Export thread

So. Oil prices are at a new obscene low. The Saudis have no intent to cut their production and are fine running in the red for quite a while. As a Texan, and a Houstonian, I fear we are on our way to a new recession. I don't know if it will hit the nation as a whole but Texas and the Dakotas are in a lot of trouble.

But I also appreciate my views are myopically self interested. This is good for some sectors. But I'm really worried we are right on the verge of a new worldwide recession. I dunno.

Curious to hear your thoughts.

Personally I think the reason behind the price drop is the US and OPEC trying to hurt Russia. Russia wants to prove to the world how tough they are and we are going to make them prove it this winter, when they will have to burn rubles to stay warm.

I've heard that, and it's an interesting thought. Not really sure what the Saudis have to gain from hurting Russia though, I think they have way more to gain by hurting US shale oil development and hurting alternative energy development, which this does. Which is also why I have a hard believing the US is behind this.

My belief is that this is the Saudis fighting a war of attrition against the world to show that they are still relevant even though US production has exploded so fiercely. And it's working.

Necronic said:

I've heard that, and it's an interesting thought. Not really sure what the Saudis have to gain from hurting Russia though

Click to expand...

A pipeline to eastern europe, maybe. Perhaps they want to supplant Gazprom as the major supplier of petroleum to that area.

But no doubt the Saudis also want to put the shale companies out of business, if it can. But Russia is in their neck of the woods.

The less money Russia has, the fewer weapons they will give away to all the insurgents in the world. Now they might have to start raising the prices on all those AK's in Syria.

This isn't about hurting the alternative energy companies... big oil already owns stock in many of these companies and knows it will have to switch eventually. This is entirely about shutting down shale... they want to keep the US from becoming energy independent because they know what happens to them when we do.

I know it's bad for the economy, but with gas prices under $2 for the first time in over a decade, I love it.

On the one hand, I am enjoying the low gas prices, as low as 1.92-9/10 around here.
On the other, the shale companies can all go out of business and I won't feel bad at all. Our State is already trying really hard to pump up the whole renewables economy, and a little extra incentive to do so would be very welcome.

--Patrick

I don't know anything about the business of oil, so I don't understand how the prices drops so much in such a short span. What causes it, anyway? In the laymenest of terms possible, please. I've never understood oil prices.

ThatNickGuy said:

I don't know anything about the business of oil, so I don't understand how the prices drops so much in such a short span. What causes it, anyway? In the laymenest of terms possible, please. I've never understood oil prices.

Click to expand...

Supply and demand, really. The Middle East has some of the "best" oil (requires the least amount of processing), so it's the most desirable on the world market. Prices are usually high because OPEC, etc. set a quota on the amount of oil they extract, and they adjust this quota up and down in line with demand in order to basically "dial in" their preferred amount of profit. Right now, they have decided to keep production of their market-preferred product high enough that it is more attractive to buyers, presumably because they have some kind of beef with other oil producers (nobody seriously believes they are doing it out of generosity). Simultaneously, producers of less desirable oil (Venezuela's oil is full of sulfur, shale oil is significantly more expensive to extract, etc.) have had to decrease their selling price in order to remain attractive and in order to continue to sell enough volume to make ends meet. This oversupply has caused the price per barrel to drop, and the oil companies have dropped their pump prices in response because game theory/equilibrium price--oil companies usually only make a penny or two profit per gallon sold, and they set their gas prices based on how expensive they predict it will be in the future to manufacture gasoline.

I only know from 6yrs in oil retail and news reports, so if any of our more petro-connected people want to weigh in, that would be great.

--Patrick

ThatNickGuy said:

I don't know anything about the business of oil, so I don't understand how the prices drops so much in such a short span. What causes it, anyway? In the laymenest of terms possible, please. I've never understood oil prices.

Click to expand...

The biggest factor is production vs consumption, which is just supply and demand on a massive scale. The world at large consumes (I think, I might be misremembering last sunday's Money Talk where they talked about this) about 93.5 million barrels of oil per day. Right now, the world's oil producers are producing roughly 94.5 million barrels of oil per day. That doesn't sound like a big difference, but when you consider that it means the world is producing a million barrels of oil (159 million liters) per day more than it is consuming, that stacks up fast. As supply builds up, prices go down. As producers (such as OPEC) decide to strategically reduce production, that supply dwindles, and the price of oil goes up.

One of the big impetuses behind the increase in oil production has been the US's new useage of hydraulic fracturing (aka "fracking") and horizontal drilling, which has opened up new sources of oil that weren't previously producing. We're now producing petroleum (and natural gas) at a level not seen since the 70s - almost double what we were around 2007ish. Fracking is only really profitable because the price of oil had been so high - it's a lot more costly a method to get the oil than conventional drilling and pumping. Saudi Arabia has also increased production, and OPEC has decided not to decrease production, so the price of oil has fallen drastically as supplies increase - especially since the US is the biggest consumer of oil at 18.5 million barrels per day (even china only consumes about 10 mil/day). If we're producing more of our own oil, we're buying less (but still buying lots) from abroad. Demand eases, supplies increase, prices go down.... and while OPEC's profits also go down, they are eyeing the long term.

