OIl update

[Polish_Silver]

Canada in distress?

The whole objective is to make the European energy market a "buyers market". At least temporarily. That is one of the reasons Saudi is running a blocking move on other OPEC exporters, before it is too late. If this works, the utterly hopeless Gazprom will need European gas markets more than Europe will need unreliable Russian gas.

I had not heard that Gazprom is hopeless. Is it incompetent? I put down the unreliability to Russia deliberately freezing it's customers to get higher prices. I did not know that Europe could get gas anywhere but Russia. It will come via LNG tankers?
. . .

Canada is only capable of doing what it does because it can rely on the USA military.
. .

If there were no US military, who would attack Canada? The US military is not concentrated around Canadian borders, but in the middle east and far east. If Canada is really depending on the US military, the US should charge Canada for the cost of defending it. That is what cities in medieval Europe did, with very interesting outcomes.

[jpatter666]

Re: OIl update

Lower crude prices - in the short-term are welcome, but long-term the spell trouble for the major producers, who need to develop new plays. So, what is happening in mid-east needs to be analyzed slow and careful. How much is politics? How much commercial? Siamese twins - where one goes, so goeth the other? Russia has a long history of being 'pounded' by invaders - and chess is a popular 'sport'. They could 'afford' several winters, but could Europe? The US will not become 'self-sufficient' in oil unless it manages to reduce its daily, per capita consumption by one-half! Think that is feasible? Yeah, I thought so.

Something unusual appears to have happened (politically - in respect of mid-east) a few months back. Anyone got any insights?

ISIS probably.

[bpwoods]

Re: OIl update

ISIS ?? Not what I had in mind. IS was predictable - its the violence and brutality that was maybe not. No, 'something' unusual may have happened - someone said, or did something unexpected - its a tad too quiet. Like the birds that go all silent, when they should be chirping. ???

[touchring]

Re: OIl update

It's part of smacking Putin for his support for Assad, and all that drama in eastern Europe. "America bashing" seems to be the flavour this year, even here on iTulip. The pundits that keep saying "Putin has the upper hand" or "Putin has played his cards better than Obama" are going to be seriously embarrassed. The USA may not always get it right (the first time), but betting against the USA politically, financially or militarily is always, always, always desperately poor odds. What we read in the headlines is not representative of its real capabilities. I lived in the Middle East. There's lots that never makes the papers.

The world is a different place from the 80s. The US is no longer the largest economy and will be a distant second in less than a decade.

Weakening Russia will cause Russia to run to China, not to mention cheap oil means plenty of cheap assets for cash rich China to grab.

Rather than engaging in more intrigues, perhaps Obama should focus on saving Africa from Ebola instead. You don't want a situation in which countries and businesses start to ban Africans for fear of Ebola.

There is no shortage of oil (a point I have made a number of times on other posts in the past couple of years). The Saudis are merely going through the motions to achieve a face-saving way (important in the greater Asia cultural context of the Middle East) to flood Europe so the Russian bear gets "bear hugged".

There's no shortage of oil in the short term, but oil is a finite resource. The Saudis can start pumping out 30 million barrels a day for all they want to push oil down to $10 a barrel. Meanwhile, the Chinese will be busy buying over that $10 a barrel Saudi oil and pumping it into underground caverns until Saudi oil all runs out in another 10 years. The Chinese are good at and like to save, be it money or oil.

[lektrode]

Re: OIl update

The world is a different place from the 80s....
...
There's no shortage of oil in the short term, but oil is a finite resource....
The Chinese are good at and like to save, be it money or oil.

that they are - and play a looooong game, vs the US, which thinks 'long' is the end of the next quarter.

but we've been hearing about the 'finite resource' bit re oil - for what, 150or160 years now?

and every time we start to get close to 'the tipping point' ?

VOILA!!!
another permian, another baakken, another gulf'o'mex or hey - 'another saudi arabia' (russia's potential has barely been scratched, nears i can tell) 'unexpectedly' pops up?

and THEN - how much exploration has happened in california lately? (where the stuff literally bubbles up outa the ground thruout LA/la brea/huntington, all them wells sitting just off the coast of long beach, etc etc etc)

and we cant EVEN look to see just how much 'might' be there?

dunno tr, as much as i'm inclined to believe the thesis of PCO - i tend to agree with GRG that 'this could go on for a lot longer than some think'

and i grew up with the 70's-80's one oil 'crisis' after another - was stuck in south Fla when that 'shortage' hit - and been held hostage for YEARS because the political class careens from one BS 'solution' to the next?

the only thing i'm believing in at this point is that 'PCBS' is in control....

[bpwoods]

Re: OIl update

At risk of been classed as a complete doomy nerd!

1 -> 2 -> 4 -> 8 -> 16; etc, etc. Now, if, the actual (long-term) Rate-of-Growth (of consumption) is 3%, per annum, compounding (as in compd. interest), then the 'Doubling Time' is 23 years (69/3) ...So ...

