Its going to be an oil bloodbath

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I think we should agree to disagree on climate change, since neither of us will change the other's opinion. I take it as a proven fact. the inexorable year-on year increases in atmospheric CO2 track pretty much exactly with the amount of fossil fuel being burned.

I do not think shale is the only oil. I think it boosted us from energy dependence to energy independence. No we should not stop all production simply because shale runs out. We should take advantage of the time that shale is giving us to move away from oil in the least disruptive way possible, so by the time shale becomes uneconomic, we will no longer need it. I also think that the shale magicians will keep coming up with tricks to extend the life of shale. The imminent demise of shale "real soon now" has been predicted once every six months or so since about 2015, as production has continued to increase. Almost s predictable as the imminent availability of fusion power, which has been coming "in 20 years" since about 1950.

Back to our topic. There will be an oil bloodbath if we let the Saudis continue to control the price, because they will periodically crash the price to drive out the competition. To stop it, we need to maintain a stable price. The current disruption is a great time to start.

And therein lies the problem. You are convinced, rightly or wrongly, that we should ‘avoid’ climate change. Without resolving this issue, there is no debate available

If climate change IS a result of human activity, then a move to renewables and a reduction of human activity is worthwhile.

If climate change IS NOT due to human activity, then it is not.

The climate change issue has been flogged to death on this forum. Although you take it as a “proven fact”, it is not. If YOU feel that it is, then by all means switch to renewables.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 4/7/2020 at 6:50 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

Whether they actually increased production or not is immaterial, the perception is that they did. The resulting price crash and demand destruction resulted from this perception.

I think a lot of people say this because they really want to believe that demand destruction isn't happening. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

4 hours ago, NessyOil said:

The Saudis are positioned perfectly to weather this storm.  Take out shale, CDN oilsands and other high priced non opec oil.  Heck take out OPEC oil for that matter.

How about we check back on this in a couple months.  The Saudis look to be headed for a world of hurt. 

They haven't learned from the last time they tried their "market share" gamble and lost big time.

[ralfy + 55]

Only around 15 pct of the world's population earn at least $10 daily. Most are still part of working classes and want to earn more. The type of lifestyle they want (e.g., cars and motorcycles, furnished homes, electronic gadgets) will require more oil and generally more material resources than there are produced.

The 15 pct are counting on the 85 pct to work, earn, and buy more because their own incomes and investments are dependent on growing sales of goods and services.

Meanwhile, the BIS estimates that the oil industry has something like $2 trillion debt. They have to continue producing and selling to pay off part of the debt plus overhead costs.

 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

8 hours ago, ralfy said:

Only around 15 pct of the world's population earn at least $10 daily. Most are still part of working classes and want to earn more. The type of lifestyle they want (e.g., cars and motorcycles, furnished homes, electronic gadgets) will require more oil and generally more material resources than there are produced.

Why oil? China in particular is going for EVs instead. The really impoverished nations are still building coal plants, but this appears to be rapidly changing over to (mostly) renewables, based purely on cost. Those nations pretty much skipped the wired telephone and went directly to cell phones. They are likely to skip the gasoline economy and go directly to EVs. That leaves a whole lot of oil available to make a whole lot of plastic.

[ralfy + 55]

7 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Why oil? China in particular is going for EVs instead. The really impoverished nations are still building coal plants, but this appears to be rapidly changing over to (mostly) renewables, based purely on cost. Those nations pretty much skipped the wired telephone and went directly to cell phones. They are likely to skip the gasoline economy and go directly to EVs. That leaves a whole lot of oil available to make a whole lot of plastic.

It's because oil is even needed to manufacture EVs, not to mention the infrastructure needed for it and even cell phones. Also, what's affecting oil is also affecting minerals and other resources.

Overall, one can look at ecological footprint per capita of various industrialized nations and assume that similar is expected of developing economies, which will be higher than biocapacity.

 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

4 minutes ago, ralfy said:

It's because oil is even needed to manufacture EVs, not to mention the infrastructure needed for it and even cell phones. Also, what's affecting oil is also affecting minerals and other resources.

Overall, one can look at ecological footprint per capita of various industrialized nations and assume that similar is expected of developing economies, which will be higher than biocapacity.

 

Sure, people need more stuff to increase their standard of living, and that stuff includes some oil input. but that is quantitatively tiny by comparison to the amount of oil  needed for a gasoline or diesel fuel. We can solve the biggest problem (burning fossil fuels for energy) first, and then work on the quantitatively smaller problems.  No, the ecological footprint will not instantly become as high as the current norm in western countries, because they will jump to the most modern technologies and skip our ageing infrastructure. In the mean time, we will maintain and improve our own standard of living while reducing our footprint. The biggest recent example of this is that use of electricity has been flat for a decade as we shift to LEDs and other highly efficient products.

[ralfy + 55]

On 4/9/2020 at 10:02 AM, Dan Clemmensen said:

Sure, people need more stuff to increase their standard of living, and that stuff includes some oil input. but that is quantitatively tiny by comparison to the amount of oil  needed for a gasoline or diesel fuel. We can solve the biggest problem (burning fossil fuels for energy) first, and then work on the quantitatively smaller problems.  No, the ecological footprint will not instantly become as high as the current norm in western countries, because they will jump to the most modern technologies and skip our ageing infrastructure. In the mean time, we will maintain and improve our own standard of living while reducing our footprint. The biggest recent example of this is that use of electricity has been flat for a decade as we shift to LEDs and other highly efficient products.

Who's "we", the U.S? How is that comparable to developing countries where availability of electricity is much lower? Consider developing economies with, say, only 60 pct of the population having access to electricity all of the time? Or only around a fifth of roads paved? Low ratios of classrooms, hospitals, and clinics to the population?

 

 

[JoMack + 547]

Sorry, Biden wouldn't know a frack if Schlumberger shoved it - umm - into his basement podcast!

[Auson + 123]

On 4/8/2020 at 8:02 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

How about we check back on this in a couple months.  The Saudis look to be headed for a world of hurt. 

They haven't learned from the last time they tried their "market share" gamble and lost big time.

Meanwhile Mexico is quite happy with its MASSIVE oil price hedge !