RenewableCandy wrote: Because it's easier to get at and more affordable.
And it stopped mattering the INSTANT that the Canadians turned on the marginal barrel.
Your grammar unit has failed again and that sentence is meaningless.
Certainly when superficial knowledge on a topic has tripped you up, it is best to launch into grammar Nazi mode as quickly as possible.
Well done.
renewable candy wrote:
Plus, if persuasion is the reason why you've been put here, you'd better go and get your entire attitude reprogrammed while you're at it.
Well done again!
Now run off and ask PS_RalphW about marginal barrel pricing, and when you come back you can cut and paste some knowledge from wiki or something to try and redeem yourself.
Here, Ralph, I've been following this for quite some time now, but I can't quite get what your story is. Credit where credit's due - you certainly go to quite great length's to back up your statements with solid references, and are not easily riled, but what is it you are trying to say?
My best guess is that you are saying that P.O. predictions didn't always come through bang on - this is true, no "forecast" is 100% accurate. But you don't seem to be banging on about that all is rosie for ever more. All I am getting from you is that it is not possible to tell the future with any certainty, and alls well today, things are trucking along reasonably this week, and whatever happens next week we'll talk about when the time comes.
You seem to be trying really hard to show that those who started trying to prepare to mitigate possible P.O. effects 10 years ago have effectively wasted their time so far. It seems real important that you get the message across that preparations based on watching oil supply have in the past been unnecessary, so don't bother to prepare now.
Why is it so very important that a dozen or so "nutters" on this site become complacent and don't work quite so hard to go off-grid, or just do some rudimentary changes towards self-sufficiency. It's not like the few of us doing this is going to bring down the oil industry overnight, so why are you going to such great length's to lull us into complacency?
What is so very important that this is achieved? It obviously has great importance to somebody - I just can't put my finger on what that is....
For what it's worth I think Ralph is an important contributer to this forum. A bit of conflict sharpens the wit. I find that if I'm challenged on my beliefs, then I should be able to rationalise them. Otherwise maybe I should be challenging them myself. Sure I might reject someone's arguments, but I think it's useful to at least know of them.
It seems Ralph is involved in the fracking industry, which I believe is a reprehensible practice which I am vehemently against. If this is the case then I hope one day he and his colleagues will have an epiphany and turn their talents to something I believe is more progressive and less damaging.
However all this referring to the the guy as "it" and suchlike is juvenile, playground bully behaviour in my opinion.
biffvernon wrote:Category Error: Trolls do not act rationally.
I'd contend that he's not a troll. Certainly he's a contrarian for being on this board which is mainly populated by those of us who want to see fossil fuel use reduced. He's not exactly abusive, offensive or irrational though. He's just arguing his corner.
Obviously whoever owns the forum can set their own rules about what they want on their site, but in a free and democratic society* he should surely have that right.
My interloper is clearly well informed and has been following sites like The Oil Drum for many years. He clearly either has an agenda or is an extremely bored and lonely person if he really has nothing better to do than bait us here on a UK website with tiny international presence.
Assuming the former, then he must have a direct or indirect financial incentive in spending so much time posting here. Given that US fracking is facing major problems sustaining investment capital in the face of ever growing drilling costs, then it probably is worth spending time muddying the waters of even minor peak oil blog sites with cornucopian propaganda to help allay the fears of the less technically clued up investors who might pick us up in a casual google search.
Thinking about it, about now is when fracking companies will be touting for investment capital in the UK, so spamming a UK site makes more economic sense.
Nothing to see here, just a bunch of paranoid little people, move along.
There certainly is an enormous amount of money to be made by talking up the share price of small companies in the oil industry. The one that wants to frack in Lincolnshire had its share value go from 10p to 30p when TOTAL agreed to buy in. That made £1.5million in a few days for the managing director. I've no idea whether our friend from across the pond gets paid, but there are certainly opportunities out there.
