PDA

View Full Version : CAPITAL LETTERS AND AN EXCLAMATION MARK!


Noisy
25-05-2008, 13:22:46
That's the format for thread titles, isn't it?

Anyway, Americans are lucky bastards (http://www.opec.org/home/PowerPoint/Taxation/taxation.htm) .

Drekkus
25-05-2008, 21:06:48
Pffft, we pay almost euro 1.60 per litre of gasoline now, with 70% government tax.


RC and Dyl were telling us that the price of oil would drop drastically this year?

Asher
25-05-2008, 21:15:30
It's you idiots that elect your government, you know.

Drekkus
25-05-2008, 21:58:12
yeah, but in return we get all this, ehm, eh, well, something, I hope... nothing really


and i definately didn't elect any of the ruling parties.

Asher
25-05-2008, 22:59:02
You're too handsome to be a rebel

Lurker the Second
26-05-2008, 01:47:42
:hmm:

C.G.B. Spender
26-05-2008, 07:27:20
1.25$, what's that in EUR , 15 €cents?

Dyl Ulenspiegel
26-05-2008, 07:33:13
Oil price is just another bubble, but with Ben and the Pumpmonkeys shitting out dollars, the speculators have some mileage left.

As for taxes, the yanks pay a high price for that. They have to live in sheetrock sheds in the middle of nowhere with no public transport and have to drive big ugly vehicles, so they should pay roughly the same amount of tax in the end....

Drekkus
26-05-2008, 07:48:54
Originally posted by Asher
You're too handsome to be a rebel cause I'm a rebel without a clue

MoSe
26-05-2008, 09:58:49
:lol:

KrazyHorse
27-05-2008, 02:38:36
Originally posted by Asher
It's you idiots that elect your government, you know.

Higher gas taxes = good idea, by the way...

Asher
27-05-2008, 03:10:26
I'm more in favour of oil companies getting the money from higher prices. :)

Asher
27-05-2008, 03:13:50
Mainly 'cause it helps me personally, but also because the government is amazingly inept at spending money.

Did you know they're looking at spending $5-8B to close down 1 lane each way on the 401, in Toronto, and over 12 years build an LRT along the 401 route?

It's like they think people who drive on the 401 are doing so only because there's no transit. Let's not forget there's nothing walking-distance from 401, and people are driving on it to continue driving elsewhere (eg, Markham, Richmond Hill, Waterloo...)

Drekkus
27-05-2008, 08:56:51
I still don't get why oil companies raise prices at the pump 'because of the higher price of oil', and then make record profits 'because of the higher price of oil'...

Dyl Ulenspiegel
27-05-2008, 09:02:26
Because the big integrated oil companies also control crude production. And they won't cut their margins at refining etc, so you end up with higher prices.

Resource Consumer
27-05-2008, 10:14:07
Originally posted by Drekkus
Pffft, we pay almost euro 1.60 per litre of gasoline now, with 70% government tax.


RC and Dyl were telling us that the price of oil would drop drastically this year?

It will - a drop from $135 is more drastic then a drop from $90

KrazyHorse
27-05-2008, 10:32:37
Originally posted by Drekkus
I still don't get why oil companies raise prices at the pump 'because of the higher price of oil', and then make record profits 'because of the higher price of oil'...

Why should an oil company which is vertically integrated (it extracts oil, refines it and sells it) take a hit by selling gas for less than they could make by selling the oil on the market?

Refiners and retailers which do not extract their own oil are taking a beating lately, by the way. Also, the refining and retailing arms of integrated petro companies.

The upstream operators (extraction) are the ones which benefit from higher oil prices.

KrazyHorse
27-05-2008, 10:35:21
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
And they won't cut their margins at refining etc

Actually, independent refiners are getting kicked in the balls lately. Their inventories are getting more expensive to maintain. I'm guessing that it's no different for the refining arms of integrated companies.

Drekkus
27-05-2008, 11:13:10
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Why should an oil company which is vertically integrated (it extracts oil, refines it and sells it) take a hit by selling gas for less than they could make by selling the oil on the market?
Isn't there a small gap between 'taking a hit' and making record profits? Of course they want to maximise profits, but then they shouldn't sell it to the consumers as a 'we can't help it' issue.

