Page 12 of 20 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 194

Thread: Oil at $75 Means Patches of Texas Shale Turn Unprofitable

  1. #111
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Oil at $75 Means Patches of Texas Shale Turn Unprofitable

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    And as a side note - why is it that there is a certain brand of liberal who is so quick to defend a nation such as Russia's "right" to dominate smaller countries that happen to fall along her border, yet who is also so quick to castigate the United States for even trying to secure its border?
    What the heck are you talking about? Immigration reform?

    Any rate, please spare me the ignorant political rhetoric and stick to the topic at hand. Perhaps your mind is so steeped in this liberal conservative foolishness that you can't understand what is going on. There are people, both liberal and conservative, who feel it is very dangerous to confront Russia the way we did right on their border in Ukraine. This isn't about some backward ignorant liberal vs conservative contest, it's about trying to keep mankind out of a nuclear war. You need to get your mind out of that liberal vs conservative filth and look at what is going on.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    However, if you actually want to know why Russia is boned long term, take a look at her economic structure and her demographics.
    Victoria Nuland's aggressive move on Ukraine is meant to keep Russia's economic structure in such a position that Russia it's economic, and as a result political power structure is dependent on the blessings of the US/European economic and political power structure for it's survival. Russia was trying to position itself such that it does not have such a strong dependence in that regard. That dependence, is why Russia is, to use your words, "boned."

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    When someone takes a military action that we oppose, if it matters to us, we bother to do something about it. We aren't doing anything about Crimea.
    That is just sorry, partisan political rhetoric that is designed to make the President appear to be weak. And to borrow your words, "as a side note," it is rather interesting to see people who claim to be patriotic and conservative, do every despicable thing they can to try to paint the President as weak at such a crucial time in modern history. While we had absolutely no business pushing things the way we did in Ukraine with respect to the events between the time Yanukovich balked at the EU deal to the time of his ouster, they way that Obama has responded has been absolutely correct. Only a fool would suggest that the US use military force to keep Crimea a part of Ukraine. Do you really think Russia would sit there and let us do that? They will do anything, including using nuclear weapons to keep that from happening, and they would be stupid if they did not. Ukraine is not some issue to toy around with, and a nation that has the capability to actually destroy the US should not be treated a country with a third rate military that we can push around at will.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    We are doing something about ISIL, in which Russia is, if not an ally, at least a co-belligerent of both us and the Saudi's.
    We are doing something. The sanctions that have been imposed on Russia are hurting it, and are the correct response. So please stop making up crap that we are not doing anything.


    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    the "Sanctions" are a few senior leaders whose bank accounts we froze. They are not at all harmful to Russia as anything more than an annoyance to some of it's leadership. It is an attempt to look tough without actually doing anything.
    One need only look at the value of the ruble and the capital flight that has afflicted Russia to see that what you are saying is pure nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    It's like saying something is a "Red Line" and then responding to that line being crossed by shaking ones' finger and tut-tutting at the UN, and claiming those were "serious consequences".
    There have been serious consequences, and if there wasn't, the Russians would not be complaining about the sanctions. Please, try selling that garbage somewhere else.

  2. #112
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: Oil at $75 Means Patches of Texas Shale Turn Unprofitable

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    WRONG! If you read post #86 I said:

    My response is that you either need to stop the sophistry or learn to read properly.
    if - now that it is becoming increasingly patently obvious - you wish to change your position and agree with me that this move is intended to harm the Fracking industry and not, as you argued, aimed against the Russians, well then, I accept your alteration

    I hope the people you speak of when you say "those of us who follow foreign policy" have better reading comprehension skills that what you have displayed here
    I have fantastic reading skills. What you haven't demonstrated is the ability to actually back up what you are claiming - instead sticking to a series of just-so arguments. The idea that the US forced Russia to take Crimea is something so illiterate that only those who get their news from RT and like sources could possibly buy it.

    You need to look at Victoria Nuland's actions before Crimea.
    Ah. So this is a third example of your inability to put events into chronological order, and when you suggested here and that in fact it was Victoria Nulands' actions that were going to screw Russia and had forced them to take Crimea, you were, in fact, wrong.

    Since you follow foreign policy, I will leave that to you and your buddies who are so foreign policy astute to figure out.
    I do follow foreign policy. That is why I know that your claim is laughable.