Russia's economy has been faltering for a long time. It has never been great since the soviet collapse to begin with, but it's been hampered further recently by sanctions imposed for its shenanigans (such as the clandestine de facto invasion of Ukraine). The major mover and shaker in the Russian economy is their big oil company, Gazprom. Falling oil prices hurt Gazprom, which hurts the Russian economy. It also makes the US's oil producers who use fracking not able to turn a profit. I forget the exact figure, but I think the price of oil has to be something like $80 or $90 per barrel for fracking to show a profit - and lately it's been fluttering around in the mid 50s, with Saudi Arabia saying they want to push it as low as $40. Their hope is they can starve their competition out of business, weather the storm in the short term on their savings, and then things will go back to the "good old days" where they sat in the catbird seat.

Dave said:

I know it's bad for the economy, but with gas prices under $2 for the first time in over a decade, I love it.

Click to expand...

Aren't you in North Dakota though? You guys may feel this harder than anyone in the country.

Necronic said:

Aren't you in North Dakota though? You guys may feel this harder than anyone in the country.

Click to expand...

No, he's in Nebraska. They will love it.

Won't that hurt corn prices though?

Necronic said:

Won't that hurt corn prices though?

Click to expand...

Food is the only thing that hasn't gone down in price lately. It could use a little "hurting" if you ask me, and as I'm guessing Dave's most visible bugetary price fluctuations are at the grocery store and the gas pump, I'm guessing he'll agree.

I assume that it may depress the corn business, but consumers should be happy with their lower corn prices.
If anything, it will show the inherent silliness of growing corn for the sole purpose of converting it into fuel (as a substitute for oil), or for the mandating of a minimum amount of corn which must be converted into fuel.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

I assume that it may depress the corn business, but consumers should be happy with their lower corn prices.
If anything, it will show the inherent silliness of growing corn for the sole purpose of converting it into fuel (as a substitute for oil), or for the mandating of a minimum amount of corn which must be converted into fuel.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

Nothing can depress the corn business because of it's massive subsidies and the universal need for ethanol, feed, and HFCS. What lower gas prices will actually affect is anything that needs to be shipped a long ways and anything that needs to be refrigerated. So meat, fish, dairy, certain produce... it should all be going down in price, but it's not quite there yet.

My main point was about ethanol. As oil prices drop ethanol becomes less and less feasible as an alternative. On that same note:

PatrThom said:

On the other, the shale companies can all go out of business and I won't feel bad at all. Our State is already trying really hard to pump up the whole renewables economy, and a little extra incentive to do so would be very welcome.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

This whole thing actually extremely disincentives alternative energy exploration. They will have to compete at these much lower price points and short of increased subsidies they have no associated elasticity in their pricing.

True enough... the market loses interest in unicorn farts when Oil's under $60/bbl.

Necronic said:

My main point was about ethanol. As oil prices drop ethanol becomes less and less feasible as an alternative. On that same note:

Click to expand...

Ethanol is used for a lot of things other than as a whole-gas alternative or as a gas additive... but even so, American gas uses ethanol to reduce emissions via federal guidelines so it's not going anywhere any time soon.

Right, but in the name of "progress," some of our politicians were mandating (or trying to introduce a mandate that said) that a certain minimum percentage of the nation's fuel must be supplied by ethanol, which will come back to bite us in the butt if it means The Nation is later being legally compelled to support a more expensive fuel alternative just to comply with those minimums.

GasBandit said:

True enough... the market loses interest in unicorn farts when Oil's under $60/bbl.

Click to expand...

...which is a shame, because when oil is cheap would be the perfect time to get all of the stuff that most depends on oil out of the way and done before the price goes back up again.

--Patrick

It's not so much that ethanol is more expensive (ethanol is cheaper than gasoline per volume) than it is that it's much less efficient (it gives less mpg by volume), which means you need to fill up more often in normal vehicles and that some work vehicles aren't getting as much power. Part of this, however, is also because we haven't spent much time making powerful, efficient ethanol engines.

This is part of why we usually mix it with gas instead of just use it completely.

