patrick.net

smaulgld says

Are Lower Oil Prices the Result of a Directive from The U.S. to Saudi Arabia to Harm Russia?

Of course not! At what cost? Strengthening China?

Peter P says

Of course not! At what cost? Strengthening China?

Its not a policy choice, its a function of the market- if the price is too low for shale oil companies to make money how will they pay back the billions in loans they took out to finance their projects?

smaulgld says

Peter P says

Of course not! At what cost? Strengthening China?

Its not a policy choice, its a function of the market- if the price is too low for shale oil companies to make money how will they pay back the billions in loans they took out to finance their projects?

What does that have anything to do with Russia?

Peter P says

What does that have anything to do with Russia?

Nothing to do with Russia

smaulgld says

Peter P says

What does that have anything to do with Russia?

Nothing to do with Russia

I was responding to:

smaulgld says

Are Lower Oil Prices the Result of a Directive from The U.S. to Saudi Arabia to Harm Russia?

Peter P says

I was responding to:

smaulgld says

Are Lower Oil Prices the Result of a Directive from The U.S. to Saudi Arabia to Harm Russia?

Got it sorry. Agree I don't think that is the prime motivation for the Saudi's lowering oil prices, I think its the second question- they want to kill shale

smaulgld says

I think its the second question- they want to kill shale

Absolutely. Both shale and "renewable" energy will be hit very hard.

Note that alternative energy poses a much bigger existential threat to OPEC because a paradigm shift may occur at some point.

Shale Oil is a mere competitor.

Maybe they bought some cheap oil from ISIS and they want to unload it. Maessing with shale would be an after thought.

Then again maybe projections of shale oil, and the prospect of the keystone pipeline scarred them, relative to the dropping price of solar and other green energies. So they decided to stop holding out for higher prices for now.

For those that believe that the climate scientists are actually scientists, and not paid shills for Al Gore, this is bad news.

I get it that some people have the luxury of believing whatever they want to believe, however stupid it is. For some of us though, who deal in facts and reality, there is a significant chance (not certainty - of course we don't know with certainty) that even current levels of carbon in the atmosphere are a big problem. Cheap oil might postpone how quickly we transition to clean energy.

So yeah, I have mixed feelings about it. Fortunately many countries are still paying way over $5 and they are as motivated as ever to swith over to cleaner forms of energy.

marcus says

Cheap oil might postpone how quickly we transition to clean energy.

Yep and that may be another factor- Saudi Arabia acting to stop ANY form of an alternative to their oil

marcus says

I get it that some people have the luxury of believing whatever they want to believe, however stupid it is.

The best thing to do is:

1. believe that the climate is changing
2. reject any measure to combat climate change
3. prepare to profit when climate change presents opportunities

Peter P says

2. reject any measure to combat climate change

reject? why not encourage measures to increase climate change activities?

smaulgld says

Peter P says

2. reject any measure to combat climate change

reject? why not encourage measures to increase climate change activities?

Fine. Maybe I do need to get that SUV. :-)

Peter P says

Fine. Maybe I do need to get that SUV. :-)

SUV?-don't you need a few of them?

smaulgld says

Peter P says

Fine. Maybe I do need to get that SUV. :-)

SUV?-don't you need a few of them?

Why? I can drive only one at a time anyway. :-)

But seriously, believing in climate change is one thing, believing in our ability to reverse its effects is another matter. The former is reasonable. The latter is not. We should therefore concentrate our efforts on dealing with the inevitable.

Peter P says

But seriously, believing in climate change is one thing, believing in our ability to reverse its effects is another matter. The former is reasonable. The latter is not. We should therefore concentrate our efforts on dealing with the inevitable.

True my vote is to focus on known pollution - rather than carbon which is a beneficial element

smaulgld says

Peter P says

But seriously, believing in climate change is one thing, believing in our ability to reverse its effects is another matter. The former is reasonable. The latter is not. We should therefore concentrate our efforts on dealing with the inevitable.

True my vote is to focus on known pollution - rather than carbon which is a beneficial element

Yep. We should focus on our quality of life. There are still many forms of health-related pollution to tackle.

Peter P says

Yep. We should focus on our quality of life. There are still many forms of health-related pollution to tackle.