    But if you want to know what I think, I'm going to borrow one of your lines and say read my previous posts on this subject. I have posted on this at length. Don't be lazy and do your research.
    I pointed out that I believed X, and offered a means of verifying that I have always said X. You want to claim that Victoria Nuland is screwing the Russians? Demonstrate it. I've certainly linked enough evidence smashing your claims on this thread for you to bother linking a source back.

    ....but you won't because the sources that would argue that are generally nutter conspiracy theory sites, and you don't want to expose that.

  3. #113
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: Oil at $75 Means Patches of Texas Shale Turn Unprofitable

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    What the heck are you talking about? Immigration reform?
    No, I am talking about the entertaining tendency of some to both A) instantly decry any perceived attempt by the US to dominate any other nation in the pursuit of our national interests and B) insist that geopolitical opponents of the U.S. nonetheless have a right to do so.

    Perhaps your mind is so steeped in this liberal conservative foolishness that you can't understand what is going on. There are people, both liberal and conservative, who feel it is very dangerous to confront Russia the way we did right on their border in Ukraine. This isn't about some backward ignorant liberal vs conservative contest, it's about trying to keep mankind out of a nuclear war.
    Ah. Still hoping that verbiage and ad hominem can serve in place of data and reason, I see.

    Alright, please post all of these very reasonable people who thought that we risked nuclear war over Crimea, or that we even dangerously confronted Russia there. I'll wait.

    Victoria Nuland's aggressive move on Ukraine is meant to keep Russia's economic structure in such a position that Russia it's economic, and as a result political power structure is dependent on the blessings of the US/European economic and political power structure for it's survival.
    :

    Victoria Nulands' aggressive move on Ukraine? What aggressive move on Ukraine? In order to have an aggressive move, you have to be aggressive. Hell, we were tepid at best. How many Marines did we move? How many planes? Did we send lethal aid to the Ukrainians? Did we put a portion of the Fleet off the coast? Did we even restart our cancelled missile defense installations in Poland? No, we didn't.

    Hint: "being aggressive towards Russia" doesn't fall under "she said 'F the EU'".

    That is just sorry, partisan political rhetoric that is designed to make the President appear to be weak.
    No, it is a pretty matter of fact description of reality. When something matters to us, we do something about it. We aren't doing anything serious about Crimea. Hence, it doesn't matter to us.

    But I think that the lady doth protest too much?

    And to borrow your words, "as a side note," it is rather interesting to see people who claim to be patriotic and conservative, do every despicable thing they can to try to paint the President as weak at such a crucial time in modern history
    Yup, the lady doth protest too much.

    The President is weak. Because he doesn't care. Because being tough would require effort, and he's simply not willing to devote it. It's not on his list of priorities. (shrug)

    However, that's not what I was actually saying (though you jumped to it entertainingly quickly). I was simply pointing out that, when we care about something, we do something about it. We aren't doing anything about Crimea, hence, we don't care about it.

    The fact that all you have is complaints that that's mean in response, rather demonstrates the point.

    While we had absolutely no business pushing things the way we did in Ukraine with respect to the events between the time Yanukovich balked at the EU deal to the time of his ouster, they way that Obama has responded has been absolutely correct. Only a fool would suggest that the US use military force to keep Crimea a part of Ukraine. Do you really think Russia would sit there and let us do that? They will do anything, including using nuclear weapons to keep that from happening, and they would be stupid if they did not.
    Please show me the people who are claiming that Russia would have started nuclear war in order to seize Crimea.

    We are doing something. The sanctions that have been imposed on Russia are hurting it, and are the correct response. So please stop making up crap that we are not doing anything.
    : Our "sanctions" aren't doing squat. Our "Sanctions" are us freezing the bank accounts of a few senior leaders whom we are accusing of being naughty. Russia laughed when they heard that that was what we were doing in response.

    One need only look at the value of the ruble and the capital flight that has afflicted Russia to see that what you are saying is pure nonsense.
    ....are you seriously blaming the sanctions for the fact that an oil-dependent economy is hurting during a sharp reduction in oil prices, or that geopolitical instability harms trade?

    Please. Show me how freezing a few bank accounts has shaped "the value of the ruble and capital flight". "Serious Consequences". Yeah. Just like they were for the Syrian Red Line. Super Serial, man!

  4. #114
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Oil at $75 Means Patches of Texas Shale Turn Unprofitable

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Ah. Is that why oil reserves continue to expand faster than we are using them up?
    First of all you are out of your mind if you take those oil reserve numbers to be hard fact. I talked at length with a geophysicist who made his living coming up with those numbers, and that is highly speculative voodoo science. Those estimates are based on subjective value judgements about rock porosity, density, reservoir volume and pressure. No one is able to actually look inside the earth and accurately measure what is there. Therefore those numbers are educated guesses at best, and in many instances are outright deceit. I had lunch once with a big geophysicist at a one of the largest oil companies in the world and he told me that they are very lucky if one in three wells where they drill thinking that there is oil actually turns out to produce and many times it's not even that. So what you are looking at when trying to estimate how much oil is in the ground is a highly speculative field.

    Next of all, even if we take the numbers to be accurate what you have posted is garbage because even in recent years US oil reserves have grown from somewhere between three to no more than four billion barrels a year, which is well below the US consumption of around seven billion barrels a year.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Oh, I"m pretty sure if offered two more generations, the Saudi leadership would take it.
    It's not in anyone's power to offer. It's dictated by the fact that the world is using oil faster than it can be replenished.


    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    If you feel that China is not heading for a Japanese decade, feel free to come into the Economics forum and argue so.... and then get torn up.
    Get torn up by who? Some old fool with dementia who can't even follow what has been said in a thread? Please.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    China has massively overinvested and is facing huge bubbles in real estate, education, and the debt instruments that have been used to keep both rolling over. The CCP, however, is unwilling to go through a sharp downturn, given the social instability that would cause, and so will instead draw out the pain for some time.
    The bottom line is this, although the US dollar's status as the world's reserve currency is diminishing, it still has substantial power. For most of the rest of your lifetime and mine, if not all, Chinese wages will remain low relative to the US. As long as the dollar has it's power and Chinese wages remain relatively low, the US will remain a substantial consumer of Chinese produced goods. And as long as that is the case, Chinese demand for oil will continue to grow.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Worldwide oil demand might indeed increase (perhaps less so if it is mitigated by falls in Europe). But you are attempting to conflate that with the demand out of China.
    Like I said, Chinese demand for oil will continue to grow as long as the dollar retains it's power and Chinese wages remain low relative to the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    No, but I do not know if the demand will come for it, creating it. Meaning that I am correct to point out that your flat assertion here is not necessarily true, but only a probability.
    That's right you cannot identify that technology that will cause the Earth to produce oil at a rate faster than it is being consumed, so stop making crap up.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    which is why they keep expanding faster than our rate of usage.
    You need to stop repeating that garbage. Repeating it over and over again will not make it true.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    perhaps - we shall have to see. You continue to mistake the need to outlast the ability of US fracking companies to withstand continual losses with attempting to hold down prices indefinitely. So perhaps you can answer this for us: how long do you think US fracking companies can operate at a loss, having already lost all of their massive sunk costs, until investors flee and they are forced to close up shop?
    I haven't mistaken anything. Again, if you look back at post 86 I said the Saudis can hurt the fracking industry. But that will only be temporary because the Saudis can only artificially keep prices low for a short period of time. When they stop, the prices will come back up and fracking will thrive.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Interested in your answer on that one.
    You got my answer and it remains the same. Maybe if you read it over and over again you will get it.

  5. #115
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Oil at $75 Means Patches of Texas Shale Turn Unprofitable

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Prices absolutely continued to fall after the Saudi Announcement, which does not alter in the slightest the fact that they were falling prior to the Saudi announcement, indicating that both A) the Saudi's have reason to believe that they risk losing control over the international oil market, prompting their decision and B) you are incorrect to attempt to give responsibility for the former to the latter.
    If we look at your little graph the tail of your blue arrow starts and around 95 dollars and the head of the blue arrow ends at around 86 dollars, a drop of nine dollars in four months. Then after the Saudi announcement the price falls from 86 dollars to 66 dollars in around two months. A twenty dollar drop in two months. Your little graph illustrates the type of control the Saudis have over the oil market.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Hint: your theory doesn't explain why other SWF oil-rich nations would also slash prices[/url].
    Hint: if you have ever run a business you would know that you have to keep your prices competitive.

