OPEC Sneezes, US Industry Gets the Flu and Canada Gets Pneumonia

[cbrasher1 + 272]

13 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

That seems to be the magic point where things seem to go smoothly. 50-52WTI good number to. Seems the economy clicks away and is the stable range. But what do I know??

you know well enough that if people want unemployment to shoot thru the roof watch if oil goes to this $20.  you'll see a convoy from west texas headed east.  even with low b/e and new technology there is no money made at that price.  that would be a catastrophic blow to texas' economy as well as the country as a whole.  there will be no stackin, there will be scrappin.  the government going to bail out the oil industry like big banks, gm, and the proposed student loans and the outpour of sympathy during gov't shutdown?? hell no, will simply be said "you should have saved" so for the sake of the wheel continuing to turn nicely, lets hope 70ish range trend continues.  this sort of outlook has severe economic repercussions and none of them are good....

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

On 5/2/2019 at 7:07 PM, ceo_energemsier said:

https://www.bluhomes.com/why-blu

 

 

 

Imagine using oil to make construction material, already being done, more durable than timber, can be recycled and re-used. Save the trees.

Cross Laminated petchem construction timber

What are you smoking?  $330,000 for 2bed 2 bath 1000sq ft....

Whatever it is, it must be VERY good. 

You can get 2X this travesty "bluhomes" using insulated concrete block construction which not only has superior insulation, but also superior heat retention. 

PS: to rest of thread: I only care about long term trends and personally think short term speculation should be banned.  But gasp!  All those parasite 'jobs' lost...

Edited May 4, 2019 by Wastral

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 hours ago, William Edwards said:

Thanks, Tom. At least I understand your thinking and the reason for our differences. It is too bad that we cannot sit down for a few hours and compare notes. But, generally, I see your reasoning as qualitative rather than quantitative. And a glaring difference in our view stems from the fact that I use constant dollars for my thinking, allowing 1900 data to be compatible with year 2000 data, while you seem to think that I use simplistic "money of the day". With that constant dollar correction applied I believe numbers from different decades can be compared.

I am aware that you use constant dollars, so that numbers from different decades can be compared.  You use sound logic in that.

My point was that since most of the easy (and cheap) oil has already been extracted, the cost of oil should gradually rise as it gets more expensive to find and extract new oil fields, e.g. ultra deepwater, Arctic, etc.

I don't buy into the "low cost producer" theories promoted by much of the absolute dictatorship counties within the Middle East OPEC countries that tend to rely 80% or more on oil revenues, one trick pony absolute dictatorships that require high oil prices in order for their absolute dictatorship governments to stay in power.

It's been a while since I said this, but I currently view Saudi Arabia and Iran as tied for first place of the worst absolute dictatorships in the world.  North Korea used to be first place in my opinion, but positive changes have been happening in the last couple years.

Here's one of my earlier comments in this thread about the nonsense of the "low cost producers" in Middle East.  While I singled out Saudi Arabia, much of OPEC Middle East is similarly a dictatorship one trick pony that can only survive with oil prices that are simply too high for the rest of the world.  Take oil out of the equation, and what exactly does most of OPEC Middle East offer to the world except extremism and dictatorship hell.

All this talk about Saudi Arabia being a lowest cost oil producer is hooeey.  Nonsense.

That oil royalty payment to the tens of thousands of royal princes (who basically do next to nothing productive) is required to keep the country from civil war and total, utter collapse.

Similarly, the massive amounts of oil revenues required to pay off (social bribe) the lower-ranking non-royal citizens is necessary to keep the non-royal citizens from hauling the royalty to chop chop square and reducing the ranks of the royal elite by a head, and plunging the absolute dictatorship into a huge civil war bloodbath.

Factor in those absolutely required "social payment obligations" and the Saudi government needs somewhere around $85 - $95 oil to remain a country in the medium to longer term.

If you want to clearly see what happens to a country when the oil revenue runs out, when that oil revenue is required to bribe a country's citizens to keep a government in power, just look at Venezuela.  It has the largest *proven* oil reserves on earth, but the government ended up being too incompetent to successfully keep the flow of oil revenue flowing to bribe its citizens into social submission and keep the government in power.

Old 2013 pic related.



