Oiling Economies

[loosecannon]

Its your mature ideas that I am incapable of following.

Noted, Sir shitface.

 

[Samson]

Its your mature ideas that I am incapable of following.

Noted, Sir shitface.

More "maturity" from LC.

Thanks for the example.

 

[loosecannon]

You ignored the examples I gave.

Child.

 

[Samson]

You ignored the examples I gave.

Child.

Child, Child, CHILD!!!



Originality isn't the strongest feature of the moronic character.

 

[loosecannon]

Here you go, sampson: the post that so rattled your little pea brain that you went into full childo attacko mode to avoid dealing with it directly

JC - subscribe to RIGZONE - Your Gateway to the Oil & Gas Industry. I signed up a year ago this month and have nearly 300 emailed newsletters, almost every one of them announces a new discovery somewhere in the world.

Its no use.

RIGZONE has been annoucing hundreds of new discoveries every year since 1973, and the wild-eyed "peak oil" fanatics won't let go of their mantra that ANY DAY NOW their predictions will materialize.

There has to be a finite limit to how deep we can drill safely. I for one think that the enviro damage of the BP spill has been hugely exaggerated. But even if costs for the clean up were capped today BP would probably concede that the risks of that kind of drilling/extraction are prohibitive without some kind of global risk sharing.

The question isn't how much oil is left in the ground the question is how much is recoverable and at what price. The longer you rely on oil the higher that price will be and much of that price won't be paid in dollars but in escalating environmental destruction.

CA has suddenly realized that it is well within our capacity to provide 70% of our electricity via solar power stations located in the barren Mojave. And we are quickly making it so. The business models make sense at today's prices.

The same is true for much of the world. The challenges involved in converting to renewables and reducing consumption begin as formidable but improve as you do it.

Whereas the challenges of relying on mined petro chemicals and robust consumption begin easy and will become increasingly challenging as you do that.

 

[antagon]

"price increases could be triggered by political events." for me this is a valid observation of causation, although acute. are you saying this is correlation?

Yes, exactly. An 8.0 earthquake isn't caused by whatever happened in the five preceding minutes, or even other 8.0 earthquakes in the previous weeks and months. Altho both of those things may help trigger it.

What actually causes the quake is a long period of slowly mounting pressure that must ultimately culminate in a plate shift. That these large quakes happen in somewhat rapid succession after decades of building to a head doesn't make the triggering effect the actual cause.

i follow samson with this one, i dont think that physical events like earthquakes and market events are similar.

the bottom line is, if saudi arabia declares war on israel, there will be a market reaction that could not be attached to any causation other than the news and the initial, emotional market reaction itself. the news will be the causation. it will sustain even if saudi manages to maintain supply. no speculation. this happened in the lead-up to the conflict in iraq.

 

[Samson]

Whereas the challenges of relying on mined petro chemicals and robust consumption begin easy and will become increasingly challenging as you do that.

While all this remains true, the growing value of "mined petro-chemicals"........(you mean crude oil)........countries that have few other resources have a unique historical opportunity.

Of course, this depends upon whether or not they can addrees the opportunity: Some would criticise them for enabling the continued "addiction" to fossil fuels at the expense of the environment.

 

[asterism]

To you anyway. To me inflation and aggregate demand are causation while triggers are only triggers.

The trigger doesn't propel the bullet, neither does the finger pulling the trigger, the gun powder explosion does.

Did you just state that the actual trigger isn't a trigger?

No, quite the opposite. I just stated that the trigger is precisely the trigger. But not the actual cause of oil price rises.

The price of oil rises due to many different variables which are combined once there is a catalyst. A bullet is propelled due to many different variables which are combined once there is a catalyst.

For the bullet, it's when the trigger is pulled. What do you think the trigger is in the case of oil?

 

[loosecannon]

Whereas the challenges of relying on mined petro chemicals and robust consumption begin easy and will become increasingly challenging as you do that.

While all this remains true, the growing value of "mined petro-chemicals"........(you mean crude oil)........countries that have few other resources have a unique historical opportunity.

Of course, this depends upon whether or not they can addrees the opportunity: Some would criticise them for enabling the continued "addiction" to fossil fuels at the expense of the environment.

I agree about the addiction. I am hearing that our coal reserves are not nearly as vast as advertised as well.

 

[loosecannon]

"price increases could be triggered by political events." for me this is a valid observation of causation, although acute. are you saying this is correlation?

Yes, exactly. An 8.0 earthquake isn't caused by whatever happened in the five preceding minutes, or even other 8.0 earthquakes in the previous weeks and months. Altho both of those things may help trigger it.

What actually causes the quake is a long period of slowly mounting pressure that must ultimately culminate in a plate shift. That these large quakes happen in somewhat rapid succession after decades of building to a head doesn't make the triggering effect the actual cause.

i follow samson with this one, i dont think that physical events like earthquakes and market events are similar.

the bottom line is, if saudi arabia declares war on israel, there will be a market reaction that could not be attached to any causation other than the news and the initial, emotional market reaction itself. the news will be the causation. it will sustain even if saudi manages to maintain supply. no speculation. this happened in the lead-up to the conflict in iraq.

But that is just one example. And the run up of oil prices as the Iraq war began was small compared to that caused by speculation in oil futures in 2008. And as best as I can tell that particular example was nothing but a trigger because the price of oil sustained a new level long after the war had worn down. IOW other fundamentals now sustain the new price plateau regardless of the initial trigger to price adjustments.

