Oil at $75 Means Patches of Texas Shale Turn Unprofitable

MarineTpartier · Nov 28, 2014

apdst said:
Shale oil helped bring gas prices down to 2.50 a gallon (where I'm at). I'd call that a good thing.

I know lol. It seems like people on this thread are actually complaining about lower gas prices. I don't get it. I understand that shale turns unprofitable at a certain point but I'll take the 50-75 cent drop it has provided any day of the week. At least it's some relief, especially this time of year.

JumpinJack · Nov 29, 2014

1750Texan said:
Tar deposited in the shale strata.

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

This make XL Keystone even more unattractive. More oil on the market hurts Texas producers.

Ohhhh. Thanks. Nasty stuff, that tar is, I read. All but impossible to clean up after a spill, I think?

cpwill · Nov 30, 2014

MildSteel said:
The crap is your assertion that the Russians have said that the notion that Saudi Arabia is driving down prices to hurt Russia is false. The Russians have said no such thing.

:lol: I pointed out that the Saudi's were making their move to try to take out the fracking industry, you said this was incorrect - they were instead trying to harm the Russians. I then pointed out that even the Russians (who are not only deeply paranoid, but would benefit from such a narrative) agree that the Saudi's move is about the fracking industry.....

and this is all the response you have. :roll:

Yep, that's the typical neocon response. Victoria is just some bureaucrat who does not matter...That is true which is why Victoria Nuland did what she did in Ukraine in the first place, to screw Russia in the long term. ...That's why they had to secure there naval base in Crimea and are creating a buffer zone against NATO expansion in eastern Ukraine.

Tying this together because both are entertaining to those of us who follow foreign policy. What, pray tell, did Victoria Nuland do that was SOOOOOOOO serious and awful and threatening AFTER the Russians took the Crimean peninsula (which they did because (as I have pointed out) Russians are deeply paranoid and are seeking to recreate the zones of the old Russian Empire in order to control their near-abroad)? How, oh how, did Victoria Nulands' words screw Russia in the long term?

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?

However, if you actually want to know why Russia is boned long term, take a look at her economic structure and her demographics.

We don't have to have Marines in a particular location for it to matter to us.

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. 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.

It is a fact that they sanctions have hurt Russia. They will have to spend billions to keep Crimea in shape at a time when sanctions are eroding the value of the ruble and causing a significant amount of capital flight

:lol: 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. 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". :roll:

cpwill · Nov 30, 2014

Perhaps you didn't know it, but it is becoming increasingly harder for oil companies to expand their proven reserves. That's one reason why the majors took to acquiring smaller oil companies a few years ago.

Ah. Is that why oil reserves continue to expand faster than we are using them up?

That's what you call making crap up. What a load of baloney.

Oh, I"m pretty sure if offered two more generations, the Saudi leadership would take it.

No flattened demand will not last for some time because although the rate at which China's economy is growing is slowing, it is still growing nonetheless.

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. 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.

That combined with the growth in India and other East Asian countries will certainly strain the capacity of the oil industry to meet demand.

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.

Have you identified that technology that will cause the Earth to replenish oil at a rate greater than it is being consumed? The answer is no, so again, you are making up crap.

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.

In the meantime it is becoming increasingly difficult for oil companies to increase their proven reserves.

:lol: which is why they keep expanding faster than our rate of usage.

Here you are making up more crap. The Saudis are not going to get a few decades or a half a century out of this because they are not going to hold down prices long enough for that to happen.

:shrug: 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?

Interested in your answer on that one.

No because the rate greatly accelerated after the Saudi announcement and the price went from above 90 dollars before the Saudi announcement to below 70.

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.

Hint: your theory doesn't explain why other SWF oil-rich nations would also slash prices.

IDNeon · Nov 30, 2014

Fenton said:
Part of the reason the Saudi's are selling their product so cheap is to target the Russian economy.

Put Putin back in his place I suppose.

And yes, it would seem they're trying to put shale out of Bussinesses too.

Russian Ruble's devaluation means that Oil sells for MORE Rubles per barrel even at lower $USD price per barrel, than they were selling before at the higher $USD per barrel.

Think about that.

If Russian government needs 2500 Rubles per barrel to balance budget, and buys all Ruble based services and goods.

And now Barrels of oil trade for 3000 Rubles (even at lower USD price), is Russia hurt at all?

no.

IDNeon · Nov 30, 2014

MarineTpartier said:
I know lol. It seems like people on this thread are actually complaining about lower gas prices. I don't get it. I understand that shale turns unprofitable at a certain point but I'll take the 50-75 cent drop it has provided any day of the week. At least it's some relief, especially this time of year.

