No one can say for certain, of course.

But whether prices continue to rise or not, there are plenty of opportunities out there for investors looking to capitalize on the world’s long-term needs for oil. Some believe the meteoric rise in oil we’ve seen over the last three years is a temporary phenomenon. T. Boone Pickens isn’t one of them.

The long-time oilman, and current chairman of BP Capital Management, was recently asked in a 60 Minutes interview when he thought we’d see $1.50 a gallon at the pump again. “We won’t ever see $1.50 a gallon again,” said Pickens. “No, that’s gone.”

It’s tough to disagree. On the demand side, citizens of the wealthy West aren’t using any less oil, nor are the up-and-coming Tigers of the East.

On the supply side, just look at many of the world’s biggest exporters: Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Russia. It’s a virtual rogues’ gallery, filled with nations that represent tyranny, corruption or instability.

Fortunately, the world’s single-largest oil deposit sits right here in North America. Time magazine calls it “Canada’s biggest buried treasure.” It’s an area with up to 2.5 trillion barrels of oil, locked in Alberta sand. That’s eight times the total reserves of Saudi Arabia, enough to satisfy the world’s demand for petroleum for the next century.

This is easily the world’s most exciting energy story.

And one publicly traded company is supremely positioned to earn billions from this region in the months ahead.

The Competition For Oil Is Heating Up

In May, the International Energy Agency (IEA) revised upwards its estimate of world oil demand, squashing hopes that a significant decline in oil prices is imminent.

Demand growth this year is running at its fastest level in 24 years. Last year, world oil use was estimated at 82.6 million barrels a day. The United States burns a quarter of that. But competition for oil is heating up.

Emerging markets – and particularly giants like China and India – are rapidly industrializing. According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, world demand for oil is expected to increase 54% over the next 25 years.

Unfortunately, American oil production has been on the downswing since 1970. And many of the world’s major oil suppliers are either indifferent or downright hostile to U.S. interests. Where can Americans look for a steady, reliable source of black gold?

How about 900 miles north of Montana, in Alberta, Canada?

Jed Clampett Never Imagined…

Alberta’s oil sands are the largest known reserve of oil on earth, containing between 1.7 and 2.5 trillion barrels. (Saudi Arabia, by comparison, has only 262 billion barrels of proven reserves. In fact, all OPEC nations combined have less than 900 billion barrels.)

For decades, these sands weren’t even considered part of the world’s oil reserves because the oil there wasn’t economically extractible at prevailing prices using then-current technology.

But times have changed… And the new gold rush is on.

In Alberta’s oil sands, energy companies don’t drill for oil. They dig it up. After excavation, giant trucks three stories high – carrying up to 400 tons of oil sands – carry it off to a processing plant.

There, the sands are heated in a cell where the oil comes to the top of the water and the sand drops to the bottom. This oil froth is then sent to an upgrader and eventually to a refiner. Is this oil really as good as the stuff coming from Saudi Arabia?

Actually, it’s better. According to Clive Matter, Chief of Shell Canada, this oil is “absolutely as good as it gets. In fact, it even trades at a premium because it’s high-quality crude oil.”

And here’s the kicker: Exploration of Alberta’s oil sands is virtually risk-free. You can’t drill a dry hole here. There’s no drilling at all. It’s a mining operation – and the reserves are thoroughly outlined. So what you really need is a company with plenty of machinery, money and manpower to dig it up and process it as quickly as possible.

That’s why you should own Suncor Energy (NYSE: SU).

The Blue Chip Oil Sands Play

There are dozens of small companies flocking to Alberta for a piece of the action. But in this capital-intensive business, why gamble on the small fry? We suggest you opt for the undisputed blue chip play: Suncor.

Based in Calgary, Suncor is an integrated energy company. It extracts and upgrades oil through its oil sands operations near Fort McMurray, Alberta. Its operations throughout Western Canada produce natural gas.

It operates a refining and marketing business in Ontario, with retail distribution under the Sunoco brand. And it has operations in the United States and retails its products under the Phillips 66 brand. It also manufactures the gasoline additive ethanol.

It was cheap. The world’s cheapest stock market at the time. It was hated. Investors were worried the country would be invaded by China. It was in an uptrend. Taiwan’s stock market had just broken out to a new multiyear high.

We love to see all of these conditions for a trade in DailyWealth. When an asset is extraordinarily cheap and hated (or ignored), there’s little risk you’ll lose money. And by waiting for an uptrend before buying, you avoid tying your money up in a dead market for years.

In my Quant Trader service, we bought shares in the Taiwan Fund (TWN) to capitalize on the Taiwan opportunity. The trade worked out wonderfully for a few months… but we stopped out of the position this February as markets around the world plunged. It’s a shame… because this trade has huge potential.

So what do we need to see before jumping back into Taiwan?

The governments of Taiwan and China have been arguing over the jurisdiction of Taiwan for over 50 years. China has vowed to bring Taiwan back under its rule by force if necessary. This political risk is the reason why Taiwan was, and still is, so cheap.

———- Advertisement ———-
Canada’s Untapped Oil Sands Province

About 99% of the money that’s been made in Canadian oil sands, so far, has come from just one Province: Alberta.

But what almost no one realizes is that there’s a region of Canada that geologists believe holds even richer oil deposits than Alberta.

The Regina Leader-Post writes, “Although the Alberta oil sands tend to get most of the publicity, the oil sands in [this secret region] contain ’significant world class deposits’ that are of ‘top quality.’”

Even better, a tiny penny stock has been chosen to lead the way.

Click here for the full story.
————————————–

However, nowadays relations are improving…

The recent election of Ma Ying-jeou brings hope that the two governments will forge new diplomatic and economic ties over the next few years. This is a huge plus for Taiwan. It’s one of the most advanced countries in Asia and home to giant semiconductor and electronics manufacturing industries… so a friendly China will make for a good trading partner.

Another sign I like to see when investing in an Asian market: Legendary investor Jim Rogers has named Taiwan as one of his top spots for new money right now. He believes China and Taiwan will merge their economies and currencies together. This would likely create a huge stock market boom in Taiwan. And boy do these stocks have room to run…

As you can see, Taiwan is still extremely cheap and the long-term uptrend that began in 2003 is still in place. However, the short-term trend is down. The Taiwan Fund is down about 11% over the last month.

The U.S. and China are Taiwan’s two largest trading partners. So, Taiwanese stocks tend to fall alongside China and the U.S.

Again… that’s the short-term picture. Taiwan is a great place to hunt for long-term investments in the Asian economic boom.

The trouble with big stories like Asia is there’s usually too much hype surrounding them to get a great deal on assets. That’s not the case with Taiwan. It’s still cheap, and most folks are ignoring the opportunities. All we need is the uptrend before we stand to make huge returns here.

Good investing,

Ian Davis

P.S. I plan on letting readers of my Quant Trader service know the best time to buy this market. Right now, Quant Trader is only available to members of the exclusive S&A Alliance. Click here to learn about the best deal ever offered on joining this club.

Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has proposed the Federal Reserve be given broad powers to regulate the financial industry. He could not have nominated a more incompetent body. The Coast Guard would do a better job.

Financial upheaval owes homage to derivatives that shrouded the massive growth in debt and leverage. This murky world inflated the incentives of those who ran the machinery over the cliff — bankers, mortgage brokers, law firms, appraisers, rating agencies, politicians, and on it goes. This is well known. Despite protestations, the parties knew they were behaving either recklessly or criminally at the time. The Federal Reserve encouraged them.

With a straight face, Hank Paulson proposes that the Fed quash future imbroglios. Yet the terracotta soldiers of Xian would bring more initiative to the assignment.

In September 1998, the Federal Reserve didn’t have the slightest idea of how the banking system functioned; it hadn’t the slightest idea of the banks’ exposure to hedge funds; nor had it the slightest idea of the leverage within the financial system. Maybe these deficiencies are excusable, although the Federal Reserve was responsible for regulating bank holding companies (the holding companies being where much of the risk was housed). It is unpardonable in the aftermath, having learned of its own deficiencies, that the Federal Reserve made no effort to improve its oversight or to warn of the dangers it had recently discovered. Instead, the Fed encouraged devious practices.

In the first three weeks of September 1998, Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM), a Greenwich, Conn., hedge fund, lost half a billion dollars per week and everyone knew it. Except, possibly, Alan Greenspan. In mid-September, the Federal Reserve chairman told the House Banking Committee that “Hedge funds [are] strongly regulated by those who lend the money.” On Sept. 21, LTCM lost $550 million. In a virtuoso rejection of every financial institution’s model, all security prices went down. This is normal. In a panic, everyone sells.

The Fed’s lackluster oversight was partly to blame. On May 2, 1998, Alan Greenspan gave a speech in which he emphasized the advantages of “private market regulation.” Greenspan explained, “Rapidly changing technology has begun to render obsolete much of the bank examination regime established in earlier decades. Bank regulators are perforce now being pressed to depend increasingly on ever more complex and sophisticated private market regulation… One of the key lessons from U.S. banking history [is] that counterparty supervision is still the first line of regulatory defense.” He also noted the Federal Reserve’s decision to supervise “risk management procedures, rather than actual portfolios.” The Fed now evaluated how banks monitored their own risks (e.g., their modeling techniques, the process used to monitor counterparties) in lieu of examining specific securities.

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) held a conference call on Sept. 29, 1998. The staff and Federal Reserve governors briefed Greenspan on Long-Term Capital Management’s counterparties — the banks that lent to LTCM. He was told that none of the banks, with the exception of Bankers Trust, had an up-to-date balance sheet for LTCM. Even this was “only a small piece of [Bankers’] whole action because so much of the latter is off balance sheet.” When assets are off balance sheet, the bank’s motivation to “strongly regulate” is diminished.

The Federal Reserve chairman was at a loss: “The question is why it happened in the first place. Is it just that the lenders were dazzled by the people at LTCM and did not take a close look?” Vice Chairman William McDonough replied there “was in place a credit system that made a great deal of sense.” In the next sentence — which simply cannot have been an explanation of this sensible system — McDonough told the FOMC: “For at least some of the lenders, there was no initial margin requirement.” McDonough went on to suggest the Federal Reserve might have taken more initiative: “We do not regulate the firm. But given the number of institutions they dealt with around the world, was there a way that should have enabled us to be more aware of their overall position? One is inclined to say, ‘You bet.’ But exactly how we could have done that I am not so sure.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Special~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Secret Wall Street Black Market

There are brave profit-seeking investors who are taking a chance on a secret Wall Street black market.

Most of the big guys on the Street don’t want you to know about this, but we’ll let you in on the secret. This is your chance to raid this secret market and make big profits. Click here for the secret…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This was not the time for the FOMC to design a regulatory apparatus, but the Greenspan Fed never did attempt to fill this gap. In retirement, Greenspan reminds his audiences that the Fed does not regulate hedge funds. True, but the Fed could have worked backward from the foundation that McDonough had suggested. (The SEC is responsible for monitoring broker-dealers. It, too, has failed miserably.) The need for adult supervision of banks was obvious when a staffer commented on the conference call, “It is something of a signature for [LTCM] to insist that if a counterparty wanted to deal with them, there would be no initial margin. Not many other firms have gotten away with that.” For this reason alone, the Fed should have geared up its watchdogs to better monitor the suicidal banking system it regulated.

Another staff member enlightened the FOMC with a frightful prospect: “The counterparties…get comfortable with zero percent margin. But from the [financial] system’s point of view, zero initial margin permits an essentially unlimited amount of leverage. There is no constraint other than the exhaustion on the part of the counterparties.” Greenspan and Bernanke fiddled with their slide rules as financial derivatives grew to 10 times the world’s GDP. In 2007, Bernanke should have known that banks, in a desperate attempt keep dancing, were borrowing at five percent to lend at four percent.