Edited yesterday at 11:59 AM by Tom Kirkman

 

================================

As for the second part of your comment, most of my view is addressed in my earlier comment above.

2 hours ago, William Edwards said:

The other significant element where we get different results is your assumption that new field discovery and development are required to complete the balance. This allows you to neglect the substantial, but currently spare and unused reserves in the Middle East, whose addition to the supply may well be sufficient to meet demand at a total cost of $20, in today's money. The fact that those reserves have and continue to be underutilized, relative to their competitive cost, gives the world a distorted view of where oil must be found. Canid is allowed to produce and sell $60 oil while Aramco purposely shuts in $10 oil to protect global prices. I recommend that you take a look, at least, at the total cost, by major production source, presented in the Saudi prospectus.

Thanks for your reply and guidance.

 

I tend to view any Saudi Aramco prospectus as a work of fiction and a complete fabrication as the Saudis insist they are a low cost producer, but in actual fact Saudi Aramco needs oil to be North of $80 to remain viable due to the social bribes required of high oil price revenues.

Those Saudi Aramco social bribes include skimming a large chunk of Aramco oil money off the top to pay off many thousands of royal princes (more like unproductive leeches, in my view.) 

Those Saudi Aramco social bribes also include providing mostly useless government jobs to the non-royals, with a well known problem of only working for one hour or so per day (again, more like unproductive leeches, in my view.)

Low Cost oil production in much of Middle East OPEC is firmly tied to extremely HIGH COST ABSOLUTE DICTATORSHIP GOVERNMENTS and required social bribes to keep their populaces from revolting.

 

Just my opinion; as always, anyone is free to disagree.  But I feel pretty strongly about my views and comments above.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

11 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Those Saudi Aramco social bribes include skimming a large chunk of Aramco oil money off the top to pay off many thousands of royal princes (more like unproductive leeches, in my view.) 

Those Saudi Aramco social bribes also include providing mostly useless government jobs to the non-royals, with a well known problem of only working for one hour or so per day (again, more like unproductive leeches, in my view.)

Hard to argue with any of that.  

Given the leech aspect, plus the royals heading off to "chop chop square" for the ritual beheading by sword, it tends to make the whole concept of Saudi stability as swing producer a bit problematic.  When oil drops off the charts down into $40 territory, how now?  Does MbS flee to Monaco?  I sure would.

[William Edwards + 708]

14 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

I am aware that you use constant dollars, so that numbers from different decades can be compared.  You use sound logic in that.

My point was that since most of the easy (and cheap) oil has already been extracted, the cost of oil should gradually rise as it gets more expensive to find and extract new oil fields, e.g. ultra deepwater, Arctic, etc.

I don't buy into the "low cost producer" theories promoted by much of the absolute dictatorship counties within the Middle East OPEC countries that tend to rely 80% or more on oil revenues, one trick pony absolute dictatorships that require high oil prices in order for their absolute dictatorship governments to stay in power.

It's been a while since I said this, but I currently view Saudi Arabia and Iran as tied for first place of the worst absolute dictatorships in the world.  North Korea used to be first place in my opinion, but positive changes have been happening in the last couple years.

Here's one of my earlier comments in this thread about the nonsense of the "low cost producers" in Middle East.  While I singled out Saudi Arabia, much of OPEC Middle East is similarly a dictatorship one trick pony that can only survive with oil prices that are simply too high for the rest of the world.  Take oil out of the equation, and what exactly does most of OPEC Middle East offer to the world except extremism and dictatorship hell.

All this talk about Saudi Arabia being a lowest cost oil producer is hooeey.  Nonsense.

That oil royalty payment to the tens of thousands of royal princes (who basically do next to nothing productive) is required to keep the country from civil war and total, utter collapse.

Similarly, the massive amounts of oil revenues required to pay off (social bribe) the lower-ranking non-royal citizens is necessary to keep the non-royal citizens from hauling the royalty to chop chop square and reducing the ranks of the royal elite by a head, and plunging the absolute dictatorship into a huge civil war bloodbath.

Factor in those absolutely required "social payment obligations" and the Saudi government needs somewhere around $85 - $95 oil to remain a country in the medium to longer term.

If you want to clearly see what happens to a country when the oil revenue runs out, when that oil revenue is required to bribe a country's citizens to keep a government in power, just look at Venezuela.  It has the largest *proven* oil reserves on earth, but the government ended up being too incompetent to successfully keep the flow of oil revenue flowing to bribe its citizens into social submission and keep the government in power.

Old 2013 pic related.



Edited yesterday at 11:59 AM by Tom Kirkman

 

================================

As for the second part of your comment, most of my view is addressed in my earlier comment above.

 

I tend to view any Saudi Aramco prospectus as a work of fiction and a complete fabrication as the Saudis insist they are a low cost producer, but in actual fact Saudi Aramco needs oil to be North of $80 to remain viable due to the social bribes required of high oil price revenues.

Those Saudi Aramco social bribes include skimming a large chunk of Aramco oil money off the top to pay off many thousands of royal princes (more like unproductive leeches, in my view.) 

Those Saudi Aramco social bribes also include providing mostly useless government jobs to the non-royals, with a well known problem of only working for one hour or so per day (again, more like unproductive leeches, in my view.)

Low Cost oil production in much of Middle East OPEC is firmly tied to extremely HIGH COST ABSOLUTE DICTATORSHIP GOVERNMENTS and required social bribes to keep their populaces from revolting.

 

Just my opinion; as always, anyone is free to disagree.  But I feel pretty strongly about my views and comments above.

You may be surprised to learn that I detected your strong feelings, Tom -- slightly. I am too simple-minded to be burdened with that level of emotion. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me. I am constantly probing to see if there is an element that I have missed. We differ, but not because I have missed something, I think.

 

4 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Hard to argue with any of that.  

Given the leech aspect, plus the royals heading off to "chop chop square" for the ritual beheading by sword, it tends to make the whole concept of Saudi stability as swing producer a bit problematic.  When oil drops off the charts down into $40 territory, how now?  Does MbS flee to Monaco?  I sure would.

Maybe to Mar a Lago, instead.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, William Edwards said:

You may be surprised to learn that I detected your strong feelings, Tom -- slightly. I am too simple-minded to be burdened with that level of emotion. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me. I am constantly probing to see if there is an element that I have missed. We differ, but not because I have missed something, I think.

No worries William.  My ire is in no way directed at you.  The "low cost producer" disinformation can occasionally get me off onto a rant, in much the same way that the disinformation campaign about U.S. Shale Oil supposedly being profitable and also being long term sustainable can occasionally get me off on a rant - both lines about U.S. Shale oil being profitable and long term sustainable are big fat fibs, in my view.

Anyway, time for me to climb down off my soap box and start laughing and joking about absurdities and posting silly memes again : )

Life is good these days, and oil is doing pretty darn good globally as well.

 

[specinho + 439]

20 hours ago, ceo_energemsier said:

That is one of the problems I have been facing what to do with the mountains and mountains of sulfur we remove using various techs from oil and products, lot of industries that use it but at the rate? lot of uses but storage is an issue.......................

We are able to remove just about all the sulphur  and heavy metals etc

Follow the yellow cake? wallow in the yellow cake? LOL

........... the ... skunk scent ........... due to organosulfur compounds. ........... 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur#Chemical_properties

Could this amount be big enough to produce "skunk bomb"?? 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

A very good gathering of people to find out and discuss in a very knowledgeable environment first hand the IMO2020 issue

https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/events/americas/bunker-and-residual-fuel-oil/summary?mkt_tok=eyjpijoitldjme1uqtjnall5t0rnncisinqioijxbfmxrtnnoddymejgquv4bstkag16nme1m2ppegprbhern3hxak9hrzhhcfzlam1xovkreniwounkv2hzrjzpy29bsgjmvgfxa3vuvkhzdwxlk2e4cuzjdtfwtm1ragq0bevlztc0s2tib3zom2tsowtstmhkv3cytnvyectccij9

[William Edwards + 708]

39 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

A very good gathering of people to find out and discuss in a very knowledgeable environment first hand the IMO2020 issue

https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/events/americas/bunker-and-residual-fuel-oil/summary?mkt_tok=eyjpijoitldjme1uqtjnall5t0rnncisinqioijxbfmxrtnnoddymejgquv4bstkag16nme1m2ppegprbhern3hxak9hrzhhcfzlam1xovkreniwounkv2hzrjzpy29bsgjmvgfxa3vuvkhzdwxlk2e4cuzjdtfwtm1ragq0bevlztc0s2tib3zom2tsowtstmhkv3cytnvyectccij9

Thanks for the reference, CEO. But my guess is that the conference will not give you any insight into the overriding question of "What happens to most of the 13,000 T/D of sulfur that must disappear from the system starting next year.  There will be much discussion of how the ship owners' problems are worked, but nothing regarding the BIG problem that will be faced by sour crude producers. Finding a source of the new, clean oil will continue to get all of the attention. Disposing of the "garbage" will continue to be overlooked.