 

[loosecannon]

Did you just state that the actual trigger isn't a trigger?

No, quite the opposite. I just stated that the trigger is precisely the trigger. But not the actual cause of oil price rises.

The price of oil rises due to many different variables which are combined once there is a catalyst. A bullet is propelled due to many different variables which are combined once there is a catalyst.

For the bullet, it's when the trigger is pulled. What do you think the trigger is in the case of oil?

The political events being discussed. News of war, quotas set by OPEC, speculation in futures markets.

 

[Samson]

Whereas the challenges of relying on mined petro chemicals and robust consumption begin easy and will become increasingly challenging as you do that.

While all this remains true, the growing value of "mined petro-chemicals"........(you mean crude oil)........countries that have few other resources have a unique historical opportunity.

Of course, this depends upon whether or not they can addrees the opportunity: Some would criticise them for enabling the continued "addiction" to fossil fuels at the expense of the environment.

I agree about the addiction. I am hearing that our coal reserves are not nearly as vast as advertised as well.

Well, who REALLY knows?

I really cannot imagine that energy producers, let's just use ConocoPhillips as an example, will just continue to mine fossil fuels until one day they cannot, and just decide to send everyone home with their last paycheck and padlock the door.

The fact is that they, and all their counterparts are the major investors, and stakeholders, in developing alternative energy sources.

CP is building a 500 person campus that will open in 2013 in Louisville, CO for precisely this purpose.

 

[topspin]

we will all be dead and the oil industry will still be discovering billions of new barrells every year.

 

[JiggsCasey]

I agree about the addiction. I am hearing that our coal reserves are not nearly as vast as advertised as well.

Correct. The coal industry likes to dupe the American public by conflating lignite and peat with
anthracite in their reserve totals figues. Nevermind that lignite barely burns, let's just pretend there's hundreds of years worth of energy in it!!!!!

Hydrocarbon junkies also formulate their totals using flat, static rates of consumption, ignoring entirely the fact that demand skyrockets as you go forward. They know this, it's just part of their fraud to boost investment ignorance.

They do the same thing with oil, pretending tar sands and shale are light crude, and formulating figures based on vast, technically recoverable junk that measures in the "trillions" of barrels... yeah, at 2:1 EROEI. ... Zzzz

Whenever you hear claims from the "nothing to see here" crowd regarding "hundreds of years of energy!!!!".... rest assured, it's all bunk.

 

[Samson]

I agree about the addiction. I am hearing that our coal reserves are not nearly as vast as advertised as well.

Correct. The coal industry likes to dupe the American public by conflating lignite and peat with
anthracite in their reserve totals figues. Nevermind that lignite barely burns, let's just pretend there's hundreds of years worth of energy in it!!!!!.

Why?

 

[antagon]

i follow samson with this one, i dont think that physical events like earthquakes and market events are similar.

the bottom line is, if saudi arabia declares war on israel, there will be a market reaction that could not be attached to any causation other than the news and the initial, emotional market reaction itself. the news will be the causation. it will sustain even if saudi manages to maintain supply. no speculation. this happened in the lead-up to the conflict in iraq.

But that is just one example. And the run up of oil prices as the Iraq war began was small compared to that caused by speculation in oil futures in 2008. And as best as I can tell that particular example was nothing but a trigger because the price of oil sustained a new level long after the war had worn down. IOW other fundamentals now sustain the new price plateau regardless of the initial trigger to price adjustments.

not saying that it is an exclusive factor, but that is an example of something which happens all the time in any futures market because of the relationship with the commodity and the future, speculation and information. the follow-on is what i was getting at earlier:

i don't doubt the propensity for producers to seize and exploit the tolerance of a market to higher prices. i think this is (part of) the case with the oil supply and the price bubble which coincided with the iraq war.

 

[loosecannon]

i follow samson with this one, i dont think that physical events like earthquakes and market events are similar.

the bottom line is, if saudi arabia declares war on israel, there will be a market reaction that could not be attached to any causation other than the news and the initial, emotional market reaction itself. the news will be the causation. it will sustain even if saudi manages to maintain supply. no speculation. this happened in the lead-up to the conflict in iraq.

But that is just one example. And the run up of oil prices as the Iraq war began was small compared to that caused by speculation in oil futures in 2008. And as best as I can tell that particular example was nothing but a trigger because the price of oil sustained a new level long after the war had worn down. IOW other fundamentals now sustain the new price plateau regardless of the initial trigger to price adjustments.

not saying that it is an exclusive factor, but that is an example of something which happens all the time in any futures market because of the relationship with the commodity and the future, speculation and information. the follow-on is what i was getting at earlier:

i don't doubt the propensity for producers to seize and exploit the tolerance of a market to higher prices. i think this is (part of) the case with the oil supply and the price bubble which coincided with the iraq war.

OK, I think I understand what you are saying that you believe. But it is fully unnatural for me to think that way, and I couldn't conceivably bring myself to agree.

Markets don't adopt higher prices intentionally, nor do they have much power to resist price increases that pertain to essentials. Or to paraphrase somebody famous:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that markets long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while price increases are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the markets to which they are accustomed.

 

[antagon]

cannon, this is oil. you can determine supply just as easily as with currency. this is a market which has resolved to limit supply to optimize the return, the price, on the commodity, rather than exploit its velocity.

 

[loosecannon]

proof?