US Shale Resilience: Oil Industry Experts Say Shale Will Rise Again

[Mark Potochnik + 8]

"Oil Industry Experts Say"

Oil experts. That is a good source. Photographic film will come back too.

There CAN be a short rally. But not long.

Edited April 13, 2020 by Mark Potochnik
Spelling

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

13 hours ago, James Regan said:

This is the question - Why has the USA not already done exactly this, why didn't they do it years and years ago, after all the economics of doing so would have been a lot less complicated 60 years ago. 50 or 30 years ago the USA the situation was completely different within the oil Industry and the US requirement for foreign oil was also growing by the year. Knowing all the time they were sitting on the biggest reserves on the planet. Funnily this was also called the SPR in the Industry aka the Shale Oil plays. 

Us oil majors were steaming ahead full bore extracting third world countries oil at massive rates, American oil companies funding foreign tyrant governments massive amounts of money for Exploration and Production rights to extract their oil and send it back to USA. Without writing a thesis this was reproduced many many times same model different companies. By doing this you have created a business model, supply chain and economical complexities that said countries from whom oil was being extracted rely on, under the guise very often that it was doing good for that country, not the case, go check out West Africa.

So now the USA wants to shut the door and self produce use and sell oil to the world- Am I getting this idea correctly? With zero push back from the "others" - Have you not thought for a second that this was already foreseen by the "others".

North Korea is a good business model for Isolationism.

Shale wasn't a thing and US production appeared to be on a permanent downward slope not too long ago. We all know in the US,  oil operations from well to gas station are privately owned and make decisions based on $. It's a fiduciary duty of every board member and employee of every public company in this country to maximize share holder value, if the country be damned in the process, so be it, that's the law. More than anything else, it's corporate law that needs changing, IMO.  

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

11 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Would you say that about Egypt?   The Sudan?  Palestine? The villages of the Hindu Kush?

It would seem the British, with their very imperial and arrogant attitude of superiority and view of all natives as "wogs," did their colonizing on the cheap, mostly for their own benefit and the hell with the natives.  These guys were not exactly promoting the red cross, now were they? 

But then there are examples like Singapore and Hong Kong, which did quite well for themselves.  Therein lies my careful choice of words: those who embraced what the British had to offer. 

I watch a similar phenomenon in the US, where some communities and groups consistently do well while others consistently flounder.  The consistent feature of of success or failure seems to be how a group responds to the situation.  Those who resist, hoping the Old Ways can be revived, tend to do poorly.  Those who adapt do well.  If a group failed to adapt, the British can hardly be blamed. 

I'm sure there are examples where the British were oppressive, but I don't buy the argument that the British - or any other colonizer, for that matter - was wholly responsible for every indigenous failure. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

19 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

But then there are examples like Singapore and Hong Kong, which did quite well for themselves.  Therein lies my careful choice of words: those who embraced what the British had to offer. 

I watch a similar phenomenon in the US, where some communities and groups consistently do well while others consistently flounder.  The consistent feature of of success or failure seems to be how a group responds to the situation.  Those who resist, hoping the Old Ways can be revived, tend to do poorly.  Those who adapt do well.  If a group failed to adapt, the British can hardly be blamed. 

I'm sure there are examples where the British were oppressive, but I don't buy the argument that the British - or any other colonizer, for that matter - was wholly responsible for every indigenous failure. 

It was the Malaysian Chinese that were expelled from the Malaysian Federation, much more than any British influence, which has led to the success of Singapore.

During World War 2, Singapore was conquered and occupied by the Japanese Empire from 1942 to 1945. When the war ended, Singapore reverted to British control, with increasing levels of self-government being granted, culminating in Singapore's merger with the Federation of Malaya to form Malaysia in 1963. However, social unrest and disputes between Singapore's ruling People's Action Party and Malaysia's Alliance Party resulted in Singapore's expulsion from Malaysia. Singapore became an independent republic on 9 August 1965.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 4/13/2020 at 10:01 AM, Jan van Eck said:

Would you say that about Egypt?   The Sudan?  Palestine? The villages of the Hindu Kush?

It would seem the British, with their very imperial and arrogant attitude of superiority and view of all natives as "wogs," did their colonizing on the cheap, mostly for their own benefit and the hell with the natives.  These guys were not exactly promoting the red cross, now were they? 

You are startin to sound like Frankfurter? Next, you be praising the Chinese and their "Middle Kingdom"?

[James Regan + 1,776]

1 hour ago, Wombat said:

It would seem the British, with their very imperial and arrogant attitude of superiority and view of all natives as "wogs," did their colonizing on the cheap, mostly for their own benefit and the hell with the natives.  These guys were not exactly promoting the red cross, now were they? 

Most of costal Europe was at it at the time, some were just a little better at it than others, how far back should we go to the Vikings. Brutal and ruthless most definitely, probably the reason you're speaking English now. The laws of some of colonies were based on the model, constitutions derived from the magna carta highly contested  but the desire to preserve its liberties and its rights  were enshrined in the Constitution.

What did the Romans ever do for us......

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

@James Regan I didn't know you were a Gary Numan fan.

[Wombat + 1,028]

21 minutes ago, James Regan said:

Most of costal Europe was at it at the time, some were just a little better at it than others, how far back should we go to the Vikings. Brutal and ruthless most definitely, probably the reason you're speaking English now. The laws of some of colonies were based on the model, constitutions derived from the magna carta highly contested  but the desire to preserve its liberties and its rights  were enshrined in the Constitution.

What did the Romans ever do for us......

James, I am wombat, did not say that, Jan Van Eck did. I completely agree with you!