Oilopoly

[Anduril]

...Samo nastavi.

Nastavljam - moraces da popravis te grafikone ili ih bolje ne pokazuj vise sa nominalnim skalama.Nego, jos jednom, gde je objasnjenje za Japan, Nemacku, Juznu Koreju i Svajcarsku koje nisu prosle kroz duboke recesije (-0.4% je mali zastoj a ne duboka recesija), visoke kamatne stope kao u USA, visoku inflaciju?

a onda je KSA uletela, sto je smanjilo cenu nafte i omogucilo kreditnu ekspanziju zbog niske inflacije, niska cena energenata se prenosi kroz celu ekonomiju. Tako je dobijen Hladni rat.

Jos jednom, ako je samo (globalna) cena nafte bila uzrok visoke inflacije u to vreme u SAD, zasto to nije bio slucaj svuda?

[Zaz_pi]

Nastavljam - moraces da popravis te grafikone ili ih bolje ne pokazuj vise sa nominalnim skalama.

:lol:Opet si shvatio da si prdnuo u cabar. Taj grafikon se nalazi iznad tvog upisa o tome-http://www.parapsiho...45#entry2241700 , jos sam to naglasio da bi shvatio, ne bi ispao toliki tupco da nisi totalno prso posto sam te nahvatao da lupteas. Inace, umirem od smeha, kao sto vidis, kada vidim sta pises i uzivam u tome i ohrabrujem te da nastavis.A, nominalni BDP je kada gledas sa nominalne skale?edit: na poslednje pitanje postoji odgovor na ovoj temi. Kada govorim o SSSR. To sam ti vec jednom rekao, znam da kod tebe to sporije ide, dajem ti vremena. Edited July 29, 2013 by Zaz_pi

[Anduril]

:lol:Opet si shvatio da si prdnuo u cabar. Inace, umirem od smeha kada vidim sta pises i uzivam u tome i ohrabrujem te da nastavis.A, nominalni BDP je kada gledas sa nominalne skale?Ne mogu ja komunicirati sam tobom jer ne poznajes osnovne pojmove.edit: na poslednje pitanje postoji odgovor na ovoj temi. Kada govorim o SSSR. To sam ti vec jednom rekao, znam da kod tebe to sporije ide, dajem ti vremena.

Pa naravno da nemas odgovor jer se velike razlike u CPI recimo izmedju Svajcarske/Nemacke/Japana sa jedne i SAD sa druge u periodu oko 1980. ne mogu objasniti samo naftom.Slicno je i za privredni rast i razvoj drugih zemalja - neke su propale a neke napredovale u slicnim globalnim uslovima.Da je SSSR imao drugaciju strukturu privrede naravno da bi preziveo i pored niske cene nafte - bar ekonomski.Teorija ti je jednostavno obicno smece i spam.

[Zaz_pi]

Konacno si shvatio da ne trebas da nastavljas. To je napredak za tebe. Doduse i dalje pises gluposti ali u duhu razumevanja za tvoje limitirane intelektualne sposobnosti, sada cu ti dati vremena da razmislis o svemu-1979 energy crisis

[Zaz_pi]

Inace, da bi se video znacaj krize sa pocetka '80ih i koliki znacaj nafte za SAD, ali ne samo za SAD, to je radila i Britanija pocetkom XX veka:Carter Doctrine

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980, which stated that the U.S. would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. The doctrine was a response to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union—the U.S.' Cold War adversary—from seeking hegemony in the Gulf. After stating that Soviet troops in Afghanistan posed "a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil," Carter proclaimed: The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow. The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil. This situation demands careful thought, steady nerves, and resolute action, not only for this year but for many years to come. It demands collective efforts to meet this new threat to security in the Persian Gulf and in Southwest Asia. It demands the participation of all those who rely on oil from the Middle East and who are concerned with global peace and stability. And it demands consultation and close cooperation with countries in the area which might be threatened. Meeting this challenge will take national will, diplomatic and political wisdom, economic sacrifice, and, of course, military capability. We must call on the best that is in us to preserve the security of this crucial region. Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.This last, key sentence of the doctrine, was written by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Adviser. Brzezinski modeled the wording of the doctrine on the Truman Doctrine, and insisted that the sentence be included in the speech "to make it very clear that the Soviets should stay away from the Persian Gulf."In The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power, author Daniel Yergin notes that the Carter Doctrine "bore striking similarities" to a 1903 British declaration, in which British Foreign Secretary Lord Landsdowne warned Russia and Germany that the British would "regard the establishment of a naval base or of a fortified port in the Persian Gulf by any other power as a very grave menace to British interests, and we should certainly resist it with all the means at our disposal."

[Indy]

[Zaz_pi]

Sledeci tekst je pokupljen iz Komersanta, ruske novine okrenute ka ekonomiji poput WSJ u SAD, inace prilicno kriticki nastrojene spram Putina.To je mnogo toga objasnjeno ukljucjuci kako je protiv SSSR vodjen ekonsomki rat uz pomoc KSA i nafte, upotreba skriljaca u SAD jos '80ih ali je to napusteno zbog jeftine KSA nafte, pokusaj Breznjeva da ugura SAD u projekte u Sibiru, zaduzivanje SSSR za te projekte kod npr. Japanaca, sto ce biti veliki problem kada padne cena nafte...

Imam jedan domaci rad na tu temu:

[Indy]

Superzlikovcu nafti da se suprotstavi moze samo superjunak - Tesla (pogledajte, superkul video)http://youtu.be/NAxtOwo8S8w

[Zaz_pi]

Despite boom, higher costs push Big Oil into slumpNEW YORK (AP) — New troves of oil have been found all over the globe, and oil companies are taking in around $100 for every barrel they produce. But these seemingly prosperous conditions aren't doing much for Big Oil: Profit and production at the world's largest oil companies are slumping badly.Exxon Mobil, Shell and BP all posted disappointing earnings this week. Chevron is expected to post a profit decline Friday. All of them face the same problem: The cost to get newfound oil from remote locations and tightly packed rock is high and rising. And it takes years and billions of dollars to get big new production projects up and running.The higher extraction costs could translate to higher oil and gasoline prices for consumers.Strong production growth at an oil company can offset higher operating costs, "but when production is flat or declining it's a big hit," says Brian Youngberg, an analyst at Edward Jones. "Even though oil prices are $100 or higher, the returns on investment aren't what they used to be."The new oil being found and produced is in ultra-deep ocean waters, in sands that must be heated to release the hydrocarbons or trapped in shale or other tight rock that requires constant drilling to keep production steady.That makes this new oil far more expensive to get out of the ground than what's known as conventional oil — large pools of oil and gas in relatively easy-to-drill locations.David Vaucher, who tracks oil production operating costs at IHS CERA, says oilfield operation costs are now at a record high. "The fields are more remote and the resource conditions are more extreme," he says.New oil projects in the U.S. and Canada, where production is growing faster than anywhere in the world, require high oil prices to be profitable, Vaucher says.In order to make an industry average return, a new production project in the Canadian oil sands requires a price of $81 per barrel. For an onshore U.S. field, it's $70 per barrel, but it ranges from $45 to $95 per barrel, depending on the rate of oil flow. In the Gulf of Mexico, it's $63. In the Middle East, just $23 per barrel.Many oil analysts predict that relatively weak growth in world oil demand coupled with rising production from newfound fields will make for flat or lower oil prices in the years to come. But if big oil companies can't earn strong profits at today's oil prices, it may mean prices will have to rise higher to convince them it's worth the risk to continue to aggressively explore new fields. If they worry they can't make enough money, they'll cut back.Oswald Clint, an analyst at Bernstein Research, said in a recent report that oil prices can hold steady and even rise into 2015. Among his reasons: The growth of U.S. oil production is slowing because the best new American fields have been tapped, and the number of rigs probing new fields has flattened out.One of the more difficult places for Big Oil lately has been onshore in the U.S., which is in the midst of a historic oil boom being driven by the new discoveries. American production is now rising faster than any time since the 1950s, putting the nation on track to become the world's biggest oil producer.But major oil companies such as Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell and BP were late to get into the U.S. shale oil game, and therefore had to pay high prices to acquire promising land. And the drilling is hugely expensive, too. Because the oil is thinly dispersed and hard to squeeze out, dozens of wells must be systematically drilled over an area to get to the oil.Drillers are making technological leaps that are reducing some costs, but those are being countered by higher costs to lease equipment, buy supplies and pay workers rise that are shrinking profits.Smaller oil companies like EOG Resources and Continental Resources that found these troves early were able to acquire the best acreage for relatively low prices. Because oil production is rising for these smaller companies, profits can rise even if costs increase. For a major oil company like Exxon or Shell, even big increases from dozens of wells in Texas or North Dakota aren't enough to make up for declining production in giant fields around the globe.Royal Dutch Shell announced Thursday that oil production fell 1.3 percent from a year earlier and profit fell 57 percent, largely because of a write-down of the value of the leases on U.S. land that the company thought held large amounts of oil or other liquid hydrocarbons."Production curves are less productive, less positive shall we say, than we originally expected," Shell CFO Simon Henry said on a call with investors.Shell CEO Peter Vosser said that while U.S. shale oil production was proceeding well in general, the company plans to sell stakes in four or five of the nine regions where it has holdings because it hasn't been able to get as much oil to flow as it thought it could.The company also announced it was abandoning plans to boost production to 4 million barrels per day by 2018 from its current rate of 3 million barrels per day.Exxon Mobil, the world's biggest investor-owned company, said Thursday that profits tumbled 57 percent, to their lowest level in more than three years. Poor performance from the company's refining operations was largely to blame, but oil production fell 1.9 percent, the ninth straight quarter production has declined compared with the year earlier.The last time Exxon's earnings fell below $7 billion in a quarter, oil prices averaged $79 per barrel. In this most recent quarter, they averaged $94.BP reported a production decline of 1.5 percent on Tuesday and said production in the third quarter would also go down and costs would climb. Chevron, which reports results Friday, is expected to post a 17 drop in earnings per share, according to analysts polled by FactSet.The oil majors have been investing heavily in major new projects, especially in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, Brazil and East and West Africa. But the price tags are so high that the companies can't pursue everything they want.The projects take years to begin producing. Exxon announced in May that it will spend $4 billion to develop a giant field called Julia in the Gulf of Mexico. The field was discovered in 2007, but it won't yield anything until 2016.Chevron is spending $16 billion to develop three fields in the Gulf of Mexico that will begin production next year. Parts of those fields were first drilled as early as 2003.

