Cool. I say no Canadian oilsands sites have shut down. Some ****** gives me stats on American shale rigs

You realize this is exactly what all of Us said would happen, right? they will drill less, prices will rise, then drilling activity will increase. Should we come back to this thread in two years when exactly this has happened?

It's the same f***ing dynamic, dip****. In fact, tar sands production is even more cost intensive than U.S. shale. Just admit you don't know what you're talking about, and you spew from what makes you feel safe inside, like all other cornucopians.

Lower Oil Prices Strike at Heart of Canada’s Oil Sands Production

Suncor, the largest oil sands operator, announced plans to eliminate about 1,000 contract jobs. Shell Canada said it would cut its oil sands work force by about 10 percent. Cenovus Energy said that it would reduce investment spending by 27 percent, and set aside plans for two oil sands project expansions.

Statoil calls off 40,000-bpd Canadian oil sand development

"Costs for labour and materials have continued to rise in recent years and are working against the economics of new projects," Staale Tungesvik, Statoil's country manager for Canada, said in a statement. "Market access issues also play a role, including limited pipeline access which weighs on prices for Alberta oil, squeezing margins and making it difficult for sustainable financial returns."

Just... the... beginning.

You realize your dumb pronouncement was addressed at the time, right? ... You obviously have no idea what's involved in padlocking a drill site, nor how long it takes to ramp production back up to where it was, provided now-terrified investment even returns in the first place.

Undoubtedly, you have no clue, but your entire "no problem" assumption relies on a system that is constantly needing to run faster (drill more and more) in order to just stay in place (decline is constant in every existing well).... Going backwards is catastrophic for an industry absolutely reliant on continued, uninterrupted growth.

I work in the Canadian oil sands. Layoffs happen. Production cuts don't.

Where does it say they are losing money? They are cutting costs.

My main point is that you are posting bs stats.

Jiggz is of course ignoring that this price dip was caused by misaligned expectations that opec would cut production to maintain higher prices. That opec refused to do so is bad for the oil industry but good for consumers.

Jiggs, IAE sees 5 million bpd growth in production:

http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents...dium-term.html

That's fake oil tho

****, I forgot.

Please venture out if your gated community once in a while bro

Doing what, exactly? Marketing? Damage control for its environmental record?

Until they do. That is, unless you can show how lower staff and reduced leases can still provide a scenario that maintains production growth... You know, without yelling "technological advances" over and over again.

In any event, Canadian Tar Sands and it's 1.5-2M bpd of crap-grade synthetic oil will not save a world needing 91.7M bpd in order to maintain stasis. This says nothing of growth, of course, but we realize that reality is lost on you trolls.

LOL

Cool story. Link your claim that insists "almost all tar sands" sites turn a profit at $50. And then I'll provide several more that show you're wrong.

Undoubtedly, you assume a very subjective set of criteria for what constitutes input costs.

If this is your "main point," you'd better be prepared to do the work, and not rely on the unverifiable mantra "but I'm in the industry!!"

Not very familiar with the IEA's record, are you?

In 2000, it "saw" 2010 oil price at $28.25 and "saw" production at 95.8M bpd. Of course, in 2010, oil was $80, and production was 87M bpd. We're still just under 92M bpd, today.

Nevermind that the IEA now includes refinery gain and NG plant liquids as part of its "oil supply" total, both requiring additional energy input to break down components so people like you can pretend the production figure is a little larger. The awe-inspiring confirmation bias continues!! The reality is that the IEA is a mouthpiece for the oil industry and Wall St., desperate to maintain investor confidence. Has been for many decades.

the IEA doesn't appear to understand that it is expecting oil extracted from wells that decline at a rate 10 TIMES FASTER than average wells worldwide to make up for worldwide declines elsewhere AND provide significant growth in world oil supplies. But, the agency apparently did not look at publicly available well data from each state to determine annual decline rates and their implications for future supply. The IEA seems simply to have taken self-interested industry forecasts on their face--forecasts made with an eye toward engendering confidence among investors and lenders and thereby pumping up the value of lucrative stock options held by company insiders.

Mild recession for nearly 7 years now ... debt at record levels... Municipal budgets at breaking points.... War drums everywhere you look.... Yet the "retreat with covering fire" strategy that you peak denialist continue to engage in is almost out of barricades to hide behind. You're at your final rallying point, by now... Nonetheless, it has been super amusing watching cornucopians' argument morph as the years have passed. ... Much like the WMD narrative, it has had to adjust as one layer of their hollow story after another gets peeled away.

I work as a power engineer at one of the sites that laid 1000 contractors off. The main company that got booted off site provided a lot of the labourers. I used to work 3 hours out of a 12 hour shift, now I work 4 because I have to shovel my own walkways and clean my own workspace. So yeah, production hasn't gone down.

The $80 or $90 break even point or whatever it was includes expansion costs in the expenses. These are capital expenditures that should be amortized over years. You can google it for yourself.

Some of the SAGD sites have a little higher break even point, but every mine without exception is turning a profit right now.