MDA
27-05-2008, 11:21:30
they're selling it as "we're reinvesting our massive profits to find more shit for you to burn in your car"

I imagine that's partially true.

KrazyHorse
27-05-2008, 12:56:26
Originally posted by Drekkus
Isn't there a small gap between 'taking a hit' and making record profits? Of course they want to maximise profits, but then they shouldn't sell it to the consumers as a 'we can't help it' issue.

They can't help it. If they sold gas for cheaper than the market-clearing price then there would be a gas shortage. As in you go to the gas station and they don't have any gas left to sell to you.

That's pretty straightforward...

KrazyHorse
27-05-2008, 13:04:08
Now think about what would happen if BP sold its gas at 3$ a gallon while the market-clearing price was 4$ a gallon.

Everybody goes to BP to buy their gas. Some of these people would have bought gas anyway. Some of them wouldn't have, or would have bought less. Pretty quickly BP runs out of gas. The ones who got the cheap gas were either lucky or stood in line for ages (i.e. they value their time less than others). Now everybody else has to buy gas at other places. Except that since some of the people who bought gas at BP were priced out of the market at 4$ a gallon there is more demand for the remaining gas. So now the price of gas everywhere else goes up.

And as I said, if everybody sold gas for 3$ a gallon when the market-clearing price was 4$ a gallon then there simply wouldn't be enough gas to go around...

MoSe
27-05-2008, 13:51:53
that's the typical cartel excuse
:p

KrazyHorse
27-05-2008, 13:53:22
Which cartel would that be?

Greg W
27-05-2008, 13:59:22
Or. They're all in collusion and price fixing is rife. So that way they all make massive profits, and we get stuck with paying what they make us pay, rather than what the market demands.

Personally, I think it's somewhere in the middle of the two.

I know that petrol at the bowser doesn't make a lot of profit (in Australia anyway). What makes service stations money is workshops and their convenience stores contained within the station. That much I know from my ex-brother-in-law, who used to own one.

Asher
27-05-2008, 14:21:13
Are petrol stations like toy gas stations?

Funko
27-05-2008, 14:26:34
They are where you buy petroleum spirit/petrol.

MoSe
27-05-2008, 14:30:59
has there ever been an Oil Tycoon like game?

Asher
27-05-2008, 14:34:40
Originally posted by Funko
They are where you buy petroleum spirit/petrol.
Petroleum spirit? any relation to the jelly? I love me the jelly.

Asher
27-05-2008, 14:36:37
I don't understand where you assholes get off in renaming gasoline to petrol.

Do you have the phrases "step on the gas"? Or do you say "Step on the petrol"?

Funko
27-05-2008, 14:48:17
Originally posted by Asher
Petroleum spirit? any relation to the jelly? I love me the jelly.

Yes, of course it's related. They are both derived from petroleum.

Petrol was originally a brand name, like Vaseline. Gasoline was a trademark too but it was never registered and became the generic word in the US. I guess you copied the Americans.

Asher
27-05-2008, 14:58:28
It's funny that the British think adhering to de facto standards is "copying".

Asher
27-05-2008, 14:58:50
Petroleum jelly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Petrol btw.

Funko
27-05-2008, 15:02:03
Have you ever left North America?

C.G.B. Spender
27-05-2008, 15:03:58
You mean petrol is Benzin?

Asher
27-05-2008, 15:04:26
Originally posted by Funko
Have you ever left North America?

I visited your shithole once. Also Spain and France. And Hawaii.

Asher
27-05-2008, 15:05:34
Have you ever left Europe?

Funko
27-05-2008, 15:07:43
Own Goal.

C.G.B. Spender
27-05-2008, 15:08:14
Have you ever left Benzin?

Lurker the Second
27-05-2008, 15:21:50
Have you ever left a dead 'possum under someone's pillow?

Asher
27-05-2008, 15:30:14
Originally posted by Funko
Own Goal.

I take that as a no.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
27-05-2008, 15:35:57
I have been to Diesel.

Funko
27-05-2008, 15:37:46
Asher takes it wrong.

Asher
27-05-2008, 15:41:44
How would I know where you've been. It's not headline news whenever somebody leaves the enclave of Reading.

Asher
27-05-2008, 15:42:09
So where have you been, over here?

Funko
27-05-2008, 15:44:01
It's headline news on CG.

Lurker the Second
27-05-2008, 15:46:17
Pics and all!

Asher
27-05-2008, 15:51:17
So you've been to Canada?

Funko
27-05-2008, 15:54:50
The USA. Although I did see at least two CG Canadians there.

Venom
27-05-2008, 15:57:14
There's no point going to Canada if you can go to the good ol' USA. It's like going to Orlando and going to the hotel swimming pool instead of going to Sea World.

Asher
27-05-2008, 16:16:54
Canada is the USA done right.

Freedom without the excessive gun violence and fat rednecks.

MoSe
27-05-2008, 16:42:05
Originally posted by C.G.B. Spender
You mean petrol is Benzin?

no, Benzin is a young Mercedes

MoSe
27-05-2008, 16:42:36
Originally posted by Asher
Canada is the USA done right.

Freedom without the excessive gun violence and fat rednecks.

but you behead eskimos

Asher
27-05-2008, 16:43:10
We also club seals. Have you never seen a civilized country before?

MoSe
27-05-2008, 16:48:25
Civ II or Civ III ?

Drekkus
27-05-2008, 19:58:59
Originally posted by Venom
There's no point going to Canada if you can go to the good ol' USA. It's like going to Orlando and going to the hotel swimming pool instead of going to Sea World. Damnit!! I knew I was doing something wrong there!! :(

Asher
27-05-2008, 20:08:40
You are more likely to see huge whales at an Orlando hotel than you are Sea World.

KrazyHorse
27-05-2008, 20:50:25
Originally posted by Greg W
Or. They're all in collusion and price fixing is rife. So that way they all make massive profits, and we get stuck with paying what they make us pay, rather than what the market demands.

Personally, I think it's somewhere in the middle of the two.

Personally, I think you're basing this on absolutely nothing.

Noisy
27-05-2008, 22:16:10
Originally posted by MoSe
has there ever been an Oil Tycoon like game?

Yes.

OldWarrior_42
28-05-2008, 02:26:21
No.

OldWarrior_42
28-05-2008, 02:27:31
My bad. I thought this was the word association thread.

:-P~~

Vincent
28-05-2008, 05:37:48
It's not that sophisticated

seng
28-05-2008, 06:02:01
intricate

Vincent
28-05-2008, 06:03:13
diaphragma

seng
28-05-2008, 06:03:44
daffodil

Vincent
28-05-2008, 06:07:26
rentokil

seng
28-05-2008, 06:10:01
rentacop

Funko
28-05-2008, 07:58:22
robocop

seng
28-05-2008, 08:00:17
terminator

Funko
28-05-2008, 08:02:11
terminus

seng
28-05-2008, 08:05:58
termites

C.G.B. Spender
28-05-2008, 08:06:55
buggers

Funko
28-05-2008, 08:08:40
self biased

seng
28-05-2008, 08:09:23
DIY

C.G.B. Spender
28-05-2008, 08:09:37
cursed

seng
28-05-2008, 08:14:13
crushed

Tizzy
28-05-2008, 08:36:32
It always comes down to Word Ass in the end

seng
28-05-2008, 08:58:52
That's why I'm here, at least

MDA
28-05-2008, 10:35:50
adbot

MoSe
28-05-2008, 12:33:55
WORDASSO GEIL!

at least I complied with the thread tittle

Greg W
28-05-2008, 15:33:16
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Personally, I think you're basing this on absolutely nothing. Out of curiosity, what is the ratio of their profits to their total assets? I'm guessing that nobody would know, but thought I'd ask anyway.

KrazyHorse
28-05-2008, 16:02:44
Given that the assets generating higher profits are mineral rights, that the value of these mineral rights are determined by the expected discounted future profits they generate and that capital is fairly free to flow I will hazard a guess that the profit to asset ratio for the oil sector is pretty much the average for all companies...

The only way it would vary significantly is if the market was predicting a large change in the real price of oil. If it's thought that oil prices will drop by 50% then the expected discounted profits from mineral rights will be lower in relation to the current profits (so current profits/assets will be high), while if it's thought that oil prices will rise by 100% then current profits/assets will be low.