Ovaj tekst sa AP velikim delom sumira ono sto sam pisao o frakingu kada sam pominjao EROI. Vraticu su dosta puta na delove ovoga tektsa kada budem pisao o nafti.Sada ce se koncetrisatti na poslednji podebljani deo:Proizvodnja velikih kompanija vec duze vreme pada iako trose milijarde $ na istazivanje i vadjenje. Ovde nije ukljucen Rosnjet i Aramco, kod njih je drugacija situacija.ada bih hteo opet hteo da se vratim na znacajn nafte u ekonomskom sistemu. Podaci koje uzimam su sa V Biofizicke Ekonomske Konferencije na Univ. Vermont.Jedan zanimljiv grafik:Plate u SAD. Kao sto vidite, kada cena nafte skoci plate, realno, padaju.Drugi graf:Da li je ovo sve slucajnost?Ne bih rekao. U Jugolsaviji/Srbiji tesko da su shvcatali/shvataju znacaj nafte/gasa. Primera radi, u SAD su od 1970, kada je u SAD poceo pad proizvodnje nafte, bilo toliko puno razlictih Kongresnih savetovanja i ko zna cega jos o nafti i zavisnosti SAD od iste, neke cu postaviti kada budem pricao o KSA i nafti. To je jedno od najvaznih nacionalni pitanja, ako ne i najvaznije, za skoro sve zemlje. Sto jeftinija energija je imperativ.

[Zaz_pi]

A, sada, o onome sto bi trebalo da odredjuje cenu nafte-rezerve i cena eksplatacije. A, to nije slucaj kod nafte jer je nafta visoko politizovane pitanje jer tako mnogo zavisimo svi od nje. Vec sam pominjao poljoprivredu. Nikada, ali nikada ne bi dosli do ovoliki prozivodnej hrane bez nafte. I, tu se na radi samo o obradi zemlje i transportu vec i pri prozivonji vestackih djubriva, pesticida itd.Mislim da u cenu hrane koju kupujemo u prodavnicima cena nafte ucestvuje sa oko 50%, ako ne i vise: prozivodnja(gorivo za mehanizaciju i razni delovi mehanizacije), djubrenje, zastita, transport(inace veliki deo efekta "Staklene baste" dolazi iz transporta hrane), pakovanja(ako treba, su najcesce na bazi naftnih proizvoda-razlicita plastika).

Food Prices Mirror Oil Prices: The Crude Oil - FAO Food Price Index Price CorrelationWhat stuck us as especially interesting was the fact that in 1901 roughly 43% of the household budget was for food. By 2003 that had shrunk to only 13%. During that same period the yield on an acre of corn went from roughly 25 bushels per acre to 150 bushels per acre thanks to mechanization, cheap and plentiful fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, and seed genetics.By coincidence the ‘Age of Oil’ was essentially launched in 1901 with the discovery of the prolific Spindletop well drilled in South Texas. The energy provided by natural gas and crude oil have had an incredible impact on the productivity of the agricultural sector – with some expert studies indicating Western agricultural practices utilize 10 calories of petroleum energy to produce one calorie of food (other global agricultural regions are not so energy intense).Prior to the Age of Oil the energy input was much closer to the energy output of the food produced. Experts claim that without hydrocarbons the agricultural sector could only feed 3 billion people – less than one-half the current global population of 7 billion.

