The simple tech behind the ultimate burning experience.
Great video. So your point is because all new US oil from horizontal wells and shale source rock is produced using pumpjacks like the ones in your video that all new oil is therefore conventional? I thought your previous point was that all the new oil wasn't conventional?
I also will completely agree with you that it is simple tech.
Title: - Conventional Oil 101
Post by: K-Dog on Feb 13, 2024, 03:59 PM
Simple tech, which most people know nothing about.
Title: The End of Net Oil Exports
Post by: K-Dog on Apr 09, 2024, 10:59 AM
Title: The Road To Clean Energy Is Messier Than We Thought
Post by: K-Dog on Apr 09, 2024, 11:46 AM
The Forbes article referenced above.
The Road To Clean Energy Is Messier Than We Thought
Loren Steffy, UH Energy Scholar (https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2021/10/14/the-road-to-clean-energy-is-messier-than-we-thought/?sh=59b0e7f14ffc)
The fracking boom is now officially in the rearview mirror.
On Oct. 6, U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm told a Financial Times conference that reinstating a ban oil exports was "a tool" that the Biden Administration could use to stabilize soaring oil prices. She also hinted at the tired old saw of releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, another political tactic pulled straight from 2008.
Reinstating the export ban, which was lifted in 2015, may seem a logical response with oil prices rising 125 percent in the past year and topping $80 a barrel for the first time since 2014. But it also fits a pattern that raises concerns about the cost and difficulty of moving away from fossil fuels too quickly.
While the fracking boom created a lot of talk about energy independence, financial reality has put the brakes on the "drill, baby, drill" mentality. Quite simply, the U.S. can produce a lot of oil, but it can't produce it profitably.
That realization resulted in a 34 percent production decline from U.S. shale plays by the middle of last year as companies pulled back on expansive drilling program, pledged financial discipline and vowed better returns for investors. This year, U.S. oil output is about 11.4 million barrels a day, down from 12 million in 2019, and the Energy Information Administration predicts it will fall another 100,000 barrels by year's end.
To put all this in perspective, I contacted Jeffrey Brown, an independent petroleum geologist who has analyzed global net exports for the past 15 years.
An analysis by Hart Energy found that total U.S. oil production fell by 34 percent before the pandemic. Given the high decline rate of shale plays – which account for about 70 percent of U.S. production — Brown estimates the U.S. needs about 3.8 million barrels a day of new production just to maintain pre-pandemic output — roughly the equivalent of a new North Slope of Alaska every six months. That's about 15 times as much oil as producers needed to generate in 2008 to offset production declines.
It's not a new phenomenon. Production from shale wells declines much faster than from conventional ones, as the more we drill, the more we must drill just to maintain the same level of output. In the industry, it's referred to as the "Red Queen effect," a reference to the character in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass who tells Alice that "it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."
That realization resulted in a 34 percent production decline from U.S. shale plays by the middle of last year as companies pulled back on expansive drilling program, pledged financial discipline and vowed better returns for investors. This year, U.S. oil output is about 11.4 million barrels a day, down from 12 million in 2019, and the Energy Information Administration predicts it will fall another 100,000 barrels by year's end.
To put all this in perspective, I contacted Jeffrey Brown, an independent petroleum geologist who has analyzed global net exports for the past 15 years.
An analysis by Hart Energy found that total U.S. oil production fell by 34 percent before the pandemic. Given the high decline rate of shale plays – which account for about 70 percent of U.S. production — Brown estimates the U.S. needs about 3.8 million barrels a day of new production just to maintain pre-pandemic output — roughly the equivalent of a new North Slope of Alaska every six months. That's about 15 times as much oil as producers needed to generate in 2008 to offset production declines.
It's not a new phenomenon. Production from shale wells declines much faster than from conventional ones, as the more we drill, the more we must drill just to maintain the same level of output. In the industry, it's referred to as the "Red Queen effect," a reference to the character in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass who tells Alice that "it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."