  6. #116
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: Oil at $75 Means Patches of Texas Shale Turn Unprofitable

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    First of all you are out of your mind if you take those oil reserve numbers to be hard fact.
    they are estimations, and they are what we have to go on. The main point isn't whether they are at 85, 92, or 95% surety at this point, it is that reserves continue to grow faster than we are using up fossil fuels.

    Next of all, even if we take the numbers to be accurate what you have posted is garbage because even in recent years US oil reserves have grown from somewhere between three to no more than four billion barrels a year...
    Firstly you are out of your mind by your own logic.

    Secondly, do you really think US reserves are the only ones expanding?

    Thirdly, the claim isn't garbage - which is why I cited it for you.

    Get torn up by who? Some old fool with dementia who can't even follow what has been said in a thread? Please.
    there is a reason why ad hominem is called a "fallacy".

    As for old? well, my body sure feels old. And age generally brings greater wisdom and maturity. I'll take it as a compliment.

    The bottom line is this, although the US dollar's status as the world's reserve currency is diminishing, it still has substantial power. For most of the rest of your lifetime and mine, if not all, Chinese wages will remain low relative to the US. As long as the dollar has it's power and Chinese wages remain relatively low, the US will remain a substantial consumer of Chinese produced goods. And as long as that is the case, Chinese demand for oil will continue to grow.
    That is incorrect. The relevant measure is not whether Chinese wages are low compared to U.S. wages. It is whether Chinese wages are low relative to Vietnamese, Malaysian, Bangladeshi, Indonesian, Peruvian and Nicaraguan wages.

    That's right you cannot identify that technology that will cause the Earth to produce oil at a rate faster than it is being consumed, so stop making crap up.
    I'm not saying it will happen. I am saying that stating that it won't is to apply a surety that we don't have.

    You need to stop repeating that garbage. Repeating it over and over again will not make it true.
    I cited you the numbers. So far in response you have cited...... nothing. Only your just-so argument.

    I haven't mistaken anything. Again, if you look back at post 86 I said the Saudis can hurt the fracking industry. But that will only be temporary because the Saudis can only artificially keep prices low for a short period of time. When they stop, the prices will come back up and fracking will thrive.
    it's possible. I hope so. However, that does not fix the fact that you therefore assumed that because you believed that they will fail in their attempts, that doing so is not their intent, arguing instead that there was some kind of secret agreement between us and the Saudi's, where they did this to hurt Russia in return for us coming in on the ISIL fight.

    Oh, and hey - lookit that!

    Plunging oil prices sparked a drop of almost 40 percent in new well permits issued across the United States in November, in a sudden pause in the growth of the U.S. shale oil and gas boom that started around 2007...
    The pullback was a "very quick response" to U.S. crude prices, which settled on Tuesday at $66.88 CLc1, said Allen Gilmer, chief executive officer of Drilling Info.

    New permits, which indicate what drilling rigs will be doing 60-90 days in the future, showed steep declines for the first time this year across the top three U.S. onshore fields: the Permian Basin and Eagle Ford in Texas and North Dakota's Bakken shale.

    The Permian Basin in West Texas and New Mexico showed a 38 percent decline in new oil and gas well permits last month, while the Eagle Ford and Bakken permit counts fell 28 percent and 29 percent, respectively, the data showed....
    Well, that's interesting. It looks like their appetite for loss is "somewhat moderate to low". My bet is we're going to see a lot of good creative destruction in the US energy industry here soon.


    Oh, but I can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question.

  7. #117
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: Oil at $75 Means Patches of Texas Shale Turn Unprofitable

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    If we look at your little graph the tail of your blue arrow starts and around 95 dollars and the head of the blue arrow ends at around 86 dollars, a drop of nine dollars in four months. Then after the Saudi announcement the price falls from 86 dollars to 66 dollars in around two months. A twenty dollar drop in two months. Your little graph illustrates the type of control the Saudis have over the oil market.
    Yes it does. Specifically it indicates precisely what I said - that the slide started against their wishes, demonstrating loss of control, and that their decision accelerated it, as intended.

    Hint: if you have ever run a business you would know that you have to keep your prices competitive.
    Saudi's production remains limited by agreement. Price variation as a result of competition only requires that decision if supply is not fixed. iow, if my theory is correct, then so is your argument here .

