WEATHER »

Comments by swimmer

Previous | Page 2 of 9 | Next

Posted on January 16 at 12:11 p.m.

random_kook...

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?

On Cheap Gas, but Pricey Futures

Posted on January 16 at 11:42 a.m.

"Nice exponential curve. Try explaining it."

Really very simple. The development of a new exploration concept. Multi-stage hydraulic fracturing over very long horizontal wellbores in very low permeability rock (shale). High oil prices. Hundreds of oil companies. Kind of like exponential growth of gold production in California from 1840 to 1860. No conspiracies there, I don't think. It's new knowledge and human nature.

Here's Texas:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/Leaf...

Notice that production in Texas didn't take off until 2010, two years later. Did Obama wait around before calling Texas companies? What about Texas companies that also produced in North Dakota (and there are a lot of them), what were THEY thinking? The same technology applied in North Dakota was found to work in Texas a few years later in the Eagle Ford shale.

Compare the recent rise of US production here, mostly ramping up in 2010

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/Leaf...

with sales figures for smart phones over the last decade, with computers in the 1980's, or with televisions in the 1950's. As with these technologies, innovative in their time, the reason for US production had everything to do with new technologies and individual companies seeking to profit by it, and nothing whatsoever to do with the president at the time or conspiracies.

Conspiracy theory does not always have to be the answer for everything. Those who believe in this explanation remind me of people from the 12th century. Unusual physical, atmospheric, or astronomical phenomena were almost always explained by religion. Their conspiracy theory equivalent was to say that "God made it that way." But centuries of further study led to a deeper understanding of what was really the root cause of these observations. So it is with the oil industry in 2015. People don't know much about it, and in their attempt to explain what they see, simply fall back on conspiracy theory rather than do any serious study.

On Cheap Gas, but Pricey Futures

Posted on January 16 at 10:40 a.m.

" US production is surging because federal lands and coastline were opened up to fracking in recent years thanks to Obama. It's not secret, you can read about it in the news."

Absolutely untrue. About 77% of US production is from private lands, and almost all of the increases in production in recent years are from private lands. There are hundreds if not thousands of oil companies producing from these unconventional reservoirs. They are doing this not because someone told them to, but because they wanted to make a profit. The increases didn't happen overnight, as if all oil companies got a phone call from Obama. The growth rate has been sustained one, starting in early 2008 in North Dakota, for example. You can see the state's production profile here:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/Leaf...

Since 2009 oil production on federal lands is down by 6 percent. This is particularly striking because since 2009 overall oil production on non-federal land is up by 61 percent.

Suppose you ran a small oil company (there are about 12,000 of them in the US) that produced about 1000 barrels of oil per day. Last June you were grossing $100,000 per day. 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?

I never fail to be amazed at the stuff ignorant people believe. The world is not as simple a place as you believe. Conspiracy theories are seductive to uninformed people who don't want to do any homework, but bias and bigotry are not substitutes for rational analysis, and selective googling does not confer expertise on someone who lacks any of it.

On Cheap Gas, but Pricey Futures

Posted on January 16 at 9:47 a.m.

Holly, a more interesting question would be, why would anyone buy their gas there? After a few days of zero revenue it seems they'd get the message.

On Cheap Gas, but Pricey Futures

Posted on January 15 at 10:49 p.m.

Where are all the oil price conspiracy theorists? Must be on an extended ski trip. I've kind of been missing their chatter!

On Cheap Gas, but Pricey Futures

Posted on December 16 at 11:40 p.m.

MCResident....

The question is not simply whether Barron drives (he almost certainly does).

But also...

Does Barron eat any food that was harvested, processed, or delivered to his table without the use of fossil fuels? Does he live in, or work in, any structures whose materials were processed and delivered using fossil fuels? Has he bought anything made of plastic? Has he ever flown in an airplane? Has he ever sought medical services from doctors who refuse to use plastics, medical equipment delivered using fossil fuels, or medicines that use fossil fuels as feedstock? Does he accept a paycheck from anyone who is guilty of these crimes?

Barron answers yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. He's paying people daily, directly and indirectly, for the raw material he believes they should stop producing. Should the people he despises refuse to sell him that raw material? What would his response be if they did? That's pretty predictable... sputtering on about some conspiracy theory or other... if only Big Oil would go away we'd all be running on free altruinium energy, or some equivalent answer. Even though he knows nothing about oil or altruinium.

On Goleta May Shut Down Venoco Facility

Posted on October 30 at 4:31 p.m.

