Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/21/2019 in all areas

  1. 14 points
    Have you ever personally seen what it takes to get a barrel of oil out of the ground and into a barrel? I doubt it; correct me if I'm wrong. Do you have any idea of history? With barrels of oil in reserve, we're about right: no less, no more. IMO-2020 takes place January 1, 2020. Do you have any idea what it's going to cost to transport a VLCC full of oil to China after the low-sulfur bans are in place? I didn't think so. Do you have any idea what the Saudis have in reserve? I don't either, but it's a given that it's less than they had five years ago. Occidental has ten billion borrowed at 8% interest--but they're trying to sell property. Continental is doing okay. Hess is also doing okay. Several small players are doing okay. Some are going to go broke, but you know what, it's not their money----it's funny money, from pooled investors, pay your way and find your way. Secretary Perry doesn't have a f****** clue. The Department of Energy is one of the departments he claimed he was going to eliminate when he was campaigning for president. He forgot its name on stage! And now he's head of it! Does that not strike you as ironic? Whether Perry's guess is right or Goldman Sachs has it right is of very little significance: it is what is is. And what it is is a market, with fear and greed moving it, along with surplus and . . . ultimately, shortages. But I'll damn sure guarantee you one thing: the world is NOT currently awash in oil. The world's storage is just about on par. The world's proved up reserves are no longer even verifiable; if they were the Saudi Aramco IPO would be ongoing. In truth, the world doesn't have a clue what the reserves are, and which ones will be used. Most of the articles on Oilprice are meant to scare people, written by someone like you: who hasn't a brain cell's idea of what it's like to go take a risk, bring up a barrel of oil, try to peddle it. It's just bullshit. I don't mind you saying it, but I do want to call it out as bullshit. It's not even provocative.
  2. 12 points
    After researching Polar bears, this professor concluded that their populations were actually thriving, counter to what previous scientist have said. The polar bear has been a poster child for global warming alarmist, their plight analogous to so many other species if the global warming crisis isn't abated. So, when a scientist's comes out with evidence contrary to that narrative, the thing to do would be to peer review the research and confirm its validity, right? Nope, these days that professor is fired, their academic credentials discredited, and their research is ignored. Climate alarmists rely on broken and politicised pseudo-science. Evidence to the contrary is completely ignored or treated as hostile. Only the most extreme consequences are endorsed as it fits the sensationalism of the alarmist narrative better. Speak out against that narrative, with credible research, and you're fired. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/20/susan-crockford-fired-after-finding-polar-bears-th/ If this kind of thing isn't a red flag to people in the alarmist camp, then what is? To be 100% clear, I'm not suggesting the research of this scientist negates all other research done by other scientist in the field. I just think it's incredible that taking a opposing stance to what is popular means you should be fired. Science is about being skeptical and challenging ideas. If healthy skepticism and reviews aren't encouraged, then it's all unsubstantiated drivel.
  3. 11 points
    Still, tribute needs to be paid to Aubrey McClendon and Tom Ward. Mr. George Mitchell made fracking for natural gas a reality down in the Barnett Shale, but it was Aubrey who latched onto the concept and developed the Haynesville Field. Remember, before those two events, the United States was screaming, our presidents saying that we were going to run out of natural gas. Aubrey was a gun-loving gunslinger who overpaid for minerals more than I do, and that's saying something. God bless him, he didn't realize the magnitude of what he'd wrought until it was too late. Everyone was used to conventional wells. He saw these gigantic numbers and swung a deal with the board so he could take a pretty good percentage of each well. By the time he realized the rapid decline curve, it was too late. He would still have been alright if he hadn't played the stock market so hard. Anyway, while the history of fracking is long (creek water jazzed with napalm pumped into a well in the old Kanas Hugoton Field), it was Mr. Mitchell who discovered the sickness, McClendon who created an epidemic, and people have had fracking fever ever since. Chesapeake would likely have survived if Aubrey had . . . he was so charismatic he could not only get gas out of a rock, blood out of a turnip, but money from the tightest-fisted Wall Street banker. Looking backward, it seems like they were drunken fools. However, during a precarious time in history, the frackers--especially those at Chesapeake--made us secure in the knowledge that domestic natural gas was in abundance. And God bless them for that.
  4. 10 points
    Readers here should remember that the US Bankruptcy Courts are NOT what they are in say the UK or Canada. The BK courts exist for the specific purpose, declared by Congressional Statute, of rehabilitation of the Debtor. Usually, this means that the secured creditors get together and agree on a rehabilitation plan, which may (and typically does) result in some haircuts, and the unsecured creditors get a few pennies on the dollar. If there are wage contracts that are onerous, the Court disposes of them. If there are supplier contracts that are onerous, including royalty contracts, the Court disposes of them, also. Bankruptcy Court is designed, not to "fold" a company, but to rehabilitate it - and that process can be brutal on creditors. Just to give you a bit of the flavor of how this works, I glance over to the United Airlines bankruptcy. Now, in its heyday, Xerox was making a ton of money. So some bright young hire from some MBA School suggested that Xerox set up Xerox Leasing, and purchase and finance fancy aircraft from Boeing and lease them to United, so that United could have a straight operating lease, and Xerox could capture the depreciation to offset against other income. Sounded great, the young maverick finance guys at Xerox all got bonuses for their brilliant thinking - and United headed into the ashcan. In the bankruptcy, due to the collapse of air travel after 9/11, United went back to those Xerox guys and said, in effect: "You know those fancy planes you have on lease to us for $200,000 a month? Well, from here on it, you get $50,000 a month. You don't like it, we will fly the planes to that boneyard in Arizona, you can go pick them up any time." Now, what is Xerox going to do with all those planes? There is no market for them. Who is your customer going to be? Air Zanzibar? Air Congo? Those guys don't have any money. You are stuck. You have exactly one customer - United Airlines, and they both cannot pay you that 200K, and have no inclination to pay you. So you eat it and take that 50K, it is still the best deal you can find. Otherwise your planes pay you zero sitting out there in the desert. So Xerox takes the deal, eats the losses, and fires the smart MBA types who dreamed up that folly. And what you learn from this is that the BK Court can whack you in the shorts if you are a creditor, so don't get all carried away with your subordinates' bright ideas, most are folly soon enough. Now, back to the oil patch: How about these Chesapeake guys? Can they pull it off in a Chapter 11? Well, if there is a Battle Plan (known as the Chapter ll Plan of Rehabilitation), and you can float it past the Chapter 11 Trustee and the US Trustee and the BK Court Judge, then you can pull it off because you have cost-shifted some of your debts onto the shoulders of your creditors. It does not stop you from drilling, from pumping, from selling. What it does do is put a halt to your bleeding, to service the old debt. Valving off debt is a specialty of the BK COurts. If you are the creditor, now is the time to start quaking in your boots. Don't ever delude yourself that a bankruptcy petition is the end of the road for any company. As long as there is no Section 363 bid for the assets of the company that the US Trustee is going to support as being in the best interests of the parties before the Courts, it is the creditors, not the Debtor, that will be on the losing end, when the dust settles. That is how it works in the admittedly unique US system.
