Page 1 of 9
Posted on April 27 at 11:01 a.m.
"The Seven Sisters" is an obsolete collective term that has no relevance to the fall in oil prices over the last 12 months.
Do you believe that 13,000 oil companies have all conspired to reduce their revenue by 50%? That they also conspired to do this in 2008 (but by 70% then)? And felt that $10 oil would be great in 1998? That they conspired to do the same in 1986, and held prices low for 23 years? Sure you do.
Your pithy little responses, which you undoubtedly think are clever, reveal a small conspiratorial mind. But then as someone uneducated in any disciplines relevant to the industry, and lacking any experience in the industry, what other position can you take but an ideological one? Why don't you go over to UFO.com? I think you'll find a home there.
On Capps Introduces Bill to Halt Offshore Fracking
Posted on April 27 at 10:52 a.m.
You say "You'd think, in America, that you'd have to do the study before allowing any action to proceed that might damage quality of life."
Over 1,100,000 wells have been fracked since the 1940's, in many states and countries, in a broadly diverse set of geologic conditions and well engineering techniques. How much experimentation do you feel is necessary? Your lack of expertise and technical incompetence in the subject is not the same thing as a lack of scientific body of knowledge. Do you understand the difference? Ideological opposition is not the same thing as technically accurate assessment of the risks and issues. Do you understand that difference?
The National Ground Water Association (NGWA) is the largest association of groundwater professionals in the world. They have no ties to the oil industry. They are composed of professionals trained in geology, chemistry, biology, and fluid flow in porous media. They work in government agencies, environmental remediation firms, academia. Their job is to defend and monitor the nation's aquifers. They have a position paper on the subject of hydraulic fracturing. Do you want to know what they say?
"No widespread water quality or quantity issues have been definitively documented that are attributable to the hydraulic fracturing process itself." That's what they say. They go on to explain that other related problems, like leaky casing or surface spills, have been linked to groundwater pollution (they use the term "several cases:" millions of wells have been fracked), and offer suggestions. But, again, this professional group with all the expertise that is relevant to the issue are saying that fracking has not caused any known damage to aquifers. How would you counter this group's finding?
You wouldn't because you couldn't. You have no expertise. You just believe stuff. Why do you think your posts are relevant? Why do you believe that people care what you think?
Posted on April 27 at 10:35 a.m.
The recent fall in oil prices has nothing to do with any grand conspiracy to "screw Russia and also Venezuela," and everything to do with the addition of 4 million barrels of oil per day to global supply, made possible by hundreds of companies drilling thousands of wells primarily in Texas and North Dakota. If you think the CEO of one of these companies, whose individual contribution to global production is minuscule, decided to halve his revenue to "screw Russia and also Venezuela," you are sadly mistaken.
Current global oil production is about 90 million barrels per day. Prices have dropped by about $50 per barrel in the past year, which means an aggregate fall in revenue to the global oil industry of about $4.5 billion per day. If you believe that 13,000 US oil companies, and thousands of others around the world, all agreed to drop prices in order to reduce their revenues by 50%, then you are of course free to do so. Why would you would wish to believe something that makes so little sense? Because economically and technically illiterate people are fond of conspiracy theories: it gives them a false sense of understanding of complex phenomena they have no expertise in.
Posted on April 10 at 1:09 p.m.
So let's say 20,000 Santa Barbarans fly to Hawaii, or Europe, or wherever their high disposable income dictates for this year.
That's 12,500,000 metric tons of CO2 they donate annually to the atmosphere for the sole purpose of their own self indulgence. But 1,000 metric tons from a jobs (largely for low and middle income people) producing plant? No way, says Janet Blevins. Agreed. I say we shut down the Santa Barbara airport and cancel her passport.
On County Moves Toward Tougher Emissions Limits
Posted on April 10 at 11:10 a.m.