LOL I have a feeling Priceless won't be elucidating very clearly. He might call me names though! That's always an effective strategy. :)

Most analysis I've read is calling for an extended period of lower prices, one source didn't predict a return to $100 oil again until 2020.

US production has increased by about 3.6 million barrels per day since 2008, a 73% increase. And here I thought the industry was manipulating supply to increase prices. That's what a lot of people on here told me anyway!

Imagine waking up to a headline tomorrow saying that 3.6 million barrels had just been taken off the market. Imagine what impact that would have on oil prices.

On Gas Prices Dip to More Than Three-Year Low

Posted on October 30 at 3:46 p.m.

@Priceless

Gas is at a 3 year low because oil prices have dropped sharply. Oil is about $25 per barrel off its recent peak, and oil has gone down everywhere, not just in the US. It’s a globally priced commodity.

Let’s look at what this election manipulation would cost some major oil exporters. Below are 4 major oil exporting nations, their current production in barrels per day (bpd), and the dollar amount per day they have all agreed to lose in this scheme.

Saudi Arabia: 11,530,000 bpd; $288 million
Russia: 10,643,000 bpd; $266 million
Iran: 3,680,000 bpd; $92 million
Venezuela: 2,625,000; bpd; $66 million

So what you’re suggesting here, priceless, is that these four countries, have all agreed to jointly invest $712 million PER DAY to … do what? Reelect incumbents? Elect challengers who are claiming credit for the drop in prices? Can you elucidate their strategy for us, priceless? Because I don’t see any incumbents or challengers making this into an issue. I’m not seeing a groundswell of support for incumbents everywhere because of somewhat lower gas prices. This has been going on for about 3 weeks and will presumably continue through Nov 4. So, what does this $712 mm x 30 = $21 billion buy these exporters, exactly? And is it a sure thing? What if the dishonest politicians take the conspirators’ money and then turn around and stab them in the back? What if the electorate doesn’t make the connection you suggest? After all, not everyone can be expected to have your keen insight.

How would you test your idea? Search out average weekly prices for first week in June and for first week in November, going back as far as you please. Compare them. Is there a drop that correlates in magnitude to election years? Presidential years? I have done this. There is no correlation to elections. Prices do tend to fall every autumn, because demand goes down, and because refiners switch over to lower cost winter gasoline blends.

Another thing you could easily check is, when are the autumn lows reached? This same charge was popular in 2008 when gasoline prices were dropping sharply. While gasoline fell by 41% between June 30 and November 1 of that year, it continued to fall another 29% through the first week of January. Every single oil company in the world conspiring to force prices lower in order to cover their trails?

Of course, I’m sure none of this data makes any difference to you, priceless. Evidence is usually unimportant to prejudiced people, and you’ll go on believing what you believe. But maybe there are more serious readers who will see the silliness of this charge that comes up every election year.

Conspiracy theory: the opiate of the uninformed.

On Gas Prices Dip to More Than Three-Year Low

Posted on September 25 at 7:25 p.m.

whitecrow,

Better questions would be, what's the annual volume of oil seeping into the Santa Barbara channel naturally, and what is the actual (as opposed to an allegation) annual volume of produced water released? How do these two volumes compare in terms of toxicity? I assume, since the release of produced water is legal and regulated, that government agencies would be free to obtain samples of this water and run chemical analyses on it. What do those analyses say? No one seems interested in such questions, just as no one seems interested in risk analysis.

A previous study done by UCSB researchers several years ago estimated that about 100 to 200 barrels of oil per day seep naturally into the Santa Barbara Channel. That's roughly in the range of 50,000 barrels, or 2.3 million gallons, per year. The Santa Barbara spill of 1969 was estimated to be anywhere from 80,000 to 100,000 barrels, or about two years worth of natural seeps. Since 1969, according to the BOEM, 884 barrels of oil have been spilled in offshore California out of 1,280,000,000 produced. That's an error rate of 0.00007%. You'll never see that printed in the Independent, or anywhere else for that matter. Why do you think that's the case?

On Fracking and Wastewater Dumping Exposed

Posted on May 29 at 10:56 a.m.

“Pretty shocking to be off by 96 percent!” said Davis. “I think it goes to show that the oil industry’s economic forecasts can in no way be trusted.."

Ludicrous junk science.

In making such a ridiculous statement, Davis shows that she has absolutely no sense of the fundamentals of geology or petroleum engineering. This person has zero credibility on any issues pertaining to subsurface science. But then, objective science is not the core issue for her and her sympathizers: it's all about ideology; it's all about fears and perceptions.

On Less Oil in Monterey Shale Than Expected

Previous | Page 2 of 9 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: