Ethical Oil

[lil mike]

Looks like the Saudis are worried about what North American shale oil means for the future of their oil dominance.

http://www.financialpost.com/news/Saudis+face+waning+power+North+America/5747443/story.html

Saudis face waning power in North America

While the green movement naively harbours hopes it will be able to shut down unconventional oil and gas development, in Saudi Arabia they are already contemplating a time when North American fossil fuel will replace their oil.

Looking past the din of protesters, state-owned oil giant Saudi Aramco is resigned to the fact that its influence will wane because of the massive unconventional fossil-fuel development underway in North America.


"Some are even talking about an era of 'energy independence' for the Americas, based on the immense conventional and unconventional hydrocarbon resources located there. While that might be stretching the point, it is clear that the abundance of resources and the more 'balanced' geographical distribution of unconventionals have reduced the much-hyped concerns over 'energy security', which once served as the undercurrent driving energy policies and dominated the global energy debate."

The Saudis now find themselves between a shale rock and a hard place: While high crude prices mean the Saudis can maintain their excessive domestic subsidies for citizens, in the long run that means the world is developing new sources, making it less dependent on Saudi oil.

Although the Saudis have vigorously fought the Ethical Oil ads, which paint them in a negative light, they already know their oil is less welcome in the Americas - Saudi oil made up a mere 9.3% of U.S. oil imports last year, down from 11.2% five years ago, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

Good news on the energy front.  Of course I'm a supporter of ethical oil, not conflict oil.

[ekg]

explain "Ethical Oil" and "Shale oil"...

er, explain, with pros/cons, without a GOP slant if you can..

please

[Howey]

explain "Ethical Oil" and "Shale oil"...

er, explain, with pros/cons, without a GOP slant if you can..

please

I thought it was a Canadian thing.

[lil mike]

explain "Ethical Oil" and "Shale oil"...

er, explain, with pros/cons, without a GOP slant if you can..

please

Canada is a country that is a democracy, generally supports human rights, and doesn't oppress it's people.  When we get shale oil or any oil from that kind of country, that's what you are supporting.

If you are buying oil from Saudi Arabia, you pouring money into the coffers of a country that is oppressive, doesn't have a concept of human rights that we understand, and uses it's money to evangelize the world with their version of Islam, one of the most hardcore and militant versions.  That's conflict oil.

Now we need oil so we are going to buy it from someone, but if I had my druthers, I would rather buy it from Canada than Saudi Arabia.

[Howey]

Canada is a country that is a democracy, generally supports human rights, and doesn't oppress it's people.  When we get shale oil or any oil from that kind of country, that's what you are supporting.

If you are buying oil from Saudi Arabia, you pouring money into the coffers of a country that is oppressive, doesn't have a concept of human rights that we understand, and uses it's money to evangelize the world with their version of Islam, one of the most hardcore and militant versions.  That's conflict oil.

Now we need oil so we are going to buy it from someone, but if I had my druthers, I would rather buy it from Canada than Saudi Arabia.

It's a scam. Snake oil with a cute name to put smilies on people's faces.

[ekg]

Canada is a country that is a democracy, generally supports human rights, and doesn't oppress it's people.  When we get shale oil or any oil from that kind of country, that's what you are supporting.

If you are buying oil from Saudi Arabia, you pouring money into the coffers of a country that is oppressive, doesn't have a concept of human rights that we understand, and uses it's money to evangelize the world with their version of Islam, one of the most hardcore and militant versions.  That's conflict oil.

Now we need oil so we are going to buy it from someone, but if I had my druthers, I would rather buy it from Canada than Saudi Arabia.

so would anyone.. so what's the catch?

[Howey]

so would anyone.. so what's the catch?

Oh  damn... I'm tired...but let me try to explain...

Let's say the right wing of Canada wanted to rape the plains of ...say, Alberta...the "Texas" of Canada, and rip off layers and layers of soil and substrate, destroying thousands and thousands of pristine lands and forests using precipitious amounts of natural resources to eek out a bit of shale oil.

Let's say the effort  would never be accomplished without tugging at the heartstrings of those other residents of Canada...you know, those far more unaware of their agenda...by picturing their plans as something all warm and fuzzy and embracing the minds of amateur tree huggers while simultaneously tickling the nationalistic, bigoted fantasies of their own islamophobic followers by creating blogs and creatively worded letters to the editor of local newspapers.


Let's give it a name that would placate the minds of both groups in an attempt to make them think they're doing the right thing.

Let's name it "ETHICAL"!

[lil mike]

Oh  damn... I'm tired...but let me try to explain...

Let's say the right wing of Canada wanted to rape the plains of ...say, Alberta...the "Texas" of Canada, and rip off layers and layers of soil and substrate, destroying thousands and thousands of pristine lands and forests using precipitious amounts of natural resources to eek out a bit of shale oil.

Let's say the effort  would never be accomplished without tugging at the heartstrings of those other residents of Canada...you know, those far more unaware of their agenda...by picturing their plans as something all warm and fuzzy and embracing the minds of amateur tree huggers while simultaneously tickling the nationalistic, bigoted fantasies of their own islamophobic followers by creating blogs and creatively worded letters to the editor of local newspapers.