I love SUSTAINABLY low gas prices.

Not gas prices that end up blowing up the financial sector requiring yet another $2Trillion dollar bailout.

cpwill · Nov 30, 2014

Hey look! More people agreeing with cpwill!

Chris Skrebowski, former editor of Petroleum Review, said the Saudis want to cut the annual growth rate of US shale output from 1m barrels per day (bpd) to 500,000 bpd to bring the market closer to balance. “They want to unnerve the shale oil model and undermine financial confidence, but they won’t stop the growth altogether,” he said.

There is no question that the US has entirely changed the global energy landscape and poses an existential threat to Opec. America has cut its net oil imports by 8.7m bpd since 2006, equal to the combined oil exports of Saudi Arabia and Nigeria.....

Opec may not be worried about countries such as Nigeria, but even there a full-blown economic and political crisis could turn the north into a Jihadi stronghold under Boko Haram.

The growing Jihadi movements in the Maghreb – combining with events in Syria and Iraq – clearly pose a first-order security threat to the Saudi regime itself....

IDNeon · Nov 30, 2014

cpwill said:
Hey look! More people agreeing with cpwill!

If you want a real lesson in Oil economy go to my thread about Russia and how the oil price plummet has not effected Russia at all. In fact Russia is making more money off Oil than ever before.

cpwill · Nov 30, 2014

IDNeon said:
If you want a real lesson in Oil economy go to my thread about Russia and how the oil price plummet has not effected Russia at all. In fact Russia is making more money off Oil than ever before.

Hm. That's an interesting claim. According to Citigroup the Break-Even cost for Russia is $105. Link?

MildSteel · Dec 2, 2014

cpwill said:
I pointed out that the Saudi's were making their move to try to take out the fracking industry, you said this was incorrect - they were instead trying to harm the Russians.

WRONG! If you read post #86 I 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.

cpwill said:
I then pointed out that even the Russians (who are not only deeply paranoid, but would benefit from such a narrative) agree that the Saudi's move is about the fracking industry.....

and this is all the response you have.

My response is that you either need to stop the sophistry or learn to read properly.

cpwill said:
Tying this together because both are entertaining to those of us who follow foreign policy. What, pray tell, did Victoria Nuland do that was SOOOOOOOO serious and awful and threatening AFTER the Russians took the Crimean peninsula (which they did because (as I have pointed out) Russians are deeply paranoid and are seeking to recreate the zones of the old Russian Empire in order to control their near-abroad)?

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 because it appears to me that you cannot even follow properly what has been said in this thread. It's either that or you are practicing deceit through distortion. That aside, your flaw here is:

AFTER the Russians took the Crimean peninsula

You need to look at Victoria Nuland's actions before Crimea.

cpwill said:
How, oh how, did Victoria Nulands' words screw Russia in the long term?

Since you follow foreign policy, I will leave that to you and your buddies who are so foreign policy astute to figure out. 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.

MildSteel · Dec 2, 2014

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill said:
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."

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill · Dec 2, 2014

MildSteel said:
WRONG! If you read post #86 I said:

My response is that you either need to stop the sophistry or learn to read properly.

:shrug: 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.

:shrug: 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.

cpwill · Dec 2, 2014

MildSteel said:
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.

:lamo:

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.

:doh 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.

:lamo: 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!

MildSteel · Dec 2, 2014

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill said:
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.

MildSteel · Dec 2, 2014

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill · Dec 3, 2014

MildSteel said:
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.

:roll: 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.

:shrug: 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.

:shrug: 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.

cpwill · Dec 3, 2014

MildSteel said:
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. :lol: iow, if my theory is correct, then so is your argument here

.

MildSteel · Dec 4, 2014

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill said:
....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.

rhinefire · Dec 4, 2014

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

Blue_State · Dec 4, 2014

rhinefire said:
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.

Fenton · Dec 4, 2014

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.

cpwill · Dec 4, 2014

MildSteel said:
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.

:lol: 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.

cpwill · Dec 4, 2014

MildSteel said:
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

:roll: 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.

:doh 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.

:yawn: more variants of the fingers-stuck-in-ears-yelling-nuhuh argument. Let me know when you can actually demonstrate anything. :roll:

Objective Voice · Dec 4, 2014

Misterveritis said:
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".

MildSteel · Dec 5, 2014

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill said:
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.

cpwill said:
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.

Oil at $75 Means Patches of Texas Shale Turn Unprofitable

Haters gon' hate