  8. #118
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Oil at $75 Means Patches of Texas Shale Turn Unprofitable

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    if - now that it is becoming increasingly patently obvious - you wish to change your position and agree with me that this move is intended to harm the Fracking industry and not, as you argued, aimed against the Russians[/url], well then, I accept your alteration
    There is no alteration, so stop spinning old wives tales. Again back a post #86 I clearly said:

    Of course the Saudis can hurt the fracking industry by doing this. But like I said before, this will only be temporary because the Saudis are not going to keep selling oil at such deep discounts. When they stop, the price will go back up, and the fracking industry will be back. Therefore, strategically, what is accomplished is a big hit to Russia, something the US wants, and a big hit to Iran, something the Saudis want, as well as the US.
    That old stank wives tale sophistry you are trying to put forward is crap.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I have fantastic reading skills.
    That's not what has been demonstrated in this thread. Maybe at one time, but it appears the old gray mare ain't what she used to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    What you haven't demonstrated is the ability to actually back up what you are claiming - instead sticking to a series of just-so arguments.
    I have backed it up, you just don't want to listen because it doesn't fit that old wives tale narrative that you want to spin about the President being weak. Because it means that if the President did indeed cut a deal with the Saudis in which they would slash oil prices to hurt Russia, then the President is actually quite powerful, which runs counter to your old wives tale, old gray mare narrative that he is weak.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    The idea that the US forced Russia to take Crimea is something so illiterate that only those who get their news from RT and like sources could possibly buy it.
    Again, your mind is so twisted from the practice of sophistry that you cannot state properly what has been put forward in this thread. The US did not force Russia to take Crimea. However, US actions which lead to the overthrow of a democratically elected government did put Putin in a position where he had to act in Crimea in order to keep Russia from being in a position where the seat of it's naval power could be compromised one day by the possibility of NATO military power, an alliance whose purpose is to contain Russia, would be right next to the center of it's naval power. That is quite different from saying that the US forced Russia to take Crimea, because it is clear Russia did not have to, rather they could have let to US do what it wanted, and just lived with the consequences of having a military alliance that was meant to contain them right next to the seat of their naval power. So what this shows is that your reading skills are indeed quite poor, and all you have done here is to spin another old hag, worn out, old gray mare wives tale.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Ah. So this is a third example of your inability to put events into chronological order, and when you suggested here and that in fact it was Victoria Nulands' actions that were going to screw Russia and had forced them to take Crimea, you were, in fact, wrong.
    And this is another example of your poor reading skills and old gray mare stank wives tales. The chronological order is that Yanukovich balked at the EU deal and instead went for Russia's better offer. In response Victoria Nuland engaged in strong arm tactics that lead to the overthrow of a democratically elected head of state, and Russia seized Crimea to protect the seat of it's naval power. Yes Russia got screwed because they can now write off the western part of Ukraine for good. Adios. So you are wrong. Go spin your old gray mare, stank old wives tales somewhere else.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I do follow foreign policy. That is why I know that your claim is laughable.
    What you follow is sophistry and old stank wives tales. That's why your claim is laughable.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I pointed out that I believed X, and offered a means of verifying that I have always said X. You want to claim that Victoria Nuland is screwing the Russians? Demonstrate it. I've certainly linked enough evidence smashing your claims on this thread for you to bother linking a source back.
    You haven't smashed anything. What has been smashed is your old stank wives tales sophistry.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    ....but you won't because the sources that would argue that are generally nutter conspiracy theory sites, and you don't want to expose that.
    Another old stank wives tale. There are pictures all over the place of Victoria Nuland fomenting protest in Ukraine. What has been exposed is just another one of your old stank wives tales.

  9. #119
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:10 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,935

    Re: Oil at $75 Means Patches of Texas Shale Turn Unprofitable

    gas below $2.00 / gal on 12-03-14.

  10. #120
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In a Blue State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,732

    Re: Oil at $75 Means Patches of Texas Shale Turn Unprofitable

    Quote Originally Posted by rhinefire View Post
    gas below $2.00 / gal on 12-03-14.
    We just got $2.99 here. I haven't seen that in forever. I actually do feel some relief. Kinda nice for once. Now if we can get it under $2 here...that would be great.
    We went from sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me to safe spaces.

Page 12 of 20 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •