[shortonsense]

Gee even Rigzone understands the impacts of the recent "credit crunch".

Thier words not mine....

"With demand for new builds stymied by the recent credit crunch and commodity price collapse, virtually no new rig orders have been placed since late 2008, the tail end of a peak period for newbuild orders.

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp ... 487&hmpn=1

I guess everyone is still working off the over supply of OLD rig orders. Happens in every boom and bust.

[Phildo]

Text deleted

[shortonsense]

So whom peed in who's cornflakes for all the deletes that followed?

The usual suspects.

[copious.abundance]

Gee even Rigzone understands the impacts of the recent "credit crunch".

Thier words not mine....

"With demand for new builds stymied by the recent credit crunch and commodity price collapse, virtually no new rig orders have been placed since late 2008, the tail end of a peak period for newbuild orders.

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp ... 487&hmpn=1

Well - duh! With so many idled rigs still left over from the peak of the rig count in 2008 it's no wonder no one's building any new ones yet.

[AirlinePilot]

http://www.thestar.com/article/538614-- ... s-casualty

Alberta's $24 billion Fort Hills oil-sands project has been put on hold until next year so Petro-Canada and its partners can get a better handle on costs.


The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said in June that companies would spend $126 billion over the next five years on pipelines, mines and upgrading plants as record oil prices made the Canadian reserves in Alberta lucrative. That figure has since been chopped to about $80 billion as more projects are shelved. Royal Dutch Shell PLC and EnCana Corp. are among other companies in the oil sands that have cut back on their plans.

[copious.abundance]

Posted November 31, 2008.

Anecdotaly I'm starting to see a lot of commentary on short term project development and financing being "safe", but longer term, into next year is appearing to be in jeopardy.

It's something that is going to be held closely to the vest with the financial turmoil going on. No one is freely going to admit they are cancelling production projects for fear of their stock prices taking a hit.

I think we all knew that a dive in price like we have seen is going to have a huge impact on the near term future in the oil patch. Not surprising at all to me.

Look what we have here. Strange uptick at the end, just when the credit cruch was supposed to be having a major impact on oil production.

I hate to say I told ya so, but I told ya so. This "credit crunch impacts on production" scare has turned into a Big, Fat Nothing.

[AirlinePilot]

Ahh! clever finding a chart to "fit" isnt it OF?

How about we talk about Global production and not your cherry picked version which is NON-OPEC.

You see my premise did not apply to just NON-OPEC oil, but of course you probably have some clever answer for that.

My premise held true and once again for the reading impaired NOWHERE DID I SAY THE EFFECTS WOULD BE PERMANENT.
I said it would have large impact on production in the near term to be exact. I'd say that is what we actually saw and its depicted quite nicely with the
Chart you DIDN'T use

So you can understand the chart I highlighted the area where production decreased due to both lower crude price and the demand problems associated with
the global recession/credit crunch. Funny how that is directly in correlation to all those links I posted about cancelled and delayed projects way back in the
beginning of this thread isnt it?

oilwatchfeb2010_01.jpg

[mcgowanjm]

Posted November 31, 2008.

Anecdotaly I'm starting to see a lot of commentary on short term project development and financing being "safe", but longer term, into next year is appearing to be in jeopardy.

It's something that is going to be held closely to the vest with the financial turmoil going on. No one is freely going to admit they are cancelling production projects for fear of their stock prices taking a hit.

I think we all knew that a dive in price like we have seen is going to have a huge impact on the near term future in the oil patch. Not surprising at all to me.

Look what we have here. Strange uptick at the end, just when the credit cruch was supposed to be having a major impact on oil production.

I hate to say I told ya so, but I told ya so. This "credit crunch impacts on production" scare has turned into a Big, Fat Nothing.

U.S. banks posted last year their sharpest decline in lending since 1942, suggesting that the industry's continued slide is making it harder for the economy to recover.

Something's being impacted. And 1942's a new number.
It was 1947/48. 1942, the Allies were in retreat. Pearl Harbor
had just ended the Depression.

[copious.abundance]

I deliberately showed non-OPEC production because they were the ones supposedly more affected by the credit crunch. It's not like the Saudis need much access to credit.

