Page 14 of 20 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 194

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

  1. #131
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill
    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.
    I'm just going to enjoy the irony of you accusing others of having reading issues, but at the same time apparently not understanding the meaning of the word "perceived" or the need to insert the word "dominate" in your sentence.

    As for the rest of it Most of what you are putting out is ignorant and bile. No one here is your homie, MS, no one here is impressed that you can use ignorant language like Stank Hag. Your apparent dependence on trying to dis others only make you look immature and stupid. There's no one biting his knuckle and calling out "Oh NO He DIDN"T" in the background, MS. But your apparent ageism and misogyny is noted.

    So pulling out the fact claims:

    1. the idea that looking to neuter Obama from Will was referencing a physical neutering is belied by the actual text of the article you cite. Firstly, authors do not choose their headlines - newspaper editors do. So Will didn't pick that title. Secondly, the word "neuter" does not appear in the text that Will actually wrote. His argument was that Republicans should vote to raise the debt ceiling instead of risking shutting down the government, and that that Republicans who want to do those things are giving Obama handy rhetorical tools.

    2. It's ironic that you then suggest that this is somehow related to racism, and then argue that had Al Sharpton talked about neutering (physically) Bush, there would have been an uproar. This is ironic because Jesse Jackson actually DID say that he wanted to PHYSICALLY neuter President Obama. Is Jesse Jackson racist against black people? Was he talking about Obama like he was an animal? Or are you seeking to be outraged without bothering to engage your frontal lobe?


    OUR sanctions are not WESTERN sanctions. You will note, if you consult a map, that there are quite a few nations in that category, and they include many countries who are in the EU, which has actually done some good in this regard - they are targeting the SOE's you mention. OUR sanctions are mostly centered around freezing some bank accounts of some of the leadership. We are not (for example) stating that we will not trade with people who purchase Russian oil, or applying the kind of actual sanctions that we do with countries such as Iran and Saddam-era Iraq. And yes, the slide in oil prices is absolutely hurting Russia, I agree.

    However, the Saudi decision was and remains focused on American production, and was not the result of any kind of secret deal to bring the US into the counter-ISIL fight.

  2. #132
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel
    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
    Now this is an interesting list. I started looking into it, mostly because I was surprised to see Kissingers' name up there. As near as I can tell, this is what is being referenced:

    ... Kissinger argued that the West – with its strategy of pulling Ukraine into the orbit of the European Union – was responsible for the crisis by failing to understand Russian sensitivity over Ukraine and making the grave mistake of quickly pushing the confrontation beyond dialogue.

    But Kissinger also faulted Putin for his reaction to the crisis. “This does not mean the Russian response was appropriate,” Kissinger said.

    Still, Kissinger told Der Spiegel that “a resumption of the Cold War would be a historic tragedy. If a conflict is avoidable, on a basis reflecting morality and security, one should try to avoid it. … We have to remember that Russia is an important part of the international system, and therefore useful in solving all sorts of other crises, for example in the agreement on nuclear proliferation with Iran or over Syria. This has to have preference over a tactical escalation in a specific case."...


    I cannot find a single instance of Kissinger stating that a U.S. intervention in Ukraine would have meant or could have meant a nuclear war. All I can find him saying is that we risk sliding back into another Cold War in general, given degrading relations. Even Russian propaganda is not attempting to put the words in his mouth that you are. What I suspect you have done is taken a list of people who generally think that US intervention in Ukraine could go badly, and treated it as a list of people who support the ridiculous claim that sending lethal aid to the Ukrainians (for example, as we did to the Afghan fighters who were opposing the Soviets) would result in a nuclear conflagration. It's also worth noting that Caldicott is a global anti-nuke activist who is not actually a Nobel recipient - but was rather part of an organization (the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War) that was. A random university professor is, well, sort of laughable. I see you and raise you one Warren Churchill. Jack Matlock doesn't seem to have said that the response would have been nuclear war, either (in fact he thinks Russia should leave Crimea), although he is saying:

    ...Obama’s “warning” to Putin was ill-advised. Whatever slim hope that Moscow might avoid overt military intervention in Ukraine disappeared when Obama in effect threw down a gauntlet and challenged him. This was not just a mistake of political judgment—it was a failure to understand human psychology—unless, of course, he actually wanted a Russian intervention, which is hard for me to believe....

