Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 194

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

  1. #121
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,300

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

    You folks need to realize that Gas Stations can charge basically what they want within reason for a Gallon of Gas.

    The old narrative that they make pennies on the Gallon isn't true.

    It depends on where they're located.

    They all pay roughly the same price per Gallon for wholesale Gasoline.

    Stations in more up-scale areas ( my neighborhood for ex ) are charging close to or over 3 dollars a Gallon.

    Their making over a buck a Gallon in profit and selling THOUSANDS of Gallons of Gasoline a week plus in store sells.

    Gas Stations in poor areas are charging around 2 dollars a Gallon not making much on Gasoline but making up for it with Malt liquor and rolling paper sales.....hee hee.

    They charge what the people in that surrounding area are willing to pay without forcing them down the road a mile or two to save 15 cents a Gallon.

    So of you're brave enough to enter into a area that's a little rough around the edges you could save a buck a Gallon.

  2. #122
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    There is no alteration, so stop spinning old wives tales. Again back a post #86 I clearly said:
    Yes, we saw.

    So be clear - you are arguing that the Saudi intent is to harm the Russians (which is what I said), correct?

    That old stank wives tale sophistry you are trying to put forward is crap.
    You realize you only make yourself look stupid when you post like this?

    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.
    how old do you think I am?

    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
    Where. Where have you backed your claims up that the Saudi's cut a deal with us where they dropped prices to hurt the Russians in order to get us to come help in the counter-ISIL fight? Where have you posted any citation, any actual evidence other than your own just-so arguments?

    And the attempt to spin to "oh well you're only saying that because you don't like the President" is a does not follow argument. It A) does not make the President weak if we do not prioritize Ukraine (it makes us weak that we claim that we will, and then do not, but that is a different debate), B) it does not make the President weak if we undertake operations against ISIL without the Saudi's having to pay us off in terms of lower gas prices, and C) it doesn't make the President weak if the Saudi's in fact (as they are) are responding to the increase in American production in oil and their resulting reduction in influence over the international oil market. None of that (with the partial exception of the first) is about the President.

    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.
    Then demonstrate said deal. Cite it. Even demonstrate how it fits the actions of the major players involved. Because the last time you brought that up I pointed out that we started bombing before the trip where you suggested Kerry could have cut it, indicating once again that are just making this theory up as you go along, and aren't fact-checking yourself.

    Nor would that make the President powerful. It would make the Saudi's powerful, because it would mean that they had the ability to steer the foreign policy of the United States of America.

  3. #123
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel
    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
    The U.S. is not behind Yanukovych deciding to flee to his big daddy protector in Russia any more than they are behind Russia's decision to seize terrain through military force and de facto invade Ukraine.

    However, check it out, even if NATO had made a deal to allow it to berth ships in Crimea (which it didn't)[/I], that wouldn't have justified an invasion by Russia[/I].

    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
    Alright. Now we've finally identified what you think Victoria Nuland did that proved we cared so much about Russia seizing Crimea oops that didn't fit chronologically when you claimed it we mean she caused the initial seizure. You think it was her strong-arming that forced Yanukovich out of power. Now is a perfect time for you to validate your statement that you have actually backed up your claims here by actually demonstrating that fact.

    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.
    Thank you for repeatedly demonstrating the intellectual vacuity of your argument in this debate. Seriously, what community do you belong to where simply repeating "old stank wives tale" is considered a winning argument?

    What you follow is sophistry and old stank wives tales. That's why your claim is laughable.
    What I follow is foreign policy. And I do so pretty thoroughly.

    You haven't smashed anything. What has been smashed is your old stank wives tales sophistry.
    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.
    more variants of the fingers-stuck-in-ears-yelling-nuhuh argument. Let me know when you can actually demonstrate anything.

  4. #124
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    They are maligned because they cost people their lives and limbs. I drive an "egg carton" because I want to. But some are forced into it. This is yet another example of a government intruding into areas it never should have. In fact, it has no Constitutional authority to intrude.
    Yes it does. It's called "interstate commerce".
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  5. #125
    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
    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
    Ah! So you admit that the Victoria Nuland's activities in Ukraine were an attempt to other nations. You let your sophist guard down.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Still hoping that verbiage and ad hominem can serve in place of data and reason, I see.
    Even when reason is presented to you, you resort to old hag worn out sophistry to twist that reasoning. You have done it time and time again and it's disgusting.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    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.
    What, the person who has snobbishly claimed to be foreign policy astute hasn't read what some prominent people have had to say? You want to come here and pontificate down to others but you are so illiterate that someone has to point this out to you? I really should not do this, because this isn't slavery and I don't have to do your work for you, but here's a list

    1. Jack Matlock - US ambassador to the Soviet Union under George H W Bush
    2. Henry Kissinger - US Secretary of State under Gerald Ford
    3. David Stockman - Head of Office of Management and Budget under Ronald Reagan
    4. Helen Caldicott - Nobel Laureate
    5. Francis Boyle - Professor University of Illinois
    6. Lech Walsea - Former President of Poland

    And that's only a partial list. If you didn't know this you are illiterate, and your claim to seriously follow foreign policy is another old hag, worn out, stank wives tale.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    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.
    See, that's your problem right there. Hell you want to start WWIII over Ukraine, a country that is not a vital interest to the US, but is a very vital interest to Russia. Here's what Lech Walesa, former President of Poland thinks about your stupid, moronic, village idiot idea of providing lethal aid to Ukraine

    Arming Ukraine could lead to nuclear war: Lech Walesa

    European military assistance to Ukraine could lead to a nuclear conflict between Russia and NATO, according to Poland's iconic cold warrior and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Lech Walesa.

    "It could lead to a nuclear war," the anti-Communist legend told reporters when asked whether the EU should send weapons to Ukraine to help it fights off separatist rebels and Russian aggression.

    "The EU is well aware that Russia has nuclear weapons. NATO has them too. Must we then destroy each other?" said the former Solidarity trade union leader famous for negotiating a bloodless end to communism in Poland in 1989.
    So your idea is stupid and is a moron's folly. It's really amazing that someone would actually seriously put such an idea forward.

  6. #126
    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
    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?

    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.
    What? Still putting forward that old hag, worn out, stank sophist filth? It's really diabolical what you and that George Will crowd are trying to do. Here is George Will openly talking about neutering the President of the United States:

    George Will: GOP is missing an opportunity to neuter president | CJOnline.com

    That's right. You people talk about neutering Obama like he is some animal. Perhaps you think black people are animals. Imagine if Al Sharpton had talked about neutering George W Bush, there would be an uproar. But because Obama is a black male, people like you support it and join the crowd in piling on. He even said it in another column here:

    The debt deal and Obama

    Obama is not weak, it's your hero Netanyahu, Bandar "Bush", and George Will who are weak and are merely trying to evoke a response from the President to prove he is not weak, just like a woman who cannot do something herself, will accuse a man of being weak to get him to do something he would not otherwise do. But President Obama, the very intelligent first black President of the United States of America, cool as a cucumber is not falling for your sterile, old hag, worn out, stank weak rhetoric. So go peddle that bullcrap somewhere else.

  7. #127
    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
    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.

    ....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.
    More stank, old hag, worn out sophistry

    Russia to fall into recession amid sanctions and plunging oil price | World news | The Guardian


    Russia will plunge into recession next year under the weight of lower oil prices and western sanctions over Ukraine, the economy ministry warned.

    Gross domestic product is expected to shrink by 0.8%, a sharp reversal from the earlier official forecast of 1.2% growth for the year.

    Alexei Vedev, the Russian deputy economy minister, said: “We now assume that sanctions will remain in place throughout the whole of 2015. This for us means closed capital markets for the majority of Russian companies and banks, as well as unfavourable conditions for investment – uncertainty and a lack of security.”

    ......................

    The ministry, which had previously assumed sanctions would be lifted next year, also cut its forecast for the 2015 oil price to an average $80 a barrel, down from $100 a barrel, cutting revenues from Russia’s main exports of oil and gas.
    .......................

    It is also expecting capital flight from Russia to continue amid heightened uncertainty. The ministry increased its forecast for 2014 net capital outflows to $125bn from $100bn, and to $90bn in 2015 from $50bn.”Uncertainty and lack of economic confidence caused by harsher geopolitics have led to a prediction of higher capital flight and lower investment,” the ministry said in a report briefly posted on its website before it was removed.
    Here's another

    Sanctions Biting Russia

    Financial experts say Russia’s most pressing problem is not the sinking ruble, despite its potential to prompt a run on the banks, nor the falling price of oil, though the annual budget was based on a price of $96 per barrel, which is now hovering around $70.

    “This is all peanuts compared to the financing crisis,” said Vladimir Milov, a former deputy energy minister turned opposition politician.

    Nearly $700 billion is owed to Western banks, economists said, much of it by the giant state-run companies that constitute the heart of the Russian economy.
    But sanctions imposed by the United States and Europe over Russia’s annexation of Crimea and adventurism in southeastern Ukraine have blocked access to Western financing.
    So again, what you have done is spin another stank, old wives tale.

  8. #128
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:30 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,071

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

    I haven't read through the entire thread, so pardon the repetition.....

    The world is squeezing Putin right now, and we're benefitting with much lower gas prices. Russia produces nothing outside of oil, vodka, caviar, and mail-order brides. They are a tremendously non-creative country that knows how to do nothing but sell off its natural resources. By dropping oil to these prices, Russia can't pay its debt or operate its government and military. This is driving their already awful economy further into third-world territory.

    It's scary because Putin will not turn democratic like Russia did in the 80s. That still burns him inside. This guy will do virtually anything to protect and promote Mother Russia.

  9. #129
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,105

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    'With crude at $75 a barrel, the price Goldman Sachs Group Inc. says will be the average in the first three months of next year, 19 U.S. shale regions are no longer profitable, according to data compiled by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.'

    Oil at $75 Means Patches of Texas Shale Turn Unprofitable - Bloomberg

    Shale Profits at Risk - Bloomberg


    I (and others) have said for a while that shale oil is not the dream solution that the media is making it out to be.
    All extractive industries (oil, gas, coal and other mineral minings) have extraction costs. Each of the items being extracted is subject to wild price fluctuations. The two work to make extractive industries and wild industry where fortunes are won and lost weekly.

    Shale oil is not viable in a low oil price economy because its extraction costs are high. That said, it remains a viable long term resource because 1) the price of oil will climb again and 2) the extraction costs will continue to fall with technology improvements.

    While shale may not be the answer this week; it will likely be an answer next week (figuratively speaking).

  10. #130
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,105

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    If only that Obama had allowed more drilling.
    What does that have to do with anything? Oil companies aren't big on drilling at $75/bbl oil, either.

Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... 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
  •