GostHacked Posted January 2, 2015 Report Posted January 2, 2015 Sanctions have nothing to do with the price of oil. Regardless, it was Russia playing with fire. So, what do you propose be done with Russia? And the same goes the other way, what does one propose be done with the US? Two big players that are not willing to go head to head. So instead it's through various proxy wars and a so called Cold War that never ended. Strange that the Russians helped stave off the German/Japan invasions with the help of the US, but now they are bitter enemies? Quote
ReeferMadness Posted January 2, 2015 Report Posted January 2, 2015 Yep, the buyers of these new hummers are going to really be screwed when gasoline doubles and triples a year or two from now, if the Saudis can't maintain current production levels. A price spike will be worse than before, as investors are already starting to head for the exits and pull money out of these tar sands and shale projects. Sure but that won't stop them from whining and accusing gas stations of price fixing when the price inevitably goes back up. The fun part is trying to figure out who is manipulating the market, and why? There might be short term advantages if this is really a U.S./Saudi plot to bring down Russia, Iran and Venezuela, but in the long term, the U.S. may have permanently crippled its shale-drilling industry because a return to higher prices won't immediately put everything back as it was before the fall, and there is word that Saudi Arabia is about to announce some major budget cuts to food subsidies and social welfare programs of various types. It wouldn't be the first time the geniuses in the Pentagon shot themselves in the ass trying to get the Russkies. Don't forget, they essentially underwrote the creation of the Taliban to go after the Soviets in Afghanistan. The Saudi royal family is pretty roundly despised in Arabia....as many see them as blood-sucking vampires who are extracting most of the nation's wealth to use for their own luxurious lifestyles. They have managed to keep a lid on any unrest because of: financing the wahabbi clerical establishment to provide the Saud family legitimacy, mass surveillance and brutal suppressive police tactics whenever there are demonstrations, and because of the government programs that keep the pot from boiling over. But, it should prove interesting to see what happens after they make major budget cuts. The Saudi royal family is just the last in a long line of brutal dictators supported and propped up by American administrations going back to the end of the second world war. Others (including Saddam and Noriega) went from being supported by America to deposed by America. It's not out of the question that could happen to the House of Saud. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
sharkman Posted January 2, 2015 Report Posted January 2, 2015 I am not sure. But economically via oil , the Saudis have close ties with the US. For the time being. I don't trust them at all. Because if one wants to talk about terrorism, the Saudis are good at it, and also good at covering their tracks. They are more aligned with the west, but that is only a matter of convenience. Almost a year later and what do we see in terms of action from the west? Aside from rhetoric and economic sanctions. Anyone willing to go toe to toe with Russia? Why or why not? What do you propose be done with the USA? Afghanistan and Iraq are two recent examples. Russia is not a small player and the US would get their nose bloody in a confrontation. You can say the reasons are the same 'security terrorism ect ect'. Or so we are told. Russia did not do much when Iraq and Afghanistan was invaded, and the US is going to do squat with regards to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea. I see the Saudi's being on their own side. It sounds like you have no solution on Russia either. The sanctions, while working, are making Putin desperate. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 2, 2015 Author Report Posted January 2, 2015 ....It's completely short term. Short term gain for long term pain - on several levels. Of course, when you believe in a system that rewards CEO\s with millions of dollars for short term run-ups in stock prices, I guess the implications are lost on you, too. Everything is short term in the long run. Markets don't care about those with socialist agendas that constantly whine about CEO salaries while living in and benefiting from a hydrocarbon economy. Anybody can buy and sell oil stocks. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 2, 2015 Author Report Posted January 2, 2015 ...The Saudi royal family is just the last in a long line of brutal dictators supported and propped up by American administrations going back to the end of the second world war. Others (including Saddam and Noriega) went from being supported by America to deposed by America. It's not out of the question that could happen to the House of Saud. There it is again...always a "second world war" bookmark to clear the Canadian conscience. The U.S. was Canada's #1 ally that entire time...even today it still desperately wants a bitumen pipeline to the evil USA. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted January 2, 2015 Report Posted January 2, 2015 Sanctions have nothing to do with the price of oil. Regardless, it was Russia playing with fire. Looks like they got burned. Quote
GostHacked Posted January 2, 2015 Report Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) The US must be pannicking of all those countries wanting to switch from the US greenback/petrodollar to something different. Even if it is another unstable fiat currency that is as worthless as the other unstable fiat currency. Edited January 2, 2015 by GostHacked Quote
WIP Posted January 2, 2015 Report Posted January 2, 2015 There is no particular hurry....weak hands will fold and the strong will consolidate...just as they have done before. There use to be "Seven Sisters". Okay, since you're going to reach back a few years, let's take a complete rear view mirror look at the oil business, since it functions along the same patterns as every other non-renewable resource extracted from the earth: "picking the low-hanging fruit first." In the case of resource extraction, that means going after deposits that are cheapest to exploit∧ purest in content, to produce the highest returns on investment. The problem today is $2.00 or $4.00 gas, that "low-hanging fruit" in the oil business is already gone! As the large oil deposits out west and in Texas/Oklahoma started declining, oil companies started looking at the Middle East even before the 1930's. Their geologists found evidence of some huge deposits, relatively close to the surface. The largest oilfield in the world - the Ghawar Field, is located in Saudi Arabia, and went into production shortly after the end of WWII. The Ghawar Field is still being worked today, and still accounts for almost half of Saudi Arabia's oil production. And I think Saudi is still the no.1 oil exporting nation in the world, so that field is still pretty f***ing important for a whole range of reasons - economic, geopolitical, environmental, theological (S.A. is the reason for the fundamentalism and radicalization that spread through the Muslim World). The problem today, is that nobody knows exactly how much oil is left in Ghawar. In the 70's, when Saudi Arabia led the formation of OPEC, they also nationalized their oil industry, and the state-owned company - ARAMCO doesn't let outsiders anywhere near where they can get at vital information that other nations, oil companies, foreign banks etc. would like to get their hands on! After decades of more and more wells being drilled to take the oil out faster, there was a flurry of speculation that Ghawar had peaked in 2005, when it was learned that the ARAMCO engineers started the process of pumping steam and hot water into the wells. This doesn't usually happen until wells start running dry and the developers want to get at every last drop. With word that more and more wells were being steamed, at a time when Saudi Arabia's production and oil exports started to decline, there was a huge run up in oil prices and billions of dollars invested into "unconventional" oil development....everything from deep sea drilling to tar sands and shale oil, potential investors were lining up at the door, waiting to get in on the transition to harder-to-reach and more expensive oil. This is all most of the reason why the general consensus was that world oil production had already peaked in the mid-2000's and would not move higher to meet the inevitable increases in demand. The increase in oil prices and peak oil speculation, was also behind the economic collapses and recessions that we've had during the last eight years. If you build economies on an oil foundation, obviously high oil prices are going to cripple every attempt at economic growth. So, what has happened this year? It's true that Saudi Arabia hasn't increased their oil production very much, but any increase was unexpected, and with all of the unconventional oil coming in, and Iraqi oil finally getting to market, for now at least, we have a glut of oil on the world markets that's driving down the prices. But, this is not going to last! Because however you slice it...even if the U.S. manages to get the oil flowing again from Libya...the trend towards depletion of cheap oil reserves and the transition to expensive unconventional oil continues. The bad news all around for everyone who wants an oil economy, is that many of these unconventional projects are very costly, both in terms of dollars and energy required to deliver oil products. If oil prices fall too low on the world markets (as they are already) most unconventional development stops, and is at least temporarily halted; and some of them may never restart again! Keep in mind, that the major oil companies for the most part, have ignored the fracking boom in the U.S.! It's been left to small time players, because Big Oil did not see enough return on investment to justify moving in their equipment. And Big Oil is already at a stage where rising costs of development of deep-sea drilling and keeping some of the aging oil fields producing, is taking a bite out of their wallets! Not that anyone's going to shed tears for BP and Chevron, but they are not going to see the same huge profits they earned the last time oil prices took off! At some point, rational people and communities, would look at an important resource that over time, become more and more expensive to produce, and start wondering if a time will come when it's time to just pull the plug on that energy source and redesign economies and communities to run without oil....just as they did until 150 years ago. And that's not even factoring in the environmental destruction that oil production has caused for this planet! Yes, it would be a good time to make that transition to a renewable and much less energy-intensive future that we started hearing about over 20 years ago, but as long as we have the entire global community running on a system of capitalist economics, which is averse to planning beyond the next quarterly profits, and functions in a ruthless and totally amoral disregard for consequences to others, we're stuck watching Big Capitalism slowly grind itself to a complete halt! Maybe the future will be with spears and bows&arrows, because we're wasting the resources and energy we still have trying to breath life into a dead horse! Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
TimG Posted January 2, 2015 Report Posted January 2, 2015 But, this is not going to last! Because however you slice it...even if the U.S. manages to get the oil flowing again from Libya...the trend towards depletion of cheap oil reserves and the transition to expensive unconventional oil continues.How many times do the "peak oil" bugs have to be proven wrong before people stop listening to them? The trend that you seem to miss is it is getting cheaper to exploit unconventional sources as technology improves so the cost dynamics that applied to the initial development are no longer at work. The oil age when and ONLY when a cheaper and/or more practical solution appears on the market. It will not end because we "run out of oil" nor will it end because some politicians waves a magic wand and declares that it will end. Quote
kimmy Posted January 2, 2015 Report Posted January 2, 2015 Saudi Arabia's main oilfield is called GWAR? for some reason I find that even funnier than the idea that Michele Bachmann was a misunderstood genius. So anyway, $2 gas happened. Under Obama's administration. What does that tell you guys? That "Drill Baby Drill" was already happening? That the free market already had this under control and government interference from Newt or Michele wasn't actually required or even possible? I'm just hoping you guys can articulate how on the one hand you believe this is a promise that Michele Bachmann could deliver, but on the other hand something that Barack Obama should receive no credit for. Go ahead and entertain us with some mental gymnastics. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
TimG Posted January 2, 2015 Report Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) That the free market already had this under control and government interference from Newt or Michele wasn't actually required or even possible?I think the point is that the Democrats general want to regulate industries to death and the shale revolution would have never occurred if it was not for strong opposition to the endless push for more regulations. Look at the shale gas industry in Quebec, NY state and NB if you want to see the effect of politicians who get their priorities mixed up. That said, predicting that oil prices would go down is like predicting that temperatures would rise: a 50-50 coin toss. It take neither prediction as evidence of insight. I suspect Michele made a lot of other predictions that did not come true. Edited January 2, 2015 by TimG Quote
sharkman Posted January 2, 2015 Report Posted January 2, 2015 I don't think anyone could have predicted $2 gas as its so far out of the norm. It took a major player who is willing to hurt their bottom line tremendously and act in a predatory manner. Obama is not responsible for this anymore than Michelle was. Quote
kimmy Posted January 2, 2015 Report Posted January 2, 2015 I suspect Michele made a lot of other predictions that did not come true. Like the Rapture? -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Shady Posted January 2, 2015 Report Posted January 2, 2015 So anyway, $2 gas happened. Under Obama's administration. What does that tell you guys? Nothing if one examines the details. Production on federal land has fallen. Production on non-federal land has skyrocketed. Also, moritoriums on drilling don't lead to greater production. So I'm not sure what you're referring to. It's like saying, this rock I'm holding keeps bears away. And because there's no bears around right now, it must be because of the rock. Try examining the details of policies instead of always the, such and such happened under so and so type of thing. I've been guilty of that sometimes as well. Quote
kimmy Posted January 2, 2015 Report Posted January 2, 2015 That said, predicting that oil prices would go down is like predicting that temperatures would rise: a 50-50 coin toss. It take neither prediction as evidence of insight. I suspect Michele made a lot of other predictions that did not come true. As Bubber pointed out in like the 3rd post in this thread, it wasn't a prediction, it was a promise. She didn't say "I think that sometime in the next 3-4 years oil prices are going to plummet. She said that as President she'd bring $2 gas to consumers. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Shady Posted January 2, 2015 Report Posted January 2, 2015 I think the point is that the Democrats general want to regulate industries to death and the shale revolution would have never occurred if it was not for strong opposition to the endless push for more regulations. Well said. Take New York that has officially banned fracking oil and or natural gas. It's red states that have led the energy revolution. Leftists just get the benefits of the red state energy policies. You're welcome America! You're welcome world! Quote
WIP Posted January 2, 2015 Report Posted January 2, 2015 So what side do you see the Saudi's being on right now? Playing with fire on squeezing Russia? What do you propose be done to Russia when they invade another country? If it's about Russia, it's mainly the U.S. trying to put on the squeeze, and Saudi would be in alliance for their own objectives: attacking Iran and Syria. If, by 'Russia attacking another country', you mean carving out a chunk of eastern Ukraine - where most of the population speaks Russian, along with having a sizable Russian minority...best strategy for the U.S. and Canada by proxy, would be do NOTHING! There would not have been a violent revolution and a civil war if the U.S. hadn't been trying to destabilize the country to begin with, as part of the overall strategy of knocking away Russian allies and eventually breaking up Russia itself into smaller pieces...and the president and the Pentagon strategists have never thought about how high the risks could be by attempting to destroy a nuclear power? Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
ReeferMadness Posted January 2, 2015 Report Posted January 2, 2015 Everything is short term in the long run. Markets don't care about those with socialist agendas that constantly whine about CEO salaries while living in and benefiting from a hydrocarbon economy. Anybody can buy and sell oil stocks. You mean markets don't care about anything - they are jam packed with people looking to make a quick buck. People who, like those CEO's are too short-sighted to see past the next quarter. Doesn't bode well for survival of the species. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted January 2, 2015 Report Posted January 2, 2015 There it is again...always a "second world war" bookmark to clear the Canadian conscience. The U.S. was Canada's #1 ally that entire time.. I think the word you're looking for is "accomplice", not ally. And that is exactly what the US looks for every time it feels the need to attack some dark-skinned people in a poor part of the world. But I don't think you have much reason to implicate Canada in supporting the brutal Saud regime. You're on your own. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted January 2, 2015 Report Posted January 2, 2015 As Bubber pointed out in like the 3rd post in this thread, it wasn't a prediction, it was a promise. She didn't say "I think that sometime in the next 3-4 years oil prices are going to plummet. She said that as President she'd bring $2 gas to consumers. -k And she did it without even becoming president. I guess $2 gas is as close to the rapture as she gets. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
WIP Posted January 2, 2015 Report Posted January 2, 2015 How many times do the "peak oil" bugs have to be proven wrong before people stop listening to them? The trend that you seem to miss is it is getting cheaper to exploit unconventional sources as technology improves so the cost dynamics that applied to the initial development are no longer at work. NO, the only unconventional oil that is cheaper to exploit now is shale fracking...and even that is temporary, because once these plays in the Bakken are exhausted, then it's game over...that's why the big oil companies stayed on the sidelines. As for "peak oil bugs"....not only was Michelle Bachmann lucky to pull that $2.00 a gallon gasoline out of her ass, nobody knows exactly where the bottom is in these OPEC states that have state-owned oil companies. Sure, the speculation 10 years ago, that Saudi Arabia had peaked was speculation....but what else do the high priced oil analysts have to go on? I would venture to say that they were deliberately trying to mislead the West in order to drive up oil prices back then. Now, they have reasons still undetermined to try to drive prices down. Nobody can make accurate predictions about how much there is and what the prices will be five or ten years from now, because there is so much deceit and deception among the players involved in this game! What we do know, is that the general principle that the low-hanging fruit gets picked first is still the overriding principle. The oil age when and ONLY when a cheaper and/or more practical solution appears on the market. It will not end because we "run out of oil" nor will it end because some politicians waves a magic wand and declares that it will end. I wouldn't have wasted all that oxygen trying to give a brief presentation of the difference between "running out" and "irrecoverable" if I thought you would just blow right by it...but that's what it looks like so far. A finite resource that is consumed in order of most profitable sources, will eventually reach the point where energy-return on energy-invested is too high to make the effort worthwhile! If we were sensible as a global community, we would be preparing now for the time when oil and most other non-renewable resources are starting to run out! Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
WIP Posted January 2, 2015 Report Posted January 2, 2015 Saudi Arabia's main oilfield is called GWAR? for some reason I find that even funnier than the idea that Michele Bachmann was a misunderstood genius. So anyway, $2 gas happened. Under Obama's administration. What does that tell you guys? That "Drill Baby Drill" was already happening? That the free market already had this under control and government interference from Newt or Michele wasn't actually required or even possible? I'm just hoping you guys can articulate how on the one hand you believe this is a promise that Michele Bachmann could deliver, but on the other hand something that Barack Obama should receive no credit for. Go ahead and entertain us with some mental gymnastics. -k Like so many other issues he's dealt with while in the White House, I don't think this puts Barack Obama in any better light than the general impression that he is a narcissistic opportunist, who's just interested in doing what's best for Barack Obama! Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
TimG Posted January 2, 2015 Report Posted January 2, 2015 NO, the only unconventional oil that is cheaper to exploit now is shale fracking...and even that is temporary, because once these plays in the Bakken are exhausted, then it's game over...that's why the big oil companies stayed on the sidelines.History has proven people like you wrong over and over again. The safe bet now is to assume you are wrong. Oil will go in boom-bust cycles - each boom brings new supplies online. Each bust forces the players to get efficient. I wouldn't have wasted all that oxygen trying to give a brief presentation of the difference between "running out" and "irrecoverable" if I thought you would just blow right by it...but that's what it looks like so far.What is recoverable changes with time and technology. There was a time when shale oil was 'irrecoverable'. A finite resource that is consumed in order of most profitable sources, will eventually reach the point where energy-return on energy-invested is too high to make the effort worthwhile! If we were sensible as a global community, we would be preparing now for the time when oil and most other non-renewable resources are starting to run out!When oil gets too pricey the market will move quickly away from it. Trying to move away from oil before it gets too pricey is a fools game that costs a lot of money and provides little benefit in the short or long term. Quote
Shady Posted January 2, 2015 Report Posted January 2, 2015 NO, the only unconventional oil that is cheaper to exploit now is shale fracking...and even that is temporary, because once these plays in the Bakken are exhausted, then it's game over...that's why the big oil companies stayed on the sidelines. As for "peak oil bugs"....not only was Michelle Bachmann lucky to pull that $2.00 a gallon gasoline out of her ass, nobody knows exactly where the bottom is in these OPEC states that have state-owned oil companies. Sure, the speculation 10 years ago, that Saudi Arabia had peaked was speculation....but what else do the high priced oil analysts have to go on? I would venture to say that they were deliberately trying to mislead the West in order to drive up oil prices back then. Now, they have reasons still undetermined to try to drive prices down. Nobody can make accurate predictions about how much there is and what the prices will be five or ten years from now, because there is so much deceit and deception among the players involved in this game! What we do know, is that the general principle that the low-hanging fruit gets picked first is still the overriding principle. I wouldn't have wasted all that oxygen trying to give a brief presentation of the difference between "running out" and "irrecoverable" if I thought you would just blow right by it...but that's what it looks like so far. A finite resource that is consumed in order of most profitable sources, will eventually reach the point where energy-return on energy-invested is too high to make the effort worthwhile! If we were sensible as a global community, we would be preparing now for the time when oil and most other non-renewable resources are starting to run out! There's something like 300 years worth of natural gas deposits in North America. Almost the same in oil shale deposits. Yes it's finiite, but not for a long, long time. So that's not really any worry at the moment, or anytime soon. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 2, 2015 Author Report Posted January 2, 2015 At some point, rational people and communities, would look at an important resource that over time, become more and more expensive to produce, and start wondering if a time will come when it's time to just pull the plug on that energy source and redesign economies and communities to run without oil....just as they did until 150 years ago. And that's not even factoring in the environmental destruction that oil production has caused for this planet! That is exactly how it should be...economics will dictate the pace of change for energy resources, not tree huggers. Yes, it would be a good time to make that transition to a renewable and much less energy-intensive future that we started hearing about over 20 years ago, but as long as we have the entire global community running on a system of capitalist economics, See above....enjoy the hydrocarbon economy just as you always have until the party is over. Renewables are just a small part of the mix. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.