PS_RalphW wrote:he must have a direct or indirect financial incentive in spending so much time posting here. Given that US fracking is facing major problems sustaining investment capital in the face of ever growing drilling costs, then it probably is worth spending time muddying the waters of even minor peak oil blog sites with cornucopian propaganda to help allay the fears of the less technically clued up investors who might pick us up in a casual google search.
Thinking about it, about now is when fracking companies will be touting for investment capital in the UK, so spamming a UK site makes more economic sense.
You, the real Ralph, have a knack of simply speaking the truth, something others lack.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
biffvernon wrote:There certainly is an enormous amount of money to be made by talking up the share price of small companies in the oil industry. The one that wants to frack in Lincolnshire had its share value go from 10p to 30p when TOTAL agreed to buy in. That made £1.5million in a few days for the managing director. I've no idea whether our friend from across the pond gets paid, but there are certainly opportunities out there.
To be fair though, TOTAL did promise £30m of investment, rather than just discussing it on an Internet forum! So that's a 5% return, which is reasonable.
Just goes to show that it takes money to make money!
biffvernon wrote:There certainly is an enormous amount of money to be made by talking up the share price of small companies in the oil industry. The one that wants to frack in Lincolnshire had its share value go from 10p to 30p when TOTAL agreed to buy in. That made £1.5million in a few days for the managing director. I've no idea whether our friend from across the pond gets paid, but there are certainly opportunities out there.
To be fair though, TOTAL did promise £30m of investment, rather than just discussing it on an Internet forum! So that's a 5% return, which is reasonable.
Just goes to show that it takes money to make money!
Actually, TOTAL has made a commitment of 20 million Euros to the joint venture led by Egdon Resources, with an option to invest a further 20 million Euros at an unspecified time in the future. Total investment by TOTAL in 2012 worldwide was 20 billion Euro, so we are talking about one thousandth, or possibly one five hundredth of their total spend. Peanuts to them but a fortune to the directors of Egdon Resources. Any money spent talking up the prospects of the industry pays more than dividends to the shareholders.
biffvernon wrote:
Actually, TOTAL has made a commitment of 20 million Euros to the joint venture led by Egdon Resources, with an option to invest a further 20 million Euros at an unspecified time in the future. Total investment by TOTAL in 2012 worldwide was 20 billion Euro, so we are talking about one thousandth, or possibly one five hundredth of their total spend. Peanuts to them but a fortune to the directors of Egdon Resources. Any money spent talking up the prospects of the industry pays more than dividends to the shareholders.
I think my point stands though. I could talk up whatever business venture in the most eloquent terms possible on any Internet site I liked and people wouldn't give a damn. If I said I was investing €20m in it though people would start getting interested.
As Bobbi Flekman once said: "money talks and bulls*** walks."
(In case I forgot to mention this before) The reason I refer to ralph as an "it" is that whoever is doing the actual posting does not appear to be posting as a person, but as either a corporation or some kind of lobby. Even in the USA, where corporations are now regarded as having the same rights as people, they still, however, do not (yet?) have gender. So "it" it is, then.
RenewableCandy wrote:(In case I forgot to mention this before) The reason I refer to ralph as an "it" is that whoever is doing the actual posting does not appear to be posting as a person, but as either a corporation or some kind of lobby. Even in the USA, where corporations are now regarded as having the same rights as people, they still, however, do not (yet?) have gender. So "it" it is, then.
This business of a corporation being and having the rights of a person is not new by any means. It was defined that way to me back in my school days circa 1975 and I have it defined in a book titled "New Commercial Arithmetic" As : A corporation: is a fictitious person. it consists of several natural persons who, in the name of the corporation , are authorized by law to transact business.
The copyright date of New Commercial Arithmetic is 1904.
Poly-sic students and others with no education in economics or business are just ignorant of this long standing status quo and need to get over it.
It appears the glut of fracked gas in the USA is over and with just a bit of cold (or in my view normal) winter weather supplies have gotten tight and the price is on the rise. They where whining about it on the business talk shows today.