  5. 9 points
    Scott Sheffield is a very smart man who bought most of Pioneer's acreage in the Permian when prices were still low. He has always looked at this problem with light tight oil through the lenses of his own price point. His son, who started Parsley, did almost as well. I'm sure their dinner table and boardroom talk is based on their low entry prices. As the first CEO of Pioneer, now doing a repeat performance to rescue the company from ruin, he has always been a cheerleader for his company and shale oil in particular, much like the late Aubrey McClendon did. Aubrey didn't seem to realize that in cheerleading and putting the pedal to the metal he was actually driving down the price of gas. Scott is similar with oil. He's also a Texas, born and raised, and doesn't see too many Teslas on his way to the Petroleum Club for lunch. Where I live, if I make the two-mile trek to the ACE Hardware store, I will meet a dozen Teslas and there will be twenty in the parking lot. The United States is growing more divisive by the day . . . and that hasn't spared attitudes about electric vehicles. Personally, I wouldn't ride in a Tesla if you gave me the car. I think the EV world is largely hype, and when you dig deeper, into the methods of obtaining cobalt from the Congo, the petrochemical cost of the battery, chassis, the wheels and rubber, it's going to take a mighty long time to get to the breakeven point on carbon footprints, as they like to say. It's a bit like Al Gore flying around a million miles a year preaching to the rest of us pudknockers about saving the planet. So I say, give old Scott a break--he's not a bad guy and he's talking his book. Opinions are like assholes: everyone has one. Mine is unique to me, of course: I think we will wallow around a bit, mainly because the Saudis can't force themselves to make the two million barrel a day cuts they need to make. Then they will, because things will get rough. And then, and only then, will oil prices reach $100. Peak oil demand? I have to say, I think old Scott hit the nail on the head--some time after 2030. The middle class is buying cars. EV sales are tapering off. The International Maritime Organization MARPOL mandate of using 0.5% sulfur fuel instead of 3.5% in 60,000 oceangoing freighters is going to literally turn around the global pollution stratosphere. We are still in the tailend of the last Ice Age. So move over, Scott, I'm right there with you. Just talk quieter: the whole damn world is listening, including those morons who want to go all-renewable tomorrow.
  6. 9 points
    No, I don't think I'm onto something at all, but I do know that what you've been posting under the guise of science is pure, unadulterated horse shit. Come back when you've grown up enough to have sampled life. I doubt there's a person on this site who doesn't like animals, but to pin all this on fossil fuels, when they've saved so many lives (think electricity to run ventilators, power operating rooms, make pharmaceuticals) is irresponsible in the extreme. I love polar bears, but they're not my first love. I was a cardiologist for 37 years and I saw your like on a daily basis, a poseur trying to save the world but never did a damn thing to save anything . . . just wrote on places like this, and before the Internet, probably on a bathroom wall. So, big guy, you think you're going to intimidate me? Think again. I personally don't care what you post, for you are smaller than a bacterium to me, but I don't care for your acting self-righteous while you're doing it. Get a life! Do something. Come back and tell us what you did, actually, and that you have some whiskers about life, and then perhaps we'll take you seriously.
