Oil thread 9-7-06:Former BP head of Pipeline invokes 5th

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
OH, yeah - like sunndely in the last 24 hours 'corrosion' happened, something that had not occured in the last 20 years/
Must be all that caustic caribou piss that did it in.

Corrosion just isn't external. Since the crude coming out of many of the northern fields is dirtier, it eats the pipes faster.

Their profit margins are still in line with what you'd expect from a company operating efficiently, so don't give me that crap.

 

[RightIsWrong]

It's a good thing that they put all of their profits back into the company via research and upgrades like they have told us repeatedly. They were being honest with us when they told us that, right?

 

[teiresias]

I hardly ever post over here in the P&N forum, but when I read the story about the BP pipeline I just had to come in here and vent. So what's with all of the crying at the oil companies about how they need all of this record profit because it's so expensive to be in the oil business? Weren't these record profits supposed to support R&D and maintenance of infrastructure? Where is all of this profit going if they can't keep their pipelines properly maintained? Complete BS if you ask me, that's all the oil industry ever has been and ever will be, completely and utter BS.

 

[Fenixgoon]

solution to energy "crisis":

more nuclear power plants - ~50% of the US still runs on coal, which puts more radioactive material in the atmosphere than a nuclear plant

end of media oil shortage FUD - canada is our #1 importer overall for petroleum/petroleum-based products, and has potentially more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia

expansion of US oil drilling

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
OH, yeah - like sunndely in the last 24 hours 'corrosion' happened, something that had not occured in the last 20 years/
Must be all that caustic caribou piss that did it in.

Corrosion just isn't external. Since the crude coming out of many of the northern fields is dirtier, it eats the pipes faster.

Their profit margins are still in line with what you'd expect from a company operating efficiently, so don't give me that crap.

You know what - there's a little thing called 'PM'.
It stands for Preventive Maintenance and is an ongoing sustaining work that periodically isolates and replaces sections
of equipment that degrades over time, and makes pre-emptive action to ensure that early failure due to neglect
and overuse of equipment due to workload and demand are balanced out.

It's entire sturcture is to have the foresight to prevent failures before the system is compromised.

I'll bet you that there was some form of 'PM' in place up therer that was just ignored, or over-ruled by a Management Decision
so that maximization of profits could be sustained, and now they have an 'escape clause' to further justify even more profit.

Bechtl would be proud.

One other 'little' thing, the crude isn't 'dirtier', it has a higher sulpher content, and is classified as 'sour crude'
instead of the low sulpher 'sweet crude' - that's why the petroleum tends to attack the pipeline and cause corrosion . . .
just like it always has.

And does the US really make this 'Sour Crude' into products does domestic consumption, which as I recall - they don't,
but is earmarked for transport and sale to the Asian market, like it has been since the pipeline was originally built.
By Bechtl.

It doesn't really say that it will stop production of 8% of the US supply, it states that it is the EQUIVALENT of 8% of us production.
That 8% destined for resale to the Asian market.
It's a shell game - watch the ball and guess where it's been hidden last.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
solution to energy "crisis":

more nuclear power plants - ~50% of the US still runs on coal, which puts more radioactive material in the atmosphere than a nuclear plant

end of media oil shortage FUD - canada is our #1 importer overall for petroleum/petroleum-based products, and has potentially more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia

expansion of US oil drilling

Qute simply the "crisis" is merely the nearing end of cheaply (relative to past cost) available crude oil. The nutjobs in here are hyping that up to be the end of the world and a sign of the impending economic doom of our country. Too many people read the peak oil articles and started buying shacks in the woods.

The US has vast hydrocarbon reseves at its disposal that with the increasing cost of oil are competitive to exploit and as is the development of alternative fuels (biodiesel and ethanol). We hold he largest coal reserves by far and the largest oil shale reserves (edging out Venezuela) in the world. Coal liquifaction could also be used as a stop gap measure for liquid fuels should oil prices rise even faster or production fall more quickly than expected.

We also have long experience with nuclear power generation and the means to build more. Now that energy prices are again overcoming the baseless fear of nuclear power, the industry is seeing its first commercial license applications in about three decades.

Comparative to the rest of the world the US is sitting pretty nicely to face changes in the world energy market as we have a number of purely domestic solutions that could be effectively applied.

Gloom and doom does make fore better headlines though....

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: zendari
Their margins aren't high.

Yeah, you're right, one company making $10 Billion profit per quarter is horrible: Exxon's profits from past quarter equal $10.36 Billion.

Margins still aren't high compared to other oil companies or corporations in general.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: zendari
Their margins aren't high.

Yeah, you're right, one company making $10 Billion profit per quarter is horrible: Exxon's profits from past quarter equal $10.36 Billion.

Margins still aren't high compared to other oil companies or corporations in general.

So how much of a cut are you getting?

:laugh:

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
It's a good thing that they put all of their profits back into the company via research and upgrades like they have told us repeatedly. They were being honest with us when they told us that, right?

They wouldn't be profits then.

BTW, I get a 5% cut.

 

[zephyrprime]

I really have to wonder about stuff like this. It makes me remember the fake power plant shut downs that contributed to the high electricity prices in california.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
I really have to wonder about stuff like this. It makes me remember the fake power plant shut downs that contributed to the high electricity prices in california.

Fake shutdowns?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
I really have to wonder about stuff like this. It makes me remember the fake power plant shut downs that contributed to the high electricity prices in california.

Fake shutdowns?

Never heard of Enron eh?

 

[libs0n]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
solution to energy "crisis":

more nuclear power plants - ~50% of the US still runs on coal, which puts more radioactive material in the atmosphere than a nuclear plant

end of media oil shortage FUD - canada is our #1 importer overall for petroleum/petroleum-based products, and has potentially more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia

expansion of US oil drilling

Although natural gas production levels are something to think about, the "energy crisis" we face is a liquid fuels one, and not an electrical one. Although I am in favour of nuclear power, specifically integral fast reactors if they existed, know the dragon you face. Nukes won't save us.

Yes, we here in Canuckistan have truckloads of oil, perhaps even more so than the Saudis, but our production of that oil will never meet the demand crisis. In a world that consumes 85 or so million barrels of oil a day, Canada produces maybe 4, and perhaps if things go our way that number will hit 5 in a decade or two. Know the difference between reserves and production.

Oil production in the US peaked in the seventies, it will never come back, and no amount of drilling or wishful drilling will change this reality. All future American oil usage increases must come from either new production elsewhere, or using production currently allotted to other consuming nations, with the latter being more likely in the decades ahead of us.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
OH, yeah - like sunndely in the last 24 hours 'corrosion' happened, something that had not occured in the last 20 years/
Must be all that caustic caribou piss that did it in.

Corrosion just isn't external. Since the crude coming out of many of the northern fields is dirtier, it eats the pipes faster.

Their profit margins are still in line with what you'd expect from a company operating efficiently, so don't give me that crap.

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: zendari
Their margins aren't high.

Yeah, you're right, one company making $10 Billion profit per quarter is horrible: Exxon's profits from past quarter equal $10.36 Billion.

Margins still aren't high compared to other oil companies or corporations in general.

So how much of a cut are you getting?

:laugh:

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
It's a good thing that they put all of their profits back into the company via research and upgrades like they have told us repeatedly. They were being honest with us when they told us that, right?

They wouldn't be profits then.

BTW, I get a 5% cut.

Originally posted by: teiresias
I hardly ever post over here in the P&N forum, but when I read the story about the BP pipeline I just had to come in here and vent. So what's with all of the crying at the oil companies about how they need all of this record profit because it's so expensive to be in the oil business? Weren't these record profits supposed to support R&D and maintenance of infrastructure? Where is all of this profit going if they can't keep their pipelines properly maintained? Complete BS if you ask me, that's all the oil industry ever has been and ever will be, completely and utter BS.

Welcome to P & N.

As you can see it is full of Big Oil Apologists.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
I really have to wonder about stuff like this. It makes me remember the fake power plant shut downs that contributed to the high electricity prices in california.

Fake shutdowns?

Never heard of Enron eh?

Enron managed to take one plant offline for a time, a drop in the bucket compared to their other manipulations at and before the time of the CA energy crisis.

It was CA that bent over and happily took it up the rear due to the state's energy policy. It made them massively vulnerable to speculators like Enron.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: libs0n

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
solution to energy "crisis":

more nuclear power plants - ~50% of the US still runs on coal, which puts more radioactive material in the atmosphere than a nuclear plant

end of media oil shortage FUD - canada is our #1 importer overall for petroleum/petroleum-based products, and has potentially more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia

expansion of US oil drilling

Although natural gas production levels are something to think about, the "energy crisis" we face is a liquid fuels one, and not an electrical one. Although I am in favour of nuclear power, specifically integral fast reactors if they existed, know the dragon you face. Nukes won't save us.