Ovo je izuzetno vazno korelacija:

The coefficient of determination (‘r squared’) between the price of Brent crude and the FOA food index for the last twelve years is 0.932 - meaning that 93.2% of the change in the price of food as measured by the FAO food index is statistically ‘explained’ by the change in the price of oil during this period.

Ogledalo.Zamislite koliko bi Srbija bi na dobitku da ima jeftiniju naftu, ne samo sa stanovista inflacije vec i tamicenja na globalnom trzistu tj. izvozu?Ali nije samo hrana, iako je ona za nas najvaznija. Rast obrazovanosti nikada se ne bi desio bez upotrebe jeftinih fosilnih goriva, iako se to na prvi pogled ne vidi, ali to jeste povezano.Zato je nafta broj 1 pitanje za najvece zemlje. Zao se toliko mnogo sukoba vodi oko nje. A, sukobi se vode tamo gde je najvise ima.Pa, da vidimo koji su Top 10 zemalja po proizvodnji nafte: KSA, Rusija, Venecuela, Iran, Irak, UAE, Kuvajt, Libija, Kazahstan i Kanada.Nisam stavljao koliko su rezerve svake zemlje jer to zahteva posebno objasnjenje. Veliki deo zaliha se ne zna tacno jer zemlej OPECa ne samo da ne govore tacno podatke i rezervama vec ne i proizvodnji. Rusija je do ove godine je zelihe nafte i gasa drzala kao drzavnu tajnu. Eto, koliki je znacaj nafte. Ali, ove godine su otkrili podatke, sto je odlicno jer cu se posvetiti rezervama najvecih proizvodjaca. OPEC je do 1982 davao tacne podatke a onda su pod pritskom Saudijaca prestali to da rade. To je uradjeno da bi se manipulisalo cenom nafte i izvoznim kvotama u okviru OPECa. Tako je cena nafte u periodu 1996-1999 bila nisko zbog laznih podataka iz KSA.Pocecu u narednom delu od najveceg proizvodjaca, ne samo nafte, vec i gasa i zemlje koje kontrolise uranijumsku potrosnju.

[Zaz_pi]

