You just posted a 20 year prediction for the price of oil???
AND you criticized other peoples' predictions for being disconnected?
lol
I am not arguing that this is the truth or that a 20-year prediction makes any sense, I'm merely showing what some in the industry have shown behind closed doors in contrast with the more bullish financial analysts. I would argue however, that we are looking at a longer-term paradigm shift due to technological improvements and fast recovery predictions are bit disconnected with how quickly things can ramp up with even a slight bump in price to make things profitable again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Q_
Not trying to pick on you specifically Hack & Lube, but no wonder most of these companies can't turn a profit unless oil prices are criminally high.... They have no clue what the hell they're doing. Probably the same idiots that predicted that oil will be at $100 for the next century are now predicting $15 oil until the end of the millennium.
There is probably a lot of truth to this. Most budgets and long term projects were approved at much higher BoE. Billions were spent on forecasting and analysis but it just turned out to be more waste.
Their actions seem to suggest they think they'll have trouble selling the crude they can produce. They just broke up their Motiva joint venture with Shell, and kept the largest refinery from it instead of the higher margin chemicals business. Apparently they tried to buy the other refineries as well but Shell wouldn't sell. That suggests to me they're worried about finding a home for the crude they'll produce, not that they're trying to buy cheap barrels.
Yah, that's probably why I haven't come across any similar sentiments
I am positive those running Saudi oil are smarter than me, but the math doesn't align with all the reasons for them continuing to max production. The two predominant reasons are;
1) They want to knock out high cost producers to get market share
2) They don't believe the market for oil is long for this world and they want to get what they can.
Neither of those reasons make long term sense to me. Producing 10MM bbls/day at $100 is waaaayyy better than producing 12MM bbls/day at $40 (very rough numbers)
Yah, that's probably why I haven't come across any similar sentiments
I am positive those running Saudi oil are smarter than me, but the math doesn't align with all the reasons for them continuing to max production. The two predominant reasons are;
1) They want to knock out high cost producers to get market share
2) They don't believe the market for oil is long for this world and they want to get what they can.
Neither of those reasons make long term sense to me. Producing 10MM bbls/day at $100 is waaaayyy better than producing 12MM bbls/day at $40 (very rough numbers)
So, I came up with my theory
I don't think your idea is wrong, just that it doesn't seem to match what they're doing. Of course, if they came out and announced they were buying Continental Resources (or whatever) the price of assets (and maybe oil itself) would jump a lot, so maybe they are doing stuff like that, just secretly through intermediaries.
If I could control the price of oil I would certainly take advantage of my ability to do so by buying oil reserves low and selling high.
The Following User Says Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
Oh wait. More consultation, vague promises and language and zero action. Pretty standard.
Sunny ways for all.
I read the letter submitted and I'm surprised the questions asked weren't asked earlier or the answers weren't readily available. You have to answer similar questions when building in an oil laden (naturally occurring of course) river which doesn't have nearly the level of sensitivity (environmental and political) as any water course connected with the salmon industry.
I don't know the whole story obviously and I despise the decision was delayed, but if Petronas isn't able to answer these questions at this stage of the game, they kind of deserve the delay.
Because I am so lazy, and out of the loop, does anyone have industry updates on TMEP or Gateway? At one point, I would have put money on TMEP getting built. Now, not so sure.
Oh wait. More consultation, vague promises and language and zero action. Pretty standard.
Sunny ways for all.
You've got to be kidding me:
Quote:
The letter also raises questions about human health, with round-the-clock disturbance from nighttime construction, and is requiring a "quantitative assessment" of the effects on human health from the nighttime light and noise.
It sounds bad, but they could have just said "we don't want any pile driving going on during night shift". All of this is really standard fare imo which is why Petronas should (and I suspect they will) have the answers readily available. I remember having a guy standing about a km away from the work front measuring noise just to ensure promises were kept regarding noise control.
The Following User Says Thank You to Leeman4Gilmour For This Useful Post:
It seems like Canada is missing the boat (pun intended) on LNG exports. Come on guys, Australia is shipping LNG through the World Heritage Great Barrier Reef, yet you can't even build one export facility in BC.
It seems like Canada is missing the boat (pun intended) on LNG exports. Come on guys, Australia is shipping LNG through the World Heritage Great Barrier Reef, yet you can't even build one export facility in BC.
Are there any people living there to disturb? It looks pretty desolate.
There could be a tiny "fishing" cabin nearby or something. Don't get me wrong, it is ridiculous, but the kind of questions issued by government to Petronas should have been anticipated. I really hope Petronas has done the work required to answer these questions. They should have, but if they didn't, it's going to take a bit of time. Hopefully they aren't dissuaded.
So a tiny fishing cabin in or near the footprint would be enough for mitigation measures to be initiated. That is how overly-cautious we are in Canada.