|
Rand alPaul posted:Why would they label it that way? Per capita *consumption* makes sense but production seems weird. I suppose a higher per capita production means that you could provide more social benefits to the populace.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
Rand alPaul posted:I had no clue Kuwait was outproducing Saudi Arabia. Those numbers don't make sense at all. I think they are figures on consumption but don't take the export of refined products into account or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Lagotto posted:Those numbers don't make sense at all. I think they are figures on consumption but don't take the export of refined products into account or something. Yes, it's per capita consumption - I fail at explaining. My point was that oil subsidies result in extremely high consumption and eat into the amount of oil they can export. Basically, the government is spending money to burn oil which in turn limits exports and revenue. Saudi Arabia can't afford it anymore but their whole society is based on cheap energy on every level. Scaling back the subsidies is going to be a clusterfuck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 08:29
|
|
|
There's a nice graph out there over the increasing amount of oil going to internal consumption in Saudiland etc, more than negating any increase in production.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Yes, it's per capita consumption - I fail at explaining. My point was that oil subsidies result in extremely high consumption and eat into the amount of oil they can export. Basically, the government is spending money to burn oil which in turn limits exports and revenue. Saudi Arabia can't afford it anymore but their whole society is based on cheap energy on every level. Scaling back the subsidies is going to be a clusterfuck. I think they labeled Norway as Netherlands, with a production of less then 30.000 barrels per day Netherlands makes no sense for it to be in this table.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 10:47
|
|
|
CeeJee posted:I think they labeled Norway as Netherlands, with a production of less then 30.000 barrels per day Netherlands makes no sense for it to be in this table. Plus our Dutch gas drilling is now results in continuous earthquakes that are loving up peoples' homes left and right and the government has been trying to deny this is happening for years. Mainly because it all takes place in the North and nobody cares about what goes on there. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/10/shell-exxon-gas-drilling-sets-off-earthquakes-wrecks-homes quote:As more gas was extracted – the field is about two-thirds empty now – pressure changes deep underground become more severe and unpredictable. Nearly 1,000 manmade earthquakes, ranging from 0.1 to 3.6 on the Richter scale, have occurred in Groningen since the early 1990s. A 3.6 magnitude earthquake is not a terrifying experience, although in 2012 it was strong enough to shake groceries off the shelves in a Groningen shop. But because the earthquakes take place at the shallow depth of 3km, and many Groningen buildings are built on soft clay, the damage caused is greater than their small Richter-scale magnitudes suggest. The whole article is worth a moment of your time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
CeeJee posted:I think they labeled Norway as Netherlands, with a production of less then 30.000 barrels per day Netherlands makes no sense for it to be in this table.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 12:08
|
|
|
CeeJee posted:I think they labeled Norway as Netherlands, with a production of less then 30.000 barrels per day Netherlands makes no sense for it to be in this table. No, it's consumption, not production, per capita. Norway is all about cheap hydro electricity which they use for heating while, lately, paying people to drive Teslas and other electrics. Essentially, Norway spends money to limit domestic oil consumption so they rank much lower. Conversely, the Arab oil states have been spending money to maximize domestic oil consumption, for 50 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:In someways but not others. Its great if you own a man-camp, not so great if your roads are ruined by trucks and you can't drive when it rains. Its great for the truck stop but not so great for the kids at the county park. In Appalachian basin, most (if not all) states require roads to be bonded prior to use. Every utilized road is repaired after (and during) that period. God help you if one of your subs tries to use the first 50ft of an unbonded road to to turn around because you're going to be slammed with a mid five figure fine. Mercury_Storm posted:Also not so great when the Governor gives his new oil pals insane deals so they pay extremely low to no taxes. I'm sure the local Hilton gets a big influx of cash, but lol. I would like to see these no tax states. If you're talking about PA, it sure is a shame that the impact tax is only distributed to impacted rural areas instead of being diverted to those big cities who have no skin in the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There are lots of states where the legislature is in the pocket of industry and it doesn't matter what the local community or government tries to do, the state shuts it down.... Weird. Around here anyway, the locals are almost always strongly pro-development. Any opposition to projects comes from distant, urban dwellers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
gaj70 posted:Weird. Around here anyway, the locals are almost always strongly pro-development. Any opposition to projects comes from distant, urban dwellers. Could be that that's because we end up footing the bill when "development" ends up doing things like leaching pollutants into the groundwater, and meanwhile the locals buy jetskis and fishing tackle and bitch about how they aren't getting a six lane superhighway built so that "development" can go even faster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Could be that that's because we end up footing the bill when "development" ends up doing things like leaching pollutants into the groundwater Fair enough, and in addition, the locals get most of the benefits. But those concerns aren't really a reason to oppose/prevent development. They are just reasons to be concerned that the development is up-to-code and there is sufficient bonding in place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
I hope every oil company goes under and all the countries that rely on oil for GDP also go under and everything just goes under and we all live underground from now on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:In Appalachian basin, most (if not all) states require roads to be bonded prior to use. Every utilized road is repaired after (and during) that period. God help you if one of your subs tries to use the first 50ft of an unbonded road to to turn around because you're going to be slammed with a mid five figure fine. Yeah the laws of this nation aren't all alike. Also, only 36 states have a severance tax. gaj70 posted:Weird. Around here anyway, the locals are almost always strongly pro-development. Any opposition to projects comes from distant, urban dwellers. Some basins are actually in urban areas. Other times, the communities where the damage impacts (near sites, downstream) aren't the same communities where the economic boom hits (near highways or existing O&G infrastructure).