In 1859 - we started consuming oily - and there is, allegedly, 6000+ "units" of the stuff in the ground, and we can hope to extract approx 50% - ie: 3000+ units. OK?

So, by 1997 we had extracted and consumed 1200 units (if you believe these estimates). Hence, in the next doubling-time iteration (1997 - 2020) we will consume ... how much? And our cumulative consumed total (1859 - 2020) would be ....? I regret that each will have to do their own math on this one.

That's nice!

[lektrode]

Re: OIl update

...
So, by 1997 we had extracted and consumed 1200 units (if you believe these estimates). Hence, in the next doubling-time iteration (1997 - 2020) we will consume ... how much? And our cumulative consumed total (1859 - 2020) would be ....?...

and IF the luddites hadnt shutdown construction of the seabrook nuke in '76 - we wouldve NOT burnt how much coal?

and IF 'lektric rates hadnt launched shortly thereafter - we might've had HOW MANY 'zero emissions' cars choking up the roads by now?

regret that each will have to do their own math on this one.

yup.

[dcarrigg]

Re: OIl update

Seabrook nuke was what - one reactor instead of 2 cause Dukakis et all. Probably lost 2GW out of that. New England probably needs about 30GW going forward. 15 Seabrooks would do it. 20 and you could convert everyone to 'lektric heat and be done with it. But Fukushima put the kibosh on any of that for a good long time. There have been what? 5 instances of core damaged reactors in history? Three mile island, Chernobyl, and the three at Fukushima 3 years ago? I don't even want to know what the total decommission price will be. It's going to make all sorts of people think twice for at least a decade.

[lektrode]

Re: OIl update

Seabrook nuke was what - one reactor instead of 2 cause Dukakis et all.....
...
don't even want to know what the total decommission price will be. It's going to make all sorts of people think twice for at least a decade.

ahhhh...yes... those.. were.. the.. daze my friend, we thot they'd never end...
along with 'Miracle Mike's' campaign - even tho he had little/nuthin to do with most of what revolved around rt128 -
(we'll just accept how he was welcomed/hailed-even, in certain circles - sorta like another 'great gift' was a few years later - tho i wouldnt put the 'MM' in that league)

but methinks the decomm costs will pale in comparison to what ENDLESS WAR FOR OIL + ENDLESS BUDGET DEFICITS to pay for it all will end up costing The Rest of US

and never mind what all the 'solyndrical subsidies' on top of the fleecing 'the lessees' are going to end up costing, as the cost of their defaults as TBTF punts on the contracts when the suckers... uhh... i mean... 'lessees' figger out they getting hosed (since the likelyhood of the contract outliving the efficacy of 'the solution' is getting more questionable by the day)

and HEY! - i'm an alternative energy kinda guy...

that and i also dont think we're going to have a decade to think about it, since ole mother ocean isnt going to let the political class punt nor bunt on this one much longer

they need to MAKE A DECISION in favor of/for the only true alternative at this point, as the rest of the 'solyndrical logic' aint never gonna get us there

[dcarrigg]

Re: OIl update

Yeah. It's a combo of things. Fukushima scares folks off. And the banker types don't want to wait 10 years or whatever it is for the big payout. They want it now. They can get it with wind and solar - they can sell high-up-front kWh long term contracts to the public on the 'green' stuff. But the 'glowing green' stuff tends to get push-back. Still, we got some moving through the process. But you're right about the drink. It's less productive every year. 10 years ago we had a beach down the road. Now you catch a tide right and the water's over the road without a storm. It's not gonna wait.

Speaking of Dobelle, you catch this last month lek?

[lektrode]

Re: OIl update

.... about the drink. It's less productive every year. 10 years ago we had a beach down the road. Now you catch a tide right and the water's over the road without a storm. It's not gonna wait.

Speaking of Dobelle, you catch this last month lek?

methinks that sea level isnt the primary risk - its the acidification thats the main/urgent issue - the coral reefs are the evidence/symptom - they are dying off/bleaching out - the coral dies = the reef dies; the reef dies = the small fish die; the small fish die?

no mo ahi = no mo chahlie da tuna brah and no mo ahi = more sharks = even less meat fish
and then all sorts of stuff starts... ummmm... cascading.... down.... down.... and down.....
just like what we're already seeing over on the left coast

and my question for ms coakley (and the bosglobe:ny times) = WHAT TOOK YA SO LONG?
when what is known was known in certain circles years ago

why?
maybe because he a party aparatchik? seems to be his primary 'qualification' -
and NOTHING was more evident than than that observation (lots of em in fact) - again, years, over a decade ago
(esp after the terms of his 'departure' and subsequent 'contract negotiations' - altho there's 'nothing unusual about that' ?)

and sorry for off-topic/political trivia on this one, but methinks it points out just how biased the lamerstream media is (esp when it comes to circling the wagons/ignoring whats REALLY going on)