My premise held true and once again for the reading impaired NOWHERE DID I SAY THE EFFECTS WOULD BE PERMANENT.
I said it would have large impact on production in the near term to be exact

Nope, sorry. Another . . falsehood. This thread is filled with quotes by you and articles posted by you about the long-term effects of the credit crunch. For example:

Posted September 6, 2009:

Yes OF they are raising money and finding oil and spending capital etc. I do not, nor have I denied that. What you are failing at in your argument is the dismissal of the magnitude of the spending going on now versus what was going on a year or two ago. There is no refuting 20-30% less capital spending as an industry. It does not result in greater production down the road, it WILL result in less. The industry cannot pivot quickly with increased prices and this will have an impact which you choose to ignore.

This is typical of your mantra with the economy as well. The O&G industry is in trouble, maybe not terminally, but trouble none the less. You choose to refuse to see it and that's just fine. I'll continue to balance your cornucopian game with a dose of reality now and then.

It is now 5+ months later. If you regard 5 months as "down the road," then your quote from September 6 was in error because the credit cruch HASN'T resulted in lower production - in fact, production started going up as you wrote that! On the other hand, if you regard 5 months as "short-term," then your post from today was a . . . falsehood . . . because in this post from September 6 you were talking about the longer term.

One way or another, you are pretending you didn't say something that you did. I can find many more quotes like this from you in this thread.

[copious.abundance]

I said it would have large impact on production in the near term to be exact.

Wrong-O again. Here's another one, posted Feb, 10, 2009 (page 5 of this thread). Note it specifically includes the word "long term."

Long term production "damaged" according to Merrill Lynch.....

http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=31507& ... &mset=1011

[AirlinePilot]

Merrill said that I didn't. I got to give you props for being persistent OF but your pushing on a string my friend.

What I proposed happened. I'd say that also you nor I know for sure whether or not longer term production will or
wont be effected by what is going on. I'll just keep pointing to that chart, you can keep saying I said something else.

[copious.abundance]

And this posted July 18.

You can sigh all you want Oily. And yeah there are some things in there not related to oil or NG specifically, but it is direct evidence that the reason for these project delays/cancellations has everything to do with the fact that globally cheap money has completely dried up and there is a measurable pullback in investment money for projects which otherwise would not be in jeopardy.

You do acknowledge the need for aggressive financing of future projects, or dont you? You do understand that the reason these things are in jeopardy is the lack of that financing, dont you?

This was not the case two years ago. It is hard, factual evidence that global energy industries are in near crisis situations and the required robust investment picture needed going forward for your cornucopian fantasy of production is completely falling apart.

Your blinded by your optimism to see the actual effects the global credit crisis is bringing us. I'm guessing currently this is only the beginning and with any further pullback in prices, or prolonged crude pricing below current levels it gets worse with time. Thats because cash reserves are being used up to continue with lucrative prospects in the hopes that this is just a downturn and soon things will get better. I'd place good money on that NOT being the case. Only the future will tell, we will know soon enough.

Sighing will not change the picture your obviously missing.

You see AP, posts like this are proof you were excessively pessimistic (as you seem to be about almost everything). My "cornucopian fantasy of production" is not only not completely falling apart, production has started going back up!

It was not only the beginning of oil project cancellations and falling investment. By the time you posted it, it was basicaly at the end.

If you had actually placed your good money on it NOT being "just a downturn," you would have lost. It was just a downturn. As I kept saying all along. Really!

[copious.abundance]

Merrill said that I didn't.

I knew you would say something like that! It's like in the Petrobras thread where you said:

I posted this for informational purposes

Ya, sure. You posted it, but you didn't actually believe it.

[AirlinePilot]

SO WHAT? maybe I was a bit pessimistic in one or two posts. What exactly are you trying to prove?

The facts still stand that in the myriad links I posted earlier in this thread(like a year ago) there WERE MANY delayed or canceled projects.

NOWHERE DID I SAY THAT WOULD BE PERMANENT.

You pull a post where i said i was "guessing" and I also pointed out what I thought might happen with higher crude prices.
and call that "excessively pessimistic? Excuse me???

If our economy does not recover, nor the banks figure some magical way out of the giant predicament they are in, I'd still stand by my idea that it WILL affect oil production.

IT ALREADY DID! The result will be lower crude prices and with development costs where they are now, it wont be sustainable until crude prices rise enough to make it possible at some later date.

No crystal ball here and I never claimed to have one.

Please stop mischaracterizing my posts to fulfill your argument.

[copious.abundance]

SO WHAT? maybe I was a bit pessimistic in one or two posts.

One or two posts? LOL! How about almost every post?

NEway the rig count continues to climb. Up, up and away!