Yes, ethanol has a lower energy density than gasoline. I have some old books about converting your car to run on ethanol (and when I say old, I mean old enough to tell you how to calculate how much weight to add to the float in your carburetor to offset the physical density change), and even they say your MPG will go down on ethanol. The idea was that it would become cheaper over time to switch everyone over to ethanol since gas prices were just going to go up and up forever. These people ended up just like the folks who thought the stock market would go up forever. I just wish that more people would realize that ethanol isn't the final solution...that is, we're ultimately not just going to convert all the gas stations into ethanol stations filled by ethanol tankers on their way back from the ethanol refineries. Ethanol is only supposed to be the thing that "gets us by" by letting us continue to use our current transportation infrastructure until we can finally transition everything over to some form of electric.

Yes, really. I may be looking too far ahead, the amount of inertia may still be too great for it to happen in my lifetime. But it's entirely possible.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

Yes, ethanol has a lower energy density than gasoline. I have some old books about converting your car to run on ethanol (and when I say old, I mean old enough to tell you how to calculate how much weight to add to the float in your carburetor to offset the physical density change), and even they say your MPG will go down on ethanol. The idea was that it would become cheaper over time to switch everyone over to ethanol since gas prices were just going to go up and up forever. These people ended up just like the folks who thought the stock market would go up forever. I just wish that more people would realize that ethanol isn't the final solution...that is, we're ultimately not just going to convert all the gas stations into ethanol stations filled by ethanol tankers on their way back from the ethanol refineries. Ethanol is only supposed to be the thing that "gets us by" by letting us continue to use our current transportation infrastructure until we can finally transition everything over to some form of electric.

Yes, really. I may be looking too far ahead, the amount of inertia may still be too great for it to happen in my lifetime. But it's entirely possible.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

The thing is, some countries do just fine with ethanol. Brazil uses a ton of it's sugar cane to make the stuff and most cars are ether flexi-fuel (can take both gas or ethanol) or just straight ethanol. It CAN work, but your country has to be committed to the change and the US simply has access to too much cheap oil, so there isn't a huge reason to make the switch... and by the time we'd have to, electric may be ready to take over.

Electric cars are a sure bet for overtaking gas, eventually (15-30 years). We just need that next big battery breakthrough to make it happen.

Dave said:

I know it's bad for the economy, but with gas prices under $2 for the first time in over a decade, I love it.

Click to expand...

Low gas prices are great for the economy.

The oil companies will do just fine don't worry about them.

Actually, the logic is that lower gas prices hurt the stocks of gas/oil companies, which in turn hurts the investments for people's retirement.

But as I told my wife, when the stock market is booming and the gas/oil companies are seeing huge profits, I see nothing. So now it's my turn.

My IRA did take a bath the first half of the month, but it's recovered now.

Necronic said:

I've heard that, and it's an interesting thought. Not really sure what the Saudis have to gain from hurting Russia though, I think they have way more to gain by hurting US shale oil development and hurting alternative energy development, which this does. Which is also why I have a hard believing the US is behind this.

My belief is that this is the Saudis fighting a war of attrition against the world to show that they are still relevant even though US production has exploded so fiercely. And it's working.

Click to expand...

I thought this was primarily why the Saudis dropped oil prices. Prices got so high that shale was totally profitable and economically feasible. Can't have none of that now.[DOUBLEPOST=1419518366,1419518071][/DOUBLEPOST]

Necronic said:

Aren't you in North Dakota though? You guys may feel this harder than anyone in the country.

Click to expand...

I know PA might, then again Corbett was pretty much giving away fracking gas so it might not affect us that much either.[DOUBLEPOST=1419518499][/DOUBLEPOST]

PatrThom said:

Yes, ethanol has a lower energy density than gasoline. I have some old books about converting your car to run on ethanol (and when I say old, I mean old enough to tell you how to calculate how much weight to add to the float in your carburetor to offset the physical density change), and even they say your MPG will go down on ethanol. The idea was that it would become cheaper over time to switch everyone over to ethanol since gas prices were just going to go up and up forever. These people ended up just like the folks who thought the stock market would go up forever. I just wish that more people would realize that ethanol isn't the final solution...that is, we're ultimately not just going to convert all the gas stations into ethanol stations filled by ethanol tankers on their way back from the ethanol refineries. Ethanol is only supposed to be the thing that "gets us by" by letting us continue to use our current transportation infrastructure until we can finally transition everything over to some form of electric.

Yes, really. I may be looking too far ahead, the amount of inertia may still be too great for it to happen in my lifetime. But it's entirely possible.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

Mathias said:

Click to expand...

I did get the feeling that the authors of the book may have had … ulterior motivation to write it, yes.

--Patrick

Dave said:

Actually, the logic is that lower gas prices hurt the stocks of gas/oil companies, which in turn hurts the investments for people's retirement.

But as I told my wife, when the stock market is booming and the gas/oil companies are seeing huge profits, I see nothing. So now it's my turn.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Dad's been a little pissed because he's been losing money since CIBC (bank he worked for years with and has a bunch of stocks in) their shares have been hurting as a result of all this. But he also can't complain that gas prices are low, too. It's a win/lose situation.

This is going to be a massive blow for Alberta. Our province has gone all in with the oil sands.

Frank said:

This is going to be a massive blow for Alberta. Our province has gone all in with the oil sands.

Click to expand...

Ouch.

FWIW, I won't be sorry to see tar sands extraction (as an industry) die the death of a thousand screams, either.

--Patrick

Dave said:

Actually, the logic is that lower gas prices hurt the stocks of gas/oil companies, which in turn hurts the investments for people's retirement.

But as I told my wife, when the stock market is booming and the gas/oil companies are seeing huge profits, I see nothing. So now it's my turn.

Click to expand...

One type of investment does not an economy make.

Look our entire economy was founded on having plentiful and cheap oil. We as Americans have based literally our entire foreign policy around insuring the free movement of crude oil. Cuddling up to Saudi Arabia, attempting a coup in Venezula, to an extent this recent thing with Cuba. Half of the cold war was securing oil for our use and to deny it to the Soviets. Do you think America has any reason beyond securing the movement of oil to always have a carrier group operating near the Suez canal and the Sea of Arabia.

We sure as shit don't do it to hurt our economy. We do it cause our economy thrives when oil is cheap.

PatrThom said:

FWIW, I won't be sorry to see tar sands extraction (as an industry) die the death of a thousand screams, either.

Click to expand...

When you see people losing their jobs, and/or are out on the streets because of that, then will you still say that it's good? It employs 10,000s (if not more) people.

That's the problem with wishing ill on an industry: you hurt the little guy FIRST, not last.


I'm fine because of this, but I know many people who will not be if it continues.

Eriol said:

When you see people losing their jobs, and/or are out on the streets because of that, then will you still say that it's good? It employs 10,000s (if not more) people.

Click to expand...

This is unfortunate, and I will feel bad for these people, but I will not blame them for being evil, or slackers, or anything like that. If anything, I see them as semi-helpless victims of the industry itself. I'm sure that many rhino/elephant poachers* only poach because they need to support their families, and I feel sorry that they would have to stoop to being associated with such a business in order to make ends meet, and yes I will even feel bad for their families if one of them gets sniped while in the process of harvesting a horn or two, but I would not at all feel bad about there being less poaching as a result.

EDIT: Because I tend to have such trouble making myself clear, let me expound on the above. I think that these industries are actually taking advantage of the current oversupply of labor by selling/spinning their inherently environmentally destructive process as "good for jobs and good for people" because they know there will then be that resistance to eliminating those jobs later. I'm sure you can ask @DarkAudit how that sort of thing turns out.

--Patrick
*I mean the ones who actually do the hunting, not the distributors/smugglers, who no doubt mark up their product thousands of percent once acquired from the poachers themselves.

Frank said:

This is going to be a massive blow for Alberta. Our province has gone all in with the oil sands.

Click to expand...

The same happens in Ecuador, all the economy depends on oil.

Lower oil prices:
1. Help America and Europe geopolitically, hurting Russia and giving a warning towards China
2. Help the American (except those bits going for shale oil etc) and (especially) European economy, because we can import cheaper and transport cheaper - and it lessens our tendency to fork over all our money to terrorist supporting bastards (or are people not aware IS is "the richest terrorist organisation ever" because of their incredible amount of oil exports?)
3. Lets OPEC continue to sell their oil and keeps their oil industry profitable, since continuing high prices were pushing Europe towards alternative fuels and electric far too fast - better to sell your oil at $50 a barrel than not to be able to sell it at all if the US pumps up their own and Europe transfers most of our non-production oil usage towards other fuels
4. Allows China to buy up ever more oil it needs for its massive growing industries - from Russia, but at lower cost than what we'd pay.

Really, generally, it's good for America (in the short term), Europe (in both long and short term, excpet if we stop investing in alternative fuels now), OPEC, and CHina, and it's bad for Russia and, to a lesser extent, IS and supporting groups. The only "good guys" taking a hit are the American states/groups/industries who insisted on investing heavily in shale oil and drilling in Alaska - even though those are the same groups who at least partially made this move possible. Since they're mostly republican-alligned, the White House won't feel too bad about'm though. It's, in general, the smart thing to do right now.

Abdullah has now abdicated the throne into a very confusing line succession (apparently there are two heir apparents). This is not a good combination. Its like someone lit the match and walked away. And while they walked away they kicked over another can of (if you'll pardon the expression) gasoline.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30687669

Oil is now under $50. How low can you go? How low can you go?

As low as possible

Under $48/bbl, now.
Also, gas stations around here all went up about $0.30 on Mon. I'd complain, but that just means they're only back up to $2 now.

--Patrick

Same. It's 2.09 here when this morning it was 1.40 something. It'll slowly come back down to 1.50-1.60 in a few days but the Saudi King thing has people scared.