Quantifiable steps that can be taken that are not contentious and subject to political bickering and battles of scientists trying to prove or disprove climate change

smaulgld says

and battles of scientists trying to prove or disprove climate change

There aren't any. The debate is over.

Whew, how 'bout that cheap gas?

CaptainShuddup says

Whew, how 'bout that cheap gas?

For how long? Probably about six months and then it will whipsaw higher as they try to recoup their losses having inflicted a death blow to the shale oil industry

HydroCabron says

smaulgld says

and battles of scientists trying to prove or disprove climate change

There aren't any. The debate is over.

Yep the sun revolves around the earth its settled

smaulgld says

Yep the sun revolves around the earth its settled

It is a matter of perspective. Granted, as a planet, the sun never goes retrograde. Hmm, why is that?

smaulgld says

Got it sorry. Agree I don't think that is the prime motivation for the Saudi's lowering oil prices, I think its the second question- they want to kill shale

Absolutely. Fracking needs high priced oil to be economic.

thunderlips11 says

Absolutely. Fracking needs high priced oil to be economic.

Kills two birds with one stone- S.A. harms a competitor in shale and hits Russia/Syria too
After six months or so after many fracking companies go bust, they will raise the price again

You bet. Of course, ISIS in Syria is a two-benefit aim for Saudi Arabia: A friendly Taliban-esque Wahabi Government, AND clears the way for the Gulf-Turkey pipeline. Good position to attack Hizbollah in Lebanon and destroy the Shi'ites, Alawites, Christians, and other Heretic/Infidel scum.

The terror attacks in Grozny were no accident either. More Saudi Merican unholy alliance.

CaptainShuddup says

If gas spikes up after 100's of thousands of jobs have been added, then it kills those jobs.

high paying jobs will be lost in the energy sector -any short term boost from lower prices will fade as businesses won't be able to plan on the lower oil costs.
consumer spending may increase but again that will be temporary
Gaining spending while losing part of a productive energy industry is NOT a good thing

Shale extraction can only get cheaper, by virtue of technology. On the other hand, cheap oil in the Middle East can only be depleted. By then, the US shale reserve will prove to be extremely valuable.

Peter P says

Shale extraction can only get cheaper, by virtue of technology. On the other hand, cheap oil in the Middle East can only be depleted. By then, the US shale reserve will prove to be extremely valuable.

Good point but the losses in the interim need to be borne

smaulgld says

Peter P says

Shale extraction can only get cheaper, by virtue of technology. On the other hand, cheap oil in the Middle East can only be depleted. By then, the US shale reserve will prove to be extremely valuable.

Good point but the losses in the interim need to be borne

True.

Peter P says

True.

and if they stop production and lose workers how long before they can get started again?

Technological solutions almost always require additional inputs. Often rare materials or moar energy.

smaulgld says

Peter P says

True.

and if they stop production and lose workers how long before they can get started again?

Much faster than reviving a dead renewable energy program. Besides, the government can now stockpile a reserve at this low, low prices.

Peter P says

Much faster than reviving a dead renewable energy program. Besides, the government can now stockpile a reserve at this low, low prices.

They could stock pile IF they continue to produce, but they will curb production so there won't be much to stockpile

smaulgld says

They could stock pile IF they continue to produce, but they will curb production so there won't be much to stockpile

They can stockpile cheap imported oil.

Peter P says

They can stockpile cheap imported oil.

They can but that doesn't help the shale industry

BTW traffic is a BITCH again!

CaptainShuddup says

BTW traffic is a BITCH again!

This is why we should make all roads toll-roads.

Volume accounts for a lot. You guys are still silly, you do realize this is still the SAME industry that has boasted record Trillion dollar month over month sales, for the last 7 to 8 years?

OPEC and now the Tar sands can do a volume business. Production is a cheap traveling circus operation. It's developed already guys. Better fire up that "Peak Oil" fear mongering percolator, the "Woa's me Po' ole ME, I'm losin' my money! Oil is so LOW!" shit really isn't going to fly around these parts.

Peter P says

CaptainShuddup says

BTW traffic is a BITCH again!

This is why we should make all roads toll-roads.

Why those people are going somewhere to either make money or spend money, or quite possibly most are just out wasting money. But still it's honest money flowing on the highways for once. Instead of through the QE printing Quantifier.

Bless their non driving little hearts, I hate them all and they are all in my way. But it's good to see them back.