Offshore is changing

[Rob Plant + 2,618]

1 minute ago, Papillon said:

My point, I hear you ask, is that progress is not always a negative by definition, simply the way of the world and necessity being the mother of invention, and for a natural view being changed we must be grateful for the ridding of disease and many other progressive acts in the meantime also

Papillon I am all for progress and invention, however these aren't "necessity" they are an inefficient form of power generation and an eyesore on what was a beautiful location.

the necessity you may argue is that the UK has committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2050 (unlikely in my opinion unless we expand nuclear)

As for being grateful for getting rid of disease, I get your analogy but it isn't relevant here. If these monstrosities got rid of disease I'd be all for them, but they don't.

[Papillon + 485]

I believe my poor English is at fault today sir, what I intended to reference was not a metaphor for disease but simply one of visible beauty and gratitude of achievement, or may I word it as seeing positives over negatives. I was obviously not suggesting these inventions prevent disease, I hope this is clear sir. 

Also, although I am in agreement with you, though not sure I would use the term 'monstrosity', I am sure some would consider many aspects of the crude oil industry and its effects on nature a monstrosity potentially also. So which is worse I could ask, a slight pain on the eye or on the planet? I would respectfully argue the latter sir. 

Edited December 2, 2019 by Papillon

[James Regan + 1,776]

Indeed offshore is changing, but no so radically as some may want to believe, yes we are seeing wind farms appear and solar being utilised and the hypocritical view that LNG is a renewable, that makes me laugh, make no mistake its a fossil fuel.

The change we are seeing that is to those who are in the fossil fuel industry is the change of how to make the systems better more efficient and reduce costs as the requirements for oil has not changed and will not change for the next 30 years.

Many segments of the industry are investing heavily on niche choice products and systems will will compliment the industry as we move forward. Don't be fooled by the glossy adverts and TV clips of the IOCs punting wind power as part of their portfolios, these companies are oil companies focussed on fossil fuels, at roughly 3% of their investment renewables is mere propaganda.

Did anyone see John Brown EX BP CEO recently. I know this is CNN but just take a look on how he is flip flopping but you can see at heart he is an oil man.

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2019/09/06/john-browne-oil-bp-climate-change-fossil-fuels-aman.cnn

[Rob Plant + 2,618]

1 hour ago, Papillon said:

Also, although I am in agreement with you, though not sure I would use the term 'monstrosity', I am sure some would consider many aspects of the crude oil industry and its effects on nature a monstrosity potentially also. So which is worse I could ask, a slight pain on the eye or on the planet? I would respectfully argue the latter sir. 

Papillon it depends on your point of view I guess. If you believe all of the media hype surrounding climate change regarding Co2 levels then yes you would be correct. My personal opinion is that this isn't the problem, the problem IMHO is pollution ie NOX + SOX etc. which is killing thousands each year.

See this link for live air pollution map of the world, and see whose good and whose bad!

https://waqi.info/

Gerry Maddoux stated in a different thread that the 15 largest freighters in the world produce more of these pollutants annually than all 760 Million cars on the planet! The fact that sulphur is going to be reduced as at 01-01-2020 from 3.5%wt to 0.5%wt will make a massive difference to these pollutants globally.

I'm all for "saving the planet" but I don't buy into all the media frenzy, sorry.

I don't want to start all the climate change debate again either as this has been done to death on this site.

 

[Papillon + 485]

Fair enough sir but I did not mention cars, or pollution, or climate, or CO2, or the 'frenzy', or the 'hype' or the 'debate' - I was merely going to reference for example oil spillage and suggest alternatives should maybe not be criticised due to how they look. I am sure some around the world do not like the 'look' of oil within oceans either or the death of wildlife.

With respect sir your reply seems somewhat typical of an instant defensive nature on the site of any type of opposing view. I am in no way singling you out in this regard sir, it is simply the latest example and from what you say you have had this type of conversation several times I am guessing so I understand. I was not referencing or beginning a debate on climate, merely on the implementation of cleaner energy sources. My point was simply the end goal is more important in the long term than the look. I have no qualms with oil.

Edited December 2, 2019 by Papillon

[James Regan + 1,776]

17 minutes ago, Papillon said:

Fair enough sir but I did not mention cars, or pollution, or climate, or CO2, or the 'frenzy', or the 'hype' or the 'debate' - I was merely going to reference for example oil spillage and suggest alternatives should maybe not be criticised due to how they look. I am sure some around the world do not like the 'look' of oil within oceans either or the death of wildlife.

I do however with respect notice a reference yet again here of who is 'good' and who is 'bad'. I did not realise that some global concerns were a matter of competition and that people are therefore faultless or not to be questioned if not quite as bad as others. 

With respect sir your reply seems somewhat typical of an instant defensive nature on the site of any type of opposing view. I am in no way singling you out in this regard sir, it is simply the latest example. I was not referencing or beginning a debate on climate, merely on the implementation of cleaner energy sources. My point was simply the end goal is more important in the long term than the look. 

Climate Change Denial ^^^^^^^Good

Climate Change Debate ^^^^^^ Bad

Greta Thunberg ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ugly

 

Edited December 2, 2019 by James Regan
Get Three Coffins Ready, one Bastard goes in another one comes out...

[Papillon + 485]

OK sir ...?  😒

Edited December 2, 2019 by Papillon

[Rob Plant + 2,618]

16 minutes ago, Papillon said:

Fair enough sir but I did not mention cars, or pollution, or climate, or CO2, or the 'frenzy', or the 'hype' or the 'debate' - I was merely going to reference for example oil spillage and suggest alternatives should maybe not be criticised due to how they look. I am sure some around the world do not like the 'look' of oil within oceans either or the death of wildlife.

I do however with respect notice a reference yet again here of who is 'good' and who is 'bad'. I did not realise that some global concerns were a matter of competition and that people are therefore faultless or not to be questioned if not quite as bad as others. 

With respect sir your reply seems somewhat typical of an instant defensive nature on the site of any type of opposing view. I am in no way singling you out in this regard sir, it is simply the latest example and from what you say you have had this type of conversation several times I am guessing so I understand. I was not referencing or beginning a debate on climate, merely on the implementation of cleaner energy sources. My point was simply the end goal is more important in the long term than the look. I have no qualms with oil.

Ok fair enough

I was just pointing out that the choices of different power generation is a political decision and is inextricably linked to the climate change debate. hence why i mentioned what my view was on this, feel free to disagree.

I am not being defensive on anything that I'm aware of, just stating my views. I reference the map as I think its an interesting map and indicates where there is air pollution in real time and yes some areas are good and some bad, and the bad ones you may want to avoid, which I thought might have been of interest to you. It is interesting as it will change throughout the day as the major economies operate through their working day. However you seem to have misunderstood my reason for adding this, but never mind.

I respect everyone's opinion and it is theirs to have, as is mine. If you feel I have verbally attacked you in any way for having an opinion then accept my apology, but I fail to see where this is in any of this discussion???

Respectfully

[Papillon + 485]

Not at all sir, I feel my poor English is rather getting us lost here and this is entirely my fault. It was merely that your first line made reference to climate change and CO2 but this was not where I was going with my previous comment to this and I believe you think it is maybe exactly where I was heading? I assume this was why you stated you were not intent in having another debate about it. This was not my intention.

We have strayed to all sorts of topics that we maybe did not intend, from Wordsworth to freighter pollution! Please accept my apology. Also I fear to say I did not open the link as I make an effort to not have many tabs open on my laptop as I fear it will explode. Currently I have over forty and the poor thing is suffering. I hope you understand, but yes I wrongly assumed due to your wording of 'who is good and who is bad' that it was a form of national comparison. 

I did not feel it was a personal attack sir, simply a defensive one but I understand that now perfectly if you thought I wanted this infamous debate with you. I trust this clarifies.

[James Regan + 1,776]

16 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Ok fair enough

I was just pointing out that the choices of different power generation is a political decision and is inextricably linked to the climate change debate. hence why i mentioned what my view was on this, feel free to disagree.

I am not being defensive on anything that I'm aware of, just stating my views. I reference the map as I think its an interesting map and indicates where there is air pollution in real time and yes some areas are good and some bad, and the bad ones you may want to avoid, which I thought might have been of interest to you. It is interesting as it will change throughout the day as the major economies operate through their working day. However you seem to have misunderstood my reason for adding this, but never mind.

I respect everyone's opinion and it is theirs to have, as is mine. If you feel I have verbally attacked you in any way for having an opinion then accept my apology, but I fail to see where this is in any of this discussion???

Respectfully

Rob 

Sometimes we have to go back to Forums 101, we always seem to be having the same conversations as people come and go. People get offended by a comment, pretty petty really but we have all done it. Its like trolling it comes in various degrees, some trolling actually fuels the debate and is not meant in malice.

Its human nature and feelings will always get hurt.

Lets remember the famous battle between us @daytrader will remember between the Ethanol guy that was invited onto this forum to stir it up, which it did, this like all forums are micro governments/democracies where all have freedom of speech and people will get offended and angry but we are watched and vetted by moderators. This in not just OP this is even my Manchester United Youtube channel, it has protocols and people who monitor conversations and if they deem them unfit you are blocked or timed out.

I got a bit off base there but you get my drift, forums are exactly what they say on the can and will offend and required to be policed.

[Rob Plant + 2,618]

13 minutes ago, Papillon said:

Not at all sir, I feel my poor English is rather getting us lost here and this is entirely my fault. It was merely that your first line made reference to climate change and CO2 but this was not where I was going with my previous comment to this and I believe you think it is maybe exactly where I was heading? I assume this was why you stated you were not intent in having another debate about it. This was not my intention.

We have strayed to all sorts of topics that we maybe did not intend, from Wordsworth to freighter pollution! Please accept my apology. Also I fear to say I did not open the link as I make an effort to not have many tabs open on my laptop as I fear it will explode. Currently I have over forty and the poor thing is suffering. I hope you understand, but yes I wrongly assumed due to your wording of 'who is good and who is bad' that it was a form of national comparison. 

I did not feel it was a personal attack sir, simply a defensive one but I understand that now perfectly if you thought I wanted this infamous debate with you. I trust this clarifies.

No worries Papillon 👍

[Rob Plant + 2,618]

11 minutes ago, James Regan said:

Rob 

Sometimes we have to go back to Forums 101, we always seem to be having the same conversations as people come and go. People get offended by a comment, pretty petty really but we have all done it. Its like trolling it comes in various degrees, some trolling actually fuels the debate and is not meant in malice.

Its human nature and feelings will always get hurt.

Lets remember the famous battle between us @daytrader will remember between the Ethanol guy that was invited onto this forum to stir it up, which it did, this like all forums are micro governments/democracies where all have freedom of speech and people will get offended and angry but we are watched and vetted by moderators. This in not just OP this is even my Manchester United Youtube channel, it has protocols and people who monitor conversations and if they deem them unfit you are blocked or timed out.

I got a bit off base there but you get my drift, forums are exactly what they say on the can and will offend and required to be policed.

As usual you are right James, wise words mate☺️

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 12/2/2019 at 3:46 PM, Rob Plant said:

I was just pointing out that the choices of different power generation is a political decision and is inextricably linked to the climate change debate. hence why i mentioned what my view was on this, feel free to disagree.

I agree partly. But only partly. There are also energy independence aspects to consider. And that does also play a role. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 12/2/2019 at 2:18 PM, James Regan said:

Indeed offshore is changing, but no so radically as some may want to believe,

But change is happening. I want to be in this business for another 30 years so I need to accept it. 

On 12/2/2019 at 2:18 PM, James Regan said:

The change we are seeing that is to those who are in the fossil fuel industry is the change of how to make the systems better more efficient and reduce costs as the requirements for oil has not changed and will not change for the next 30 years.

I believe that we soon be experiencing stagnation and then decline in overall oil demand. It will be a slow decline, but a decline none the less. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

2 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I agree partly. But only partly. There are also energy independence aspects to consider. And that does also play a role. 

Ding Ding and why all the politicos are pushing CO2 scam.  Has nothing to do with CO2.  Has everything to do with the fact that Europe got the short end of the stick regarding oil/uranium deposits.  Great AG land, sucks for energy sufficiency. Same reason China will go electric for most of its transportation and so will India.  .... That is assuming someone can manufacture batteries cheap enough. 

[James Regan + 1,776]

On 12/4/2019 at 10:16 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

But change is happening. I want to be in this business for another 30 years so I need to accept it. 

I believe that we soon be experiencing stagnation and then decline in overall oil demand. It will be a slow decline, but a decline none the less. 

@Rasmus Jorgensen its seems to look like it, but we also need to understand where we have just come from. We are comparing the current "downturn" to the bombastic days of 2013. I would personally refer to current situation as a correction which has been fuelled by the prolific rise in the US LTO. Where would the conventional oil market be at this time if the unconventional had not been fed unfairly so by US political agenda and wall street greed. We are starting to see a significant increase in the conventional segment of our Industry and in my opinion all are aware the LTO is not a model that can be trusted as a long term solution, so we will see a steady increase in conventional as IOCs spread their portfolios and investors alike.

Regarding your comment of stagnation I assume you are referring to rigs being laid up etc and the support sectors suffering, I think the stagnation was only offset because of the temporary security blanket that was offered by LTO. We are seeing common sense prevail as if we were so sure Shale Oil in general World Wide as a permanent replacement then we would have scrapped all the 6th and 7th Generation Units which are idle, we have been bitten before in this way, I dont see it happening again, the units that have been scrapped, most of were because they had actually reached the validation date. The rigs such as the Aker H4 were not built with a lifespan, compared to the units built around 2000, most were built on spec and contract, after the life span and the unit had paid for itself, that's it game over.

I see a maturer Industry with a focus on consolidation and collaboration based on real market rates and not over inflated rates fuelled on the drill baby drill attitude we saw in 2013 and which we have seen in the LTO market. LTO is just in lag time and will suffer as the conventional market suffered.

Just thought I would throw this one in the pot of many...

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Shales-Debt-Fueled-Drilling-Boom-Is-Coming-To-An-End.html

Edited December 5, 2019 by James Regan

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

6 hours ago, James Regan said:

its seems to look like it, but we also need to understand where we have just come from. We are comparing the current "downturn" to the bombastic days of 2013. 

This is key, but my reason for thinking this is likely different than yours. 2009 - 2014 the supplychain in offshore expanded rapidly. Too rapidly. Today there is much more capacity in the supplychain (everything from drilling to offshore contruction) than there is demand. That capacity must find something to do. 

6 hours ago, James Regan said:

egarding your comment of stagnation I assume you are referring to rigs being laid up etc

No. I meant that I believe we will see a stagnation and then slow decline in global oil demand. We have been over the this many times. No need to re-open. The point is that whilst demand for oil is not going away it will undoubtedly start to decline. 

 

6 hours ago, James Regan said:

Where would the conventional oil market be at this time if the unconventional had not been fed unfairly so by US political agenda and wall street greed.

Agree on political agenda, but Wall street greed has backed offshore before in the past as well. 

----------------------------------

My point with all this - business models and areas for offshore needs to change if you want to be succesfull in the longterm.