(06-27-2017 06:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 10:17 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  That's what I said -- if you were actually in control of trillions, you wouldn't be frivolous in attitude towards potential loses.
I don't really buy your argument as particularly valid. It's like saying that we shouldn't regulate business at all, because businesses will always do the right thing by consumers, since that's in their best interest. But countless examples show that is not the case.

WTF? That's nowhere close to my point. Unless you're arguing that regulators should intervene to stop these investments now, I see no connection. And if regulators do intervene, or anything else stops these investments now, what happens in ten years when we no longer have enough oil and there's no alternative that is ready for use?

I often wonder if this isn't the end game by a lot of the activists. We don't really have an effective substitute, so we'll just shut oil production down with nowhere to go, and force everyone to live with reduced expectations.

Quote:But again, that's not the argument. To put it yet another way, the question is: do we really need massive new investments in additional oil production infrastructure, if the current infrastructure is actually good enough, given that by the time the new infrastructure is up and running the demand for oil will be dwindling?

This comment evidences an astounding lack of comprehension of how the world works.

For the record, if your question were rephrased to bear some relation to reality, the answer would be yes.

As Mpls types to you on a keyboard or phone made of petrochemicals with a computer made of petrochemicals while driving in a Tesla made up mostly with petrochemicals in clothing that may be made of petrochemicals.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrochemical
Products made by petrochemicals:

Acrylic fiber
Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS)
Acrylonitrile styrene (AS)
Polybutadiene (PBR)
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
Polyethylene (PE)
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
Polyol
Polypropylene (PP)
Polystyrene (PS)
Styrene butadiene (SBR)
Acrylic-formaldehude (AF)
Lubricants
Additives
Catalysts
Marine fuel oil
Petroleum refining
Adhesives and sealants
Agrochemicals
Construction chemicals
Corrosion control chemicals
Cosmetics raw materials
Electronic chemicals and materials
Flavourings, fragrances, food additives
Pharmaceutical drugs
Specialty and industrial chemicals
Specialty and industrial gases
Inks, dyes and printing supplies
Packaging, bottles, and containers
Paint, coatings, and resins
Polymer additives
Specialty and life sciences chemicals
Surfactants and cleaning agents

(06-27-2017 06:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Unless you're arguing that regulators should intervene to stop these investments now, I see no connection.

It doesn't have to be government or regulations, to get at the same gist.

You get the same gist by the oil companies simply deciding "OK, the demand for oil is likely to dwindle in 20 years, so let's just can these new field development mega projects that are in the early planning stages now, and save that money".

(06-27-2017 06:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I often wonder if this isn't the end game by a lot of the activists. We don't really have an effective substitute, so we'll just shut oil production down with nowhere to go, and force everyone to live with reduced expectations.

No one is talking about this or doing this. It has to be a voluntary decision by the oil companies.

(06-27-2017 06:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This comment evidences an astounding lack of comprehension of how the world works.

No supporting argument or evidence, means I can't really take this comment seriously.

(06-27-2017 07:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  As Mpls types to you on a keyboard or phone made of petrochemicals with a computer made of petrochemicals while driving in a Tesla made up mostly with petrochemicals in clothing that may be made of petrochemicals.....

If you had taken the time and care to read and understand the thread, then you wouldn't have posted something that has nothing to do with what is being discussed, and was already put to bed many posts ago.

(06-27-2017 08:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 06:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Unless you're arguing that regulators should intervene to stop these investments now, I see no connection.

It doesn't have to be government or regulations, to get at the same gist.

You get the same gist by the oil companies simply deciding "OK, the demand for oil is likely to dwindle in 20 years, so let's just can these new field development mega projects that are in the early planning stages now, and save that money".

Don't you think these oil companies investing in these types of projects are slightly more informed about future demand than you are? IF there was a high likelihood that future investments would be wasted, they wouldn't be going forward with the projects. Since investments are continuing to be made, obviously the oil companies don't think it's going to be wasted.

(06-27-2017 08:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 06:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Unless you're arguing that regulators should intervene to stop these investments now, I see no connection.

It doesn't have to be government or regulations, to get at the same gist.
You get the same gist by the oil companies simply deciding "OK, the demand for oil is likely to dwindle in 20 years, so let's just can these new field development mega projects that are in the early planning stages now, and save that money".

(06-27-2017 06:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I often wonder if this isn't the end game by a lot of the activists. We don't really have an effective substitute, so we'll just shut oil production down with nowhere to go, and force everyone to live with reduced expectations.

No one is talking about this or doing this. It has to be a voluntary decision by the oil companies.

(06-27-2017 06:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This comment evidences an astounding lack of comprehension of how the world works.

No supporting argument or evidence, means I can't really take this comment seriously.

Number one, demand for oil is not going to be "dwindling" in the next 20--or 50--years. I am not aware of any serious forecast which reaches that conclusion. Are you? My best guess is that in the 20-50 year time frame demand for oil may decline slightly in developed countries as viable alternatives manifest themselves, but any such decline will be offset by increases in developing countries. If you have credible sources that suggest otherwise, what are they? Without that, your entire argument falls apart, and it is difficult if not impossible to take anything you say seriously.

Number two, the people making those investment decisions are doing so with the best available estimates of future demand, and are considering those estimates in all their economic decisions. I think you lack any comprehension about how those decisions are actually made. Nobody is looking to spend trillions developing production for which there will be no market.