    Which is probably about right. Especially in a post-"Syrian Red Lines" environment. The closest he comes to saying what you are saying he claims is:

    ...Entirely aside from the principles of the UN Charter, international law, and the Helsinki Final Act, Russia has a treaty commitment to the United States and the United Kingdom to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. What it received in return was quite substantial, the possession (for destruction) of the nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory. Does Russia really want to violate arrangements that allowed us to reduce the danger of nuclear weapons threatening us all? Does Russia think that its current actions will encourage or discourage nuclear proliferation? After all, it will be argued that if Ukraine had not returned its nukes to Russia, Russia would not dare try to grab its territory...

    which puts the blame on Russian actions and also doesn't claim that nuclear war was plausible in the event of U.S. aid to the Ukraine.

    So.. yeah. Apparently not so much.

  3. #133
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

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

    Oh. It's probably also worth noting that we will likely increase pressure and focus on Russia in the future, including under this administration. Just too late. As is unfortunately all too usual.

  4. #134
    Educator Uncensored2008's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    06-02-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    655

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

    North Dakota shale is still profitable at $60 a barrel. Oil has got a long way to go before it really impacts the fracking process.

  5. #135
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

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

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    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).
    Sure, but what is to stop the Saudi's from tanking the price again (say by increasing production drastically) so as to damage the U.S. shale oil industry?
    This episode has got to be putting a scare into potential investors in the U.S. shale oil industry. They realize now that their economic future is even less in their hands then they thought it was 6 months ago.

  6. #136
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncensored2008 View Post
    North Dakota shale is still profitable at $60 a barrel. Oil has got a long way to go before it really impacts the fracking process.
    That's excellent to hear. Do you have a source for it?

  7. #137
    Educator Uncensored2008's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    06-02-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    655

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    That's excellent to hear. Do you have a source for it?
    Certainly.

    Break-Even Points for U.S. Shale Oil - Bloomberg

    It's funny how profitability is regional.

  8. #138
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Sure, but what is to stop the Saudi's from tanking the price again (say by increasing production drastically) so as to damage the U.S. shale oil industry?
    This episode has got to be putting a scare into potential investors in the U.S. shale oil industry. They realize now that their economic future is even less in their hands then they thought it was 6 months ago.
    how far would they have to go for how long? That is, I think, rather the $100 Bn question

  9. #139
    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
    I'm just going to enjoy the irony of you accusing others of having reading issues, but at the same time apparently not understanding the meaning of the word "perceived" or the need to insert the word "dominate" in your sentence.
    Well I hate to burst your little bubble of twisted enjoyment but I did indeed note you use of the word PERCEIVED. And your statement was an admission that the purpose of Victoria Nuland's strong arm tactics in Ukraine was an attempt to dominate other countries, and IF you indeed follow foreign policy, as you claim, then surely you are familiar with Zbigniew Brzezinski's (surely there is no need to state who he is to someone as astute on foreign policy as you) writing on Ukraine where he states

    “Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.”
    SO IF AS YOU CLAIM YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH FOREIGN POLICY YOU ARE CERTAINLY AWARE OF THIS POSITION. Therefore your admission that there is a perception that the US is perceived as attempting to dominate other countries in Ukraine, is an admission that you are aware of this position, and therefore you are certainly aware that is exactly what Victoria Nuland was doing by her strong arm activities in Ukraine. So you betcha, I read the word PERCEIVED, so there was no lack of reading skills whatsoever and my response stands.

    As far as the "dominate", I saw that after I posted the response, but saw no need to edit it as the intent was clear. So again, you have spun an old worn out hag wives tale.

  10. #140
    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
    As for the rest of it Most of what you are putting out is ignorant and bile.
    Funny you should say that because you have demonstrated your ignorance and have posted vile, ignorant crap again and again in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    No one here is your homie, MS, no one here is impressed that you can use ignorant language like Stank Hag. Your apparent dependence on trying to dis others only make you look immature and stupid. There's no one biting his knuckle and calling out "Oh NO He DIDN"T" in the background, MS.
    What the hell makes you think I would want you as a homie, whatever that is, or even that I said that you were my "homie." What you do is come on here with your snobbish, arrogant, sophist filth, twist and distort the words of others, and insult the President of the United States time and time again by saying he is weak and that he does not care. But it is you who don't care, because what you really care about primarily is the interests of Israel, and you want to paint the President of the United States as weak because he will not overthrow Assad like Israel wants, because, in the best interests he is trying to negotiate a deal with Iran on it's nuclear program, because that is something Israel does not want, and because you are moronic enough to believe that putting Marines in Ukraine and starting WWIII is what it means by showing strength in Ukraine. So yeah, that crap is old stank hag BULLCRAP, and you betcha I'm going to point it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    But your apparent ageism and misogyny is noted.
    Oh please. Talk about immature, bile and ignorant. That statement was a whopper.

Page 14 of 20 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... 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
  •