As amusing as when I posted all those quotes from you 5 years ago that were completely wrong? Because that was pretty amusing.

The main problem with you is that you just don't actually understand our argument. Ultimately, it's not really a specific prediction of oil production/price for the future. It's about how economics work and how the market/society responds at various price points.

**** it. I decided to dig a link up for you. Blue bar graph half way down.

http://www.vox.com/2014/12/3/7327147...reakeven-shale

Jiggs argument is that economics doesn't work in oil and gas because of the fed and free money qe! But he ignores the fact that the fed and any government entity or sovereign is just another player in the market, he doesn't get this fact. He doesn't follow history.

His error is even more basically flawed. He believes that there is a price range where society won't have enough oil to function AND oil companies won't extract more. Which is fundamentally flawed economic thinking.

Havent been in a mild recession for seven years now either.

This amounts to you admitting you earn about 33% of your salary.... cool. But then, I guess I asked what you do. Sounds like you're not actually in the extraction side of the process.

Nonetheless, I guess you're trying to suggest that your company only laid off some people who shovel and clean, so you speak for all Tar Sands production when you claim the overall business model is in great shape despite the 50% drop in oil price. Makes sense.

What, at your alleged site? That tells us little, even if true.

I assume you're trying to defend Tar Sands as a whole, which provides a paltry 2-3% of global consumption, for all that pollution and drama regarding pipeline capacity. While production of your crap-grade oil holds "steady" for now for contracts locked in, the near future doesn't look good, and I think you know it. How do you think the Fort Hills and Cenovus Narrows Lake projects look now after assuming $100 oil last year? Fort Hills is looking at something like a 5.7% return with prices this low? Ouch.

You mean like you did? I don't need to google it. I know it.

If you expect to grow, you constantly have expansion costs. If you don't expect to grow, your dog is this fight just rolled over and exposed its belly. That's pretty much why Energy Aspects put it that way. ... you know "full-cycle" costs.

It's striking that you'd object in an attempt to dismiss CAPEX, while ignoring the fact that the graph you trolled over did not even include dividends and interest payments. Of course, there's environmental and litigation costs that aren't considered either, which people like you insist is always someone else's problem. The biosphere, however, can't be privatized, and doesn't care how you acknowledge some costs while ignoring others.

I'd say the graph was quite generous to your horrid industry, in the larger picture.

You can object all you like, but in the end, Canadian Tar Sands makes up a tiny percentage of the energy pie, isn't predicted to grow (without prices that break economies), and won't ever come close to making up for dying existing capacity of far better crude sources.

Unconventional oil production is doomed. You're gonna need to come to grips with it within the next 4-5 years any way you slice it. Or don't. Up to you.

Your link does far more for my argument than it does yours. I'm starting to doubt you understand why.

What part did I concede? I'm pretty sure I addressed your post at the time, and you had no actual rebuttal. If you're gonna continue to troll over the call by the Pentagon that we "could see a 10M bpd shortfall by 2015" as if I was somehow wrong based on your lavish U.S. lifestyle (yawn), I said at the time, and I'll say it again: ... Considering how sick the global economy still is, and considering the lengths central banks have gone to mitigate the affects of declining net energy, how is that wrong? I'd say we're consuming far less than those forecasters envisioned us needing by now.

Ironies... The main problem with you, aside from that above, is that you assume accepted "economic fundamentals" apply the same during a new age of diminishing returns. You do not understand what net energy actually means, and you assume any bottleneck in production can be mitigated by turning to less-efficient sources of energy.

Where high price points mean people either A) go without, "too bad", or B) seamlessly turn to some magical alternative that people like you can't actually pinpoint yet, despite decades of trying. And low price points mean producers start scaling back production.

Worse, still, you assume that once that marginal production is mothballed, spooked investment dollars will easily return as soon as the price comes back.

Fail.

Wow, dude. No, that's not what I've been saying. You're f***ing clueless.

Your "fundamentals" don't actually apply the same in an age of diminishing returns. I'm sure they didn't teach you that in business school, as it kinda makes the rest of the dogma sound silly.

Back here in reality, we already are in that range. Society isn't functioning very well, and producers and international energy monitors all admit we're going to max out production within the next 10-15 years (optimistic).

I never claimed the tar sands were in great shape jiggs. I claimed your graph had bs stats. And I claimed that the tar sands are still profitable right now. Being profitable does not equal in great shape.

But at least I came out of this with a prediction from you. Hope ur around in 5 years do I can laugh at you when the tar sands didn't collapse lol.

But I'm sure u will find a way to claim it as being good for the argument of peak oil.

Anyway, tired of ur come in every couple days style of posting so I'm done laughing at u for a bit.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/20...entage-of.html

Lol Jiggs. You didn't respond to **** besides saying that you were right that peak oil has been happening since 2010 and that your oil predictions were off for a bunch of bull**** reasons.

You definitely didn't respond with any actual meaningful predictions about what peak oil will actually cause.

He does remind me to post interesting links though. Overall, he is a net positive for the forum. We should encourage him.

Jiggs, what are your opinions on peak turnip production?