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
I like how people keep trying the smug "you're always gonna need oil" line when non-transit/electricity uses of oil are like less than 10% of total production. I don't want all oil production to go away in favor of nuclear, just 90% of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I like how people keep trying the smug "you're always gonna need oil" line when non-transit/electricity uses of oil are like less than 10% of total production. I am not a refiner, but if per barrel the produced naphtha stays at only 10% and we can dump the other 90% back into the ground, I am assuming the costs for plastics will become so prohibitive that we will not be making plastics based on crude anymore either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Lagotto posted:I am not a refiner, but if per barrel the produced naphtha stays at only 10% and we can dump the other 90% back into the ground, I am assuming the costs for plastics will become so prohibitive that we will not be making plastics based on crude anymore either. I'm OK with the cost of raw plastic feedstock increasing significantly, since it represents a very small percentage of the cost of a finished plastic good. Bioplastics, where they can be used (I loving get it, they can't be used everywhere), are another alternative.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Yeah honestly if the oil industry shrunk to be like 15% of what it is now, we'd have more than enough for every non-energy/fuel use, we'd nearly get rid of a horribly polluting industry, and it would probably extend world wide expectations on sustainability, since we'd have a lot more to call on, and no longer be at risk of quickly running out within a few generations. and just like with coal miners, no, I don't think that having 85% of people in the oil industry lose their job is a valid reason to keep the industry around, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
In the future we will mine landfills for plastic. I seriously believe this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
KittyEmpress posted:I don't think that having 85% of people in the oil industry lose their job is a valid reason to keep the industry around, sorry. Tbh we (oil workers) are pretty big pieces of poo poo for directly contributing to global warming. We probably need rehabilitation or something in order to become worthwhile people who don't put our own income before literally anything else. I know that the unemployment is pretty bad without oil, but eesh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
go3 posted:No a bunch of dudes showing up, wrecking everything and buying a bunch of beer and spending the rest on strippers is not a great boost to the economy. This is exactly right. I live in Bismarck, so about, what--250 miles southeast of Williston as the crow flies? Unless you happened to be employed in an industry that serviced the oil companies or employees directly--like hotels/motels, restaurants, property owners/rental agents, retail, and the like--you didn't benefit at all from the influx of oil money but you sure felt the financial pinch when prices started to rise. Especially in the area of housing, both sales and rental, prices sky-rocketed; maybe not as much as in Williston, where some apartments were priced at $1000 per bedroom and cost as much or more than most apartments in Manhattan. My employer, which is based on the east coast, was adamant about not raising salaries until they were here for a week of meetings early last year and found out that starting wages at fast-food restaurants were butting right up against ours. Heck, there were 20-year-old mobile/manufactured homes selling for $45k plus, and I'm not talking about the double-wides or whatever they call the ones that look like stick-build homes. Houses that would have sold for $100k five years ago were going for close to $250k. Renting was no solution because, unless you were fortunate, it was difficult to find a nice, clean apartment for under $1200+/month. And this was all taking place way down here. A friend's parent works at the hospital in Williston and would tell us about what was going on up there on home visits (she kept her home here and rented up there). People who had lived in the same apartment for years were forced to move because the property owner doubled, tripled, and in some cases quadrupled the rent when the lease was up simply because they knew they could get it. So yeah...shale oil revenue may have helped swell our state surplus to $1B+ (last I heard) but they were one of the few entities that actually benefited.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Celot posted:Tbh we (oil workers) are pretty big pieces of poo poo for directly contributing to global warming. We probably need rehabilitation or something in order to become worthwhile people who don't put our own income before literally anything else. I know that the unemployment is pretty bad without oil, but eesh. Reeducation sounds expensive. Would you be alright with some form of exile?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:In the future we will mine landfills for plastic. I seriously believe this. Eh, probably. We do that for metals right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Reeducation sounds expensive. Would you be alright with some form of exile? I hereby BANISH all surplus drill crews to their choice of either Phuket Thailand, Bali Indonesia, Jaco Costa Rica, or an equivalent third world beach town with a low cost of living and an adequate supply of brothels; for a period of no less than two years or until crude sells above $50 a barrel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I hereby BANISH all surplus drill crews to their choice of either Phuket Thailand, Bali Indonesia, Jaco Costa Rica, or an equivalent third world beach town with a low cost of living and an adequate supply of brothels; for a period of no less than two years or until crude sells above $50 a barrel. Don't bogart my good ideas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Has there been any study on what happens to the petrol states if say, the price remains low enough for long enough or we pass peak oil consumption and they can never again feed their lifestyles on highly subsidised internal consumption? I'm imagining SA having a high amount of things like gas powered generators because they can and then everything going to poo poo infrastructure wise because of the loss of government price support.