Yes, we here in Canuckistan have truckloads of oil, perhaps even more so than the Saudis, but our production of that oil will never meet the demand crisis. In a world that consumes 85 or so million barrels of oil a day, Canada produces maybe 4, and perhaps if things go our way that number will hit 5 in a decade or two. Know the difference between reserves and production.

Oil production in the US peaked in the seventies, it will never come back, and no amount of drilling or wishful drilling will change this reality. All future American oil usage increases must come from either new production elsewhere, or using production currently allotted to other consuming nations, with the latter being more likely in the decades ahead of us.

For serious hyrogen production nuclear power (nuclear heat specifically) is currently the only real answer. Solar may eventully help out, but the costs have to come down or the efficency has to go up a lot before it is viable.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Welcome to P & N.

As you can see it is full of Big Oil Apologists.

Not to mention tin foil hat wearing illogical FUDD spreaders. See below.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
OH, yeah - like sunndely in the last 24 hours 'corrosion' happened, something that had not occured in the last 20 years/
Must be all that caustic caribou piss that did it in.

Corrosion just isn't external. Since the crude coming out of many of the northern fields is dirtier, it eats the pipes faster.

Their profit margins are still in line with what you'd expect from a company operating efficiently, so don't give me that crap.

You know what - there's a little thing called 'PM'.
It stands for Preventive Maintenance and is an ongoing sustaining work that periodically isolates and replaces sections
of equipment that degrades over time, and makes pre-emptive action to ensure that early failure due to neglect
and overuse of equipment due to workload and demand are balanced out.

It's entire sturcture is to have the foresight to prevent failures before the system is compromised.

I'll bet you that there was some form of 'PM' in place up therer that was just ignored, or over-ruled by a Management Decision
so that maximization of profits could be sustained, and now they have an 'escape clause' to further justify even more profit.

Bechtl would be proud.

One other 'little' thing, the crude isn't 'dirtier', it has a higher sulpher content, and is classified as 'sour crude'
instead of the low sulpher 'sweet crude' - that's why the petroleum tends to attack the pipeline and cause corrosion . . .
just like it always has.

And does the US really make this 'Sour Crude' into products does domestic consumption, which as I recall - they don't,
but is earmarked for transport and sale to the Asian market, like it has been since the pipeline was originally built.
By Bechtl.

It doesn't really say that it will stop production of 8% of the US supply, it states that it is the EQUIVALENT of 8% of us production.
That 8% destined for resale to the Asian market.
It's a shell game - watch the ball and guess where it's been hidden last.

Wow...

First off, "PM" is what discovered the problem. It's part of a $50 million PM program that BP implimented to examine every inch of pipe they have on the slope after the spill last winter.

The pipe in question happens to be the main line that connects about 1000 wells to the Alyeska Pipeline. There isn't a way to divert the oil through some other pipe.

Virtually all the oil that comes off the slope is destined for ports in California. IIRC only 7% of North Slope oil is shipped to Asia. I don't get where we ship all the sour crude to Asia or what it has to do with this problem. Half of Prudhoe is shut down. I'm not sure what your point is there.

Bechtel may have been one of the contractors involved in the construction of the pipeline but there was no ONE contractor who built it. There were five main contractors involved in the construction of the line and hundreds of subs. The whole process was overseen by Aleyeska Corp. which is a consortium made up of all the oil producers on the Slope specifically to build and maintain the pipeline... Which is not the subject of the current problem. Strawman?

And as for this shell game nonsense...

Once the field is shut down, BP said oil production will be reduced by 400,000 barrels a day. That's close to 8 percent of U.S. oil production or about 2.6 percent of U.S. supply including imports, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Where is the confusion? Looks like a shell game with one shell to me. One card monte? Or did you buy into Dave's hyperbole without actually reading the link? You should know better by now...

Obviously you hate the oil industry and it has clouded your critical thinking. But if you think about it, 400,000 barrels a day equals about $30 million lost every day in production and a further loss of $10 million a day that it costs to keep their camps up and running. $40 million in losses every day adds up quick no matter who you are. So if you think they did this on purpose to boost oil prices by a couple bucks you're nuts.

 

[astrosfan90]

Out of curiosity, are oil companies under some sort of obligation to produce oil and sell it? Is there some law requiring them to produce and refine a certain amount every day/month/year? If not, how is this any different from any other company out there stating that due to problems they're having, they're going to be temporarily cutting production?

 

[monk3y]

Time to fill up...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: astrosfan90
Out of curiosity, are oil companies under some sort of obligation to produce oil and sell it?

Is there some law requiring them to produce and refine a certain amount every day/month/year?