KrazyHorse
28-05-2008, 16:04:28
I'm of the impression that people are so bad at predicting the price of oil that the current real price is what the market as a whole expects for the future, so profit/asset ratios will be nearly identical to every other sector...

KrazyHorse
28-05-2008, 16:11:18
Now in terms of physical capital I'd bet that the oil companies look pretty attractive nowadays. The marginal cost of production if you don't include the cost of mineral rights isn't even close to the current price.

This is what makes it a good idea to put a carbon tax in place while the price is high. If the whole world were to enact a uniform carbon tax right now then the after-tax price of oil wouldn't change at all, nor would production and consumption. The carbon tax would entirely be paid for by producers. If there was a large amount of marginal supply then such a tax would be highly distortionary...

Asher
28-05-2008, 16:45:07
It depends which oil companies you look at. The infrastructure in Alberta is obscenely expensive and risky. A single accident can lose you billions of dollars, and if oil dips under $40 it becomes unprofitable...

KrazyHorse
28-05-2008, 16:48:24
Yeah, but oil is at 130

Where's the additional 90 coming from? Rents on mineral rights and know-how...

KrazyHorse
28-05-2008, 16:49:42
I just don't see a large amount of marginal supply coming online much above 50

It's a demand issue at that point...

Asher
28-05-2008, 18:21:06
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Yeah, but oil is at 130

Where's the additional 90 coming from? Rents on mineral rights and know-how...
Much of it goes into funding more projects to keep supply. The $40 market is for sustained costs, they have to recoup hundreds of billions of dollars of investment first.

KrazyHorse
28-05-2008, 19:57:19
I thought the 40$ figure was actually including the risk-free rate of return on the sunk costs. At least that's near what I've seen quoted as the high end of such figures.

KrazyHorse
28-05-2008, 21:18:32
By the way, Asher: I wanted to respond to something you said to me a few days ago when I mentioned carbon taxes. You were saying that you simply don't want to give the government more of your money. This is a fair enough point. But if it was revenue neutral? In other words, if they offset income taxes across the board by enough to give back whatever the carbon tax was expected to raise?

Drake Tungsten
28-05-2008, 21:56:32
How likely is that?

KrazyHorse
28-05-2008, 22:01:05
Why not?

KrazyHorse
28-05-2008, 22:02:30
IIRC, the Liberals in Canada proposed just that.

KrazyHorse
28-05-2008, 22:02:59
That's the first good policy idea to come out of that shop in a long time, by the way...

Though I don't know if I could vote for them due to Afghanistan stuff (I'm far more aligned with the Conservatives than the Libs or NDP on that).

Oerdin
28-05-2008, 23:05:52
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Why should an oil company which is vertically integrated (it extracts oil, refines it and sells it) take a hit by selling gas for less than they could make by selling the oil on the market?

Refiners and retailers which do not extract their own oil are taking a beating lately, by the way. Also, the refining and retailing arms of integrated petro companies.

The upstream operators (extraction) are the ones which benefit from higher oil prices.

One of our biggest problems is lack of competition due to over consolidation, vertical integration, and lack of new entrances to the industry despite high prices and low levels of competition. It seems like breaking up the vertical integration will help solve the first two problems but the second can only be solved by finding a way to encourage the construction of new refineries & pipelines.

Asher
29-05-2008, 01:13:40
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
By the way, Asher: I wanted to respond to something you said to me a few days ago when I mentioned carbon taxes. You were saying that you simply don't want to give the government more of your money. This is a fair enough point. But if it was revenue neutral? In other words, if they offset income taxes across the board by enough to give back whatever the carbon tax was expected to raise?

That's better. My family (immediate and otherwise) massively benefit from high oil prices. It's selfish, but you gotta know what side your bread is buttered...

Meanwhile carbon taxes benefit no one except for government bureaucrats who throw money indiscriminately (conservatives are no better, WTF did they buy the C-17 Globemaster IIIs).

Revenue neutral approach doesn't do much for me either way. I'm..neutral about it.

Asher
29-05-2008, 01:16:26
Originally posted by Oerdin
One of our biggest problems is lack of competition due to over consolidation, vertical integration, and lack of new entrances to the industry despite high prices and low levels of competition. It seems like breaking up the vertical integration will help solve the first two problems but the second can only be solved by finding a way to encourage the construction of new refineries & pipelines.

The constructions of refineries and pipelines aren't the problem. The problem is it's harder and harder to get the oil in the first place. All of the low-hanging fruit is long gone.

Oerdin
29-05-2008, 03:41:10
Originally posted by Asher
Canada is the USA done right.

Freedom without the excessive gun violence and fat rednecks.

The fat rednecks and gun violence are what we call "Southern Charm".

MDA
29-05-2008, 10:45:56
Some just call it Venom.

The Mad Monk
29-05-2008, 17:21:13
There's plenty of low-hanging fruit off the coast of California.

Good luck dodging the guard dogs, though.

Asher
29-05-2008, 17:23:49
There's actually not a lot there last I checked.

37 million barrels or something?

Compare that to the 170 billion barrels in Alberta.

seng
29-05-2008, 20:24:17
The question is what the fuck Alberta did to deserve it and whether the profits shouldn't justly be spent on reparations to the natives.

Asher
29-05-2008, 20:26:55
The Natives are treated very well indeed here...

What Alberta did to deserve it? Have you lived in Alberta?

KrazyHorse
29-05-2008, 20:52:54
Originally posted by seng
The question is what the fuck Alberta did to deserve it and whether the profits shouldn't justly be spent on reparations to the natives.

Why the fuck do you think that deserving has anything to do with how much people have?

seng
29-05-2008, 21:20:27
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Why the fuck do you think that deserving has anything to do with how much people have?

What, are you going to tell me about reality next?

How about you think a little about the natives, whom you stole the country from?

seng
29-05-2008, 21:24:01
Originally posted by Asher
The Natives are treated very well indeed here...

And what are their incarceration rates lile compared to the rest of the population?

What Alberta did to deserve it? Have you lived in Alberta?

How is that relevant?

Oerdin
29-05-2008, 21:45:25
Originally posted by The Mad Monk
There's plenty of low-hanging fruit off the coast of California.

Good luck dodging the guard dogs, though.

There is indeed. Here's a thread I posted on a local forum where I live:

http://forum.signonsandiego.com/showthread.php?t=85366

It is about a report done in 1995 by the Federal Minerals Management Service about oil and gas reserves off of San Diego and Orange Counties in the Oceanside-Capistrano Basin. Please note that this is just one of well over a dozen basins in California surveyed by the Federal Minerals Management Service in the 1990's and one with just a middling amount of hydrocarbons. The report finds that there are 1.1 billion barrels of conventionally recoverable oil and 1.4 billion bcf of recoverable natural gas in that basin alone.

Unfortunately state law since the 1970's has forbidden off shore drilling; the only exception is Federally controlled areas such as military bases which the Bush Administration is currently trying to get developed. There is a shit load of oil right off the coast.

Asher
29-05-2008, 22:02:24
1 billion barrels is nothing, Oerdin

Those reports are also not official from what I can tell

Asher
29-05-2008, 22:03:47
Originally posted by seng
And what are their incarceration rates lile compared to the rest of the population?

No idea, but don't see what we can do.

They already avoid paying tax and have free reign on government services, plus a shitload of outreach programs.

What would you have us do?

FWIW I work with a native guy. He makes as much as I do in salary but actually makes far more thanks to his native status. Yeah, hard done by.

Oerdin
29-05-2008, 22:06:35
Originally posted by Asher
1 billion barrels is nothing, Oerdin

Those reports are also not official from what I can tell

Total off shore reserves in the state are likely between 12-20 billion barrels of conventionally recoverable oil and around twice that for natural gas. Sure, it's not a world shattering amount but they are larger then many of the world's current top producers and certainly a highly valuable economic resources which may even be enough to make the state a net oil exporter despite the fact that we're one of the biggest consumers in the world.

The 1.1 billion figure is just for the Oceanside-Capistrano basin with the San Pedro Shelf, San Pedro Basin, Santa Monica Basin, and the Santa Barbara-Ventura Basin all also located off the Southern California coast. San Pedro, Santa Monica, and especially Santa Barbara all have much larger reserves. And we haven't even discussed the other 75% of the state yet virtually all of the basins have significant oil and gas reserves.