Let's give it a name that would placate the minds of both groups in an attempt to make them think they're doing the right thing.

Let's name it "ETHICAL"!

So I'm guessing you're opposed to this?

http://oilandgas-investments.com/2011/top-stories/goldman-sachs-predicts-that-u-s-will-be-worlds-largest-producer-of-oil-in-2017/

Goldman Sachs predicts that U.S. will be world’s largest producer of oil in 2017

Goldman Sachs made a prediction on Sunday, September 11, that the United States will become the world's largest oil producing country by 2017. This significant production boost will occur as a result of utilizing a new definition of oil and generous estimates for the amount of liquids-rich shale production that can occur, The Oil Drum reports.

The investment bank has claimed that the country's daily production of oil will grow from 8.3 million to 10.9 million barrels of oil per day (Mbopd) by the year 2017, according to the media outlet. This level of production would exceed both Saudi Arabia and Russia, which is currently the top oil producer. The European and Asian country should only increase its oil production by 100,000 barrels during this period, which would result in a total output of 10.7 Mbopd, according to Dow Jones Newswires.

How Goldman Sachs arrived at its current production estimate of 8.3 Mbopd is ambiguous, The Oil Drum reports. The Energy Information Agency states that daily production averaged 5.6 Mbopd in June. The media outlet speculates that the investment bank erroneously included natural gas liquids and liquefied refinery gases in oil, but even then the numbers only total 7.8 Mbopd.

[Howey]

So I'm guessing you're opposed to this?

http://oilandgas-investments.com/2011/top-stories/goldman-sachs-predicts-that-u-s-will-be-worlds-largest-producer-of-oil-in-2017/

Goldman Sachs predicts that U.S. will be world’s largest producer of oil in 2017

Goldman Sachs made a prediction on Sunday, September 11, that the United States will become the world's largest oil producing country by 2017. This significant production boost will occur as a result of utilizing a new definition of oil and generous estimates for the amount of liquids-rich shale production that can occur, The Oil Drum reports.

The investment bank has claimed that the country's daily production of oil will grow from 8.3 million to 10.9 million barrels of oil per day (Mbopd) by the year 2017, according to the media outlet. This level of production would exceed both Saudi Arabia and Russia, which is currently the top oil producer. The European and Asian country should only increase its oil production by 100,000 barrels during this period, which would result in a total output of 10.7 Mbopd, according to Dow Jones Newswires.

How Goldman Sachs arrived at its current production estimate of 8.3 Mbopd is ambiguous, The Oil Drum reports. The Energy Information Agency states that daily production averaged 5.6 Mbopd in June. The media outlet speculates that the investment bank erroneously included natural gas liquids and liquefied refinery gases in oil, but even then the numbers only total 7.8 Mbopd.

From your link:

How Goldman Sachs arrived at its current production estimate of 8.3 Mbopd is ambiguous, The Oil Drum reports. The Energy Information Agency states that daily production averaged 5.6 Mbopd in June. The media outlet speculates that the investment bank erroneously included natural gas liquids and liquefied refinery gases in oil, but even then the numbers only total 7.8 Mbopd.

If this is such an earth-shattering disclosure, then why did only Goldman-Sachs report it? Why did nobody else verify their claim? All you have is this blog which states they claim is in error...

Oh. Maybe this is why.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8367

Maybe somebody screwed up and a report intended for internal use only was made public.
 

It seems unlikely at first glance that GS would release such an error riddled report as this one, given that the errors are so glaring and so obvious.
 
Now if the "bent facts" were of the kind less subject to simple verification........

On the other hand, no one ever went broke overestimating the gullibility of the American public.
 
My guess after a moment's thought is that this is a deliberate attempt to influence public opinion in favor of the banksters and the conservative wing prior to the next election cycle.
 
This report will become a sort of Area 51 flying saucer and will be accepted as gospel by those who WANT TO believe it.It is perfectly safe to assume that none of them will bother to check the accuracy of the report.

Now for the compelling question...

FaFa: What have you done to lilMike to join you as a Conspiracy Theorist Extraordinaire???

[Howey]

Gotta love Goldman-Sachs spot-on predictions!

Goldman Sachs’ crystal ball is proclaiming that oil will soon soar to $135 a barrel, and likely have service stations jacking up fuel prices to $5 a gallon in New York just like the summer of 2008 that preceded the recession.

Indeed, analysts say Goldman and the other oil trading giant that also has the might to move prices, JPMorgan Chase, have already placed their energy bets for the summer. JPMorgan predicts oil hitting $130 a barrel in the coming weeks.

[ekg]

Oh  damn... I'm tired...but let me try to explain...

Let's say the right wing of Canada wanted to rape the plains of ...say, Alberta...the "Texas" of Canada, and rip off layers and layers of soil and substrate, destroying thousands and thousands of pristine lands and forests using precipitious amounts of natural resources to eek out a bit of shale oil.