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I'm OK with the cost of raw plastic feedstock increasing significantly, since it represents a very small percentage of the cost of a finished plastic good. Bioplastics, where they can be used (I loving get it, they can't be used everywhere), are another alternative. As I understand, various people have invented a number of methods for recycling plastic (and other organic matter in some cases) into oil - they've just been mostly forgotten because they'd need oil way more expensive than it's ever been to be profitable. Though I'm sure it would be nice to be able to recycle any kind of plastic into any other kind of plastic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Graedyn posted:... Yes, having your house appreciate 250% in five years must be rough. I hear lottery winners have a surprisingly tough life, too. In all seriousness, North Dakota is about as god-forsaken a place as you'll find on Earth. Before the oil boom, I actually did a back-of-the-envelope calculation (just going price per acre for grazing/rec land X number of acres) and calculated you could have bought the entire state for a few billion dollars
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
gaj70 posted:Yes, having your house appreciate 250% in five years must be rough. I hear lottery winners have a surprisingly tough life, too. Housing value is irrelevant if you're not flipping it. In fact its probably detrimental since you're now eating higher property taxes to go along with a higher overall cost of living while not actually making any more money if you're in a non-oil industry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Rig counts are ticking down again, although Canadas is in some sort of jojo loop where +/-80 at a week are not uncommon. I'm not too read up on why that is a thing, but perhaps fewer players/winter weather?quote:The number of rigs drilling for oil in the U.S. dipped by five from last week down to 510 rigs, while the rigs seeking gas dropped by eight down to only 127 rigs. The oil rig count is now down more than 68 percent from its peak of 1,609 in October 2014 before oil prices began plummeting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 11:29
|
|
|
gaj70 posted:Yes, having your house appreciate 250% in five years must be rough. I hear lottery winners have a surprisingly tough life, too. A friend of mine makes crazy oil money (or did before the crash) for just that reason. His great-aunt bought a bunch of land outside of Minot back in the 70's to raise horses on because it was cheap as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
The Republicans in Congress finally managed to get the oil export ban lifted, which has for the most part been met with 'meh' from the industry. Who was pushing this hard enough for it to be a political issue? The only benefit I can see is internal supply chain fuckery from multinationals moving it to easier/cheaper to refine locals and such. It doesn't exactly 'open new markets for us oil' and it's doubtful it ever would considering costs to produce.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Opec, being the aparent adults in the room, has been hinting along with Russia that they would be open to production cuts provided other nations (hello usa) were willing to join in. In this type of prisoners delima nonsense that only the free market can create: IOCs and local producers, bound by shareholder responsibility, continue to vigorously punch their own balls hoping someone else will step up and take the pain so they don't have to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
US companies would probably just laugh. No one is going to trust a pack of Oil Sheikhs, the Iranians, and Vlad loving Putin to hold to a deal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Pretty sure it would be a crime for us producers to work together to limit production, that's like a textbook illegal cartel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
I'm not really suggesting it be done, just musing at the absurdity of the whole thing. I do see the appeal of something like strong US control of production, import/export, even price controls on gas and oil, etc... Acelerion fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Acelerion posted:Opec, being the aparent adults in the room, has been hinting along with Russia that they would be open to production cuts provided other nations (hello usa) were willing to join in. Cartels are actually uncool and not good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Pretty sure it would be a crime for us producers to work together to limit production, that's like a textbook illegal cartel. Waivers to antitrust laws have been given on that topic many times in the past because foreign governments (middle easterners especially) would only recognized US producers as one entity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Waivers to antitrust laws have been given on that topic many times in the past because foreign governments (middle easterners especially) would only recognized US producers as one entity. I'm intrigued, can you give a specific example? What industry has this happened in?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 18:27
|
|