Asher
29-05-2008, 22:09:22
Originally posted by Oerdin
Total off shore reserves in the state are likely between 12-20 billion barrels of conventionally recoverable oil and around twice that for natural gas. Sure, it's not a world shattering amount but they are larger then many of the world's current top producers and certainly a highly valuable economic resources which may even be enough to make the state a net oil exporter despite the fact that we're one of the biggest consumers in the world.

Link this shit

Asher
29-05-2008, 22:12:22
I want links, assclown

Oerdin
29-05-2008, 22:12:24
Linked above. Just read the reports.

Asher
29-05-2008, 22:12:51
I'm not going to read some FORUMS from some SAN DIEGO media site.

I want your fat ass to support your claims of 12-20 billion barrells

Oerdin
29-05-2008, 22:17:37
Originally posted by Asher
There's actually not a lot there last I checked.

37 million barrels or something?

Compare that to the 170 billion barrels in Alberta.

You pulled that 37 million figure out of your ass. The yearly oil production state wide is 255.8 million barrels per year (as of 2005).

http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DOG/Pages/statistics.aspx

Oerdin
29-05-2008, 22:20:48
Here's a San Francisco Gate (hippy liberal website from the bay area) article which claims reserves off of the coast are at 10.13 billion. I'd personally say these are conservative estimates given the source and that I regularly read geology articles with different estimates. One of the benefits of being a geologist is you stay a bit more on top of stuff like this.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/03/BUG14KA0AP21.DTL

Asher
29-05-2008, 22:21:03
PROVEN RESERVES FIGURES. CITE THEM.

Asher
29-05-2008, 22:21:49
There, from your link:

3.3 billion barrels

Child's play

Oerdin
29-05-2008, 22:23:57
These are estimated reserves based upon test drilling but can only be reclassified as proven after actual production has started and at least one year of production data has been collected.

Please understand geologic terms before you use them.

Asher
29-05-2008, 22:26:04
Originally posted by Oerdin
These are estimated reserves based upon test drilling but can only be reclassified as proven after actual production has started and at least one year of production data has been collected.

Please understand geologic terms before you use them.

Don't you dare whip out your tiny condescension dick to me.

I know the oil industry and I'm comparing like for like here.

There's tons of suspected Oil in Alberta still too, but they aren't counted in those figures. So why the fuck should we include phantom oil in San Diego?

Phantom oil isn't included in figures, and phantom oil is CERTAINLY not "low hanging fruit".

suck my aggressive cock.

Oerdin
29-05-2008, 22:28:31
Originally posted by Asher
There, from your link:




The federal government estimates that California's coastal waters could hold 10.13 billion barrels of oil. That's almost the same amount believed to lie beneath the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which the Bush administration has pushed hard to open to exploration.


In addition, the minerals service estimates the outer continental shelf along California's coast holds 16.02 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.


Note these are extremely conservative estimates just like virtually all Federal Minerals Management Service reports. The outer continental shelf figure was a surprise for me. I was previously talking about the near shore (in the close to shore basins) so the outer shelf figures would be in addition too.

Asher
29-05-2008, 22:30:30
I HAVE CAUGHT YOU IN YOUR LIE, JUST LIKE A 48 PIZZA.

Oerdin
29-05-2008, 22:32:23
Originally posted by Asher
Don't you dare whip out your tiny condescension dick to me.

I know the oil industry and I'm comparing like for like here.

There's tons of suspected Oil in Alberta still too, but they aren't counted in those figures. So why the fuck should we include phantom oil in San Diego?

Phantom oil isn't included in figures, and phantom oil is CERTAINLY not "low hanging fruit".

suck my aggressive cock.

I'm talking about tested and estimated reserves off of the coast of the entire state of California. Please tell me what you know and what specific training you have in the hydrocarbon business or geology in general.

Oerdin
29-05-2008, 22:33:47
Originally posted by Asher
I HAVE CAUGHT YOU IN YOUR LIE, JUST LIKE A 48 PIZZA.

:rolleyes: Asher you are one of a kind.

Asher
29-05-2008, 22:37:01
Originally posted by Oerdin
I'm talking about tested and estimated reserves off of the coast of the entire state of California. Please tell me what you know and what specific training you have in the hydrocarbon business or geology in general.

Well, I'll give you a little secret.

My father works for one of the largest oil companies in the world.

He spent 4 years doing feasibility studies on California off-shore oil projects.

Why do you think I lived in California.

The companies looked at California for aggressive growth but instead chose Alberta. Why do you think I moved back.

Oerdin
29-05-2008, 22:42:01
Asher, as I have repeatedly said and which Mad Monk has also said there are political and legal difficulties for developing California's offshore reserves but those reserves exist. Those political problems are exactly why there is no new off shore development going on. I'd gladly talk with you father or other knowledgeable people but you are clearly not well versed in geology. That's not a knock as I'd defer to you about computer related questions but you're out of your depths when discussing the science of geology.

Asher
29-05-2008, 22:44:01
Originally posted by Oerdin
Asher, as I have repeatedly said and which Mad Monk has also said there are political and legal difficulties for developing California's offshore reserves but those reserves exist. I'd gladly talk with you father or other knowledgeable people but you are clearly not well versed in geology. That's not a knock as I'd defer to you about computer related questions but you're out of your depths when discussing the science of geology.

We're not fucking discussing the hardcore aspects of geology you elitist fucking twat.

We're discussing simple PUBLIC DOCUMENTS which you fail to actually fucking link to.

You did find a SFGate article whoch mentions 10 billion, but this still isn't the number you quoted.

SO BACK IT UP, BITCH. Or concede defeat.

Oerdin
29-05-2008, 22:46:36
What ever you say, dude. Virtually all industry sites cost money to view so even if I linked them you wouldn't be able to see them and would use the same line. Thus I linked publicly available sites listing estimates by the Federal Minerals Management Service.

Have fun.

Asher
29-05-2008, 22:50:14
Originally posted by Oerdin
What ever you say, dude. Virtually all industry sites cost money to view so even if I linked them you wouldn't be able to see them and would use the same line. Thus I linked publicly available sites listing estimates by the Federal Minerals Management Service.

Have fun.
ESTIMATES WHICH DO NOT MATCH WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

You lose.

Drake Tungsten
29-05-2008, 23:07:14
One of the benefits of being a geologist is you stay a bit more on top of stuff like this.

I imagine that's the only benefit.

KrazyHorse
30-05-2008, 18:17:54
Originally posted by seng
What, are you going to tell me about reality next?

How about you think a little about the natives, whom you stole the country from?

Why don't you tell me how some of my ancestors stole the country from some other of my ancestors. I was unaware of that, you tard.

KrazyHorse
30-05-2008, 18:18:54
Originally posted by seng
And what are their incarceration rates lile compared to the rest of the population?


If Natives don't want to be incarcerated then they shouldn't commit crimes.

Asher
30-05-2008, 18:24:16
That's all there is to it?

KrazyHorse
30-05-2008, 18:27:40
Not really, but his ignorant suggestion that 30 million people should pack up and leave a land their ancestors have lived in for between 150 and 450 years (my family's Euro side) is annoying me, so I like giving glib answers.

Asher
30-05-2008, 18:35:06
I honestly don't see what else we can do for the natives. They have all of the opportunities as everyone else in this country, and then some. It's up to the individuals to make use of it.

Lurker the Second
30-05-2008, 18:35:54
That's be a lot of packing. And a lot of moving vans. I hate moving shit.

KrazyHorse
30-05-2008, 18:36:37
Or perhaps the 7/8 of me that's Scottish, French and Irish should leave, but the 1/8 that's Iroquois can stay.

While we're at it, maybe the Natives should pay the Euros for technology and medicine transfers.

seng, you do admit that the average Native Canadian's life today is better than his life would have been in 1500, right? He lives longer, has a higher standard of living, is healthier, has less chance of being murdered/killed violently, knows things that nobody had ever even dreamed of in the 16th century, etc.

Now compare a Native Canadian's lot to the indigenous, unadvanced (as of 1500, say) peoples of non-Euro countries which were less wholly colonized, or not colonized at all. For instance, parts of SE Asia, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, parts of Africa.

Who has things better today?

Asher
30-05-2008, 18:36:44
Originally posted by Lurker the Second
That's be a lot of packing. And a lot of moving vans. I hate moving shit.

You can hire the natives to help.

KrazyHorse
30-05-2008, 18:42:44
Originally posted by Asher
I honestly don't see what else we can do for the natives. They have all of the opportunities as everyone else in this country, and then some. It's up to the individuals to make use of it.

There's still a cultural sadness and sense of hopelessness there. Many reservation Natives feel useless and worthless (at least this is my sense of it). This is a legacy of the past. We can try to ameliorate this. Giving them limited sovereignty over certain parts of the country (as we've done) is a good idea, I think. Whether there's something more we can do than this (and the tax breaks etc. that we give them) is questionable. Making sure to pay them proper respect in our dealings with them and other such soft methods are all I can think of. I can only hope that more time will help.

seng
30-05-2008, 19:08:56
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Or perhaps the 7/8 of me that's Scottish, French and Irish should leave, but the 1/8 that's Iroquois can stay.

While we're at it, maybe the Natives should pay the Euros for technology and medicine transfers.

seng, you do admit that the average Native Canadian's life today is better than his life would have been in 1500, right? He lives longer, has a higher standard of living, is healthier, has less chance of being murdered/killed violently, knows things that nobody had ever even dreamed of in the 16th century, etc.

Now compare a Native Canadian's lot to the indigenous, unadvanced (as of 1500, say) peoples of non-Euro countries which were less wholly colonized, or not colonized at all. For instance, parts of SE Asia, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, parts of Africa.

Who has things better today?

Relax. You're 1/8 guilt free. You should be proud.

KrazyHorse
30-05-2008, 20:12:07
I'm 100% guilt free, you tard.

KrazyHorse
30-05-2008, 20:12:50
Strange, but I don't feel any moral responsibility for what other people did before I was born.

I guess I'm weird that way. Tard.

MoSe
03-06-2008, 08:12:03
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Not really, but his ignorant suggestion that [x] million people should pack up and leave a land their ancestors have lived in for [several centuries] ...

I didn't follow the discussion, but extrapolating it from its context, that's indeed what was told to Palestinians after WWII.
Not taking side pro or vs Israel, just putting things into perspective...

Funko
03-06-2008, 08:17:38
This thread rules.

Drekkus
03-06-2008, 08:19:53
how did we get from oil to eskimos?

Funko
03-06-2008, 08:22:34
It must be about that crappy Steven Seagal film.

C.G.B. Spender
03-06-2008, 08:29:21
What film?!?!

King_Ghidra
03-06-2008, 08:30:03
THERE ARE NO CRAPPY STEVE SEAGAL FILMS

Dyl Ulenspiegel
03-06-2008, 08:32:39
How do you extract oil from Eskimos?

Funko
03-06-2008, 08:36:52
On Deadly Ground 1994.

C.G.B. Spender
03-06-2008, 08:37:08
Use an eskimo oil extractor (exkimoil)

MoSe
03-06-2008, 08:39:39
you skim it?

MoSe
03-06-2008, 08:40:39
you skim it online from them:
eSkim-oil

C.G.B. Spender
03-06-2008, 08:44:05
No, I won't. I have no time for that

Drekkus
03-06-2008, 11:49:17
Is that Ground still Deadly in 2008?

Funko
03-06-2008, 11:52:12
Seagal saved it in '94.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
03-06-2008, 11:54:33
It's cursed, and the spirirts of dead eskimos roam that land.

LoD
03-06-2008, 12:08:12
"Roam"? Skim, you mean.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
03-06-2008, 12:12:36
The skimmed eskimos roam.

Funko
03-06-2008, 12:13:01
The rimmed eskimos moan.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
03-06-2008, 12:28:38
That too.

MoSe
03-06-2008, 16:50:25
I knew they let you have their wife, and laugh

Dyl Ulenspiegel
03-06-2008, 17:00:32
those evil, evil bastards

KrazyHorse
03-06-2008, 19:04:18
Originally posted by MoSe
I didn't follow the discussion, but extrapolating it from its context, that's indeed what was told to Palestinians after WWII.
Not taking side pro or vs Israel, just putting things into perspective...

If you think that I'm cool with what happened in the British Mandate of Palestine in the 20s, 30s and 40s then you are mistaken.

Asher
03-06-2008, 19:09:55
On topic now, check out this article: http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2008/05/27/big-oil-ruined-my-life.aspx?source=ihpdspmra0000001

Breaks down Big Oil's role in the prices.