimmons.html

Quote:

Mr. Kunstler,
My brother is "The" World expert on blow outs and well control. This is his response to your missive from the simmons guy. He is doing the reliefs wells

We've always been concerned about the well broaching as the secondary
containment casing has 3 specifically designed rupture disks in it. These
were part of the engineered design, for good reasons too complex to put down here. If any one of them failed, they could direct the flow at 2 outside
casing strings, 22" and 18" and these are set into weak rock. But these
"shoes" are deeper than any previously reported failure or broaching depths anywhere in the world.

*** and I wrote the definitive work, and to my knowledge, the only paper on the subject, as this kind of thing is constantly a concern in our work. We
have never discovered a surface broach (*** and I call this a "40-acre
choke!") deeper than 3,000 ft. The Bay of Campeche well broached from about 1,500 ft when Red Adair shut it in on a shallow casing. But nobody ever gave [him] points for being smart. Bold, yes! Smart, no!

Some more detail is in order. The rupture disks fail to about a 3 mm
opening. They are designed to control a failure mode in the 16" containment string so that if it fails, it fails at pre-determined points. Otherwise, it could fail in such a way as to either damage the 2 primary containments: casing and tubing, or damage the wellhead supporting everything in the well. If subjected to massive flow, the holes could erode to a much larger orifice, but that doesn't seem to have happened. Our current shut-in pressure is lower than we expected, but still MUCH higher than would be seen if any of the rupture disks had failed. If any appreciable amounts of oil were flowing into upper zones, we would have seen signs of that while drilling the 2 relief wells. Believe me: we were looking!

It's pretty clear to me that the lower pressure we see now is either 1) The
well wasn't as good as the Reservoir Engineers predicted (Either way, it is
a GOOD well! Or 2) It was actually flowing harder than our earlier
estimates. Neither of these choices is much of a stretch.

Now as to the silly shit about poking a nuke into the well:
If we could poke anything into the FUCKING WELL we would have killed it weeks ago! Does this guy think we've been sucking our thumbs? We snub kill strings into flowing wells all the time and kill them when we get the pipe in there. We can't access this well! It's in 5,000 ft of FUCKING ocean!

This deep-water sediment section is different than normal GoM rock. It all
is. Sealing this well at 15,000 ft would simply allow it to blow out at
16,000 ft. The freakin' well is only 18,326 ft deep in 5,000 ft of water.
That means we only drilled a little more than 13,000 ft of rock, and most of
that "rock" was 2 miles of beach sand that avalanched off the upper shelf!
It takes 8 casing stings to get a deep as we got. I've been below 27,000 ft
on land with 5 casing strings! All that pipe - yes, millions of dollars
worth- is because nothing shallow will contain anything deeper. The
producing zone has over 10,000 psi and the fracture pressure at 16,500 ft
has a measured value of 9,600 psi. Without casing between the 2 zones, it
would already be blowing out to that zone!

As to oil leaking out of the sea floor: so what? If the guy knew anything
about anything he'd know that there's oil and gas leaking out of just about
every sea floor in the world! The Santa Barbara Channel has had oil seeps since pre-history. The la Brea Tar Pit is an oil seep! There's a huge pitch lake in Trinidad (Also Called La Brea) and the Eternal Fires of the
Zoroaster's is a gas seep of antiquity!

There are bounding faults around the Macondo structure that may be leaking. I suspect, once we start looking closely, we'll find many similar leaks in the deep water environment. As I said, this rock is not different than we're used to working with, and most of it got there by a series of avalanches down the Continental Slope. Who knows how many leaky seals there are?

The last screwy thing is all this energy about methane bubbles! For crying
out loud: there have been studies for years trying to figure how to harvest
all the world's methane hydrate! It's everywhere! Still forming on sea
floors all over: especially in the Arctic and off Russia's northern coast.
If you Google "methane hydrate" you'll see a DOE paper from May-2010 on the subject! In fact, the Bermuda Triangle is claimed to be a huge methane trap!

There was some crackpot college professor from California reporting we'd
blow the whole Louisiana coastline off if we didn't be careful. The world is
full of nuts!

JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2492
Re: Lessons in Creditability: Matt Simmons and the gulf oil ...
Erik T. wrote:

To those of you who are criticizing both Jim Puplava and Matt Simmons for having self-serving interests, I respectfully think you're wrong - dead wrong - about that. Yes, Jim Puplava derives some benefit to his money management business from having the show. Duh. 

Erik,

I'm dead wrong Erik?

No I think Puplava was dead wrong in 07-08 when he kept pushing oil and commodities investments into a 70%+ crash. Duh (to borrow from your post). Go back and listen to his podcasts from this period if you don't believe me. And does he even reconsider his stance after the market wiped the floor with his world view portfolio? Not a chance.

That being said, I have to concede that his interviewing style is far superior to anyone else out there, and his guest selection is diversified and entertaining.. I still listen to his interviews, but his personal commentary lost all credibility with me in 2008.

I'm sure we will have to agree to disagree on this particular subject, but I can live with that if you can.

Best....Jeff

 

crash_watcher's picture
crash_watcher
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 12 2008
Posts: 146
Re: Lessons in Creditability: Matt Simmons and the gulf oil ...

All and all, my conclusion is that Matt Simmons is still a really good guy in my book. I don't think he's "talking his book" in a sleazy or intentionally deceptive way, but I do think that his well-deserved passion for the work he's doing in Maine has caused him to take some reasonable conclusions (BP really screwed up big time) and extrapolate details that just aren't supported by the facts.

I got back in touch with JP today after reading this thread. Jim has now read this thread himself, and has agreed to try to get Robert Rapier on the show to provide an opposing viewpoint.

Erik. T, thank you for your the insights, it is very interesting to hear the back-story!.  I think that Rapier would make a great guest on Puplava's show!

Like I said in previous posts, I have mixed feelings about Puplava's interview style--I like to hear what the guest has to say, but sometimes I wish that, after the guest has said their piece, he would press them a bit deeper on their views.  And, I could see how that might be difficult to do with Simmons.  Still, Puplava's show is much better than what passes for business/financial news in the main-stream media.

The thing that continues to bothers me about Simmons is his taking a short position on BP, and then appearing on national TV and predicting that BP's stock with go to zero.   That goes beyond passion for his project in Maine, in my opinion.  Being a passionate advocate for a cause or belief is fine, but, when you start making incredible claims in the hopes of advancing that cause—you are going too far, in my opinion.

 


Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Re: Lessons in Creditability: Matt Simmons and the gulf oil ...

Politics’ ...

Isn't it just everywhere you look?

There is no 'Suddenly' about what constitutes a value, or who holds something valuable as a useable vehicle by those means necessary.

Accrediting something of an apology?

If ever it were a requirement of any blogger within this forum, I should quit on the grounds of this or any other officious delusion from those who bought their status ... 

I suggest that I have an even greater understanding of the machinations surrounding this and other foundations', including those who are at least consistent with their more than capable ability of tritely insulting mine and other users intelligence...

~ VF ~

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments