Yet your subsequent post and direct response to me said prices would stay in the current level and when I asked you to define current level you clearly wrote $25-$55.
And later I wrote as opposed to trading around $85 The difference of an average of about 45 from an average of about 85 is the difference I'm talking about. Edit: do you disagree that Oklahoma's economy has been greatly affected by declining prices whatever they may specially be If not then I really couldn't care less about the specifics of those prices
What is your issue then. I don't claim to be an oil trader. If I'm saying the specific price doesn't matter why do you keep arguing I don't give a **** if I was wrong Price specifics wasn't the point for the umteenth time There is no more artificial inflation on supply worry. That's the only point
I was originally simply trying to find out what you meant by current level. You talked about oil being at the current level for the past 6 years and that was blatantly wrong, so I wanted to find out what you meant. If you would have simply written: Due to <whatever> I am convinced oil prices will remain in the $45-$75 level forever. Obviously wars and other short term oddities could change that, but it should settle back into that range. ,..I would not have made a single comment. But your post was so wrong as written that I wanted to find out what you meant.
Those were bad numbers Sorry. But price could be anything. I shouldn't have gone into specifics. I'm surprised I wrote 75. I definitely didn't mean that high currently.
Brobek I been waiting on this post for two months Fracking has completely changed fhe markett thats the point Not a traderI don't give a **** about the price its just a number The point is the supply dynamic has completely changed
Completely changed? OPEC and Russia are still very powerful, what’s changed is the US. Offshore oil will come back, deep water projects will become profitable again. The US fracking industry has been phenomenal but the global total cost of exploration and production has been low. Prices will rise again and places like Brazil and the West African Coast will boom again. Industry experts predict the early 2020s will see the return of big money , global projects.
America has become a net supplier Brazil actually is suffering because before fracking they invested in deepwater. They will never get their money back. There is no reason to spend deepwater money anymore. The price wont get high enough because fracking has opened access to amounts in old cheap wells that we didn't know was there or didn't know how to get to. Russia sells Europe its gas. Europe has no choice but to buy from there. Thats why companies are investing a lot in liquified gas so places like Europe will have choices
I really don’t know, we still actually import oil too. But the US has become a major producer of oil and gas. Never is a long time.... just look at oil prices over the last 18 years. Look at your predictions for prices in this thread.... Not according to industry experts. Again... look at your predictions in this thread on prices.... Ok?
Actually, a lot of this is a good thing. And, frankly, this is the only way that the government gets shrunk. It would be better if politicians could rein in their spending plans; but alas, they cannot.
Fracking is a paradigm It has eliminated peak oil theory. You're right. about the US not being a net supplier yet
Hmm my comment was really not about that, although I agree with you. I tried to highlight a portion of text, and it didn't work. This is what I was (trying to) respond to: "Around 20 percent of Oklahoma's schools now hold classes just four days a week. Last year, Highway Patrol officers were given a mileage limit because the state couldn't afford to put gas in their tanks. Medicaid provider rates have been cut to the point that rural nursing homes and hospitals are closing, and the prisons are so full that the director of corrections says they're on the brink of a crisis." Cutting back a lot of that stuff would actually be a good thing.
I think we need to challenge the premise that more money always equals better results. Yes, some money is needed for education. But a certain point, more money provides diminishing returns. There are other factors at play as well, in getting a good education.
I do not think that anyone is saying that more money is THE solution, however it is PART of the solution. The issue is complicated and multi factored. First, there is an undeniable correlation between the amount of money a country spends on education and the level of educational competency in that nation. For example, Canada spends 3X as much on education than Mexico and it is reflected in the level of results. In fact, all the nations at the top of the standings spend a high percentage of their GDP on primary education. The issue of money spent isn't simple either, as there is money spent per child and that is different than money spent investing in the educational system. The USA is competitive (but not the top) in spending money per child but is well behind in spending money investing in an educational structure. Further the USA is spending LESS than they have in the past, compared to the other nations at the top of the rankings. Where I think the USA makes a mistake is that they spend a TREMENDOUS amount of money on college and associated costs. Why? Well the path to hell is paved with good intentions. The "loans" situation is out of hand and as a result colleges that are not that good can charge an insane amount of money, also the emphasis by students isn't always about going to the best educational campus. Democrats (at least partially) and big business can be blamed for this. IMO the money and structure should be put into primary schooling more than secondary schooling, https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-country-spends-most-education.asp
