[SA Chris]

Yep, stuck between Dwayne Johnson and some frozen flat fish.

[Oldmanmatt]

Open defiance already:

http://laist.com/2016/11/14/lapd_will_not_deport.php

I'd put money on full science denial. Fortunately, the individual states have a large say in their school curriculum, so I'd  guess at further degradation of education in the already weak regions, along with the poverty that brings. With commensurate rise in standards and concentration of industry in the already rich (and blue) regions.

A few days reading has left me stunned by the Electoral College system and it's blatant inequality.
A single vote, in California (accounting for more than 10% of the total US population and the single most populous state in the Union) is worth 0.37 on the voter value index. A vote in Arizona (one fifth the population of California and less than 2% of the total US) is worth over 200 on the index. To put it another way, one vote in Arizona is worth 540 votes in California.

Not too surprising people are upset. Shall we give it a go? One vote in West Penwith could be worth 540 in any of the Greater London constituencies?
I know our boundaries are pretty unfair but their system is nuts.

https://wallethub.com/edu/how-much-is-your-vote-worth/7932/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Oldmanmatt]

Well, there goes the planet, any chance of Saudi surviving  another decade and Trump probably safe for a second term...

http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/11584/nearly-a-trillion-dollars-worth-of-oil-was-just-discovered-in-texas/



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SA Chris]

Well, there goes the planet, any chance of Saudi surviving  another decade and Trump probably safe for a second term...

http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/11584/nearly-a-trillion-dollars-worth-of-oil-was-just-discovered-in-texas/



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Maybe it's good to explore the facts behind the blazing headline though, O&G people are good at conveniently providing limited facts;

http://oilpro.com/post/28773/permian-giant-oil-field-would-lose-500-billion-todays-prices?utm_source=DailyNewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_term=2016-11-22&utm_content=Article_2_txt

[Bonjoy]

Open defiance already:

http://laist.com/2016/11/14/lapd_will_not_deport.php

I'd put money on full science denial. Fortunately, the individual states have a large say in their school curriculum, so I'd  guess at further degradation of education in the already weak regions, along with the poverty that brings. With commensurate rise in standards and concentration of industry in the already rich (and blue) regions.

A few days reading has left me stunned by the Electoral College system and it's blatant inequality.
A single vote, in California (accounting for more than 10% of the total US population and the single most populous state in the Union) is worth 0.37 on the voter value index. A vote in Arizona (one fifth the population of California and less than 2% of the total US) is worth over 200 on the index. To put it another way, one vote in Arizona is worth 540 votes in California.

Not too surprising people are upset. Shall we give it a go? One vote in West Penwith could be worth 540 in any of the Greater London constituencies?
I know our boundaries are pretty unfair but their system is nuts.

https://wallethub.com/edu/how-much-is-your-vote-worth/7932/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It sounds like a fucked up system. It's a shame that parties wait until they lose by it to start complaining and demanding action. Like the other side is really going to go along with them having their cake and eating it.

[slackline]

A few days reading has left me stunned by the Electoral College system and it's blatant inequality.
A single vote, in California (accounting for more than 10% of the total US population and the single most populous state in the Union) is worth 0.37 on the voter value index. A vote in Arizona (one fifth the population of California and less than 2% of the total US) is worth over 200 on the index. To put it another way, one vote in Arizona is worth 540 votes in California.

Not too surprising people are upset. Shall we give it a go?

[Oldmanmatt]

Well, there goes the planet, any chance of Saudi surviving  another decade and Trump probably safe for a second term...

http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/11584/nearly-a-trillion-dollars-worth-of-oil-was-just-discovered-in-texas/



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Maybe it's good to explore the facts behind the blazing headline though, O&G people are good at conveniently providing limited facts;

http://oilpro.com/post/28773/permian-giant-oil-field-would-lose-500-billion-todays-prices?utm_source=DailyNewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_term=2016-11-22&utm_content=Article_2_txt

That certainly colours it somewhat differently, however, if you consider some expect a short boom in the near term:

http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21710634-glimpse-post-oil-era-when-oil-no-longer-demand?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/whenoilisnolongerindemand

That changes the colour again, though it doesn't invert it back.

Also, with the Canadian shale fields scaling back there is a glut of potential equipment on the horizon, which is also expected to lower extraction costs from present.
Add in the returning swarms of oil workers, desperate for income and willing to work for a fraction of current rates (possibly)...

So extraction costs could see a nose dive from those used in the calculations.
Or not.

Pretty turbulent times all round, really.

I'd be surprised if there weren't some "subsidies" on offer from the President Elect and his administration; though. It has yuuge, biggly potential to be the best oil, everyone says and he's just the man to get it and make the Mexicans pay for it too!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[petejh]

Well, there goes the planet, any chance of Saudi surviving  another decade and Trump probably safe for a second term...

http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/11584/nearly-a-trillion-dollars-worth-of-oil-was-just-discovered-in-texas/



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Maybe it's good to explore the facts behind the blazing headline though, O&G people are good at conveniently providing limited facts;

http://oilpro.com/post/28773/permian-giant-oil-field-would-lose-500-billion-todays-prices?utm_source=DailyNewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_term=2016-11-22&utm_content=Article_2_txt

That certainly colours it somewhat differently, however, if you consider some expect a short boom in the near term:

http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21710634-glimpse-post-oil-era-when-oil-no-longer-demand?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/whenoilisnolongerindemand

That changes the colour again, though it doesn't invert it back.

Also, with the Canadian shale fields scaling back there is a glut of potential equipment on the horizon, which is also expected to lower extraction costs from present.
Add in the returning swarms of oil workers, desperate for income and willing to work for a fraction of current rates (possibly)...

So extraction costs could see a nose dive from those used in the calculations.
Or not.

Pretty turbulent times all round, really.

I'd be surprised if there weren't some "subsidies" on offer from the President Elect and his administration; though. It has yuuge, biggly potential to be the best oil, everyone says and he's just the man to get it and make the Mexicans pay for it too!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good to see a bit of balance SA C.

Mining/O+G's notorious for inferred and indicated resources mysteriously failing to turn into money-making product on the surface. Long after wall street have left the scene after pocketing nice returns on the hype. At least if the last ten years of trying to make money from N.American mining stocks are anything to go by.


Don't let that spoil a good reason to despair though.

[Oldmanmatt]

Relentlessly up-beat as always Pete.
I envy you.

To be fair, I wasn't expecting Al-Falih to back off the OPEC production cut when I posted the O&G link, nor did I know he was doing just that as I posted the whole "colour" thing above; which of course changes the hue again.

So I'm sticking with "Turbulent" and still moderately convinced that the new administration will manage several miles-worth of political capital (post factual era n'all that).

Not to mention, we only need to reach $67pb for the whole thing to make sense again or $70+ for real boom.

Not beyond the realms etc.

Yep, Habrich, but thats still 5+ years off surely? There is rumour of reaching deficit by late 2017, is there not?

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Goldman-Sachs-Turns-Bullish-On-Oil.html

With the proviso as stated in the opening paragraph of that article.

Since my investment exposure consists of fuckallandfairydustontoast, I speak with the authority of a small wheel of cheddar in a new system of the future (I just let predictive text handle the last sentence, since it makes as much sense as anything else).

Damn, I learn a lot here.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Oldmanmatt]

Oh yes, the long term looks good. Oil is, probably, done. Environmentally, I still have high hopes that technology will save the day.
I think the rise of the right is going to prove to be a short term, reactionary, flash-in-the-pan by those struggling to cope with change (not many totalitarian/right wing regimes last beyond a half century or so).
Yes the reports are intriguing, no I haven't got through all of them yet...
I wasn't intending to challenge anything you said, I just think those fields had a high chance of being developed, had OPEC cut production this week. I wonder if Saudi's change of heart there is, in part, related. It seems their only hope for the next couple of decades is to keep the oil money flowing and hope to restructure their economy with the proceeds. You know what their work ethic is like, they're not going to effect change quickly, so a short term boost of higher income, that makes other energy sources even more attractive and would hasten the end, is probably what they're seeing.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[tomtom]

About time we had another war to get prices up again? non?

*moderate sarcasm

[petejh]

Relentlessly up-beat as always Pete.
I envy you.

I wouldn't say that. But I do think posting predictions on ukb of future doom (or paradise, but doom's so much more compelling) after reading current events articles on the internet is a mug's game. See Habrich's comment ref brainy people and oil predictions. Professionals do this for a living and fuck it up regularly.
I also don't really get some people's determination that things *will* be shit. I mean, I know plenty is shit but...
In the Texas oilfield example, if it really was that simple a path from huge resource being discovered - drilling starting - everyone making money (and the planet sweating to death) then everyday people like you and me would make fortunes from investing in opportunities like this. But it isn't. There exist vast oil/gas reserves and precious/rare mineral resources which can't economically be extracted. Northern Alberta,Saudi and the North Sea are operating fields but are barely economical! It takes years of economical production to re-coup initial exploration and extraction costs. And in the meanwhile no-one is standing still, technology progresses and we'll all be going electric (for domestic transport) very soon in the long view.

[Will Hunt]

Relentlessly up-beat as always Pete.
I envy you.

I wouldn't say that. But I do think posting predictions on ukb of future doom (or paradise, but doom's so much more compelling) after reading current events articles on the internet is a mug's game. See Habrich's comment ref brainy people and oil predictions. Professionals do this for a living and fuck it up regularly.
I also don't really get some people's determination that things *will* be shit. I mean, I know plenty is shit but...
In the Texas oilfield example, if it really was that simple a path from huge resource being discovered - drilling starting - everyone making money (and the planet sweating to death) then everyday people like you and me would make fortunes from investing in opportunities like this. But it isn't. There exist vast oil/gas reserves and precious/rare mineral resources which can't economically be extracted. Northern Alberta,Saudi and the North Sea are operating fields but are barely economical! It takes years of economical production to re-coup initial exploration and extraction costs. And in the meanwhile no-one is standing still, technology progresses and we'll all be going electric very soon in the long view.

I have to say I agree with a lot of this. Posting a link to one article and forecasting from it the end of human civilisation, the imminent downfall of a wealthy state, and the propagation of far right politics might look great as a prophetic forum post, but it comes up a little short on detail. Looking past any sort of nuance, or anything other than the side of the story that matches your prejudice, is one of my pet hates at the moment. Social media is full of it. For instance, the best evidence that I can think of that categorically proves the BBC to be impartial in it's reporting is that commentators on the left AND the right are equally vehement in their insistence that the BBC is biased against their point of view.

[Oldmanmatt]

Ummm... It wasn't meant to be that serious chaps, please read the signature n'all..
The rest of the debate was edifying, for me at least.
Please stop picturing me in my bunker with a tin foil hat, I'm not expecting to need either before Easter at the earliest.
Glib, throw away comments on the forum are just that; mildly surprised by the response.

Still, it's all part of the inevitable road to Zorg, mark my words.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLbIIAqiI9gDGwvTFU8mqdLzHFonc65ubj&params=OAFIAVgB&v=UkFAcFtBD48&mode=NORMAL


I shall be putting that rider back on my Taptalk post again, just in case anyone actually thinks I'm being serious (it's not actually something I do often, serious, I mean).


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[slackline]

Ummm... It wasn't meant to be that serious chaps, please read the signature n'all..

Which one?  Oh they're both the same

Trouble with such things is that no one reads them so they're (doubly) redundant

Emoticons/smileys aren't that hard to use (unless you're on Crappatalk).

