Irvinecommuter
New member
morekaos said:
Keep thinking in the 1970s terms.
Oil
- Thread starter eyephone
- Start date
Keep thinking in the 1970s terms.
Irvinecommuter
New member
BTW...apparently climate change is not a hoax for the American intelligence community
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...eat-assessment-intelligence-agencies-refugees
Irvinecommuter
New member
morekaos said:
You are literally advocating the opposite of adapting.
morekaos
Well-known member
Not at all. You learn to live with it and move on. We adapted well to the 70?s prediction of global cooling just fine. ( by the way, also caused by man made pollution). We will (if it ever happens) adapt to global warming.
Science: Another Ice Age?
Monday, Nov. 13, 1972
The arrival of another ice age has long been a chilling theme of science fiction. If the earth's recent history is any clue, says Marine Geologist Cesare Emiliani of the University of Miami, a new ice age could become a reality.
Writing in Science, Emiliani reports that the earth has undergone at least eight periods of extreme cold and seven of torrid heat in the past 400,000 years. His conclusion is based on cores of ocean sediment from the Caribbean. Composed of the remains of tiny sea animals, the layered sediment provides a record of climatic changes
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910467,00.
Science: Another Ice Age?
Monday, Nov. 13, 1972
The arrival of another ice age has long been a chilling theme of science fiction. If the earth's recent history is any clue, says Marine Geologist Cesare Emiliani of the University of Miami, a new ice age could become a reality.
Writing in Science, Emiliani reports that the earth has undergone at least eight periods of extreme cold and seven of torrid heat in the past 400,000 years. His conclusion is based on cores of ocean sediment from the Caribbean. Composed of the remains of tiny sea animals, the layered sediment provides a record of climatic changes
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910467,00.
morekaos
Well-known member
Irvinecommuter said:
Yes, yes the Chinese are true believers and so progressive and caring. But it looks as if they would rather lead from behind or maybe lead from the obscured .
Major China regions see smog worsen, adding to fears polluters are moving south
(Reuters) - The Yangtze River Delta region near Shanghai saw a key smog measure rise by a fifth in January, making it more polluted than Beijing and raising fears that the pollution crackdown in the north has forced heavy industries to head south.
Though concentrations of small, breathable particles known as PM2.5 fell 17.9 percent year on year to 64 micrograms per cubic meter in 338 cities nationwide in January, the Yangtze River Delta registered an average of 72 micrograms, up 20 percent, according to official data published on Monday.
https://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idINKBN1FW0H3
Irvinecommuter
New member
morekaos said:
I am going to assume at this point that you don't actually read my post because I literally said that the Chinese government is pragmatic. Chinese government is serious about climate change, green energy, and pollution...has nothing to do with whether they are progressive or caring...it's the pragmatic thing to do.
https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...of-factories-in-unprecedented-pollution-crack
http://www.china-briefing.com/news/2017/12/11/chinas-pollution-crackdown-business-impacts.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/climate/china-cars-pollution.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-of-petrol-and-diesel-cars-in-the-near-future
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/soci...-beijing-moves-gear-war-against-air-pollution
Keep believing that the world is in the 1970s.
morekaos
Well-known member
Oh baloney, that?s all for show. The Chinese government believes in one thing, economic and military dominance. They could care less about the rest of the world, or for that matter the majority of their own people. If I believed like a 70?s world I would think an ice age is coming, oil and world resources were about to run out, and populations were about to explode and eat all the food and water on earth...kinda like todays elites. And their counterparts today will be just as wrong.
morekaos
Well-known member
And right on cue, China grab another big handful. I?d rather be holding the energy leash on these guys then be on the other end of the leash with them staking it down.
China: We are a 'Near-Arctic State' and we want a 'Polar Silk Road'
he crux of the issue, according to many analysts, is that the Arctic could tip the already rising tensions between the U.S. and China, but the situation may have been exaggerated, according to Zhang.
"Many experts are pointing to the South China Sea dispute as the eventual outcome to China's Arctic involvement, but the strategic value of the Arctic simply does not make sense for China to engage in confrontational behavior," Zhang said.
This is because "even though the Arctic Circle contains large amounts of untapped resources, as well as being a potential trade route, the full potential of the Arctic to become commercially viable seems to be at least a decade away," the Stratfor analyst said.
In the South China Sea, a resource-rich and strategic region where several nations have claims, China has ignored maritime law and a legally binding tribunal ruling by building islands there.
Another reason why fears of dispute may be unfounded is the fact that China lacks any semblance of geographical claim in the Arctic, unlike in the South China Sea, said Andrew Holland, director of studies and senior fellow for energy and climate at non-partisan research organization American Security Project.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/14/china-we-are-a-near-arctic-state-and-we-want-a-polar-silk-road.html
China: We are a 'Near-Arctic State' and we want a 'Polar Silk Road'
he crux of the issue, according to many analysts, is that the Arctic could tip the already rising tensions between the U.S. and China, but the situation may have been exaggerated, according to Zhang.
"Many experts are pointing to the South China Sea dispute as the eventual outcome to China's Arctic involvement, but the strategic value of the Arctic simply does not make sense for China to engage in confrontational behavior," Zhang said.
This is because "even though the Arctic Circle contains large amounts of untapped resources, as well as being a potential trade route, the full potential of the Arctic to become commercially viable seems to be at least a decade away," the Stratfor analyst said.
In the South China Sea, a resource-rich and strategic region where several nations have claims, China has ignored maritime law and a legally binding tribunal ruling by building islands there.
Another reason why fears of dispute may be unfounded is the fact that China lacks any semblance of geographical claim in the Arctic, unlike in the South China Sea, said Andrew Holland, director of studies and senior fellow for energy and climate at non-partisan research organization American Security Project.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/14/china-we-are-a-near-arctic-state-and-we-want-a-polar-silk-road.html
This thread is way off topic - I just realized eyephone's original question was "should he get back into oil" - 3 years ago -- was the correct question to ask , and assuming he did do something about it, a decent tactical investment at the time
Anyways we are yet again drowning in loads of hyperbole, so I will do a quick cliff notes version for the benefit of anyone who is still browsing through this and then I will shut up --
The story of oil is very simple -- supply and demand. Everyone remembers how expensive oil was in mid 2000s to 2008 ? that was when emerging countries (china etc) were investing at breakneck pace and were devouring massive amounts of oil - that incidentally, also led to inflation creeping into every other commodity (since oil is used to transport them all). Up until now OPEC and Russia are in charge since they have the largest reserves. So far US is only producing from conventional wells
At this point there is no policy (republicans or democrat) strangling or promoting oil - it is just that drilling for oil is primarily in offshore and conventional wells. that are in decline and production cant keep pace with demand. fracking is still in experimental stages
Fast forward to 2012 - now fracking has really matured, costs for materials used to frack has come down, computers are much faster and can be used to map geology better for precise drilling -- and American entrepreneurs never let a good opportunity go to waste - so Texas and Oklahoma become ground zero for this new growth in US oil production called the "shale revolution " .
Funny thing about shale is - it holds lots and lots of oil which was there all along but the tech was not there to exploit it -- so overnight (not literally but metaphorically) , US reserves balloon and production forecasts go up. Imports start to go down. Now the world is awash in oil - which would be fine but what happens next ? emerging markets (including China) hit a rough patch in 2015 -- so demand goes down and now we are in a freefall in oil prices.
But as with all things - cure for low prices is ? Low prices . Prices drop enough that production starts to get shut off and this coupled with OPEC's continued production cuts starts to balance the oil market.
It is as simple as that. Conspiracy theorists read too much into everything , but this is all there is to it.
Anyways we are yet again drowning in loads of hyperbole, so I will do a quick cliff notes version for the benefit of anyone who is still browsing through this and then I will shut up --
The story of oil is very simple -- supply and demand. Everyone remembers how expensive oil was in mid 2000s to 2008 ? that was when emerging countries (china etc) were investing at breakneck pace and were devouring massive amounts of oil - that incidentally, also led to inflation creeping into every other commodity (since oil is used to transport them all). Up until now OPEC and Russia are in charge since they have the largest reserves. So far US is only producing from conventional wells
At this point there is no policy (republicans or democrat) strangling or promoting oil - it is just that drilling for oil is primarily in offshore and conventional wells. that are in decline and production cant keep pace with demand. fracking is still in experimental stages
Fast forward to 2012 - now fracking has really matured, costs for materials used to frack has come down, computers are much faster and can be used to map geology better for precise drilling -- and American entrepreneurs never let a good opportunity go to waste - so Texas and Oklahoma become ground zero for this new growth in US oil production called the "shale revolution " .
Funny thing about shale is - it holds lots and lots of oil which was there all along but the tech was not there to exploit it -- so overnight (not literally but metaphorically) , US reserves balloon and production forecasts go up. Imports start to go down. Now the world is awash in oil - which would be fine but what happens next ? emerging markets (including China) hit a rough patch in 2015 -- so demand goes down and now we are in a freefall in oil prices.
But as with all things - cure for low prices is ? Low prices . Prices drop enough that production starts to get shut off and this coupled with OPEC's continued production cuts starts to balance the oil market.
It is as simple as that. Conspiracy theorists read too much into everything , but this is all there is to it.
morekaos
Well-known member
morekaos said:fortune11 said:Ok so we got 660 m barrels in spr some of it sweet , some heavy
Leave aside the question of if refineries can use all of it - as many are configured for one type or the other , we will grant that everything is usable
The price of west Texas crude has fallen from 75 to 66 in a matter of a month ? Was the spr released during this time ? No . Why is it falling ? Maybe concerns around demand slowdown ? Hedge funds liquidating ? Risk parity funds ? General risk off ? No one knows
The crude oil market is global . And how much is global demand? About 110 to 120 million barrels per day - so how many days of demand is the spr ? 6 days !!
How much US shale produce each day ? 11 mm barrels ? Are we hurting saudis or are we hurting ourselves by releasing the spr , which in the best case scenario , Covers only 6 days of demand
And all of thinking - oh we will just trap it at home , I have news for you . Oil market is global and exports are now legal , how will you distinguish what oil is from shale and what is from spr ?
But hey , I can just MAGA !! And high five my fellow buddies on this forum and declare winning . Ignorance is bliss
There, that's better. Let's use your numbers and look at this logically. First, lets say we sell half of the SPR thats around 330 million barrels of oil at a basic cost of around $20 pbl. That would equate to around $20 Billion dollars flowing into the federal coffers....not a bad investment and return for the people. Second, no one could believe that 330 million barrels would hit the market all at once and that the rest of the world would suddenly stop production. Assume all producers remain at their current capacity and we add around 2 million barrels a day to US production and sales. It would take almost half a year to clear the inventory and the addition almost 20% to US sales is significant. Lets say we want to really effect the market price. Front load it and dump 5 million on the market. Believe me, that is swing production control with our hand on the spigot and we could keep that up for months if we wanted to. Third, this sends a message that we are now in the drivers seat as far a swing production is concerned. No OPEC to try and stifle or control us...screw them.
morekaos said:morekaos said:fortune11 said:Ok so we got 660 m barrels in spr some of it sweet , some heavy
Leave aside the question of if refineries can use all of it - as many are configured for one type or the other , we will grant that everything is usable
The price of west Texas crude has fallen from 75 to 66 in a matter of a month ? Was the spr released during this time ? No . Why is it falling ? Maybe concerns around demand slowdown ? Hedge funds liquidating ? Risk parity funds ? General risk off ? No one knows
The crude oil market is global . And how much is global demand? About 110 to 120 million barrels per day - so how many days of demand is the spr ? 6 days !!