Regardless of the deficiency in  recognition, the system will work the garbage problem, but with no advance consideration of the potential solution or the fallout on price and production in the system. Surprise! Surprise! 

The current "head in the sand" approach by producers gives them temporary comfort, but at the expense of next year's pain. But the CEO club continues to be comforted by comparing notes with each other, called "inbreeding". Past results of "following the herd" notwithstanding. Cheers!

Edited May 6, 2019 by William Edwards

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

8 minutes ago, William Edwards said:

Thanks for the reference, CEO. But my guess is that the conference will not give you any insight into the overriding question of "What happens to most of the 13,000 T/D of sulfur that must disappear from the system starting next year.  There will be much discussion of how the ship owners' problems are worked, but nothing regarding the BIG problem that will be faced by sour crude producers. Finding a source of the new, clean oil will continue to get all of the attention. Disposing of the "garbage" will continue to be overlooked.

Regardless of the deficiency in  recognition, the system will work the garbage problem, but with no advance consideration of the potential solution or the fallout on price and production in the system. Surprise! Surprise! 

The current "head in the sand" approach by producers gives them temporary comfort, but at the expense of next year's pain. But the CEO club continues to be comforted by comparing notes with each other, called "inbreeding". Past results of "following the herd" notwithstanding. Cheers!

Two main fronts to tackle that problem:

1) Ship owners/managers- SCrubbers

2) Desulph techs for removal of sulfur from crude oils and high sulfur fuels.

All can be done, some companies have been doing it for a number of years not just because of the IMO. Others will catch on, refiners will be the biggest beneficiaries along with producers of crude oil, they can all command a premium over other crappy (hi sulfur) products

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

Why does everyone think sulfur is garbage? It isn't, it's extremely valuable and useful. It is the 4th (and often overlooked) fertilizer, NPK and S. 

A little bit dated but Sulfur outlook

[William Edwards + 708]

1 minute ago, ceo_energemsier said:

Two main fronts to tackle that problem:

1) Ship owners/managers- SCrubbers

2) Desulph techs for removal of sulfur from crude oils and high sulfur fuels.

All can be done, some companies have been doing it for a number of years not just because of the IMO. Others will catch on, refiners will be the biggest beneficiaries along with producers of crude oil, they can all command a premium over other crappy (hi sulfur) products

We are not talking 2025 solutions, as you are. The required date is 2020. The "experts" expect 20% coverage of scrubbers by then. I am guessing that you did not advise your staff that they could wait five years before you implemented the new health plan for your company. That they could just wait! Today's problems should be addressed today, not put on the "pie in the sky" agenda.

[William Edwards + 708]

3 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Why does everyone think sulfur is garbage? It isn't, it's extremely valuable and useful. It is the 4th (and often overlooked) fertilizer, NPK and S. 

A little bit dated but Sulfur outlook

In fertilizer it is fine. As SO2 in the air, garbage. 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

1 minute ago, Ward Smith said:

Why does everyone think sulfur is garbage? It isn't, it's extremely valuable and useful. It is the 4th (and often overlooked) fertilizer, NPK and S. 

A little bit dated but Sulfur outlook

I dont think sulfur is garbage, it has its use and purpose, the problem facing the industry is the cut down in the %age of sulfur by the IMO for 2020. But it will be managed, the world is not going to end, and there are techs out there and being developed that will be used to address the matter, some companies are ahead of the curve some not so much, just a matter of time and the companies who got into that tech game for sulfur will be the winners in the short term and long term. We have been working on techs since 1992 for reduction of sulfur from crude oils and refined products and have used it successfully around the globe in conjunction with refineries (our own jvs) and or stand alone upgrading for fuels and crude oils under jvs and licensing fee based operations. We are able to upgrade heavy crude oils and fuels with an API of 8-12 and sulfur as high as 4% and increase the API to 43 and sulfur down to 0.25% and lower. Proprietary tech with  over 650,000bpd of heavy high sulfur crude to be upgrade and 250,000bpd of high sulfur fuels to be upgraded.  In combination with other techs acquired over the years, ultra clean fuels has been the name of the game.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

5 minutes ago, William Edwards said:

In fertilizer it is fine. As SO2 in the air, garbage. 

That is why techs like this exist and more along the way.

To capture the SO2

https://www.shell.com/business-customers/catalysts-technologies/licensed-technologies/gas-processing/emissions-standards/tail-gas-treatment-unit/cansolv.html#iframe=L2NhbnNvbHYtZm9ybQ

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

7 minutes ago, William Edwards said:

In fertilizer it is fine. As SO2 in the air, garbage. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610214018931

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 minute ago, ceo_energemsier said:

That is why techs like this exist and more along the way.

To capture the SO2

https://www.shell.com/business-customers/catalysts-technologies/licensed-technologies/gas-processing/emissions-standards/tail-gas-treatment-unit/cansolv.html#iframe=L2NhbnNvbHYtZm9ybQ

This. 

I'm well aware, and have posted here about refineries utterly displacing sulfur mining worldwide. Plants love sulfur today, and obviously loved sulfur Millions of years ago too, which is why it's in the oil today. One overlooked use of sulfur is in cement. Done right, it's tremendously resilient, and doesn't degrade in the presence of acids and bases. 

[William Edwards + 708]

3 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

I dont think sulfur is garbage, it has its use and purpose, the problem facing the industry is the cut down in the %age of sulfur by the IMO for 2020. But it will be managed, the world is not going to end, and there are techs out there and being developed that will be used to address the matter, some companies are ahead of the curve some not so much, just a matter of time and the companies who got into that tech game for sulfur will be the winners in the short term and long term. We have been working on techs since 1992 for reduction of sulfur from crude oils and refined products and have used it successfully around the globe in conjunction with refineries (our own jvs) and or stand alone upgrading for fuels and crude oils under jvs and licensing fee based operations. We are able to upgrade heavy crude oils and fuels with an API of 8-12 and sulfur as high as 4% and increase the API to 43 and sulfur down to 0.25% and lower. Proprietary tech with  over 650,000bpd of heavy high sulfur crude to be upgrade and 250,000bpd of high sulfur fuels to be upgraded.  In combination with other techs acquired over the years, ultra clean fuels has been the name of the game.

And all of this is going to occur in six months! I am impressed -- or skeptical. But you do give me an idea. My creditors keep insisting that I pay them NOW. I think that I will adopt your approach and tell them to be patient, I will pay them next year just after Publishers Clearinghouse vists my door.

[William Edwards + 708]

Just now, Ward Smith said:

This. 

I'm well aware, and have posted here about refineries utterly displacing sulfur mining worldwide. Plants love sulfur today, and obviously loved sulfur Millions of years ago too, which is why it's in the oil today. One overlooked use of sulfur is in cement. Done right, it's tremendously resilient, and doesn't degrade in the presence of acids and bases. 

Like all things, the material balance must be satisfied on a timely basis. Rain is a necessity, but Hurricane Harvey, with poor timing, overdid it.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

9 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

I dont think sulfur is garbage, it has its use and purpose, the problem facing the industry is the cut down in the %age of sulfur by the IMO for 2020. But it will be managed, the world is not going to end, and there are techs out there and being developed that will be used to address the matter, some companies are ahead of the curve some not so much, just a matter of time and the companies who got into that tech game for sulfur will be the winners in the short term and long term. We have been working on techs since 1992 for reduction of sulfur from crude oils and refined products and have used it successfully around the globe in conjunction with refineries (our own jvs) and or stand alone upgrading for fuels and crude oils under jvs and licensing fee based operations. We are able to upgrade heavy crude oils and fuels with an API of 8-12 and sulfur as high as 4% and increase the API to 43 and sulfur down to 0.25% and lower. Proprietary tech with  over 650,000bpd of heavy high sulfur crude to be upgrade and 250,000bpd of high sulfur fuels to be upgraded.  In combination with other techs acquired over the years, ultra clean fuels has been the name of the game.