"CO2 emissions in air travel vary by length of flight, ranging from 0.277 kg CO2 per passenger mile to 0.185 kg CO2per passenger mile, depending on the flight distance. "
Your average wealthy Santa Barbaran therefore produces about 2500 metric tons of CO2 pollution each time he takes his family of four to Hawaii. I assume luxury air travel will also be banned?
Posted on March 16 at 8:56 a.m.
"hey, don't allow the rail transport for this particularly flammable stuff."Right on! And don't allow transportation by truck, pipeline, bicycle, or wagon either. You're OK with that, aren't you DrDan, because you consume no oil at all, you buy no products that were delivered to market via oil (think, food and housing), and accept no cash payments from anyone who does this terrible things.
"...move right on to renewables."Sure. By when? Next Thursday?
"And today someone wrote the NP ranting about how the evil companies are keeping prices high in SB. Is there something in the water here that limits logical thinking?"Sure seems that way. At least, some people don't understand the difference between ideology and problem solving.
On Oil by Train Opposed
Posted on January 16 at 10:40 p.m.
Here's what I say..."Sorry random_kook, I can't help you anymore. You're in your own world. Best of luck convincing anyone with any influence at all of your goofy beliefs. I'm not interested in them, and neither is anyone else." Have a good evening.
On Cheap Gas, but Pricey Futures
Posted on January 16 at 4:05 p.m.
There's fracking in many places, none having the impact of the US.
Sorry, but anyone who believes that hundreds of CEO's all agreed to cut their cash flow in half for some far off political objective that might not even work is simply a fool and can't be taken seriously. I don't feel like talking to a table lamp. If you want to "discuss" your "ideas" further, I suggest ufo.com.
Posted on January 16 at 3:48 p.m.
Your shareholders wouldn't think it would be silly. In complying with this conspiracy, you have just breached your fiduciary responsibility to them. The fact that you avoid answering tells me a lot about your intellectual integrity, or lack thereof.
!) You've never drilled a well, or tried to permit a pipeline (how's Keystone doing?), and have no oil industry experience, so you know nothing about how hard it is to get any kind of industry permit.
2) The "fracking boom" has lots of sources of capital: bonds (you think highly profitable companies like Hess et all are junk grade?), cash from operations, equity, individual investment, venture capital. Saying it's all "junk bonds" demonstrates a gross level of ignorance.
3) The Obama administration has absolutely nothing to do "drilling approvals" (sic) anywhere except on federal lands: federal offshore waters and BLM property, which combined represent almost none of the recent growth in production, so your reply lacks credibility. The growth has come from private lands, and wells there are permitted by state and local agencies. You're wrong.
If you want to go the 12th century conspiracy route, be my guest. But if you insist on being ignorant, then you cede control to those who do understand how the market works. You can't be sure they're going to act in your best interests.
BTW, why don't you assemble a proof of conspiracy and take it to a judge? There are lots of liberal judges who would love to hear it and be heavily biased in your favor. Law firms would be calling you to take such a high visibility case on with no cost to you if you fail. If you win, you'd make millions in talk show appearances, speaking engagements, book and screenplay rights. So why don't you do it?
Because you can't. You have no such evidence, and no judge would listen to you. You just believe stuff. Another internet screamer who just accepts whatever sounds good to him, and ignores what doesn't. For guys like you, evidence is irrelevant, it's all about ideology.
Posted on January 16 at 12:11 p.m.
As CEO of a 1000 barrel per day oil company, your shareholders are demanding an answer to the question I posed to you above:
"President Obama calls you one day in July and says, "I want you to drop your revenues to $45,000 per day." You're just going to do it? Would you not ask him what legal right he has to force you to do this? Your production will have absolutely zero effect on global politics. So why would you do it?"
Why would you agree to this conspiracy? Your shareholders have invested millions of their own dollars in your company. Why are you agreeing to destroy their investment? You have no legal obligation to do so, and your decision will have no impact on a global scale.
Why would you do it?