Necronic said:

Abdullah has now abdicated the throne into a very confusing line succession (apparently there are two heir apparents). This is not a good combination. Its like someone lit the match and walked away. And while they walked away they kicked over another can of (if you'll pardon the expression) gasoline.

Click to expand...

Where is this abdication news? Nothing on BBC or any other reputable news sites.

Never thought I'd see gas at $1.70 again.

I am nostalgic for the time during Clinton's Presidency that gas at a cash only gas station was $0.74. That is less than it was before the Carter gas crunch.

DarkAudit said:

Where is this abdication news? Nothing on BBC or any other reputable news sites.

Click to expand...

Huh, fair point. Only two websites that I see that have it are Jerusalem Online and DEBKAfile. This could be a spin piece...

ED: One of those does reference an Egyptian newspaper, but doesn't link to it.

Ed2: One reputable source does have it stated that Abdullah is very ill

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/03/w...llah-is-hospitalized-with-pneumonia.html?_r=1

I am jealous of you people and your cheap gas. When it dipped around here, it went down to $2.79. Of course it's better than the $4.37 it was at a while ago.

Necronic said:

Huh, fair point. Only two websites that I see that have it are Jerusalem Online and DEBKAfile. This could be a spin piece...

ED: One of those does reference an Egyptian newspaper, but doesn't link to it.

Ed2: One reputable source does have it stated that Abdullah is very ill

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/03/w...llah-is-hospitalized-with-pneumonia.html?_r=1

Click to expand...

This article has how the death of him was a hoax twitter account: http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-...e-death-of-saudi-arabias-king-abdullah-2015-1

Something more up-to-date about the Saudi King: http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/...-the-saudi-king-ailing-the-speculation-begins Still in hospital with pneumonia, but he's 90, so it's not like this is weird for a guy his age. Crown prince delivers speech King was going to, and thus seems in control if needed.

So knowing nothing specific myself, I'd say "seems like a relatively stable succession to me." But I don't know the country.

That NPR link does specifically talk about how its suspected that Salman is suffering from dementia. Which is part of where the succession crisis arises from. The other part of the issue is that the next guy in line, Muqrin, did not have a royal mother. Not sure how much that matters, but I've seen it mentioned in more than a few places.

Necronic said:

That NPR link does specifically talk about how its suspected that Salman is suffering from dementia. Which is part of where the succession crisis arises from. The other part of the issue is that the next guy in line, Muqrin, did not have a royal mother. Not sure how much that matters, but I've seen it mentioned in more than a few places.

Click to expand...

It shouldn't in the slightest. The current royal line is less than a hundred years old and has already had royal matters settled by assassination.

I'm actually wondering how much this has to do with oil and how much has to do with the fact that in 2015, women are going to be allowed to vote and hold office in Saudi Arabia for the first time?

AshburnerX said:

women are going to be allowed to vote and hold office in Saudi Arabia for the first time?

Click to expand...

Want to bet on what percentage of women will actually be allowed to go vote by their husbands/fathers/fathers-in-law? 'cause the family patriarch is allowed to keep any other family member from leaving the house, you know....heh.

Bubble181 said:

Want to bet on what percentage of women will actually be allowed to go vote by their husbands/fathers/fathers-in-law? 'cause the family patriarch is allowed to keep any other family member from leaving the house, you know....heh.

Click to expand...

The Saudi Royal family is actually ultra-progressive (for the region), despite the lip service they give to the conservative religious authority. I wouldn't be surprised if they said "You can't stop them" and enforced it.

Sure, the Royal Family is progressive - I'm aware. Now you t ell me how they're going to stop people in a household from locking up their wives and daughters if they want to. Y'know, in the only country in the world where women can't drive a car. Or a divorce. Or testify in court in most matters.

The Royal Court can vote laws all they want, if I don't let my women out of the house, the only way to enforce those laws is martial law and have cops search every house - but given that half the cops don't agree with these progressive ideas,....well.
Anyway, I'm not saying no women will go vote, not at all, and I know they'll try to get them out there. I'm just saying I'm convinced female turnout will be drastically lower than male turnout, and not by choice.

Saudi prince: "You will never see $100 oil again."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...audi-prince-alwaleed-oil-100-barrel/21484911/

I gotta ask... are people still really pushing for Keystone during this? It seems like not building the damn thing may have been a smart move in the long run, environmental issues aside.

Yes, congress is pushing the XL.

I miss my summer job repairing "The Big Inch"

GasBandit said:

Saudi prince: "You will never see $100 oil again."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...audi-prince-alwaleed-oil-100-barrel/21484911/

Click to expand...

"Saudi Arabia and Russia are both hurting over this

- no, wait, the wordl's biggest terrorism supporter AND the world's biggest security threat are both being hurt? OH NOES. Let's up the prices again! Or, err, you know, let's not.

I know that sounds good to you, but I know of a lot of people who just lost their jobs over this. It isn't all rainbows and puppy dogs.

Frank said:

I know that sounds good to you, but I know of a lot of people who just lost their jobs over this. It isn't all rainbows and puppy dogs.

Click to expand...

...I know a lot of people who lost their jobs over the invention of the car - plenty of manure shovellers and coachmen. Doesn't mean it was wrong to go for cars. No economic or technological progress happens without pain in some places. Someone always loses, and it's the government's task to make sure individuals don't get crunched by economic changes. Oh wait, Americans don't like social security. Yeah, those guys are fucked. Comes with the whole "super free capitalism without any decent social mechanisms to support the small victims of big movements" thing you've got going on.
Ford just closed down a big plant here in Belgium - put 10.000 people out of a job. Sure, that hurts - them, and other businesses around. All of them are getting re-education, golden handshakes, extra support, relocation extras. Will it hurt? Sure it will - until someone else starts something new, or a lot of people start a lot of small new things. The economy will bounce back - maybe in 5 years' time, maybe in 10 years'. Bridging that gap is what social security is all about. The abuse of people lying in their sofa and being social parasites, taxes being about twice as high...Well, that's the downside. They're both valid social systems, but they're a choice.

Bubble181 said:

...I know a lot of people who lost their jobs over the invention of the car

Click to expand...

That's not true.

Eriol said:

When you see people losing their jobs, and/or are out on the streets because of that, then will you still say that it's good? It employs 10,000s (if not more) people.

That's the problem with wishing ill on an industry: you hurt the little guy FIRST, not last.


I'm fine because of this, but I know many people who will not be if it continues.

Click to expand...

Dude. This is true of EVERY industry. That's how economy works - one thing goes up and another goes down.

Here's my conservative, heartless bastard side coming out: the only way to be safe from economic ups and downs is to diversify your skillset and never buckle down to doing one thing. Ever. Work as a roughneck? Get some welding skills, etc....[DOUBLEPOST=1421510112,1421509954][/DOUBLEPOST]

AshburnerX said:

I gotta ask... are people still really pushing for Keystone during this? It seems like not building the damn thing may have been a smart move in the long run, environmental issues aside.

Click to expand...

As long as Congressmen are sucking someone's dick for cash, they'll always push that agenda.[DOUBLEPOST=1421510363][/DOUBLEPOST]

Frank said:

That's not true.

Click to expand...

You're right, the auto industry was a HUGE job boon! You know why though? Manual labor was still useful for that industry. Truth is that industries go up and down. The best resilience to that is diversifying yourself as a person. Problem is as people get older they get comfortable and complacent in what they do. One of my personal goals in life is to never get that way.

Frank said:

That's not true.

Click to expand...

Surely you've heard of the buggy whip analogy?

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

Surely you've heard of the buggy whip analogy?

--Patrick

Click to expand...

Samsung would be a great modern example of a company that IS branching out their products to keep up with the market. They've been brewing a huge pharmaceuticals division. Yeah. The guys that make electronics and appliances are branching into pharma. Why? Well, science depends on technology.

Mathias said:

Samsung would be a great modern example of a company that IS branching out their products to keep up with the market. They've been brewing a huge pharmaceuticals division. Yeah. The guys that make electronics and appliances are branching into pharma. Why? Well, science depends on technology.

Click to expand...

This isn't even odd in the slightest. Sony makes a lot of it's money selling insurance in Japan.

Yamaha. Jet skis, pianos, computer components, and archery equipment.

GasBandit said:

Yamaha. Jet skis, pianos, computer components, and archery equipment.

Click to expand...

I know I was surprised when I found out they're the ones that make Cubase.

--Patrick

GasBandit said:

Yamaha. Jet skis, pianos, computer components, and archery equipment.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think all of those have a common theme: carbon fiber.

Mathias said:

Samsung would be a great modern example of a company that IS branching out their products to keep up with the market. They've been brewing a huge pharmaceuticals division. Yeah. The guys that make electronics and appliances are branching into pharma. Why? Well, science depends on technology.

Click to expand...

Samsung also makes artillery, which surprised me when I first found out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K9_Thunder

Ok, so Abdullah wasn't dead when I posted that last link. But he's definitely dead now. Any speculation on if this will have any affect on the oil market?

Also, guys, what you are describing is a Zaibatsu. I don't think it's so much a matter of smart business sense and diversification, but more about how the Japanese (and other nearby cultures) manage companies. Tons of companies like this, and they've been around for a LONG time. Mitsubishi, Mitsui, Suimitomo, Daewoo, etc. Its not a particularly new thing. Mitsubishi made fighter planes and escalators. Also cars. Daewoo made microwaves. Also cars.