That's not even the scariest part of the equation. As Brown sees it, if the U.S. decides to ban exports once again, it will be following a global trend. Brown's specialty is tracking something he calls "net export math," or "resource nationalism." Basically, it means that a country's exports decline as domestic demand rises. Countries can maintain their export rates only if they cut their domestic consumption at the same rate or faster than the decline rate of their production. That, of course, doesn't happen because as oil wealth grows, economies expand and domestic demand increases.
"It's a mathematical certainty that the rate of decline in net exports will exceed the rate of decline in production and that the rate of decline in next exports will accelerate with time," Brown said.
Mexico is a good example. From 2004 to 2019, its production fell by 50 percent — from 3.8 million to 1.9 million barrels a day. During the same period, net exports fell by 90 percent, from 2 million to 200,000 barrels a day.
Even in Saudi Arabia, skyrocketing domestic demand triggered a 5.7 percent drop in net exports between 2005 and 2019, although the kingdom's total production rose by 9.3 percent. As oil-producing countries channel their petrodollars into economic development, their internal need for energy rises, leaving less oil and gas to export.
Meanwhile, two of the world's most populous countries, China and India, have had a massive surge in energy demand since 2005. Their combined net oil imports rose to 14.8 million barrels a day in 2019 from 5.1 million in 2005.
Brown has tracked the combined net exports of the world's 33 oil exporting nations since 2005. That year, global net exports peaked at 45 million to 46 million barrels a day, and they haven't exceeded that level since. Instead, the amount of oil available for export worldwide has steadily declined. He estimates it has fallen to about 30 million barrels a day.
That's a concern for the U.S., because we're still importing about 5.9 million barrels, and our import needs could rise if the U.S. shale producers continue to sit on the sidelines.
We can't expect much from the Oil Patch these days. Scott Sheffield, chief executive officer of Pioneer Natural Resources PXD +0.2%, the biggest shale operator, recently told the Financial Times that it doesn't matter how high prices for the Brent crude, the global benchmark, go.
"Everybody's going to be disciplined, regardless whether it's $75 Brent, $80 Brent, or $100 Brent," he said. "All the shareholders that I've talked to said that if anybody goes back to growth, they will punish those companies. I don't think the world can rely much on U.S. shale."
While some private companies may begin breaking ranks and expand drilling programs, it's unlikely they can produce enough oil to offset the decline rates. Keep in mind the other thing the Red Queen told Alice.
"If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"
Quite simply, there's less and less oil available in the world. That's a short-term worry because we still need oil and gas to power most things, and higher commodity prices put a drag on the economy.
Renewables, of course, are touted as a solution, but unless we all get electric cars and rooftop solar panels by the end of the week, that switch isn't going to protect our wallets from higher energy prices while we make the shift. That's why the IEA called on energy companies to move away from oil to fight climate change, then a few weeks later implored OPEC to pump more crude.
The road to a cleaner energy future, it seems, is marked with conflicting road signs. Getting to our destination is going to be more costly — and more complicated — than it seemed even a few years ago.
"Short term, the transition to renewables is going to be vastly messier than people had been hoping," Brown said.
The article is over two years old (Oct 14, 2021) and is full of links. Follow the link to the author for the original. I am not in a mood to add links from a Forbes article.
Title: Some seriously spooky shit.
Post by: K-Dog on Apr 09, 2024, 12:20 PM
QuoteTo put all this in perspective, I contacted Jeffrey Brown, an independent petroleum geologist who has analyzed global net exports for the past 15 years.
I am shadow banned on You Tube and other places. A targeted, cancelled individual.
If I watch a video and leave a comment below a You Tube Video everything looks fine (to me). But if I use a VPN. I discover I do not exist. I am shadow banned. So I flipped G. W. Bush the bird once. What's the big deal. He is a war criminal. The shoe fit.
It seems Jeffrey Brown may have something in common with me. He appears to have been disappeared. Articles removed and only a title remains (https://energybulletin.org/jeffrey-brown-china-and-the-middle-east-implications-for-u-s-energy-security/). A Wikipedia Entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_Land_Model#Theory) about his Export Land Model. BUT HE IS NOT LISTED IN THE REFERENCES and references to the Wikipedia entry give dead links.
Something happened. I found a geologist in Fort Worth with the same name on Linked-In. I sent him a note. But that is odd too. A name and picture, but no resume or details beyond 'geologist'. Maybe being careful with this rabbit hole would be a good idea.
Title: More on Jeffery Brown
Post by: K-Dog on Apr 09, 2024, 12:42 PM
I found this but have not watched it yet. Scanning it is seems strange. Graphs and slides but no human. I will find out later. I need to go outside.
And I found this ==> To Understand The Oil Story, You Need To Understand Exports (https://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-09-15/to-understand-the-oil-story-you-need-to-understand-exports/)
A lot to chew on.
Title: - Conventional Oil 101
Post by: TDoS on Apr 17, 2024, 09:23 PM
Quote from: K-Dog on Apr 09, 2024, 11:46 AMThe article is over two years old (Oct 14, 2021) and is full of links. Follow the link to the author for the original. I am not in a mood to add links from a Forbes article.
Why a 2 year old article, or older even, the author of which skips their due diligence and uses a disreputable source who once tried selling the same idea for US disaster in 2006? Jeff Brown being that reference obviously.
I'd be more than happy to spot check some of these things for you, having done the research thing on these pretenders spannning nearly 34 years now who still linger. 10 seconds of time is all it took to see Jeff didn't know any more 2 years ago then he did 18 years ago.
United State Produces More Oil Than Any Country. Ever. (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61545)
Article from March 11, 2024. From the only folks not yet discredited in their peak oil estimate by what got everyone else from way back when....
More (https://www.progasllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Crude-Oil-Graphic-290x290.jpg)
Title: - Conventional Oil 101
Post by: RE on Apr 17, 2024, 10:30 PM
Quote from: K-Dog on Apr 09, 2024, 11:46 AMThe article is over two years old (Oct 14, 2021) and is full of links. Follow the link to the author for the original. I am not in a mood to add links from a Forbes article.
Why a 2 year old article, or older even, the author of which skips their due diligence and uses a disreputable source who once tried selling the same idea for US disaster in 2006? Jeff Brown being that reference obviously.
I'd be more than happy to spot check some of these things for you, having done the research thing on these pretenders spannning nearly 34 years now who still linger. 10 seconds of time is all it took to see Jeff didn't know any more 2 years ago then he did 18 years ago.
I knew we could count on you to come in with the counter arguments and evidence on your return to active duty. :) Welcome back. Let's keep it civil, and those who wish to argue this topic may continue working over that poor deceased equine further.
RE
Title: - Conventional Oil 101
Post by: K-Dog on Apr 18, 2024, 02:04 PM
QuoteUnited State Produces More Oil Than Any Country. Ever. (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61545)
Together, they flew towards freedom, away from Crete. Icarus soon forgot his father's warnings and started flying higher and higher. The wax wings started melting under the scorching sun. He fell into the sea and drowned.
Before the fall they never pumpedMore(https://img00.deviantart.net/9ef3/i/2016/208/f/1/the_fall_of_icarus_by_ericleoneart-dabjyyi.jpg)
Ignoring resource depletion should be a criminal offense. Why not? Talking about it is.
How much do you get paid TDOS?
Title: - Conventional Oil 101
Post by: TDoS on Apr 18, 2024, 03:55 PM
Would you reference a math text from 2 years ago that leads off with stating that as the author has proven 2+2=5 oreviously, then obviously 5+5=11?
I didn't need to make a counter argument. I simply presented the history 2 years after the article was written demonstrating that when Jeff Brown is involved, 2+2=5 is what folks have gotten in the past. At least twice now.
Title: - Conventional Oil 101
Post by: RE on Apr 18, 2024, 04:01 PM
Quote from: TDoS on Apr 18, 2024, 03:55 PMI simply presented the history 2 years after the article was written demonstrating that when Jeff Brown is involved, 2+2=5 is what folks have gotten in the past. At least twice now.
I didn't read anything about 2+2=5. You'll need to drop the analogy and point out the actual math errors involved in his calculations if you want any credibility at all.
RE
Title: - Conventional Oil 101
Post by: TDoS on Apr 18, 2024, 04:09 PM
I have been talking and writing about resource depletion professionally throughout a majority of this century. Never been charged for it yet.
Quote from: K-DogHow much do you get paid TDOS?
You were an EE and paid quite well, and RE has vouched for the value of your digs. 'Benz for you and the wife? Not bad.
I will offer that I am paid fairly for what I do. But never in my life owned a Benz, let alone two. So good for what your skills have brought you and yours, and I'm happy with what my skills provide for me and mine.
Title: - Conventional Oil 101
Post by: TDoS on Apr 18, 2024, 04:23 PM
Quote from: TDoS on Apr 18, 2024, 03:55 PMI simply presented the history 2 years after the article was written demonstrating that when Jeff Brown is involved, 2+2=5 is what folks have gotten in the past. At least twice now.
I didn't read anything about 2+2=5.
True. I converted Jeff's routine into an allegory....he says things...they were wrong....he says the same things again years later not having learned from his first time...and is wrong...again.
Quote from: REYou'll need to drop the analogy and point out the actual math errors involved in his calculations if you want any credibility at all.
I prefer allegory. This was his 2006 quote.
"As I said last year, I expect that by the end of 2006 we will be in the teeth of a ferocious net oil export crisis." Jeff Brown - April 5, 2006, 1:49PM.
I'm not sure he did much maths. And I certainly can't prove that the US suffered something ferocious in 2006 that didn't happen.
Title: - Conventional Oil 101
Post by: RE on Apr 18, 2024, 04:50 PM
Quote from: TDoS on Apr 18, 2024, 04:09 PMI have been talking and writing about resource depletion professionally throughout a majority of this century. Never been charged for it yet.
The century is only 24 years old. You only need 13 years to have written for a majority of the century. Most of us have achieved that milestone. Not being charged with a crime doesn't mean you didn't commit one. It can mean many things. You weren't caught, it wasn't worth prosecuting, you paid off the DA, you live in a non-extradition country, you have diplomatic immunity, nobody cares...
RE
Title: - Conventional Oil 101
Post by: RE on Apr 18, 2024, 04:54 PM
Quote from: TDoS on Apr 18, 2024, 04:23 PM"As I said last year, I expect that by the end of 2006 we will be in the teeth of a ferocious net oil export crisis." Jeff Brown - April 5, 2006, 1:49PM.
Doesn't mean the analogy is accurate. Just means his timeline is off. 2+2=5 is time independent, it's not one of the variables.
RE
Title: - Conventional Oil 101
Post by: K-Dog on Apr 18, 2024, 11:24 PM
Quote from: TDoS on Apr 18, 2024, 04:23 PM"As I said last year, I expect that by the end of 2006 we will be in the teeth of a ferocious net oil export crisis." Jeff Brown - April 5, 2006, 1:49PM.
Doesn't mean the analogy is accurate. Just means his timeline is off. 2+2=5 is time independent, it's not one of the variables.
RE
I'll throw my two cents in about Jeff Brown. I sent him a message on Linked-In and have had no response. We do not know anything about him or his work. Therefore I can make no conclusion about his character or if he is disreputable or not.
But TDOS knows all about him.
Quotethe author of which skips their due diligence and uses a disreputable source who once tried selling the same idea for US disaster in 2006? Jeff Brown being that reference obviously.
But if we had access to the files TDOS has, then we would know all about him too. TDOS probably knows more than I do about my own asshole. Did you ever hear about Jeff Brown or is just me that never has?
Title: - Conventional Oil 101
Post by: RE on Apr 18, 2024, 11:31 PM
He definitely knows more about what I have written than I do. He's got posts I made on Reddit 6 years ago catalogued, and from Peak Oil 15 years ago. He's my personal Historian. ;D
RE
Title: - Conventional Oil 101
Post by: K-Dog on Apr 18, 2024, 11:42 PM
Quote from: TDoS on Apr 18, 2024, 04:09 PMI have been talking and writing about resource depletion professionally throughout a majority of this century. Never been charged for it yet.
The century is only 24 years old. You only need 13 years to have written for a majority of the century. RE
Well, in your refinement of the basics of time, I would say I have been involved in resource depletion issues in two centuries now, a little in the last, and all of the current. But DAMN does that make me feel old. And vastly more experienced than I ever imagined! MAN!!! I've got about all the peak oilers of the early 21st century whupped! When did the alt.forums fire up, maybe I've got them whupped too! I read ROE but wasn't much interested in the new fangled interwebs at the time.
Title: - Conventional Oil 101
Post by: TDoS on Apr 19, 2024, 02:56 PM
Quote from: K-Dog on Apr 18, 2024, 11:24 PMI'll throw my two cents in about Jeff Brown. I sent him a message on Linked-In and have had no response. We do not know anything about him or his work. Therefore I can make no conclusion about his character or if he is disreputable or not.
He was quite prolific for awhile, with the ELM. I have often wondered, as I've watched folks involved in the peak oil world back away from it, Heinberg as another example. I watched an hour long video he made for PCI recently, and he didn't mention anything about his old world ending via peak oil scenario. It seems to be all systems analysis and biodiversity and US debt, the usual.
Jeffrey was a consulting geologist way back when, which gave him peak oil cred in the moment. I am not familiar with his charcter either, he didn't seem as attention or camera happy as Art.
Based on his work, my operating assumption is that he is just a geologist that strayed from creating strat columns and being paid to sit the logging truck as a consultant or contractor and liked the online attention he was able to generate.
Quote from: K-DogBut TDOS knows all about him.
Familiar with his work is a better description. Go here http://theoildrum.com/special/archives and search his username for as long as you'd like. Those government folks must be pretty silly, allowing all of that to still exist, fine experts discussing the 2008 peak oil in a solemn and serious tone. I haven't heard any of those folks being arrested either for discussing resource depletion.
Quote from: K-DogBut if we had access to the files TDOS has, then we would know all about him too. TDOS probably knows more than I do about my own asshole. Did you ever hear about Jeff Brown or is just me that never has?
I just gave you the place that holds the reference I provided. Learn all you'd like about Jeffrey. TDoS can read a speech as well as anyone, with tone and inflection, varying the pace in soaring oratory that is quite inspiring. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=totOKO8P3Dg
Title: - Conventional Oil 101
Post by: TDoS on Apr 19, 2024, 03:09 PM
He definitely knows more about what I have written than I do. He's got posts I made on Reddit 6 years ago catalogued, and from Peak Oil 15 years ago. He's my personal Historian. ;D
RE
Incorrect. I've never explained my interest in certain long term peak oilers and related personalities, have I? I don't talk about it much, if only because peak oil hasn't become a thing again yet.
So no, I'm not your personal historian. But it was nice meeting you in person. And I've met others in person, under differing circumstances.
Title: - Conventional Oil 101
Post by: RE on Apr 19, 2024, 04:06 PM
I've never met you, since you didn't introduce yourself. I met an anonymous person among many I spoke to at an outdoor festival where we had an information booth.
RE
Title: - Conventional Oil 101
Post by: TDoS on Apr 19, 2024, 09:07 PM
I've never met you, since you didn't introduce yourself. I met an anonymous person among many I spoke to at an outdoor festival where we had an information booth.
RE
I talked to Wendy at the booth. I talked to you when you were attempting to sell electric scooters to rural bumpkins best I could tell. And why would I need to introduce myself, you announced to everyone on your old website who I was via investigation through Haniel's IP snooping and your Linked In investigation, and Dave posted my photo on the site.
Have you forgotten this the same as you have your posting history? Getting old there RE....
Title: - Conventional Oil 101
Post by: RE on Apr 20, 2024, 02:38 AM
I deleted that post because it was just plain stupid. I had a scooter there I bought for Lucid Dreams' son as a gift and for myself to tool around on while down there, since although I still had both legs at the time, my ability to walk more than a few steps was already limited. At the time, not a lot of people had scooters like this (it wasn't a trike for cripples, it was a 2-wheeler like an EV mini-motorcycle), when I rode it around pople were curious about it and stopped me to talk about it. At which point I would extol the virtues of electric scooters. Not sure how many people I talked with riding it around, a dozen at least. Apparently, Tdos was one of these people. Later online he bragged about how he met me as though he was some sort of deep cover black ops Peak Oil 007 License to Troll operative who had pulled off an amazing undercover mission to expose me.
Even if I had been selling scooters, WTF difference would that make? I still think little EVs like that are a great prep and good for all sorts of local tasks, not just for cripples but everyone. If he had any backbone whatsoever, he would have introduced himself as MKing, the Geochemist World Class Peak Oil Expert whose real name was Dr. Ludwig Frankenstein or whatever. But noooo, So I have no idea which one of these people I chatted with he actually was, and I just exchanged the usual ideas that Industrial Civilization was going bye bye and we needed to build more sustainable communities. He didn't even dispute any of it in person as he does on line, so HTF would I know it was him?
That he was obsessed enough to travel to this town which is 40 miles west of nowhere in North or South Carolina (can't remember which, I'm sure he can tell us)just to spend 5 minutes chatting banalities with me should give you some idea of how tenuous his grip is on reality. That is stalker behavior, and I'm not even a rock star! lol.
RE
Title: - Conventional Oil 101
Post by: K-Dog on Apr 20, 2024, 10:35 AM
I deleted that post because it was just plain stupid.....
That he was obsessed enough to travel to this town which is 40 miles west of nowhere in North or South Carolina (can't remember which, I'm sure he can tell us)just to spend 5 minutes chatting banalities with me should give you some idea of how tenuous his grip is on reality. That is stalker behavior, and I'm not even a rock star! lol.
RE
Title: - Conventional Oil 101
Post by: RE on May 13, 2024, 07:55 PM
If the territory is BRITISH Antarctica, why woul thd the Ruskies be the ones to drill it? One would think British Petroleum would have first dibs.
Given it's in Antarctica, the cost of drilling down there and building the infrastructure for storing the oil and pumping it onto supertankers would be astronomical. There isn't even a port on the North Slope to do that. it's why they built the Alaska pipeline and ship out of Valdez. The cost of getting that oil is probably an order of magnitude greater. Not to say they won't do it though/
Oil discoveries come with two very important things.
1) The name/date of the well (called the "discovery well", go figure) that penetrates the given formation and often times delivers samples of the oil itself. 2) The wireline or LWD logs demonstrating the necessary geophysical characteristics of the formation to deliver.
This article mentions neither. If wishes were horses...
Title: - Conventional Oil 101
Post by: RE on May 14, 2024, 12:29 AM
Oil discoveries come with two very important things.
1) The name/date of the well (called the "discovery well", go figure) that penetrates the given formation and often times delivers samples of the oil itself. 2) The wireline or LWD logs demonstrating the necessary geophysical characteristics of the formation to deliver.
This article mentions neither. If wishes were horses...
OK, good information.
So, if these Ruskie drillers did in fact drill the "Discovery Well" and have oil samples and the "wireline", who does the oil belong to, them or the owner of the title to the property? In this case title belongs to HRH, the King of England correct?
RE
Title: - Conventional Oil 101
Post by: TDoS on May 14, 2024, 09:57 AM
Quote from: RE on May 14, 2024, 12:29 AMSo, if these Ruskie drillers did in fact drill the "Discovery Well" and have oil samples and the "wireline", who does the oil belong to, them or the owner of the title to the property? In this case title belongs to HRH, the King of England correct? RE
Darned if I know, international politics and machinations being what they are. But DAMN it will be fun to watch, not just among the GovCo's fighting for their cut but the protestors rowing out in their dingys to get in the way of ships carrying supplies, rigs, fuels and all sorts of other excellent pollution creating materials...unless of course they are using motorized boats in which case it is just the usual hypocritcal protest type stuff.
But entertainment value? Absolutely. The King of England sends in a naval vessel to blockage the equipment...Russia tries to send their own and it breaks down halfway to the equator....protestations are filed at the UN...and this all happens even BEFORE anyone figures out if there is actual oil there.
Title: - Conventional Oil 101
Post by: K-Dog on May 14, 2024, 10:43 AM
Even if accidentally found through scientific studies, mineral resources cannot currently be commercially explored or exploited under the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty.
A protocol to the 1959 treaty was signed in 1991. The agreement banned mineral and oil exploration for 50 years and included regulations for the protection of the Antarctic environment. 2041 would be the year the protocol runs out by the math. With Britain running out of North Sea oil, the agreement will obviously be torn up and thrown away if these oil deposits have any commercial value.
If I were Putin I'd already be making plans to take out any oil infrastructure that was built in Antartica. Nord Stream* style.
People are incredibly stupid.
QuoteThe current Russian activity is troubling,"
Klaus Dodds, Professor and Wanker of Geopolitics at the University of London said in a written statement.
How so? If British drills were ready to get Antarctic oil could, would that be troubling? And why not?
Rivalry between Britain and Russia in Central Asia in the late 19th century caused 'The Great Game' to be used used by Rudyard Kipling in his novel Kim (1901).
British attitudes were influenced by reports of official, semiofficial, and private adventurers enjoying the thrill of clandestine operations beyond the frontiers of India, reports that frequently embellished (or even invented) accounts of Russian machinations and the vacillating loyalties of local chieftains.
Talking shit about Russia in Britain is as common as London fog. The idea that was then and this is now, with modern Brits being OK with Russia totally ignores human sociology. Talking shit about others is trans-generational. Shit-talk becomes part of cultural hegemony as time passes. Hate directed against group outsiders morphs into inappropriate feelings of patriotism. Social advancement can result.
Brits feel like they still have an empire when they talk shit about Putin. So don't expect them to stop their Great Game anytime soon. Talking shit about others identifies group membership and engenders elite solidarity. Group sanctioned hate is a very resilient social feature. Such hate always gets a lot of votes in an election.
And since England is now in a sense the other California, American attitudes goose-step right along.
* A mile of Nord Stream pipeline carried 1839 cubic meters of gas. Can we imagine this? No we can't, so how much is that gas worth? It turns out to be $650 to $975 at average American natural gas retail prices per mile. Two pipelines 761 miles long were destroyed. Taking the average, the gas leaked was worth about 1.2 million dollars. If you are riding Biden, such a trifling environmental disaster is no big deal.
Title: - Conventional Oil 101
Post by: RE on May 14, 2024, 05:02 PM
My personal WAG is if they wanted to drill it, they probably would need to pay a leasing fee and/or royalties to HRH. If there was enough money involved, the Brits might agree to it and the UN treaty would be ignored. Without a monetary agreement, there would be a naval blocked under the UN flag.
Maybe if the price makes it to $200/bl. Otherwise, just too fucking remote. Wave heights and wind speeds down in the roaring 40s would make the whole shipping thing a fucking nightmare. It's basically a 24/7 hurricane down there. Great sailing though. The Sydney-Hobart yacht race is a fun one. Did it on a boat owned by a friend of my dad in my teens. 1972 I think.