131–140 of 165 posts
Sometimes it's hard for someone within a system to conceive an idea which is obvious to the outsider and yes there will be many naysayers but if you know your idea can create value, you'll profit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The negative price has to do with the short delivery date, and the lack of storage at the (landlocked) delivery point. June 2020 WTI is still over $20/barrel. If anyone had storage to bring online in the next few weeks, in Cushing, Oklahoma, they'd make a killing. At this point, they're going to need to ship it to a port, to get on a tanker.
Did you read the part where I wrote, "there's no place to put the stuff?" I also specifically said "front month contract". June oil is barely over $20 today and will probably drop under that mark by week's end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
have you considered some kind of presubmission check for this? even just to inform users without actually screening, and then auto appending previous discussions if submitted?
Yes but it's not clear how to get it right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That might have been true 20-30 years ago. Today, all of the easy oil has been tapped. They're going out farther, deeper, and under much high pressures than before. Oh, and they're less regulated. > You don't drill a $100 million deepwater well without all the bells and whistles. You will if you can make a couple $B off it. It's a risk. The deep gulf has mudslides that take out rigs. It happened to Taylor Energy in 2…
What does that have do the ability to shut in a well? A shut in isn't stopping something that's leaking or stopping a blowout. It's the ability to deliberately and temporarily stop production. A loss of containment is very very very bad and a huge problem, but it's not related to a shut in. I'm well aware of shallow hazards (e.g. mass wasting aka mudslides). I've mapped them in many areas. I'm well aware of the ongoi…
Money comes first, safety second.
Obviously there will be a lot of effort spent on safety, because otherwise there would be even more accidents, and the whole company might be forced to shut down.
As it is, they have just found an equilibrium of safety and greed.
Considering that the front-month oil contracts went negative today (paid to buy a barrel of oil), I think more (well funded and adept) players will try to hastily arrange more storage facilities. There's just no place to put the stuff right now. It's quite difficult to turn-off an active well. Deep-water wells are all but impossible to stop.
Actually, deep water wells are usually quite easy to shut in by design. They frequently need to be shut in due to hurricanes or infrastructure maintenance. You don't drill a $100 million deepwater well without all the bells and whistles. Very cheap wells with low production (onshore, say ~10 barrel per day) are the ones that tend to be difficult to shut in, as they're not designed for easy temporary shut-ins. That ha…
SOME wells can be a little difficult to restart after a shut-in. This includes, for example, offshore wells which extract waxy crude - the crude can simply solidify in the pipe if allowed to cool down to ambient temperature. See link below. This is usually not a big problem for a planned shutdown, as the facility will take measures to prevent such a situation (eg flush the pipes with diesel right after shutdown).
I suspect the problem might be more difficult with some pipelines, as these may be impractical to flush.
https://www.khavaranparaffin.com/articles/161-wax-problems-i...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does that have do the ability to shut in a well? A shut in isn't stopping something that's leaking or stopping a blowout. It's the ability to deliberately and temporarily stop production. A loss of containment is very very very bad and a huge problem, but it's not related to a shut in. I'm well aware of shallow hazards (e.g. mass wasting aka mudslides). I've mapped them in many areas. I'm well aware of the ongoi…
If the disasters happen repeatedly despite safety and environmental concerns being the top priority, then clearly they are not. Money comes first, safety second. Obviously there will be a lot of effort spent on safety, because otherwise there would be even more accidents, and the whole company might be forced to shut down. As it is, they have just found an equilibrium of safety and greed.
All industrial operations are inherently exercises in risk management. I think it's smug to phrase that as an "equilibrium of safety and greed" but frankly, yes, in order for things with risk to happen, you have to accept a level of risk, which will never ever be 0.
I work in another industry (not oil & gas) where safety is a consideration in every action we take, and it's not just lip-service. It's a down-to-our-bones mentality that we won't do anything unsafe, or allow anything unsafe to happen. Accidents still happen, and it's not because if avarice.
I actually love buying stuff which is not easily available, this has given me many ideas of starting new business of which a few are successful now. Sometimes it's hard for someone within a system to conceive an idea which is obvious to the outsider and yes there will be many naysayers but if you know your idea can create value, you'll profit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the disasters happen repeatedly despite safety and environmental concerns being the top priority, then clearly they are not. Money comes first, safety second. Obviously there will be a lot of effort spent on safety, because otherwise there would be even more accidents, and the whole company might be forced to shut down. As it is, they have just found an equilibrium of safety and greed.
Businesses exist to make money. There is a constant demand for oil in the market; the world as we know it needs some level of oil to continue to function. If you can't ban the extraction oil, and you believe in the continued existence of private business, then profit and safety have to co-exist as priorities. All industrial operations are inherently exercises in risk management. I think it's smug to phrase that as an…
There's no excuse for ignoring external costs - these costs are real and paid by everybody while profits are gathered by only a few people.
It's deeply unethical but more importantly irrational - people profiting from the fossil fuels have no incentives to fix anything if they aren't forced to deal with the external costs.
Currently the system is - they get the profits and everybody pays for external costs. That makes alternatives to fossil fuels less attractive because you will pay "petrol tax" anyway in taxes spent on all the external costs, even if you don't buy any fossil fuels ever.
I actually love buying stuff which is not easily available, this has given me many ideas of starting new business of which a few are successful now. Sometimes it's hard for someone within a system to conceive an idea which is obvious to the outsider and yes there will be many naysayers but if you know your idea can create value, you'll profit.
Could you give an example? I understand if you don't want to though.