Whelp, the layoffs have started. Between Schlumberger, Baker-Hughes, Halliburton, and now BP, I think we're looking at 20k+ jobs iirc.

Necronic said:

Whelp, the layoffs have started. Between Schlumberger, Baker-Hughes, Halliburton

Click to expand...

You've just described the only major industries (besides Devon/Apache) in Oklahoma, especially western Oklahoma. Nearly all the guys in my graduating class work for one of those or sub-contractors of them.

Williston ND will be in rough shape if there's too many layoffs. The place is already full of crime and people living in their cars due to insane housing prices.

And here we go. TransCanada is filing eminent domain against 90 Nebraska families who do not want a pipeline going through their land.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-keystone-land-2015-0120-story.html

Selling our citizens and their belongings to the highest bidders.

Dave said:

And here we go. TransCanada is filing eminent domain against 90 Nebraska families who do not want a pipeline going through their land.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-keystone-land-2015-0120-story.html

Selling our citizens and their belongings to the highest bidders.

Click to expand...

This isn't even the biggest obstacle... the pipeline is going to be going near/across several key water sources for Indian reservations and they've made it clear they'll fight it till they die. They simply aren't willing to have what little land of theirs that remains face any kind of environmental disaster and they have the money and legal experience to make an oil company breakdown and cry.

I hate eminent domain abuse. If they can't find a path through willing sellers, then that should be that, IMO.

GasBandit said:

I hate eminent domain abuse. If they can't find a path through willing sellers, then that should be that, IMO.

Click to expand...

When the lawmakers answer to the Bob Murrays and Don Blankenships of the world, it's a surprise that they don't take by lethal force as the first option.

(but at least Blankenship is under indictment for the Upper Big Branch disaster. And the judge is not in the mood for any of his defense team's bullshit)

Blankenship is just flat out human garbage.

Dave said:

And here we go. TransCanada is filing eminent domain against 90 Nebraska families who do not want a pipeline going through their land.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-keystone-land-2015-0120-story.html

Selling our citizens and their belongings to the highest bidders.

Click to expand...

I suppose you could argue that an oil pipeline is not important enough to warrant the use of eminent domain, but in that case it would seem to me that few pipelines would ever get built. A pipeline of any substantial length can easily pass through the lands of hundreds of owners, and if all it takes is a few ones who are unwilling to sell or make some such arrangements for the passage, then practical routes might be extraordinarily difficult to come by.

In this case, isn't TransCanada filing for eminent domain for right-of-way rather than complete taking over of the land in question, though? If so, then it would seem to me that the inconveniences suffered by the landowners are not really all that excessive. I think the pipeline would be constructed underground, leaving the land above still fit for most use. The only real inconveniences would happen during the construction phase, and allowing access for maintenance. I'm not sure I see exactly what is all that bad with a right-of-use arrangement, though with the numbers of individual landowners concerned I can of course see some die-hards resisting it on grounds of principle.

TommiR said:

I suppose you could argue that an oil pipeline is not important enough to warrant the use of eminent domain, but in that case it would seem to me that few pipelines would ever get built. A pipeline of any substantial length can easily pass through the lands of hundreds of owners, and if all it takes is a few ones who are unwilling to sell or make some such arrangements for the passage, then practical routes might be extraordinarily difficult to come by.

In this case, isn't TransCanada filing for eminent domain for right-of-way rather than complete taking over of the land in question, though? If so, then it would seem to me that the inconveniences suffered by the landowners are not really all that excessive. I think the pipeline would be constructed underground, leaving the land above still fit for most use. The only real inconveniences would happen during the construction phase, and allowing access for maintenance. I'm not sure I see exactly what is all that bad with a right-of-use arrangement, though with the numbers of individual landowners concerned I can of course see some die-hards resisting it on grounds of principle.

Click to expand...

First, it is for right of way, but some of these pipes are slated to bisect land which would make a lot of it unable to be worked, so in essence taking away a good chunk of their livelihood. I have heard in on instance that it would require a house being demolished, but I don't know the specifics of that and it could be hearsay. Talking away half my yard is an inconvenience. Taking away half of a farmer's land and it's quite a bit more than that. And the land above would not be able to be used for farming, so even underground you have issues.

Pipelines leak. Frequently. And even if they are caught relatively quickly, damage to the environment can be severe. Like aquifers or farmland. This pipeline is not good for the US. It's not good for the farmers. Who is it good for? The Koch brothers. Which is why so many politicians are suddenly all for it. Donation$.

Dave said:

Pipelines leak. Frequently. And even if they are caught relatively quickly, damage to the environment can be severe. Like aquifers or farmland.

Click to expand...

Do you remember the near-daily reports of problems with the Alaska Pipeline project on the news when we were kids?