  7. 8 points
    All I can tell you, that is pointless to argue with the stupid people like you..... why bother? - You always have to be right. - You react to conflict with anger, and aggression. - You think, you are better than everyone else. - You always blame others. So just going thru your verbal diarrhea, I say enough!!! You won, you are right. Does this fit your definition? No argument from me. I am just passing by. Hope to never hear from you again. But this can be a lofty dream:))
  8. 8 points
    There is a lot of uncertainty surrounding LTO! I have a vested interest. From my angle, with no hard data to show you, but merely thinking as hard as I can in order to preserve my investment capital, it would appear that the sweet spots are going to be almost completely exploited by 2024. The smart guys have designated sweet spots as Tier-1 property. One of the few exciting developments in this business is that occasionally some crazy guy gets it in his head to drill in a spot where the wildcat was a stinker, and occasionally--probably due to newer completion techniques that have been described above--a giant well is hit (Occidental just had one with an IP of about 5,000 blls/d in the Delaware sub-basin; Marathon had a couple very close to that in Dunn county ND). In "normal" times, that would create a flurry of excitement. In this current time, it really doesn't. Why not? Twenty-eight frackers have declared bankruptcy this year. Between 2020-2022, approximately $137B of debt comes due. At this current price of oil, only the sweet spots drilled by very large-scale companies make much money (Exxon stock has been basically dead money). If one assumes that the shale will be fully depleted by 2024, an alternative source has to take its place. Offshore? With shallow-water fields taking 3 years to come online and deepwater about 6 years, there's going to be quite a shortfall. The Teslas seem to be catching on fire. It takes a lot of cobalt and zinc and lithium to build a large storage battery to handle solar and wind down times. How you project the energy future depends on your mindset: I think we'll see fairly inexpensive re-frack jobs in certain areas; others think that's nonsense. "They" (those with a vested interest) say that 60% of the old wells up in the Bakken are great candidates for refracking. Is that true? Who knows. Me? I think we're going to look back on this time as a period of incredible waste. What if we'd (as an oil and gas community) merely exercised the discipline to drill carefully, working within some sort of budget, restricting flaring and letting the price of a barrel of oil reach and maintain its "normal" level of profitability? In the Permian, they're paying people to take away natural gas--by far the cleanest fossil fuel to burn--and billions of dollars worth is being flared. I've made this comparison before but I'm getting long in the tooth so I sometimes repeat my anecdotes: Coffee beans are easy to grow, harvest, roast and serve up. Oil requires a million years at a certain precise temperature and pressure and is also hard to get out of the ground. If you were to roll a new oil barrel into a Starbucks and have them fill it with latte, it would cost about $4600. Talking about trying to wrap your head around something! Yes, the world is awash in oil, but it hasn't been profitable to exploit for several years now--we have, in effect, been in a recession since 2016. The KSA needs $75-80; Iran $185; US shale ? -- probably $75; Vaca Meurto ? -- who in the world is going to try for it at this time?; the Buzios?--it's a six-year lag, so what is it worth? A fair market value for crude oil would take care of environmental remediation. And when a well begins to die it sucks in salt and water. In that salt, in a lot of places, is lithium. For example, in the Paradox Basin, lithium is just about everywhere. All energy sources are going to have to learn to "live with each other," kind of like being married to a wife who hits you every day with a frying pan but the sex is good. Old oil wells can supply many of the rare earth minerals that are needed for batteries. Then, if they are amenable, they can be refracked and we can make another run at it. As you can tell, this is really nothing more than Sunday morning musing to keep from reading in the New York Times about the pending impeachment process whereby the Democrats meet behind locked doors and grill some poor sucker about what happened in Ukraine and the Republicans are all thinking about moving to Florida with the Prez. So, if we have a Civil War in the United States, I think the whole thing will be answered: All the good basins are in Republican states and run by Republicans and the Teslas are all driven by Democrats or RINO's wearing bad suits under a shitty haircut. You can see that by now I've got this thing pretty well worked out. I really appreciate the couch time.
  9. 8 points
    Take a look at ALL the scientific journals out there. 100% of them routinely publish "Surveys" and "Compendiums" and "Overviews", which are nothing more than rehashed papers that are collated and annotated. My research gets quoted all the time in these and I get to see my name pop up weekly in Academia.Edu because It's been referenced. It means not much, and those collections are useful to other researchers even though they never plow new ground. That must be what you refer to as "desk studies" and it's perfectly valid and sails right thru peer review. You've demonstrated for the hundredth time that you're no scientist and know nothing about science. Why not give it up buckwheat?
  10. 8 points
    This reminds me of the situation with the caribou on the US Alaskan North Slope, when the pipeline went in. There was an alarmist hue and cry about how the pipeline would decimate the herds of caribou. So, the oil workers were astonished to see that the caribou herds would come and huddle up against the pipe, especially the very young, who would absorb the heat from the hot oil by pressing up against the pipe. The result: the herds increased in number and health, the die-offs of the young to the cold greatly reduced. The caribou were actually using antlers to dislodge and rub off the pipe insulation in spots so as to gain increased heat. It was great for the caribou! Moral of the story: nothing like a nice warm pipe filled with oil.
  11. 7 points
    Tom, I qualified my opinion with the word "random." Let us postulate that the children of these four politicians all randomly go to different colleges, never meet each other (or each others' mentors), and yet all four end up is some European backwater in the politically unstable Ukraine, and all four are working for natural gas companies, and all four are drawing nice salaries and unknown so-called "bonuses" and other tidbits ---- nah, the chance of that being random is precisely zero. Therefore, if that is the way it ends up, it is no longer "random," and the assignments are being orchestrated by others, to inure to their unjust enrichment. Trust this explains.
  12. 7 points
    Your civics lessons are lacking. The three branches of government were designed to create the "checks and balances", Not the two entrenched parties. All they've done (and the Demoncrats are the worst offenders here, hands down) is CORRUPT the intention of the 3 branches and misuse them in their constant and unrelenting quest for more power. It was Demoncrat judges who decided to "legislate from the bench" and created "laws" out of thin air that no one voted for. There is NO WAY IN HELL that was what our founders intended. People like you pretend that republicans picking judges who WON'T legislate from the bench is somehow suborning the process. It isn't, it's trying to restore sanity to an out of balance situation. The judge Kavanaugh fiasco is a perfect example of the depths to which the democrats will stoop to thwart the other side, regardless of the fact that every one of their star accusers was an outrageous liar. Had the FBI done their duty, and actually INTERVIEWED these women, officially, they'd all be chilling in prison right now. But no, can't have honesty at the highest levels of our law enforcement can we? Instead they have to ruin General Flynn in a bushwhack interview process that never should have occurred and that will be overturned by honest judges if Flynn's lawyers ever get their full day in court, something the Demoncrats and their allies in the FBI are fighting like hell to avoid.
  13. 7 points
  14. 7 points
    They’ll ‘reap what they sew’ eventually, but it may be too late. This is what happens when the liberals in the densely populated front range area get to mandate how everyone else in the MUST live. A crying shame!
  15. 7 points
    Anybody familiar with drilling operations would tear this drill crew to shreds! How did they fail to see a pit gain! How do you do a flow check and not notice this type of flow? Finally, when in doubt, SHUT THE WELL IN!!! If your driller cannot make an accurate trip sheet using his trip tank....he shouldn’t be drilling!!! With all the experience leaving the oilfield, if drilling ever actually picks up again, you can expect to see this type of thing often.
  16. 7 points
    One of the popular rhetorical moves in the climate change debate is for advocates of aggressive government intervention to claim that “97% of scientists” agree with their position, and so therefore any critics must be unscientific “deniers.” Now these claims have been dubious from the start; people like David Friedman have demonstrated that the “97% consensus” assertion became a talking point only through a biased procedure that mischaracterized how journal articles were rated, and thereby inflating the estimate. But beyond that, a review in The New Republic of a book critical of mainstream economics uses the exact same degree of consensus in order to cast aspersions on the science of economics. In other words, when it comes to the nearly unanimous rejection of rent control or tariffs among professional economists, at least some progressive leftists conclude that there must be group-think involved. The one consistent thread in both cases - that of the climate scientists and that of the economists - is that The New Republic takes the side that will expand the scope of government power, a central tenet since its birth by Herbert Croly a century ago. The Dubious “97% Consensus” Claim Regarding Climate Science Back in 2014, David Friedman worked through the original paper that kicked off the “97% consensus” talking point. What the original authors, Cook et al., actually found in their 2013 paper was that 97.1% of the relevant articles agreed that humans contribute to global warming. But notice that that is not at all the same thing as saying that humans are the main contributors to observed global warming (since the Industrial Revolution). This is a huge distinction. For example, I co-authored a Cato study with climate scientists Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger, in which we strongly opposed a U.S. carbon tax. Yet both Michaels and Knappenberger would be climate scientists who were part of the “97% consensus” according to Cook et al. That is, Michaels and Knappenberger both agree that, other things equal, human activity that emits carbon dioxide will make the world warmer than it otherwise would be. That observation by itself does not mean there is a crisis nor does it justify a large carbon tax. Incidentally, when it comes down to what Cook et al. actually found, economist David R. Henderson noticed that it was even less impressive than what Friedman had reported. Here’s Henderson: [Cook et al.] got their 97 percent by considering only those abstracts that expressed a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I find it interesting that 2/3 of the abstracts did not take a position. So, taking into account David Friedman’s criticism above, and mine, Cook and Bedford, in summarizing their findings, should have said, “Of the approximately one-third of climate scientists writing on global warming who stated a position on the role of humans, 97% thought humans contribute somewhat to global warming.” That doesn’t quite have the same ring, does it? [David R. Henderson, bold added.] So to sum up: The casual statements in the corporate media and in online arguments would lead the average person to believe that 97% of scientists who have published on climate change think that humans are the main drivers of global warming. And yet, at least if we review the original Cook et al. (2013) paper that kicked off the talking point, what they actually found was that of the sampled papers on climate change, only one-third of them expressed a view about its causes, and then of that subset, 97% agreed that humans were at least one cause of climate change. This would be truth-in-advertising, something foreign in the political discussion to which all AGW issues now seem to descend. The New Republic’s Differing Attitudes Towards Consensus The journal The New Republic was founded in 1914. Its website states: “For over 100 years, we have championed progressive ideas and challenged popular opinion….The New Republic promotes novel solutions for today’s most critical issues.” With that context, it’s not surprising that The New Republic uses the alleged 97% consensus in climate science the way other progressive outlets typically do. Here’s an excerpt from a 2015 article (by Rebecca Leber) in which Republicans were excoriated for their anti-science stance on climate change: Two years ago, a group of international researchers led by University of Queensland’s John Cook surveyed 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate change since the 1990s. Out of the 4,000 papers that took a position one way or another on the causes of global warming, 97 percent of them were in agreement: Humans are the primary cause. By putting a number on the scientific consensus, the study provided everyone from President Barack Obama to comedian John Oliver with a tidy talking point. [Leber, bold added.] Notice already that Leber is helping to perpetuate a falsehood, though she can be forgiven—part of David Friedman’s blog post was to show that Cook himself was responsible (Friedman calls it an outright lie) for the confusion regarding what he and his co-authors actually found. And notice that Leber confirms what I have claimed in this post, namely that it was the Cook et al. (2013) paper that originally provided the “talking point” (her term) about so-called consensus. The point of Leber’s essay is to then denounce Ted Cruz and certain other Republicans for ignoring this consensus among climate scientists: All this debate over one statistic might seem silly, but it’s important that Americans understand there is overwhelming agreement about human-caused global warming. Deniers have managed to undermine how the public views climate science, which in turn makes voters less likely to support climate action. Now here’s what’s really interesting. A colleague sent me a recent review in The New Republic of a new book by Binyan Appelbaum that is critical of the economics profession. The reviewer, Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein, quoted with approval Appelbaum’s low view of consensus in economics: Appelbaum shows the strangely high degree of consensus in the field of economics, including a 1979 survey of economists that “found 98 percent opposed rent controls, 97 percent opposed tariffs, 95 percent favored floating exchange rates, and 90 percent opposed minimum wage laws.” And in a moment of impish humor he notes that “Although nature tends toward entropy, they shared a confidence that economies tend toward equilibrium.” Economists shared a creepy lack of doubt about how the world worked. [Kaiser-Schatzlein, bold added.] Isn’t that amazing? Rather than hunting down and demonizing Democratic politicians who dare to oppose the expert consensus on items like rent control - which Bernie Sanders has recently promoted - the reaction here is to guffaw at the hubris and “creepy lack of doubt about how the world [works].” Conclusion From the beginning, the “97% consensus” claim about climate change has been dubious, with supporters claiming that it represented much more than it really did. Furthermore, a recent book review in The New Republic shows that when it comes to economic science, 97% consensus means nothing, if it doesn’t support progressive politics. Authored by Robert Murphy via The Mises Institute err but Trump how dare you
  17. 7 points
    Maybe idiot was harsh But I maintain that your are unwilling to accept reasoned argument no matter how factually correct it is if it differs from your view. Also when proven incorrect by many many posters on here on any topic (who I believe are intelligent well educated people) you divert and give no reasoned contrary facts to back up your point of view. If you did you may actually gain some respect instead of the contrary. I reckon I learn something valuable on this site daily from some very knowledgeable people and I am prepared to alter my view on some subjects. Unfortunately I don't believe that is the case with you, and that will forever be your loss not theirs.
  18. 7 points
    This being the case, why would Pelosi go after Trump NOW? She must know that all the connections between the Ukraine, the Biden’s and now the Pelosi’s will come out. This is starting to look like a Democratic Party business in the Ukraine...Trump may have had a damn good reason to get involved.🤔
  19. 7 points
    Recommended reading Peer review in need of change Bottom line, as the Climategate emails clearly proved, the "gate" keepers on "the team" make CERTAIN that no dissenting voices enter their "hallowed halls". You are right, science was never meant to be constrained by "publications" who effectively steal the works that those who publish there lose their rights to. It might surprise those reading this that once the author gets published in "a journal", they've signed away copyright to THEIR piece to that journal. I know scientists who have had to pay Elsevier to get THEIR OWN PAPER! Researchgate is the place I recommend to everyone. Upload your research there, no "gatekeepers" and let the world decide. Exactly as you recommend.
  20. 7 points
    Note: Just because it is published, does not mean it isn’t horseshit! The ‘publish or perish’ mentality prevalent in academia ensures that horseshit gets published.
  21. 7 points
    No one has perfect or exact data, the estimation in 2008 and today is pretty similar so at least there has been no decline. From 1950 it appears their population has increased but again since no one has counted them all it's just an estimation (that means best guess in simple language). They were however hunted for food and fur but they are now are protected which is a good thing. “As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic. Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000. It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand. It is also important to note that even though we have scientifically valid estimates for a majority of the subpopulations, some are dated. Furthermore, there are no abundance estimates for the Arctic Basin, East Greenland, and the Russian subpopulations. Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy. Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.”
  22. 6 points
    P.S. Eric Ciaramella is deep state, and is not an actual whistleblower. Meme haters, please feel free to hate.
  23. 6 points
    I have little use for reddit. The only reason I go to Reddit is to read the amusement on the memes posted on the censored / restricted sub-forum r/The_Donald. And today, I visited for the first time a sub-forum r/Mr_Donald and that subforum was banned 5 minutes after I visited it for the first time. Argggghhh. Reddit moderators are mostly useless SJW wankers, censorship is apparently all they know. Reddit: don't like it? Ban it! 8chan is still down, and its designated replacement 8kun is still not ready. 4chan has been comped [compromised] for years, although /pol/ can still be amusing on occasion: I'm running out of places where I can still freely cause trouble online and laugh with like-minded free-speechers. Yes, I'm aware that I'm a moderator here. Still seems to me that an old fart with loads of oil & gas experience and salty offshore oil platform experience tied with my decades of encouraging Freedom of Speech makes me somewhat (kinda) suitable to be an outspoken moderator on this forum. Yes, there is a difference between "anything goes" Chan image boards and this wide-topic-spectrum oil & gas forum. Don't like my opinions? Please feel free to complain about me to Oil Price staff. Or if you are easily amused, please do feel free to complain about me to the current resident pro-China Jello AI bot + its hapless human handler, because that would amuse me endlessly. Mental pretzel gymnastics run through AI circuits can be ... pretty weird. No idea which AI bot I am referring to? Search "Jello" here. Meantime, to lurkers and posters in general... please do speak your mind freely, just don't be a jerk about it. It's easy to just troll and piss people off; it is far more difficult (and immensely more satifying) to nudge people to laugh + think and perchance re-evaluate some ideas and opinions by gently poking and laughing at absurdities. So anyway, I'm kicking back today with a nice bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon + assorted cheeses and pistachios and mixed nuts. I rarely have alcohol, so this wine bottle should last all afternoon and evening, in pleasant sips, mingled with complimentary tastes of the cheeses and nuts. And browsing through some remarkable old reference books, both politically correct and decidedly politically incorrect. Conflicting viewpoints are a spice of life, and the spice must flow. Life is good : )
  24. 6 points
    Hmmm I don't know maybe because it was a confidential conversation between the president of the US and another head of state. If it's a perfect call then, yes, so-called whistle blowing is an issue. What's next a whistle blower comes forward about Trump's Super Bowl pick? This argument is as dumb as the one about a citizen's privacy. Well if you've got nothing to hide you won't mind if I read your email, mail, bank statements and health records eh? You really have to wonder about some posters on here eh?
  25. 6 points
    Gazillion articles about peak oil waiting round the corner, but my opinion is it is still far, far away, like 2050 and at much higher output at least 20-30% higher than today ? 1. We are still living in golden age of dirt cheap energy resources. In developed countries oil bill is still less than 2-3% of GDP. People will still drive/transport stuff if it is double this amount (current experience of developing countries). 2. At present about 40% of global population (3 billion people) is living something I would call more or less decent life, it means 100 million vehicles sold every year. Well, oil demand in developing countries where 2 out of 3 billion of these people live is not saturated yet. (30 years ago 1 billion people lived decent life, 45 million vehicles sold every year). 3. Another 2 billion people mainly in developing Asia (with Middle East) will join this club in 20 years. And they will also drive and transport stuff by trucks. 100 or 150 oil - oil consumption would not decrease much as it is necessity, like food. 4. Intensive research in batteries technology brought nothing spectacular. You can drive fancy Tesla or other electric car for 300 kilometres but for real people with not much free time it is just gadget, expensive gadget. Last but not least what is the definition of oil, Coal to Liquids, our future at 150 oil in today prices counts ?
  26. 6 points
    In all fairness, there is plenty of oil globally. Iran, Venezuela, as well as North Africa are experiencing some issues, but the oil is still there. Look for Vaca Muerta to come on soon as well. Rick Perry is ENERGY Secretary; and while clueless, needs to set some ENERGY policy. This would include coal, nuclear, hydrocarbon, as well as renewables. Don't look for it to happen under his watch though. Mexico will be glad it hedged, as if the right combination of circumstances present themselves simultaneously, we could see oil drop below $40 for WTI. Everyone should not get so emotionally charged when posting here; that's what keeps many real professionals off this site..!
  27. 6 points
    Exactly this. This is why I found this even more odd. She never said that reductions in ice weren't evident or that climate changes weren't occurring. Instead, she said that collective census data indicated that populations of polar bears were thriving in the majority of locations studied. This alone, being in direct contradiction to previous publicity stunts showing polar bears starving because AGW is wrecking their enviroment, was enough to get her fired. Honestly, I sometimes find myself on the fence a bit with respect to anthropogenic global warming. I agree that the last 150 years of data seems to point to a trend of warming though. However, its stuff like this that makes me doubt the AGW narrative even more. To often correlation is represented as causation when often things are far more complex than the set of parameters being compared. When that data is questioned, the person who questions it is attacked. It just throws a wrench in the whole narrative and makes the argument feel more political than scientific. Soon, it's difficult not to be skeptical of anything your told from anyone entrenched far to either side of an argument as they lose the ability to be objective. I can tell you're at least willing to consider other evidence when its presented to you @Enthalpic, which I respect. I try to be open minded and willing to accept alternative viewpoints provided there is enough supporting evidence.
  28. 6 points
    In my opinion, diplomatic immunity has become so abused that it is laughable. Since when does the spouse of a diplomat get immunity? If a diplomat commits a crime in another country (there may be shades of grey here, I am speaking of your usual definition of a crime), then that person should be tried in that country. I can see no rational excuse for this woman not being returned to the UK if she can be guaranteed a fair trial. The UN in New York is probably the worst offender. Diplomats from all over take diplomatic immunity to cover things like parking violations, soliciting, shoplifting, etc... Diplomats (not family members) need diplomatic immunity, but only as it applies to their job.
  29. 5 points
    Well @Tom Kirkmanit looks like we are back to last Februarys' pricing. Seems our comfort level just keeps going back to that magic spot. One of the reasons I don't care for long range predictions as is still a volatile market. Rigs may be dropping but output still hanging in there and seems world is still adequately supplied. Russia and KSA are going to start pumping more, in an already saturated market. India just announced it's cutting back on refining. So I digress that 55.00 seems to be the comfort spot for all.
  30. 5 points
    Feel free to look up your own Dow/Nasdaq/SP500 ... don't just rely on copy and pastes, they can make for painful viewing ... Other 'leaders' are world famous for really groundbreaking things ...
  31. 5 points
  32. 5 points
    The Deep State failed with the Russia hoax to prevent Trump from being elected and, once elected, from impeaching him with fabricated information. They've now moved on to the Ukraine hoax. If he's re-elected, which I believe he will be, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they made an attempt on his life rather than accept him as president for 4 more years. Trump needs to thoroughly vet these Deep State bureaucrats that surround him. It was a mistake not to vet and purge the likes of Ciaramella and you can be sure there are dozens more of these faceless, unelected bureaucrats scheming in the background.
  33. 5 points
    Well, for one, there are exactly--exactly--3 million barrels of oil produced on federal lands in Alaska, North Dakota and Texas. I would presume that if we have so many EV's that they reduce oil consumption by 3 million barrels, we'll have a Democratic president like Elizabeth Warren who has vowed to stop fracking but can only do so on federal lands without a Senate and House majority vote. So in that case, the reduction in oil production would exactly balance out the oil consumption--except for figuring in how much petrochemicals are needed to produce the chassis, wheels, tires, interior and battery of the EV (which will be considerable). I don't know all the answers to your questions but I do know that some day we'll have a recession--a bad one--and during that thing it won't make a damn to most people how big the hole is in the ozone or how many EV's there are. During a bad recession, the price of oil will fall right along with everything else and people will want to drive ICE vehicles mostly. I don't personally think Tesla can survive a major downturn--they've after all never seen one. Oil is going to be in demand for quite a long time. It's going to either come from the US or from some other country. You talk about trying to impeach a president for doing something that every president since George Washington has probably done, watch what happens to one that tells Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Louisiana and even Colorado that they've got to stop production--that'll by God start secession proceedings so fast it'll make your head spin. And I don't know about you, but if it came down to Texas against the rest of the country, I suppose I'd pick Texas. Look, if EV's are superior, bring 'em on. But don't subsidize them. If you want to buy an EV in three years, as you say, well, buy one. But for goodness sakes, look at the debt load in the world. The US is in the best shape of any country and even here the debt load is staggering. These European countries that mandated high NOX emitting exhaust diesels for ten years and then set some artificial goals have fourteen trillion dollars worth of upside down bonds! Hell, they're going to be lucky not to have civil unrest all across Europe. Hong Kong is already in free fall. Right now the wealth effect is pumping up the spirits of the sort of people who would drive a Tesla. Give the Dow a 25% hickey and see how many of those suckers drive themselves off the showroom floors.
  34. 5 points
    I respectfully disagree: The perception of something only lasts until reality kicks in. My perception of my first wife was one thing; the reality was a bit different. With mass production--real mass--we'll see more and more cobalt sourced by skinny little ten-year-old boys shimmying down ratholes retrieve it, more shitty lithium pits, and a landscape littered by batteries. The first real recession--again a real one--is going to wipe out Tesla. Maybe not literally but to the point verging on Chapter 11. The world--especially the young, which I presume you are part of--assumes that fossil fuels are going to prematurely end life on earth . . . yet again (if those damn dinosaurs hadn't driven so much!). They assume that there will be no breakthroughs on carbon capture, scrubbers, or improvement in fuel. But on the flip side they assume, as you suggested, that "you won't believe what is available in five years" in EV vehicles. Well, you, and they, may be right, but I predict that there will be substantial improvement in both ICE and EV vehicles, and also that the hole in the ozone will keep on improving due to warmer summer weather, that pollution levels are going to drop globally even though the number of ICE vehicles rise in number. Why? Because the MARPOL mandate is going to make a tremendous difference. Barron's--a pretty reliable financial newsletter--stated that the largest 15 oceangoing freighters release as much NOX and SOX as all 760 million cars on the planet. Fifteen! There are 60,000, all total. What do you think that result is going to be? I think it's going to be the equivalent of all 760 million cars not even start up, nor planes or big rigs. What the hell are the greenies going to say when the damage starts to repair itself. I'm not a very argumentative fellow, but that number in Barron's just gobsmacked me. And of course we need a carbon tax: Richard Branson bragged about logging a million miles a year in his Gulfstream. That is the equivalent of a hundred thousand people flying commercial a thousand miles a year, which is the number most middle income retired people fly. There are quite a few "Richard Branson's" out there. Now Richard may well drive an EV--I'd be surprised if he didn't--but it doesn't make a damn; it's like peeing in the river to make the ocean rise. Folks have lost their perspective!
  35. 5 points
    If you actually feel the need to discuss your sexual prowess on OilPrice, I would tend to believe that you have some serious issues in that department. Does anyone else feel that perhaps we can do without the sex life discussions?
  36. 5 points
    The House needs to be very careful as to how they handle this request for tax filings. I can see where the people just get fed up and require 5 years of tax returns to be submitted by every Congressman and every Senator when they run for office or re-election. Would serve them right and may help to drain the swamp on both sides of the aisle.
  37. 5 points
    You seem to be missing or avoiding the point. It was never required that Trump release his tax filing, the Dems fixated on this as another one of their obstructionist tactics. It is now being brought into the impeachment arena - although it was NEVER a requirement of the office! If the Supreme Court rules that Trump must do it, then he must. But how did we even get to this point! Yes, Trump said he would release his taxes after they were audited.....but again, this is his decision, it is not the law. The idea of this going to the Supreme Court is ludicrous. This is the point I am trying to make. Impeachment enquiries are the right of the House, correct. But you do realize that the Democrat controlled House changed the rules of impeachment AFTER Trump was elected. This ensured that the Republicans in the house had no input into the preceedings. Don’t you find that a little odd? The whole impeachment thing is a waste of time as the Senate will not impeach Trump, it is just a ploy that the Democrats are using running into an election year. If you look at the record for the past 3+ years, The Democrat controlled House has not done a damn thing except obstruct Trump at every turn. Whether you are a fan of Trump or not, this should piss off any American citizen. These people were elected to present, debate and pass/fail legislation that would benefit ALL Americans, but sadly, they have chosen to act like adolescents for 3 years and essentially wasted taxpayer money during this time.
  38. 5 points
    Did you notice how the California mentality has now immigrated to Colorado? A fantastic state going down the toilet....
  39. 5 points
    Why are you boys so excited about a guy that told the world about what Trump calls the perfect phone call. Trump stands by that call. Whistle blowing a perfect call should be a non issue, eh?
  40. 5 points
    Double whammy meme : ) Epstein reminder and assorted Eric Ciaramella photos. Facebook, Twitter, et al would censor / delete this meme:
  41. 5 points
    Remember that Nancy Pelosi was very loudly and publicly against attempts to initiate any efforts to impeach Trump. She is now one of the head cheerleaders for trying to impeach Trump. What caused the change? Seems that Nancy Pelosi changed her mind when news reports started trickling out about her son's involvement in the Ukraine Gas corruption scandal. And Nancy Pelosi herself appeared in a video advertisement for the same Ukraine Gas company. Article from a month ago: Pelosi's Ukraine Dilema, Her Son Worked On Board Of Gas Company Published October 6, 2019 It now appears that the son of House Speaker and California Rep. Nancy Pelosi has financial ties to a gas company in the Ukraine. Which makes her desire to impeach President Donald Trump for making a phone call to the Ukrainian president to investigate corruption more suspicious. The allegations against Pelosi’s son came when reporter Patrick Howley shared a 2013 video of Paul Pelosi promoting himself using his Mom in an ad. “BOOM: Nancy Pelosi’s son Paul Pelosi Jr. (who went to Ukraine in 2017) was a board member of Viscoil and executive at its related company NRGLab, which DID ENERGY Business in UKRAINE! “And Nancy Pelosi appeared in a promotional video for the company!” he said in the tweet with the video. ... ======================= Here's the video: https://youtu.be/g1KfU5ifhqE
  42. 5 points
    The bill for the emergence of the Shale Revolution--as it was called back when the KSA declared jihad on American oil--is coming due. Here is what was said about Saudi Arabia at the time. "Saudi Arabia remains perhaps the most prolific sponsor of international Islamist terrorism, allegedly supporting groups as disparate as the Afghanistan Taliban, Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Al-Nusra Front. Saudi Arabia is said to be the world's largest source of funds and promoter of Salafist jihadism, which forms the ideological basis of terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS and others. Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide, according to Hillary Clinton. According to a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state, "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups." In transparency, I voted for Mr. Trump, but every time the price of oil crept up to where the shale pioneers could make enough to pay off their paper, the president tweeted down the price. MbS was all too happy to oblige after he whacked Mr. Khashoggi. I'm a conventional oil guy, by birthright, income, mindset, and all others things uncontrollable. However, I have shale properties too, and I understand that shale saved the United States from a very hard time, economically. Chesapeake helped greatly in that endeavor. Perhaps it's merely the wheels of commerce that are trammeling Chesapeake and others, and God only knows that money in Aubrey McClendon's hands was the thinnest gossamer. Still, somehow, it bothers the hell out of me that we're letting the Saudis get by with . . . . . murder . . . . . and we're willing to let one of the pioneers of American shale scurry for its financial life. It's like turning your back on your firstborn.
  43. 5 points
    Not when you are pulling the bit to surface while under balanced, normally you would be running to bottom again to try and displace the hole with kill mud or a heavier mud to control the well. Its common to close the BSR on a surface stack to stop junk going down the well. SOP or Good Oilfield Practices are good phrases if you have the experience to follow or use both. These guys didn't have much of a clue, they had all the signals including a mud logger who picked up a drilling break before the driller, I think the well just got pissed off with the ignorance and let them have a piece of mother nature. Just the fact the derrick man mixed LCM while the well was giving mud shows you how much he was paying attention or his knowledge, just saying it "Lost Circulation" would have alarmed anyone with half a brain, no circulation lost there, it was flowing without the pumps, so many FUs its almost unbelievable.
  44. 5 points
    The fundamental question was how MBS could save face because the IPO had to happen? Even he can't lose this amount of face. So the IPO had to happen, even if a relatively meaningless one. So a 2% float on the local market, strong arm locals into purchasing, a bit of overseas, probably Chinese investment, and I wonder in what currency. And a firm promise not to sell shares on an international market for at least a year. In other words, if you try and just short it, it will take a while because the value will appear to hold as long as no one can sell the shares. So much for my dream of easy money with a big short. So a success for MBS, an IPO. Probably spent far more money making it happen than it gathers. Since this started Aramco has flexed its muscles taking on debt and investing in low margin mega-projects. And foreign adventurism and wars draining the treasury since they basically fight their battles by throwing money at it. We don't talk about the rate of drilling in the KSA. A lot more of that going on than they used to do, and that is to just essentially stay flat and well productivity continues to decline. Their attempts at unconventional, primarily for gas extraction, is an expensive fiasco. Their reputation is still a global image that the company knows how to drill well. They don't, at least for what they need going forward, especially from a cost per well, and time to completion, perspective. A reminder of the old cliche'. What's the easiest way to make a trillion dollars? Start out with two trillion (and lose a trillion to be done to one). It will take more time, but in the end it will probably be very ugly. This isn't a country that can feed itself.
  45. 5 points
    You didn't say it was wrong, you argued that it was a logical fallacy. Please show how there is a logical fallacy in the statement. (Or simply correct your previous statement. Not trying to be pedantic... really trying to follow and debate) As to this comment: The Paris agreement is trash and is more about money redistribution than solving climate issues. There have been multiple studies on how we could decrease emissions cheaper and more effectively. So because the IPCC says it, it must be true? (Hint... no. I'd actually struggle to propose a government entity, association, organization, or committee that has even a good record of truth in the past decade, much less a record beyond doubt) The article didn't cite IPCCs projections... it did, in fact, cite a survey. And it's 'impossible for a peer reviewed scientific survey to be described as unscientific'?!?!? Seriously? My friends and I used to joke that anyone could get published in 'Nature' ('You get a nature publication, you get a nature publication, everyone gets a nature publication!' - oprah like. Look it up.) Point us, there are a number of publications that are peer reviewed and still worth less than toilet paper (because at least that has a use! And is soft...) So yes, I would like more, because the reasons provided so far are very unconvincing for the reasons stated above. (Giving the benefit of the doubt and having an honest discussion here...
  46. 5 points
    Jabbar and Gerry....chill!😂 The fact is that absolutely nobody has an accurate number for either global reserves OR the amount in storage. North America MAY have a better idea than other regions, but even that is questionable. Ask yourself, ‘Where do these numbers actually come from?’. If I am not mistaken, the EIA is based on a weekly (monthly?) questionnaire and relies on ‘good faith’ reporting. Much of this reporting elsewhere is from national oil companies who may be somewhat biased in their reporting. Regardless, there is no centralized reporting mechanism for oil in storage. Reserves are another issue. You have ‘proven’ reserves based on sound (hopefully) geophysics, geology, and pressure/flowrate data. You then have ‘unproven’ reserves which are essentially a SWAG (silly wild assed guess) which are usually highly optimistic to make the company look attractive to investors. In my humble opinion, you can look at the reported oil in storage and reserves broadly, and it is true that some players are presently out of the game, but the real issue is demand. We need demand up to dry up ANY storage to get the price up and hopefully kick start any drilling (exploration, appraisal or development...onshore or offshore).
  47. 5 points
    The world is heating up. No one knows where it will go. There is great scientific evidence that the world has undergone about 50 of these. There was no use of fossil fuels whatsoever during the previous 49. Just as the caribou increased in # after the Alaskan pipeline went in, the antelope herd on the Wells Ranch in the northeast corner of Weld County (Colorado) increased in # with the oil activity. The polar bears? I imagine they’ll adapt. That poor guy with cancer that they keep showing on a tiny ice floe may not make it, and I feel sorry for him—we all get something, it seems. But I don’t believe I caused his problem, I don’t use aeresolized hair spray that cut a hole in the ozone. I agree with Ward on this one, buddy, some of this is sad as hell but try not to drape it on me and my homeboys.
  48. 5 points
    Sure, a ‘hard’ exit would be painful for awhile. I think this is to be expected when you are weaning off the EU teat - so what! At the end of the day Britain would establish other markets, hopefully get back in the manufacturing game, sort out their own immigration and labor issues...and become Great Britain again. Why do people keep bringing up the ‘pain’? Anything worthwhile is going to involve a certain amount of ‘pain’. Take the US-China ‘trade war’ for example. Everyone said the Yanks couldn’t possibly survive without all the cheap Chinese goods that were flooding the country. I have not seen any real weeping & gnashing of teeth recently. Yes, it costs some cash to wean the American public off of the Chinese teat, but at the end of the day it will be worth it. I suppose, in my mind, the question is, “How much is having your own country and identity back worth?”
  49. 5 points
    Perfectly put DT! As you know I am a "remoaner" but 3 years of uncertainty due to political games is hurting the country far more than maybe 2-3 years of financial pain when we leave. I believe in democracy, so I lost, I'm over it! Lets stop messing around and LEAVE! And yes we are an amazingly resourceful + innovative nation and will continue to be long after Brexit is finally done. Jo Swinson and her cronies in the Lib Dems should be locked up by the way, disgraceful!
  50. 5 points
    I will finance her trip to China with a 1 way F/C ticket!!!! so she can educate the Chinese Gov and tell them "How dare they!!"