[Oldmanmatt]

Or you just, plain, forget.

\_[emoji53]_/

(My 11 year old keeps texting me that, along with kk (how the fark is that easier the typing ok?)).


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. Looking at you, here, Dense; I always forget to put those smiley things...

[tomtom]

Where is Dense nowadays? Has been squirted deep under the North Sea as part of some carbon capture experiment?

[petejh]

Ummm... It wasn't meant to be that serious chaps, please read the signature n'all..
The rest of the debate was edifying, for me at least.
Please stop picturing me in my bunker with a tin foil hat, I'm not expecting to need either before Easter at the earliest.
Glib, throw away comments on the forum are just that; mildly surprised by the response.

....

I shall be putting that rider back on my Taptalk post again, just in case anyone actually thinks I'm being serious (it's not actually something I do often, serious, I mean).


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So nothing you say is serious. Doesn't that make you some sort of current events troll? 

[Oldmanmatt]

Thought I'd removed the Dense reference, must have forgotten to save the changes. That was also not serious. I'd removed the whole thing from Tapatalk and hardly ever use a browser so didn't notice. I do hope he didn't take offence (like f#%k he would (based on my massive knowledge of him gleaned from his candid posting here)).


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. Looking at you, here, Dense; I always forget to put those smiley things...

[Oldmanmatt]

Ummm... It wasn't meant to be that serious chaps, please read the signature n'all..
The rest of the debate was edifying, for me at least.
Please stop picturing me in my bunker with a tin foil hat, I'm not expecting to need either before Easter at the earliest.
Glib, throw away comments on the forum are just that; mildly surprised by the response.

....

I shall be putting that rider back on my Taptalk post again, just in case anyone actually thinks I'm being serious (it's not actually something I do often, serious, I mean).


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So nothing you say is serious. Doesn't that make you some sort of current events troll? 

Yep.

Sort of.  ish.

Mainly expect everyone else to "get" my humour, which I then forget doesn't convey well without the facial/body language to go with it.

Still, the response has been worth the misunderstanding. 

Edit:
Shit! It won't delete the Dense bit. Sorry, I'll keep trying.

All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. Looking at you, here, Dense; I always forget to put those smiley things...

[petejh]

Where is Dense nowadays? Has been squirted deep under the North Sea as part of some carbon capture experiment?

I heard he was recruited by 8a.nu as their bouldering correspondent.

[petejh]

So nothing you say is serious. Doesn't that make you some sort of current events troll? 

Yep.

Sort of.  ish.

Mainly expect everyone else to "get" my humour, which I then forget doesn't convey well without the facial/body language to go with it.

Still, the response has been worth the misunderstanding. 

Playing the news-troll role does of course make it convenient for you to be able to talk as much bollocks as you like, safe in the knowledge that you can just retract anything you wrote as 'not serious' when someone bothers to counter. Devalues your currency somewhat though; brexit hey!

[Oldmanmatt]

Not at all. Read the other posts.

Edit:

I re-read. Point, counter point, response to counter point, and so on, followed by adjustment of position based on evidence presented.
Seems to be all there.
Rather than continuing to focus on the initial, glib, post.

Obviously, not everything I ever post is tongue in cheek. As you yourself pointed out, there really is some shit out there.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Doylo]

Where is Dense nowadays? Has been squirted deep under the North Sea as part of some carbon capture experiment?

He packed his bags after Slackline called him a cunt.

[slackline]

He packed his bags after Slackline called him a cunt.

I can't check as shark edited my post (1 and 2) after Lee reported me.

Nor can I remember exactly what I wrote but I very much doubt I would have used 'cunt' to insult him as its not a word I regularly use when insulting people 'fucking twat' is more likely what I wrote and Jaspers post suggests that is what I used (and he not I suggested Dense was being a 'cunt').