How much US shale produce each day ? 11 mm barrels ? Are we hurting saudis or are we hurting ourselves by releasing the spr , which in the best case scenario , Covers only 6 days of demand
And all of thinking - oh we will just trap it at home , I have news for you . Oil market is global and exports are now legal , how will you distinguish what oil is from shale and what is from spr ?
But hey , I can just MAGA !! And high five my fellow buddies on this forum and declare winning . Ignorance is bliss
There, that's better. Let's use your numbers and look at this logically. First, lets say we sell half of the SPR thats around 330 million barrels of oil at a basic cost of around $20 pbl. That would equate to around $20 Billion dollars flowing into the federal coffers....not a bad investment and return for the people. Second, no one could believe that 330 million barrels would hit the market all at once and that the rest of the world would suddenly stop production. Assume all producers remain at their current capacity and we add around 2 million barrels a day to US production and sales. It would take almost half a year to clear the inventory and the addition almost 20% to US sales is significant. Lets say we want to really effect the market price. Front load it and dump 5 million on the market. Believe me, that is swing production control with our hand on the spigot and we could keep that up for months if we wanted to. Third, this sends a message that we are now in the drivers seat as far a swing production is concerned. No OPEC to try and stifle or control us...screw them.
But the oil price already went down 15 percent without all this
Do you know why
Let?s say we depress it short term by another 20 percent doing what you say
Then the oil producing red states go through a slowdown again like they did back in 2015
Do repubs want that ?
And then what happens to the ?strategic ? part of the strategic petroleum reserve . What if then, we really need to use it ?
morekaos
Well-known member
Again, I'm not advocating for driving oil back to $27 a barrel. I think a stable price of around $60 a barrel is most desirable. At that price consumers are fine with it and producers are still profitable. The policy of selling from the SPR gives US control of price stability. What people did not realize was our ability to adjust to price elasticity because our production is just sitting in some guys back yard not bundled up in a $20 billion dollar deep water rig that has to keep pumping no matter what the price of oil. Producers, and more importantly banks, realized that all we needed to do was cork it up and wait. The oil in bob's back yard wasn't going anywhere and now you had a proven reserve just sitting there till prices recovered. Banks did not foreclose and when prices recovered we just uncorked and pumped. Now our SPR is always available so no need to keep it separated, we still can maintain 330 MBL if you want but thats all.
Perspective
Well-known member
It's right there in the Constitution. The state shall intervene in any market where the price exceeds acceptable boundaries, and return it to the desired level.
morekaos
Well-known member
Irvinecommuter said:
Don't believe what they spoon feed the world...actions speak louder than words.
The U.S. Coal Export Boom To Asia
Globally, coal is even more alive. "Think the Big Banks Have Abandoned Coal? Think Again." Even a solar magazine admits: "China to add 259 GW of coal capacity, satellite imagery shows." For reference, 259 GW is more than twice the amount of power capacity that mighty Texas has FROM ALL SOURCES.
Now Asia - which accounts for close to 80% of total global coal usage - is increasingly turning to the U.S. to supply coal. We are still the world's third largest coal producer. The U.S. supplies both types, met coal to produce steel and steam coal to produce electricity. "U.S. coal exports increased by 61% in 2017 as exports to Asia more than doubled."
The U.S. has a 360-year supply of coal to bolster our expanding export market. The trade war with the U.S. however, could have China looking to expand domestic supply, and the country's coal production caps have been found to be "technically infeasible."
The fact is that both China (65%) and India (75%) are hugely dependent upon coal-based electricity, which will be needed in even bigger quantities to lift their low Human Development Index closer to those in the West, where universal electricity access has more people living better and longer. Can you really blame them? "The Statistical Connection Between Electricity and Human Development."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2018/10/07/the-u-s-coal-export-boom-to-china/#4b956e883454
U.S. coal exports increased by 61% in 2017 as exports to Asia more than doubled
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35852
Perspective
Well-known member
morekaos said:
You now can never on this board, complain about anything being "un-Constitutional," without being called out.