Dave said:

First, it is for right of way, but some of these pipes are slated to bisect land which would make a lot of it unable to be worked, so in essence taking away a good chunk of their livelihood. I have heard in on instance that it would require a house being demolished, but I don't know the specifics of that and it could be hearsay. Talking away half my yard is an inconvenience. Taking away half of a farmer's land and it's quite a bit more than that. And the land above would not be able to be used for farming, so even underground you have issues.

Pipelines leak. Frequently. And even if they are caught relatively quickly, damage to the environment can be severe. Like aquifers or farmland. This pipeline is not good for the US. It's not good for the farmers. Who is it good for? The Koch brothers. Which is why so many politicians are suddenly all for it. Donation$.

Click to expand...

First, I think I might disagree with you on the land usage issue. Most US states have laws requiring pipelines to be built underground sufficiently below plowing depth to make the land usable for farming, and I would imagine this is also true in this case. As I understand, the Keystone pipeline would be built some 4 feet underground, which seems to be sufficient clearance to permit farming. Buildings are why I said the land would be available for "most use", though, as foundations can often go deeper than that.

Second, I'm not sure spillage is quite as big of a problem in this case as one might think. The number of spills has decreased by some 500% over the past 30 years, and the amounts spilled are dominated by a few large events. Structural failure is the most common cause of spills with 75% being attributed to corrosion, which is obviously more of an issue with older pipelines. And the US oil pipeline infrastructure is old, with 46% of it being 30 years old or older. A recently constructed pipeline would be less susceptible to such accidents. (http://www.environmental-research.com/publications/pdf/spill_costs/paper4.pdf)

Third, I'm not sure I agree with you regarding the economic effects of the pipeline. While the jobs it produces are nice of course, the most attractive issue for the US economy might come from piping cheap Albertan crude to US refineries, and for the Canadian economy, incresed capacity to push oil that is currently bottlenecked in Canada to US markets. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/keyston...s-economic-sense-oil-industry-says-1420848058)

So Keystone got the veto. Now it's possible that it'll come up again after the next election, but if Hillary wins, this is effectively dead for the next decade, especially post 2018 when it's likely the Democrats will retake Congress.

AshburnerX said:

So Keystone got the veto. Now it's possible that it'll come up again after the next election, but if Hillary wins, this is effectively dead for the next decade, especially post 2018 when it's likely the Democrats will retake Congress.

Click to expand...

I doubt both those things will happen together. If a Democrat wins in 2016, it's more likely that the Republicans will continue to pick up seats in the House and Senate.

GasBandit said:

I doubt both those things will happen together. If a Democrat wins in 2016, it's more likely that the Republicans will continue to pick up seats in the House and Senate.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but it's also traditional for the majority party to lose seats each election, as voters are far more capricious when it comes to Senate and Congress seats than with Presidents. It could go ether way but I'm betting the public has had enough with obstructionist government.

AshburnerX said:

Perhaps, but it's also traditional for the majority party to lose seats each election, as voters are far more capricious when it comes to Senate and Congress seats than with Presidents. It could go ether way but I'm betting the public has had enough with obstructionist government.

Click to expand...

I don't have the information at my fingertips, but I'm pretty certain the pattern is that the midterms go against whoever holds executive power.

GasBandit said:

I don't have the information at my fingertips, but I'm pretty certain the pattern is that the midterms go against whoever holds executive power.

Click to expand...

I don't even know if it's "People" so much as it is the opposition party being more motivated to go to the midterm polls because their candidate didn't get the big chair.

--Patrick

I can't speak for anyone else's state, but the WV midterms devolved into who could scream "FUCK OBAMA!" the loudest.

DarkAudit said:

I can't speak for anyone else's state, but the WV midterms devolved into who could scream "FUCK OBAMA!" the loudest.

Click to expand...

And it would probably be the same under President Rodham.

GasBandit said:

And it would probably be the same under President Rodham.

Click to expand...

She won the state in the 2008 primaries.

Most of the ugliness of the midterms was thanks to the DINOs having no message or platform beyond sucking up to Big Coal. So you wound up with folks like me disgusted by the whole thing either staying home or writing in someone else in protest.

I actually think Hillary is pretty slick, politically. Obama's biggest failure as a president has been allowing his opponents to dictate the public's perception of him... but the Republicans have tried and failed to do the same with Hillary. She's connected enough that nothing gets traction, which is why she polls well with the public. None of her opponents come close to this level of political savvy.

With oil prices so low I know there is a lot less of a push for the pipeline stuff, but man, that accident in WV should be a wakeup call for people. That train dumped 3 million gallons of crude into a river. Which then most of it burned off, which is going to seriously mess with some peoples' lungs/health. I mean, ok, it's WV, so no biggie, but still. I wish I could remember the numbers for pipelines leaks, but I could swear it was orders of magnitude less than this. Like in the 30-50kgal range, which is about one tanker.