Let's say the effort  would never be accomplished without tugging at the heartstrings of those other residents of Canada...you know, those far more unaware of their agenda...by picturing their plans as something all warm and fuzzy and embracing the minds of amateur tree huggers while simultaneously tickling the nationalistic, bigoted fantasies of their own islamophobic followers by creating blogs and creatively worded letters to the editor of local newspapers.


Let's give it a name that would placate the minds of both groups in an attempt to make them think they're doing the right thing.

Let's name it "ETHICAL"!

hehe.

you do raise a good question tho.. how much 'resource' (natural and Saudi supplied) do we use to get to the shale? if it's a 10 to 1 ratio (10 be resources/1 being shale) then really, what's the point other than propaganda-like boastfulness of trying to become 'green'..

[ekg]

So I'm guessing you're opposed to this?

http://oilandgas-investments.com/2011/top-stories/goldman-sachs-predicts-that-u-s-will-be-worlds-largest-producer-of-oil-in-2017/

Goldman Sachs predicts that U.S. will be world’s largest producer of oil in 2017

Goldman Sachs made a prediction on Sunday, September 11, that the United States will become the world's largest oil producing country by 2017. This significant production boost will occur as a result of utilizing a new definition of oil and generous estimates for the amount of liquids-rich shale production that can occur, The Oil Drum reports.

The investment bank has claimed that the country's daily production of oil will grow from 8.3 million to 10.9 million barrels of oil per day (Mbopd) by the year 2017, according to the media outlet. This level of production would exceed both Saudi Arabia and Russia, which is currently the top oil producer. The European and Asian country should only increase its oil production by 100,000 barrels during this period, which would result in a total output of 10.7 Mbopd, according to Dow Jones Newswires.

How Goldman Sachs arrived at its current production estimate of 8.3 Mbopd is ambiguous, The Oil Drum reports. The Energy Information Agency states that daily production averaged 5.6 Mbopd in June. The media outlet speculates that the investment bank erroneously included natural gas liquids and liquefied refinery gases in oil, but even then the numbers only total 7.8 Mbopd.

yeah, why are you believing anything GS is betting on? Haven't they proved to be shitty gamblers who pad their 'pitch' just to make a buck?

[Howey]

yeah, why are you believing anything GS is betting on? Haven't they proved to be shitty gamblers who pad their 'pitch' just to make a buck?

They hired an ad agency (staffed by Bush/Rove ex-staffers) to spruce up their image after they were bailed out by Bush.

Turning to outside consultants to gauge a firm's "perception in the marketplace" is unusual for the 140-year-old firm. But that's what you do, even if you are Masters of the Universe, when the national and international media accuse you of engineering and profiting from a back-door rescue of AIG, of using cash from a taxpayer bailout and cheap Federal Reserve financing to help finance lavish bonuses, and taking down the entire Greek economy.

HEAVENLY MAKEOVER: In the wake of bailouts and bonus binges, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein has taken the unusual step of hiring a p.r. firm to improve its "perception in the marketplace."

Blankfein took the step of using the fancy p.r. firm, Public Strategies, sources say, because he feels Goldman has successfully weath
weathered a storm of controversy -- by trimming the overall compensation pool to 36 percent of revenue -- and must now work to undo the damage.

Public Strategies, headed by Dan Bartlett, a confidant of George W. Bush and Karl Rove, is already on the case. Earlier this month, Goldman clients and Wall Street analysts starting filling out an exhaustive, online questionnaire seeking to pinpoint exactly what people thought of Blankfein's firm.
 

Which is nice, since BP hired Goldman Sachs to spruce up their image after the gulf oil spill...

The Times understands that Mr Prodi, who twice served as Italy’s prime minister, is a key member of an “international advisory board” assisting BP that also includes Josh Bolten, the former chief of staff to President George W. Bush. Both Mr Prodi and Mr Bolten are former employees of Goldman Sachs

[lil mike]

From your link:

If this is such an earth-shattering disclosure, then why did only Goldman-Sachs report it? Why did nobody else verify their claim? All you have is this blog which states they claim is in error...

Oh. Maybe this is why.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8367

Maybe somebody screwed up and a report intended for internal use only was made public.
 
Now for the compelling question...

FaFa: What have you done to lilMike to join you as a Conspiracy Theorist Extraordinaire???

I agree that if in the original article that promotes the report that it brings up that it might be based on questionable data... than it's questionable.  But I'm not interested in any particular actual date that we could be the world's largest producer of oil, I'm interested in the trend.  A few years ago, who predicted this?  All I kept hearing about was peak oil.  We were running out...  But now, technological developments have opened up quite a lot of petroleum both in the US and Canada that wasn't available before.

I find this good news since it shows that it could be feasible to become energy independent in a couple of years.   But you are acting as if this is bad news. What gives?  I thought energy independence was something that both the left and right could agree on.

And what is this conspiracy that I'm in?

[lil mike]

Gotta love Goldman-Sachs spot-on predictions!

Well they did a great job in picking their own personal President!