Sounds like the Honeywell UOP process? Or have you done them one better? 

[William Edwards + 708]

1 minute ago, Ward Smith said:

Sounds like the Honeywell UOP process? Or have you done them one better? 

Check out Well Resources' Selex-Asp process, followed by desulfurization.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Just now, William Edwards said:

And all of this is going to occur in six months! I am impressed -- or skeptical. But you do give me an idea. My creditors keep insisting that I pay them NOW. I think that I will adopt your approach and tell them to be patient, I will pay them next year just after Publishers Clearinghouse vists my door.

I am making my own publisher's clearing house visit my door everyday

We have been upgrading high sulfur crude oils and refined products for many years now, and not talking about the future. We had a JV in Venezuela many years ago but abandoned that in a timely manner before the storm hit down there. This was back in 2009-2010, when things would have been a lot better than now. Currently we are doing JV operations with a few major world producers (some OPEC members) in building out the volume for upgrading 650,000bpd and upwards along with some refineries and fuel traders.

We are building our own refinery(ies) in the US that will address this issue of low sulfur fuels and will be providing ultra clean fuels.

We are not waiting 6 months to do this , we have been doing this for years. Scaling up is what we are doing now with the key strategic partners who have a supply of hi sulfur crude and high sulfur products.

 

 

[D Coyne + 305]

On 5/3/2019 at 6:21 PM, William Edwards said:

You say "Perhaps if all OPEC Producers pumped at maximum capacity we might see the $40/b that you predict.". Tell me again where you put that 2-4 MMB/D of surplus supply that you will have OPEC pump without a buyer. Back to "oil in the sky"? Our discussions will benefit if we BOTH stick to reality in our suggestions. No receiving vessel, no oil pumped!

Further, it doesn't take a million barrels of too much supply capability to crater the price. It appeared that maybe as little as 100 MB/D of unsaleable Canadian Oil Sands production caused a $40 price drop almost overnight. Desperate sellers become desperate price cutters.

William,

I don't estimate OPEC surplus capacity at 2 to 4 Mb/d, present day potential increase might be 1 Mb/d.  As I have said repeatedly oil is produced and stored, eventually the traders become aware of high stock levels and prices fall, or they anticipate rising stock levels by looking at storage level trends and trends in output and consumption.  In addition, OPEC can signal that they plan to ramp up output to take back market share and that is often enough to lead to lower oil prices, which increases demand so that OPEC can flood the market with crude.

The price dropped in the fall of 2018 because Trump granted waivers for many nations on the Iranian sanctions, this was unexpected so the market expected a glut of oil, OPEC cuts reassured the oil market.  The drop in price of the Alberta crude was not the cause of the drop in Brent and WTI.

[William Edwards + 708]

1 minute ago, ceo_energemsier said:

I am making my own publisher's clearing house visit my door everyday

We have been upgrading high sulfur crude oils and refined products for many years now, and not talking about the future. We had a JV in Venezuela many years ago but abandoned that in a timely manner before the storm hit down there. This was back in 2009-2010, when things would have been a lot better than now. Currently we are doing JV operations with a few major world producers (some OPEC members) in building out the volume for upgrading 650,000bpd and upwards along with some refineries and fuel traders.

We are building our own refinery(ies) in the US that will address this issue of low sulfur fuels and will be providing ultra clean fuels.

We are not waiting 6 months to do this , we have been doing this for years. Scaling up is what we are doing now with the key strategic partners who have a supply of hi sulfur crude and high sulfur products.

 

 

Good. How much of the required 3 MMB/D will come onstream by January 1? My concern is that you, like Cenovus, Aramco, Mexico, etc. have been shown the path to upgrading, but have not judged it necessary to pull the trigger in a big way. The fiction of high prices, presented temporarily by future traders and mis-undestood by the industry, have allowed hope to substitute for wisdom. Thus we have a timing problem.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

4 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Sounds like the Honeywell UOP process? Or have you done them one better? 

 

One of the tech's subject of the discussion uses a proprietary process to activate the heavy oil and break the long chain hydrocarbon, sulfur and heavy metal bonds, and thus significantly reducing the viscosity and freeing up the contaminants for removal and recovery and also  creating additional revenue streams.