|
discoukulele posted:Does anyone know where I can find some information about how this will affect oil-producing states? If you are reliant on state funding I would watch out and (if you are in the position to do so) start pushing harder for every federal grant program you possibly can. Unfortunately our state doesn't bother to keep funding up for social services in the boom times. A bust isn't going to be pretty. Our schools are going to be hosed so bad...
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Our schools are going to be hosed so bad... And where they're not tied to a specific thing like the PUF, my concern is that any cuts in funding coming from general state revenues will never be restored to previous levels. That's usually how things seem to go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:I work in offshore scientific drilling, but we occasionally do off-contract exploration stuff to supplement our normal funding, and yeah there were a few holes in our expedition schedule we were hoping to fill that look like they're just going to remain empty. Can't cram another scientific expedition in even if the funding were there, can't find outside work. Vessel is just going to sit in tie up I guess. Is this IODP by the way? My dad worked with them for a while and only just (semi)retired.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:And where they're not tied to a specific thing like the PUF, my concern is that any cuts in funding coming from general state revenues will never be restored to previous levels. That's usually how things seem to go. Maybe the state GOP will institute a new state level income tax?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
etalian posted:Maybe the state GOP will institute a new state level income tax? Uh... this is sarcasm right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:SUV and Pickup sales are up  ) is not really that cheap for gas; it's not like gas is $1 or $1.25 a gallon and you can fully fill an SUV for $25.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
The price for oil equities already imploded this month too, with some companies seeing their price per share getting halved.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
fade5 posted:I honestly do not get this. I realize forward thinking is hard, but "gas prices go up and I'm hosed" is super basic logic in buying a car/SUV. Also, $2.50 a gallon (well, more like $2.20 here in San Antonio Most are buying them because they're compensating for their insecurity. A lot of purchasers are dumb and think they're "safer" in an accident or swear they'll need to tow stuff around. The marketing/advertising is incessant as well. There's a truck commercial on every loving break and it makes ridiculous emotional appeals that seems to swindle dumb people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Rand alPaul posted:Most are buying them because they're compensating for their insecurity. A lot of purchasers are dumb and think they're "safer" in an accident or swear they'll need to tow stuff around. The marketing/advertising is incessant as well. There's a truck commercial on every loving break and it makes ridiculous emotional appeals that seems to swindle dumb people. Check your urban, A climate privledge. Seriously though. US truck fleet is getting really up there and some people are finally getting around to replacing their vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Is this IODP by the way? My dad worked with them for a while and only just (semi)retired. It is, in fact! I'd ask who he is, but identifying information and all, plus I may have never met him since I haven't been here long. etalian posted:Maybe the state GOP will institute a new state level income tax? Sure, just after the unicorns for everyone law, and ahead of medicaid expansion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Trucks are getting more efficient too. The new Ford F150 gets 26mpg on the highway, about the same as a mid-size early 2000s sedan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I disagree with the OP, OPEC not cutting supply has allowed the price to drop, but ultimately this was likely caused by a combination of slower growth in China and a lesser extent than Europe and a overvalued oil market. This is correct, and OP is dead wrong. A cursory glance of DOE numbers show that the production adds out of the US are nowhere close to covering the energy imports out to 2019. Second, debt leverage and the roll on paper is what killed most of the players in the TMS, Wattenburg and offshore Africa. Where CAPEX is twice the rate of Gwar and the UAE core sed. plays. Third, most of the oil was on repo, and held for storage with on average at 140/bbl about 57% of all paper oil contracts were speculative (ie. never to be delivered). So we are seeing a liquidity crisis, where Philbro is pretty much the industry LTCM, along with large unwinds on CLO and Petro-swap products which are having trouble keeping up with the moves in the underlying comod or equity swaps. The key of the oil bust, and what it means is that 1. Inflation is going to take a hard leg down, as per the inflation numbers for the last 2 weeks 2. Job quality, and wage gains were largely attributed to oil producing areas of the US PADD 2 & 3 complex. So while unemployment is at u-30: 5.6%, most of those entering are either retirees who lost everything or are starved for income yield (due to the wipeout of MBS & high-yield products to offset their babyboomer lifestyle) and low-paying debt endentured Gen Y & Z who are being forced post-grad to work well below the 104,000 real dollar (inflated off the 83 index) which is necessary to afford 'middle class' purchasing, which is necessary to sustain the entire service and discretionary (tech & luxury) economy which was built up post-87 crash. 3. Oil & Gas CAPEX makes up 40% of the entire economy spending. All other sectors are in full on retrenchment, with hiring in aerospace, hardware, and everything inbetween well below the 1997 high point. So if oil is cut, expect those ETF and other products people stuffed your RSP and Pension funds with to tick downwards, just like 1987. 4. A large volume of the speculative money was due to petrodollar positive carry trade where foreign positive trade surplus nations like Saud, Brazil, Russia (until putin 2.0) invested their capital gains in the dollar, due to the stable yield vs. their own inflation wracked currencies. When ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) was placed in effect, those same guys went on the hunt for yield or at least physical assets which could both launder and stabilize their currency reserves. So as such, the yield carry trade, just like the Yen carry trade has massively inflated all asset prices. Think a call option on your SPX future. Now imagine its spread over all assets due to the multiplier effect and zero risk leverage borrow costs. 5. As treasury supply tightened, and large treasury stockpiles become liquidity liabilities you diversify, just like when nobody plays your MMO anymore, and you want to find a new guild to do new content. So everyone is moving off the dollar and going to Yen, gold, or shifting their asset allocations towards savings in euro-swaps vs direct reinvestment in US markets. As the liquidity is moved, the most liquid trades are collapsed first, so just like 2007 (10 months before the crash when CIO/D3 spreads started to blow out on FannieMae debt swaptons) we are seeing the same ripple effect. OPEC itself has not moved off its production quota, and is still happily pumping at the 30.5 mpbd rate its cartel did, on order of President Obama in 2012 to keep the price below 140/bbl. It is estimated everyone ex-saudi is cheating and pumping an excess 2.3mbpd. However since repo rates in China and the US are spiking, as liquidity found in those dollar reserves are shifting so they do not take massive capital losses when interest rates rise again, we are seeing the first steps of petrodollar carry trade unwind. And that, is pretty much what's happening. The alternative view, and one not really true, but fun to dream is that like Regan told King Abi to pump like mad to break the USSR, Obama is telling King Abi to pump like MADD to nuke the Sino-Russia relationship. In this zany theory, Russia will likely have to start to sell assets, much like Argentina and Venezuela in the Mexican crisis (and later, the USSR) to China. This will likely lead to a Coup, or violent riots. And fix most of the worlds problems on our side of the Westphilian crew. Adjust your tinfoil accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Hal_2005 posted:Excellent post Out of curiosity and speaking about capex, what is your general opinion about the canadian senior producers, Cenovus, CNRL, Suncor et al, with regards to riding this out. The impression I'm getting is that the large players have strong balance sheets, fairly low operational (if not capital recovery) costs, and a fair amount of capital flexibility.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
Kinda impossible to have a strong balance sheet with a rapidly depreciated asset and lots of debt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
Gorau posted:Out of curiosity and speaking about capex, what is your general opinion about the canadian senior producers, Cenovus, CNRL, Suncor et al, with regards to riding this out. The impression I'm getting is that the large players have strong balance sheets, fairly low operational (if not capital recovery) costs, and a fair amount of capital flexibility. I'm limited on what i can say on this, but if you look at BNN, Jamison Berkow did a very good discussion with a set of research analysts today. Also, BMO and RBC both have good pieces which state the costs. The ghist is that there are sunk costs, fixed operation costs and variable costs (mostly differential and transport). Depending on when you purchased your land, and how much pipe you need to lay is one factor in if you will be able to weather the storm, because oil; just like an airline and a railway is a cash business, not an earnings business. You keep pumping regardless on variable cost until you reach the shutin cost (when you hit the negative fixed cost base, which for most is blown down to zero). During this lean time, where you are living off your producing cash flow, waiting to make it accretive to do more drilling or exploration, you plan to keep the tax pools up, and maintain a positive return on equity. Guys like Exxon or Shell have been doing that for 10 years now via buybacks and dividends, giving them a cash on cash yield of over 10%. Which is a loosy way of saying a fixed return for long-holding mutual/pension funds. Canadian seniors, all of them (except certain guys with stupidly large shutdown/environmental recovery) costs are pretty insulated from a small downturn. Obviously, just like the mining industry, running a well is easier than running a mine. And running an integrated project, where you sell the oil to your downstream unit is sustainable because you give zero shits about what you charge yourself for the oil, so long as you make a profit on the downstream (refinery). So you can do some readthru on which companies I am referring to in that statement. The caveat is some products have built their assets sooner than others, so if you have a shiny new mine/well, much like having a shiny new video gaming PC, you can game on it harder and play longer than your other goons who may or may not need to refresh and may need to drop out of the market for that new game, leaving you with more marketshare. Modeling that involves reviewing the company's cash on cash sustainability and total-production yield and cash cost. So your ability to sustain a downturn is totally variant on how long you can last, and at what rate can you manage to offset your corporate declines and cash obligations to interest starved investors and creditors. In some cases, that chance is very low, and you can see that in the implied equity annual yield payments, or the term rates on their convertible debts. Some players know the writing is on the wall, and are taking any offer they can get; even if its going to make certain corporate raiders really fracking (ha!) mad and most investors. For sustainability ratios we use Total long term debt to Enterprise value (use net working capital, not current L). If you are above 60%, then your revolver is pulled and you will be forced to pay it back within 364 days. The final caveat is natural gas, and gas liquids (what we use to make plastics, and are stupidly lucrative globally. TLDR: - new projects can run longer, so they have better payback cycles because they have better tax pools and require less refurbishment if the sub-80 ecosystem stays beyond 2H15. - mines suck, oil wells are ok - your NPV is based on your half cycle payback, and if you purchased your land recently, obv. you need higher prices to make it work longer - there is varying opinions but the capital eff rule is usually: closest proximity to your market point (differential & transport costs) > quality of your product > cheapness to tie in and produce (opex) > quality of rock > quality of your royalty or lift regimes (reliance on 3rd party) > political risk (WACC) - gas is not oil - vertical integration rocks. literally - if your debt to ev ratio is above 60% in 2015 or your total operating leverage (total debt / funds flow from ops) is > 2.7x in 2015..... you are game over. Thats just the reality. On average a US peer was juicing harcore on debt, so its about 5.1x for the average USA peer. - I sound like Jim cramer: but for the fracking love of god, do not think something trading at a 19%+ monthly yield is remotely sustainable. Look up a company called Bonavista and how they ran themselves ragged on keeping up the yield when they blew their brains out on natural gas, and gas blew through 4/mcf. That is not a stocktip, just a case study on what happened when gas pulled this situation in 2007-2011. Hal_2005 fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Dec 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Kinda impossible to have a strong balance sheet with a rapidly depreciated asset and lots of debt. Not exactly. How do you define 'lots of debt'. is it senior ? sub-senior? mez ? If you have lax terms on your debts, then by all means you can take out another revolver or pledge oil to a commodity shop as a inventory swap. Also in cases of emergency you can monetize your hedges like Continental resources did, or Talisman did when Manzoni ran it (into the ground). Also, how do you define your depreciation. Note, there is resource depreciation and fixed metal depreciation. The only charge you take is related to impairment on reserves when tested against the crude oil strip prices, but that contra account simply moves to the resource side of the ledger. So you don't actually lose any oil discovered, and as such you really don't lose any of the tax shields associated with the site restoration or cleanup, and the meal still moves at the same pace down the accounting scales. Strong balance sheets can happen in many ways. Look at EnCana under Doug Suttles or Apache, and what Apache just did today. Now look at what Oxy did when Ray ran it for 20 years. Now look at Occidential today. Or look at some of the names with strong balance sheets. You can get that list pretty cleanly from a little sweat equity. Done thread stinking, someone else can take over. The fact many fail to realize, but A BP guy had a good youtube on the subject in November was: Most of these reserves you read about were actually discovered in the 1980s. The oil sands have been around since 1968. Other basins since 1955. Most of the plays you read about have been on production for more than 30 years now, it was only in the last 4 years when downspacing & the race to catch up to Permian/deep basin producers really led to the full out Jonesing which we saw over the 2010-2015 ramp. Chesapeake is largely to blame for this. Hal_2005 fucked around with this message at 08:00 on Dec 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
I don't mind, I think it is useful, if anything the micro perspective is largely ignored much of the time and it is best to see the entire picture, from well to starving pensioner. One other issue with the drying up of treasuries if that simply put, we aren't issuing the new debt we use to which has caused the necessity of alternatives among other factors. The irony a smaller American deficit is if anything a risk to the global economy. I won't bring up the muck of the Marxist thread but there was a discussion of trying to understand the crisis in a variety of ways beyond a standard neo-classical approach, or some neo-Keynesian ones or a orthodox Marxist one. You can have a crisis of under-consumption without necessarily a dialectic. The oil crisis itself is only part of this puzzle but as Hal_2005 mentioned a crisis in the American oil industry and possible fiscal consolidation in the industry (tell me if I am wrong here) is likely to directly effect the American economy and likely consumer consumption. Consumer spending by some measures still hasn't returned to 2008 levels which begs the question of what is exactly going to replace growth global economy if pressure if put on the US economy at the same time you have growing dysfunction in both the developed and developing world. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 09:17 on Dec 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
it almost absurdly drives the point home though, oil is capital, capital is oil
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30492518quote:Russian rouble in free-fall despite shock 17% rate rise There might be hopes of a Russian collapse yet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j45x9ranFH0
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
Why would you buy a big truck/SUV due to cheap gas, when you could buy a wicked great car with a big fuckin' V8 for the same reason, and have way more fun? Yeah, muscle cars and stuff like the Hyundai Genesis are kind of expensive, but not moreso than most trucks or SUVs. Plus they go faster, are easier to maneuver, and possible to park in tighter spaces!
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Why would you buy a big truck/SUV due to cheap gas, when you could buy a wicked great car with a big fuckin' V8 for the same reason, and have way more fun? Yeah, muscle cars and stuff like the Hyundai Genesis are kind of expensive, but not moreso than most trucks or SUVs. Plus they go faster, are easier to maneuver, and possible to park in tighter spaces! I bought one because I needed it for work 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Gorau posted:I bought one because I needed it for work Presumably if you need it for work, you'd have bought a truck regardless of oil prices.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Why would you buy a big truck/SUV due to cheap gas, when you could buy a wicked great car with a big fuckin' V8 for the same reason, and have way more fun? Yeah, muscle cars and stuff like the Hyundai Genesis are kind of expensive, but not moreso than most trucks or SUVs. Plus they go faster, are easier to maneuver, and possible to park in tighter spaces! Ground clearance and torque. 4 wheel drove is nice as well. I just got a new work truck and it is a little too much truck imo. Super crew cab with 8 ft bed and a cattle guard on the front end means that I can not fit into a single parking space, ever. Back on topic. Is buying the Russian Rubble as potentially rewarding bet? Not something I would put a whole bunch of money into but if I had 10 grand I wanted to play with and hopefully cash out really well on?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:Ground clearance and torque. 4 wheel drove is nice as well. Though it is a pain in the rear end in the city you'll be happy with your cattle guard the first time you eat a deer. I've hit two in the last few years, not a scratch on the truck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Gorau posted:Though it is a pain in the rear end in the city you'll be happy with your cattle guard the first time you eat a deer. I've hit two in the last few years, not a scratch on the truck. It should be legal to shoot a deer from your vehicle, provided the deer is visible from a paved road, and you kill the deer. gently caress deer, is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Gorau posted:Though it is a pain in the rear end in the city you'll be happy with your cattle guard the first time you eat a deer. I've hit two in the last few years, not a scratch on the truck. The cattle guard isn't so much the issue as the 8ft bed and super crew cab. One or the other is fine but holy hell having both is obnoxious. Luckily I niether live or work in the city, but I still have to swing wide for tight turns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:The cattle guard isn't so much the issue as the 8ft bed and super crew cab. One or the other is fine but holy hell having both is obnoxious. Luckily I niether live or work in the city, but I still have to swing wide for tight turns. Agreed. I went with the super cab. Also, echoing the gently caress deer sentiment. On topic. I wonder if this price drop is going to interfere with pipeline upgrades in North america. Alberta especially needs to replace a lot of pipelines over the next decade, and the sooner we get at it the better. I'm worried that companies after the come out of the capex conservation of the next year are going to dump it into increasing production rather than replacing old pipelines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:Ground clearance and torque. 4 wheel drove is nice as well. First forex is nearly always an awful idea. Picking up nickels from in front of a steamroller. Nice typo though. And trucks are godawful in the city or really anywhere but a rural community for exactly the reason you state. The infrastructure isn't built for them so you are always straddling lanes or unable to navigate parking lots.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It should be legal to shoot a deer from your vehicle, provided the deer is visible from a paved road, and you kill the deer. Deer have to be the dumbest animal out there. A couple weeks ago I saw some deer and immediately slowed down to about 5mph as a precaution and the stupid fuckers still walked right out in front of my car.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Why would you buy a big truck/SUV due to cheap gas, when you could buy a wicked great car with a big fuckin' V8 for the same reason, and have way more fun? Yeah, muscle cars and stuff like the Hyundai Genesis are kind of expensive, but not moreso than most trucks or SUVs. Plus they go faster, are easier to maneuver, and possible to park in tighter spaces! People have different needs from their vehicles?  Also, I have both the big fuckin' V8 and the big fuckin truck because the muscle car can't tow 10k lbs or drag around engines/large tools and scrap metal. I get about the same gas mileage in both, and the truck is easier to park because I don't give a poo poo if it gets hit or scratched up. Why does SA refuse to accept that a 3-4 door pickup has massive utility compared to a car. Eh, never mind. Rednecks hurrrrr.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
because 99% of people with trucks aren't hauling around 10k lb trailers or engines/scrap metal, seriously
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
rscott posted:because 99% of people with trucks aren't hauling around 10k lb trailers or engines/scrap metal, seriously You'd actually be surprised. About half my friends own truck. And more then half of those will pull something at least once a month or use the bed of the truck for oversized items.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
FatCow posted:Why does SA refuse to accept that a 3-4 door pickup has massive utility compared to a car. Because it's fun and easy to insult nerds who get upset when you generally criticize their preferred consumer purchase. Anime sucks, by the way. Also if you live in suburbs you are literal human garbage and should light your home on fire with your fat children inside of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
I know a lot of working and middle class people who buy a truck and actually use it but I also know of a ton of upper middle class people who buy them just because they want to and the extra cost and fuel expense doesn't matter to them. Either way I don't really care, but yes especially here in Minnesota there's tons of people with massive cars who never really make use of their towing or payload ability.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
FatCow posted:People have different needs from their vehicles? Did anyone say anything about rednecks? Or is that just you projecting? Sure, tons of people use their trucks for work - tons don't, though. I think it's a pretty fair assessment to judge a lifted truck on massive rims that doesn't have a single dent or scratch on it as a non-work vehicle, and that's what I primarily see in the Denver metro area. Props to the folks that use their vehicles as they were intended to be used, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I know a lot of working and middle class people who buy a truck and actually use it but I also know of a ton of upper middle class people who buy them just because they want to and the extra cost and fuel expense doesn't matter to them. Either way I don't really care, but yes especially here in Minnesota there's tons of people with massive cars who never really make use of their towing or payload ability. Can we all agree that anyone with a 4ft bed and a super crew cab is probably an upper middle class shitlord?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:Can we all agree that anyone with a 4ft bed and a super crew cab is probably an upper middle class shitlord? What, you mean you don't see the appeal of a vehicle that's basically a lifted Subaru Baja with terrible gas mileage? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Is there a citable study I can get for this? I don't think there's any "one" study that you can rely on. Even the good analysts can end up using bad data, or a bad model, so you'll always have to double check everything if you want to be reasonable sure of something. For the more contentious points that method might not work either. World Energy Outlook 2014 by the IEA is one of the big ones and comes out once a year and got the big predictions for oil demand and production into the future. Got on the peak-train sometime around 2010 I think, but oscillates on that point depending on market factors. OPECs The World Oil Outlook is pretty similar, but probably not quite as "objective" (the IEA isn't entirely objective either, for different reasons). Problem with a lot of statistics is that there's a bunch of different sources that all differ. Not even the IEA and the EIA got the same numbers, anything from OPEC is more or less made up by them (see the official reserves numbers from pretty much any member) and then there's the smattering of investment banks and then various individual analysts. You'll have to look for a lot of various sources and try to piece together something approaching "objective" from that. One example that you'll have to make your own conclusions from: "Global oil demand grows by 7 mb/d to 2020 and exceeds 99 mb/d in 2035, by which time oil prices reach $125/barrel in real terms (over $215/barrel in nominal terms). A surge in unconventional and deepwater oil boosts non-OPEC supply over the current decade, but the world relies increasingly on OPEC after 2020. Iraq accounts for 45% of the growth in global oil production to 2035 and becomes the second-largest global oil exporter, overtaking Russia." - IEA World Energy Outlook 2014 The New Policies Scenario, the WEO’s central scenario. At least they are optimistic on Iraq  For the non-mainstream IEA/Forbes/Bloomberg/Reuters corner (but not out in la-la-land) you have, to grab a few of the better ones I've come across: Tom Whipple, publishes through ASPO-USA a sort of weekly roundup of oil related news that is pretty balanced from what I can tell. Kurt Cobb at Resource Insights can be good, sometimes (when he's not getting too much into personal philosophy). Matt Mushalik at the Crude Oil Peak usually got some interesting graphs and analysis for historical trends. The more economical sites like MarketWatch, Agrimoney and Platts can often run/link insightful articles too, mostly from the market perspective. Roughly sources can be sorted by 1) Major News that don't actually do much analysis themselves and usually just repeats whatever their (oil) sources say 2) Oil/Energy Industry Sources directly. Mostly interested in presenting the upsides unless they are out to sink a competing industry. BP does a statistical oil review yearly. 3) National/Supernational organisations like OPEC, IEA etc, can have access to the most data but don't necessarily display it objectively due to government pressures. 4) Various NGOs with their own ideological slants 5) Independents/insiders, either pro or just doing it for whatever cause they champion (or both). Sometimes (former) members of 2, 3 or 4. Nr 5 is probably the one that's most likely to not be a load of bullshit, but it's something of a minefield.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Radbot posted:What, you mean you don't see the appeal of a vehicle that's basically a lifted Subaru Baja with terrible gas mileage? What is with the boner US car makers have for those hideous matte plastic panels everywhere what the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
simmyb posted:What is with the boner US car makers have for those hideous matte plastic panels everywhere what the gently caress That way they can claim that it's "scratch/dent resistant", when in reality it means that if you get that piece scratched or dented you can't just have a dude at a body shop fix it up on the cheap, you have to buy a replacement panel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 21:24
|
|