If not, how is this any different from any other company out there stating that due to problems they're having, they're going to be temporarily cutting production?

There's the problem. They can do whatever they want.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: astrosfan90
Out of curiosity, are oil companies under some sort of obligation to produce oil and sell it?

Is there some law requiring them to produce and refine a certain amount every day/month/year?

If not, how is this any different from any other company out there stating that due to problems they're having, they're going to be temporarily cutting production?

There's the problem. They can do whatever they want.

Perhaps we should order Intel to sell their chips at a certain price/profit function, or force Pulte to sell homes in the same way. Perhaps we should mandage corn and milk producers.

Seriously Dave, sometimes I don't know where you draw the line between authoritarianism and democracy.

 

[libs0n]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: libs0n

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
solution to energy "crisis":

more nuclear power plants - ~50% of the US still runs on coal, which puts more radioactive material in the atmosphere than a nuclear plant

end of media oil shortage FUD - canada is our #1 importer overall for petroleum/petroleum-based products, and has potentially more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia

expansion of US oil drilling

Although natural gas production levels are something to think about, the "energy crisis" we face is a liquid fuels one, and not an electrical one. Although I am in favour of nuclear power, specifically integral fast reactors if they existed, know the dragon you face. Nukes won't save us.

Yes, we here in Canuckistan have truckloads of oil, perhaps even more so than the Saudis, but our production of that oil will never meet the demand crisis. In a world that consumes 85 or so million barrels of oil a day, Canada produces maybe 4, and perhaps if things go our way that number will hit 5 in a decade or two. Know the difference between reserves and production.

Oil production in the US peaked in the seventies, it will never come back, and no amount of drilling or wishful drilling will change this reality. All future American oil usage increases must come from either new production elsewhere, or using production currently allotted to other consuming nations, with the latter being more likely in the decades ahead of us.

For serious hyrogen production nuclear power (nuclear heat specifically) is currently the only real answer. Solar may eventully help out, but the costs have to come down or the efficency has to go up a lot before it is viable.

Hydrogen is a red herring, thrown out by car companies anxious to avoid the smart move of a legislative increase in gas mileage, and enthusiastically embraced by those inclined to theorectical technical solutions to all our problems. Yes, it would be nice if our transportation network ran off of something electricity could convert into, but the cold stark reality is that no cars run off hydrogen, and a change to a car fleet that does will take far longer than the timeframes we have to live with.

So, again, an increase in the construction of nuclear power plants will not reduce oil demand, therefore I stand by my comment that nukes won't save us. Understand the difference between electricity and oil consumption; understand the difference between reserves and production of those reserves. Live in the real world.

 

[astrosfan90]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: astrosfan90
Out of curiosity, are oil companies under some sort of obligation to produce oil and sell it?

Is there some law requiring them to produce and refine a certain amount every day/month/year?

If not, how is this any different from any other company out there stating that due to problems they're having, they're going to be temporarily cutting production?

There's the problem. They can do whatever they want.

So the problem is with the free market? What solution are you proposing? Forced production quotas on all companies? Are you going to punish Apple for having shipping issues with the new iPods because of a problem in Taiwan where they're assembled, as happened a year or two ago?

I understand the frustration, but honestly, singling out the oil industry won't really achieve much. Living in Argentina growing up, I watched the Argentine government try to pin the country's problems in the oil companies. Their response? They cut back their operations in Argentina, scaling down operations that were providing thousands upon thousands of jobs and millions of dollars of tax revenues for the Argentine government. It wasn't worth the companies' time to attempt to turn a profit while battling a hostile government.

I'm not saying that will happen in the US, but there really isn't much that you can do in a free market economy to force any company to do anything. If there was, we'd have a supply of the bird-flu vaccine that would cover the entire population of the US instead of a few pockets of people here and there (companies don't produce vaccines for this because it mutates too quickly for them to be able to turn a profit on the manufacturing).

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: astrosfan90
Out of curiosity, are oil companies under some sort of obligation to produce oil and sell it?

Is there some law requiring them to produce and refine a certain amount every day/month/year?

If not, how is this any different from any other company out there stating that due to problems they're having, they're going to be temporarily cutting production?

There's the problem. They can do whatever they want.

Perhaps we should order Intel to sell their chips at a certain price/profit function, or force Pulte to sell homes in the same way. Perhaps we should mandage corn and milk producers.

Seriously Dave, sometimes I don't know where you draw the line between authoritarianism and democracy.

I draw the line at record profits based on incompentcy.