>>> US rig count up 23 this week <<<

[AirlinePilot]

Shell remains cool towards Canada Oil Sands project. Same reason they announced in 2008. The article doesn't come out and say it outright, but it's corporate doublespeak for "we don't have the money right now".


"Shell shelved long-term planning in late 2008 for new projects, and has not revisited the decision. A Royal Dutch Shell official reached yesterday said the firm cannot comment ahead of its upcoming quarterly financial reports, but that nothing has changed. Mr. Voser, who took over Europe's second-largest oil-and-gas firm in July, said in the article that it is slowing its expansion into the high-cost Canadian oil sands and will focus more on exploration. Analysts said the decision to slow oil sands investment was no surprise, given Shell's relative inaction in the field in the past year, when it, along with all other firms, delayed plans for expansion.

http://www.financialpost.com/news-secto ... id=2484220

I await the cornucopian translation with glee

[copious.abundance]

Breaking news: Shell is not the only operator in the oil sands.

>>> Hot off the printing presses <<<

Devon and BP team up on oil sands revival
Shawn McCarthy
Ottawa — Globe and Mail Update

.U.S.-based Devon Energy Corp. is deepening its commitment to the resurgent oil sands sector, bringing its operating know-how to a joint venture with giant BP PLC to develop the British multinational's long-dormant Kirby project.

The oil sands venture is part of a $7-billion (U.S.) deal in which Devon is selling its international and offshore oil assets to BP, while spending $500-million (U.S.) to buy a half-stake in the promising Kirby acreage, which is thought to contain up to 1.5 billion barrels of accessible bitumen.

Devon is currently doubling the capacity of its 30,000-barrel-a-day Jackfish property, and has another expansion planned for the coming years. It boasts that Jackfish is one of the industry's lowest-cost projects, using steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) technology to recover the bitumen from underground.

[...]

[AirlinePilot]

Breaking news: Shell is not the only operator in the oil sands.

Ya Think???

[TheAntiDoomer]

oh my tons of investment heading to the US via Indias richest man

Tme to hit the snooze button this thread:

India's Richest Man Dying For A Piece Of The U.S. Shale Gas Revolution

http://www.businessinsider.com/indias-r ... ion-2010-3

India's richest man Mukesh Ambani is looking to invest in US shale gas through his enormous conglomerate Reliance Industries according to Rigzone.

Reliance is in talks with Atlas Energy, who has 584,000 acres of Marcellus Shale assets, for a $1 - $1.5 billion joint-venture stake.

[copious.abundance]

Quite true AD, and the hits they just keep a comin' !!!!!

>>> LINK <<<

Hyundai Heavy to Win 79% More Oil, Gas Orders in 2010
March 17, 2010, 6:57 AM EDT
By Kyunghee Park

March 17 (Bloomberg) -- Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. expects to win at least 79 percent more oil and gas equipment orders this year as the world’s biggest shipyard reduces its dependency on shipbuilding.

“There is a chance we could exceed our order target” of about $4.2 billion, Kang Chang June, executive vice president of Hyundai Heavy’s offshore and engineering division, said in an interview at the company’s Ulsan, South Korea headquarters yesterday. Net income from the division is expected to be similar to last year’s figure of 300 billion won ($265 million) to 400 billion won, he said.

Hyundai Heavy has already achieved more than half its 2010 offshore order target as oil companies such as Royal Dutch Shell Plc, BP Plc and Petroleo Brasileiro SA boost investment in drilling and floating production equipment to support wider exploration. The Korean company is targeting oil and gas as overcapacity and Chinese competition sap ship orders.

[...]

The hits they just keep a comin' !!!!!

Energy investment to lag further: IEA

Muriel Boselli

Paris — Reuters, Tuesday, Jun. 23, 2009 03:20PM EDT

Recession will cut investments in the energy supply sector in 2009 by more than the $100-billion (U.S.) quoted in the International Energy Agency's report
released in May, its chief economist said on Tuesday. The agency, adviser to 28 industrialized countries, said in a report presented to the G8 energy ministers in May that oil and gas upstream investment would fall 21 per cent, or about $100-billion in 2009 from 2008 due to the global recession. “The information that we are getting... may well mean that we are going to revise the numbers downwards,” Fatih Birol told Reuters in an interview. Mr. Birol said the IEA had not made a comprehensive update of the G8 report but that the agency was getting signals the drop in investment would be worse than initially feared.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-in ... further-ie

a/article1193729/