(06-27-2017 08:39 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 07:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  As Mpls types to you on a keyboard or phone made of petrochemicals with a computer made of petrochemicals while driving in a Tesla made up mostly with petrochemicals in clothing that may be made of petrochemicals.....

If you had taken the time and care to read and understand the thread, then you wouldn't have posted something that has nothing to do with what is being discussed, and was already put to bed many posts ago.

IF by "put to bed" you mean that you ignored and redirected the conversation for the 100th time, then yes, it has been put to bed. 100% of posters in this thread not named MlpsBison understand that future oil needs are not limited to gasoline production or oil fired electric plants.

(06-27-2017 09:30 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 08:39 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 07:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  As Mpls types to you on a keyboard or phone made of petrochemicals with a computer made of petrochemicals while driving in a Tesla made up mostly with petrochemicals in clothing that may be made of petrochemicals.....

If you had taken the time and care to read and understand the thread, then you wouldn't have posted something that has nothing to do with what is being discussed, and was already put to bed many posts ago.

IF by "put to bed" you mean that you ignored and redirected the conversation for the 100th time, then yes, it has been put to bed. 100% of posters in this thread not named MlpsBison understand that future oil needs are not limited to gasoline production or oil fired electric plants.

Well said.

(06-27-2017 09:30 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  understand that future oil needs are not limited to gasoline production or oil fired electric plants.

Since it was clear in the OP that the thread was never talking about oil demand going to zero, this is either a strawman by way of purposefully misframing the discussion (to induce confusion) or simply a lack of comprehension on theirs and your part.

(06-27-2017 10:02 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 09:30 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  understand that future oil needs are not limited to gasoline production or oil fired electric plants.

Since it was clear in the OP that the thread was never talking about oil demand going to zero, this is either a strawman by way of purposefully misframing the discussion (to induce confusion) or simply a lack of comprehension on theirs and your part.

You aren't even a good bull**** artist. You can't make the above statement a handful of posts after you respond to another poster with a holier than thou attitude when confronted with the fact that oil demand isn't only based on whichever narrow category fits your narrative at the moment.

First, sorry I posted essentially the same thing twice. I was convinced I had written something and then didn't see it, so i rewrote it. My apologies.

(06-25-2017 12:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  So if they decide not to make the investments, you won't complain, on bit? You'll just accept it? You won't write on this board about how stupid the decision is?

No, probably not. If I really thought it was a horrible decision, I'd probably find people who agreed with me and start a company that did just that and make a fortune. I sure wouldn't come on here and give away my fortune before I had. If I didn't have the conviction to do that, then I doubt I'd have the conviction to argue about it. Note that I'm not arguing that the OP is wrong... I'm merely arguing that his/her opinions seem shallow and are counter to professionals who unlike the author, demonstrably DO have money invested in being right.

Such decisions are about making money... not public policy. Now if my GOVERNMENT made such a decision and i disagreed, I'd be on here complaining... because i can't choose to 'sell' my investment (taxes) and I'd get others to vote with me and put those people out of a job.

Quote:

(06-23-2017 08:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Your projection probably won't happen.

But that's the thing -- it costs you nothing to hit a few keys on your keyboard and say that.

When you're actually in control of trillions of dollars, and have that responsibility actually on you, you aren't so frivolous in your attitudes toward potential losses ...

Which is precisely why I trust the people whose job it is to make such decisions... and not an author or internet blogger.

(06-26-2017 10:17 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I don't really buy your argument as particularly valid. It's like saying that we shouldn't regulate business at all, because businesses will always do the right thing by consumers, since that's in their best interest. But countless examples show that is not the case.

Wait wait wait wait wait...

Who said ANYTHING about making the right decision for consumers? Businesses make the right decisions (generally) for their investors, not for consumers. The relationship between doing right by consumers and profits is pretty well established, but companies focus on profits, not consumers.

Quote:

(06-26-2017 11:48 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Future investments in oil MAY be wasted. Well no kidding. Future investments in ANYTHING 'MAY' be wasted.

How can such an argument that glosses over ... well, everything ... serve much of a purpose?

You can justify any investment, in anything, using such a viewpoint.

Wow... I can't believe you're not understanding me. That's precisely my point. The article similarly says that future investments in oil production could be wasted... well, future investments in ANYTHING including the latest and greatest green tech could be wasted. An argument that glosses over.... well, everything.... doesn't serve much of a purpose either... That was my entire point. That's why they call it 'speculation'.

Quote:

(06-26-2017 11:48 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Oil will be around for decades.

But again, that's not the argument. To put it yet another way, the question is: do we really need massive new investments in additional oil production infrastructure, if the current infrastructure is actually good enough, given that by the time the new infrastructure is up and running the demand for oil will be dwindling?

So we shouldn't invest in more efficient engines?

'massive' is relative to the time and amount. Over a 10, much less a 20 or 30 year period... $2 trillion isn't that much money.

I'm sure others have better figures (this isn't my area), but it seems we're producing 8,500,000 barrels per day... that's 3 trillion bb/yr, right? over 10 years, that's 30 trillion... 90 trillion bb over 30 years... and we're talking about investing about 20 cents on each barrel?? Even at just $20/bb, that's not a big percentage... and we're currently more than double that (and WELL off the recent highs)

I may be wrong on the math... don't care to double check it... the point remains even if I'm wrong on the math

That's US only production, and many of these countries are 'global'.