Razlog zasto cu poceti sa Rusijom nije samo da su najveci proizovdjaci nafte, gasa(za ovo vise nisam siguran ali ako nisu prvi sigurno su drugi) i uranijuma, vec su pre par nedelja otvorili svoje zvanicne podatke o rezervama nafte i gasa. Ali, pre toga bi se samo malo osvrnuo na uranijum.Ne znam koliko je ljudi culo za Megatons to Megawatts Program iz 1993. To je ugovor Rusije i SAD, da Rusi od svog nuklearnog programa, koji se redukuje raznim dogovorima sa SAD kroz Start programe, daju SAD uranijum za Nuklearne centrale. Je l' se secate kako je Obama navaljivao 2009/10 potpise novi Start-3 sa Medvedevim. Nije njega preterano zanimalo smanjenje broja nukleranih bojevih glava zbog bezbednosti sveta. Zanimalo ga je gorivo za NE. Isto, tako , Putin blokira Start-3, raznim izgovorima, jer zeli da kontrolise i uslovljava SAD. Rusija je zemlja koja kotnrolise dobar deo trzista obogacivanja uranijum za NE. A, preko Kazahstana, i sa svojim rezervama kontrolise i veliku kolicinu rezervi. Jedan od razloga sto SAD zure da odrade sto vise gasa kroz fraking, cak iako je to opasno po zivotnu sredinu, i sto se gubi novac, je sto znaju da ce njihove NE da izgube jeftin izvor goriva ako se Putinu ne digne. Pitanje nacionalne sigurnosti. Inace, Rosatom gradi NE sirom sveta, mislim da su najveci neimari u tom poslu. Pre par dana su dobili posao u Finskoj.A, sada da se posvetim ovom najvecem proizvodjacu fosilnih goriva, kada se sve uzme u obzir.Po procenama, do pre par nedelja se nije znalo kolike su zvanicne rezerve Rusije, najveca zemlja sveta je imala oko 11.2 milijardi tona nafte(drzacu se tonaze, iako se puno koriste bareli. 1 tona je priblizno 7.1 barel)a. Da vam to stavim u kontekst, Zemljani godisnje potrose oko 4.2 milijarde tona nafte. Rusija proizvede godisnje, sada pumpa blizu sovjetskog rekorda i najvise na svetu, 0.53 tona nafteMedjutim, Rusija je pre par nedelja izasla sa svojim skrivanim podacima-Mother (Russia) lode: Vast extent of oil, gas reserves revealed for first timeZvanicne verzija kaze:-sigurne rezerve: 17.8 milijardi tona-verovatne rezerve: 10.2 milijarde tonaOve druge treba uzeti sa velikom rezervom, verovatno prepoloviti kao realnu brojku. Znaci, neka brojka od 22-25 milijardi tona je realna, minimum.Raspitivao sam se kod nekih Rusa o kakvim se rezevama radi. Po njihovoj prici to su rezerve koje se nalaze mahom u kontinentalno delu Rusije(uglavnom Sibir) bez tzv. uske nafte(shale oil) i bitumenskog peska(tar sands), kao i bez nafte ispod mora. To se klasifikuje kao nekonvecionalna nafta. Ovo je izuzetno vazno. Kontinentalna nafta je relativno jeftina u odnosu sa bitumen i veci deo podvodne nafte. Sto se vidi i iz teksta AP. Ali, Rusija ima jako puno uske nafte, bitumena i podvodne nafte. Ako je ova prica Rusa tacna i ako se ukljuce nekonvecionalni izvori, Rusija ima najvise rezervi nafte na svetu.Primera radiOva slika je prezentacija Rosnjefta u Teksasu ove godine. Gde oni prikazuju rezerve u ruskim morima. Ako je ovo tacno, a tu se mora uvek ostaviti ogroman prostor za sumnju, ne samo kod Rusa, onda Rusija ima najvece rezerve na svetu.Kazu da imaju 21.7 milijardi tona(155 milijardi barela) nafte samo u morima. Ako tome dodamo ranije konvencionalne kontinentalne rezerve to ispada nekih 35-45 milijardi tona nafte 250-300 milijardi barela.Dalje, u ovu brojku nije uracunat sledece-EIA report - Russia #1 in Shale Oil ReservesKazu 10.5 milijardi tona(75 milijardi barela). Ali, ovo su rezerve koje su ekonomski i tehnoloski isplative sada. Ukupne rezeve uske nafte su vece, znatno vece.Radi se o ogromnom polju Bazenovo u Zapadnom Sibiru,Povrsine kao Teksas i Meksicki zaliv zajedno.I, jedan potpuno nestvaran podatak-126 trillion barrels of oil equivalent biomass in Bazhenov Oil shale in Russia Ali to nista ne znaci jer nema tehnologije, niti je ekonomski isplativo da se to vadi.Inace, tekst Financial Timesa o tome-"Red Lenin’ leads Russia’s oil revolutionO, gasu, samo cu citirati CEO Gazproma:

Russia is very rich with shale gas resources, and probably in the next century the time will come when shale gas production will be considered in Russia, but currently, for the current century, we have enough reserves of traditional resources, and new areas of offshore fields – not to forget the Arctic, and I’m rather sure that cost effectiveness for these reserves will be unbeatable, and that’s why we are rather sure that we were, are, and will stay competitive on the oil and gas market.

Toliko o njima.Inace, ovo je glavni razlog zasto ne mislim da ce Zemlja ostati bez fosilnih goriva. Pitanje je samo: da li ce cena tih goriva biti prihvatljiva za nase ekonomije?Pored Bazenova ima jos nekonvencionlnih velikih poilja. Doduse, Bazenovo je najvece.

[Indy]

Upropasti topik, covece.

[Zaz_pi]

U redu, onda necu vise. Primetio sam da ljudima smeta dugo pisanje, sto je u redu. :)

[brusli]

@Zaz_piSamo ti nastavi, zanimljivo je ovo sto pises, mada ne znam koliko je tacno :)Jel ti struka vezana za naftu, pa znas sve ove podatke ili ti je ovo hobi?Inace, mislim da je nafta najvazniji resurs, ali da nije samo ona bitna, ima tu jos stvari koje uticu na ekonomiju. Mada ako ostanemo bez nafte (tj ne bude je dovoljno) gotovo je sa ovim kreditno balonskim liberalnim kapitalizmom :)

[Indy]

zanimljivo je ovo sto pises, mada ne znam koliko je tacno

:0.6: