|
Zurich15306 Posts
You know how they say the Deep Water Horizon leak spills between 20000 and 30000 barrels of crude into the gulf per day? Well, that is not even 2% of what The Company pumps out of the ground every single day. Oh yes, it’s all about oil here. They truly fuel the world.
Exact numbers are hard to come by, but the non-oil industry is estimated to make up for just about 10% of GDP. Oil doesn’t just fuel cars here. It fuels everything.
The ubiquitous air conditioning. The SUV you take to work. The 24/7 jet fighter patrols. It fuels the desalination plants which provide water for your golf course and your shower. And for the air conditioned green house factories that manufacture fruits and vegetables.
Oil pays either your paycheck, or the one of your customer, as in everyday life it appears that the only business besides energy is retailing.
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/zatic/ras1.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/zatic/ras2.jpg)
Have a look
They export nothing else but energy, and they import everything else. When a (foreign) company wins a contract to construct a building, they have to bring everything they need into the country, down to the very last bolt, since nothing is being manufactured domestically. And depending on whether it’s a German, US, French, or Korean company they bring whatever they have in their country. On a typical day you have to use about three different AC adapters since The Company was once American, the hotel is French and the Airport Korean built, and everyone brought their own power plugs.
Considering a full tank of gas costs about $5, the local’s love affair with gas hungry SUVs isn’t hard to understand. And since cars are the one fun thing which is not banned, many get a weekend sports car as well. I don’t think I have ever seen such a concentration of high powered German luxury vehicles.
The daily paper regularly gives a kind of amusingly detached perspective on the whole climate change discussion going on in the West. I guess when oil is cheaper than water and with summer temperatures above 50C the concept of global warming is not really easy to grasp.
However, recently the government has actually made increasing effort to encourage energy preservation. To little effect yet as far as I can tell, but they are trying. Plus in light of the whole Iranian nuclear issue many are demanding their own national nuclear program as well. And just last month a study group was installed to evaluate the best course to acquire nuclear power. These measures may seem a bit absurd in a 30 million country that sits on an more oil they could ever burn to fuel their air conditioning, but on a second glance it makes sense.
Oil exports pay the entire state’s budget. And while they know it’s running out, they also know it will become ever more expensive, and ever faster. It makes sense to invest in expensive nuclear technology now to reap (more of) the benefits of the rising crude prices later. How the West will justify selling reactors to the craziest hardcore Islamic dictatorship on the planet will be interesting to see. The US and French nuclear industry is lining up and can’t wait to sell more power plugs, that’s for sure.
All this insanity is run by The Company, the largest and by far most profitable enterprise in the world. As it is not listed, exact revenue figures can only be guessed, but it’s safe to say they could buy a mid sized country each year; Well, or provide the state budget for one. I’ll write more extensively about the Company and working there in the next column.
Previous entries:
Law
Women
Traffic
|
Smix
United States4549 Posts
Always learning new things from your entries
Jeez.. The Company. I'll look forward to your next entry~ sounds interesting.
|
I'm missing some context here. A full tank of gas costs way more than $5 where I am.
$5 in what country? Using which country's dollar as a measure?
|
i enjoy these entries, thanks zatic
buying a mid-sized country ever year is trippy :O
|
On July 13 2010 00:02 Delerium wrote:
I'm missing some context here. A full tank of gas costs way more than $5 where I am.
$5 in what country? Using which country's dollar as a measure?
middle east i assume
|
On July 13 2010 00:02 Delerium wrote:
I'm missing some context here. A full tank of gas costs way more than $5 where I am.
$5 in what country? Using which country's dollar as a measure?
Saudi Arabia and US Dollar.
|
Calgary25954 Posts
I work in the oil industry in Canada. As world oil reserves deplete, new techniques are making oil extraction here viable. When all is said and done, there is more oil here than in the middle east - it's just a matter of finding extraction techniques that are profitable. Things have, and are continuing, to boom like crazy.
|
United States22883 Posts
What is the level of concern about when prices go up and people get angsty about having their luxuries taken away? I know there's not exactly a middle class now, but there will be when that happens and that's probably where biggest problems will come from. That, or the disenfranchised Shias who live and work where all the fields are.
|
Zurich15306 Posts
On July 13 2010 00:15 Jibba wrote:
What is the level of concern about when prices go up and people get angsty about having their luxuries taken away? I know there's not exactly a middle class now, but there will be when that happens and that's probably where biggest problems will come from. That, or the disenfranchised Shias who live and work where all the fields are.
I think there is significant concern among the government, however much less in the general public. I think most realize that they are pretty much at the hard limit of how much they can produce, but are banking on rising prices for growth. Chill is right, there is plenty of oil still, but it's incredibly expensive to dig out and of the most inferior quality. Once the prices are high enough to make that viable the classic oil exporters will make ridiculous profits off every drop as their crude has the finest quality already and can be easily and cheaply pumped right from below the surface.
I had talks about this occasionally but I don't think there is real concern. Let's say there is just as much concern of oil running out as there is in the West. Everyone knows it's going to happen at one point but nobody really cares and likes to pretend it's not going to happen in their lifetime.
|
Canada9720 Posts
just read your previous entries, as i'd missed them -- good stuff. your company deals in oil exporting, but what do you work on specifically? software stuff?
|
Calgary25954 Posts
On July 13 2010 00:26 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 00:15 Jibba wrote:
What is the level of concern about when prices go up and people get angsty about having their luxuries taken away? I know there's not exactly a middle class now, but there will be when that happens and that's probably where biggest problems will come from. That, or the disenfranchised Shias who live and work where all the fields are. I think there is significant concern among the government, however much less in the general public. I think most realize that they are pretty much at the hard limit of how much they can produce, but are banking on rising prices for growth. Chill is right, there is plenty of oil still, but it's incredibly expensive to dig out and of the most inferior quality. Once the prices are high enough to make that viable the classic oil exporters will make ridiculous profits of every drop as their crude has the finest quality already and can be easily and cheaply pumped right from below the surface. I had talks about this occasionally but I don't think there is real concern. Let's say there is just as much concern of oil running out as there is in the West. Everyone knows it's going to happen at one point but nobody really cares and likes to pretend it's not going to happen in their lifetime.
Two things:
I think it's amazing how good humans are at solving problems in time of crisis while they are so bad at predicting and preventing them. I don't think there will be any major changes in consumption until people have a reason to change.
It's also funny how strongly the dollar dictates everything about life. It's really easy to choose to favour environmental-friendly products when the cost difference is marginal. As soon as gas prices increase, it's very, very easy to see what dictates decisions.
|
I just want everyone to imagine for a minute if energy production was 99% nuclear fusion. Imagine what it would be like to have nothing running on fossil fuels but instead hydrogen cells or batteries. Sure, it'd take 50 years to get there, but why are we not trying now?
You find all these politicians from all countries ranting about green technology and energy independence and addiction to oil and such, but they don't invest into the true technology which can solve the problem.
Imagine if we took $100 billion and invested it in fusion research. I think we'd have a viable solution in 5 years, and I think we'd have working plants in 10. The amount of money into programs right now is tiny compared to what it could be.
So if people want to get off oil, that's the way to do it.
Rant concluded. =D
|
Zurich15306 Posts
+ Show Spoiler +I don't want to derail this into a climate change debate, and in fact I'll ban anyone who does, but: Nuclear energy is just another incredibly expensive non renewable energy source. If you want to make a switch off fossils getting into another fuel that has the exact same constraints plus a whole lot of problems on top is clearly not the way to do it. Please PM if you think otherwise, or make your own thread about it.
Oh, just realized you talk about fusion. Well, I can solve a lot of problems by dreaming up non existing solutions.
|
On July 13 2010 01:16 Floophead_III wrote:
Imagine if we took $100 billion and invested it in fusion research. I think we'd have a viable solution in 5 years, and I think we'd have working plants in 10. The amount of money into programs right now is tiny compared to what it could be.
5-10 years for a working plant? I hope you're talking small scale, because a full-working, commercial plant is at least 30 years away with consistent research efforts.
Four years ago I researched the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. I just checked some of my old sources and a lot of them say the same thing - 10 years for construction, 20 years for experimentation. Mind you, this is all on an experimental reactor, not one of 'real size'. The concept is there, as is the hope of progress, but it's not as if in 10 years they can have a fully functional fusion power plant. Something like that is at least 30 years off, and that's a liberal estimate!
It would be nice to have an instant fix to oil consumption such as fusion, but if science itself doesn't retard its progress then economics will. In the eyes of the oil company, they are doing everything right. They are succeeding in the global economy better than just about everyone. They will challenge everything that isn't as economically viable and probably win since environmental externalities aren't quantified in an exact way.
Let's say irrefutable proof is discovered that oil is harmful and we shouldn't be using it. The company won't let that proof stand, even if it's true. Just look at pesticides in the 1960's. Rachel Carson writes Silent Spring, a book that showed very convincing proof that pesticides caused more damage than its intended purpose. What did the manufacturers do? They fought back in every way possible! Bad scientific studies, spokemen in white lab coats with PhDs promoting the company's agenda, libel...just about everything in legal and not-so legal ways to protect their assets. Maybe this isn't the greatest example since the US, abotu 5-10 years later, took her advice. Even so, pesticide companies jsut sold their dangerous products overseas to countries with more lax environmental standards. I have no doubt that oil companies will do the same thing if a true, cost-effective alternative appears. Maybe they already have...
While a viable alternative would be nice, oil companies have their trump card - economics. I personally don't see a large-scale alternative coming into play until oil is so expensive it would be cheaper and more efficient to walk.
|
The book I am writing (fiction) is about this topic. My main character is trying to develop renewable energy, but realizes very suddenly that the fossil fuel-burning "status quo" will be defended and the opposition quashed.
On a side note, I've actually been having a little bit of trouble making it believable, so thanks Servius_Fulvius for giving me some more historical examples to work off of : D
|
On July 12 2010 23:55 zatic wrote:
Exact numbers are hard to come by, but the non-oil industry is estimated to make up for just about 10% of GDP. Oil doesn’t just fuel cars here. It fuels everything.
lol wow we are fucked
On July 13 2010 01:16 Floophead_III wrote:
I just want everyone to imagine for a minute if energy production was 99% nuclear fusion. Imagine what it would be like to have nothing running on fossil fuels but instead hydrogen cells or batteries. Sure, it'd take 50 years to get there, but why are we not trying now?
Ya dude it would be fucking amazing lol, and ofc people are trying.. I'm guessing you know that though and expect more funds for it. I declare that we spend some of the 90% portion of our GDP that oil companies seem to be responsible for because who will need them if we actually had a working product with highly efficient fusion energy :D
|
On July 13 2010 02:18 Delerium wrote:
The book I am writing (fiction) is about this topic. My main character is trying to develop renewable energy, but realizes very suddenly that the fossil fuel-burning "status quo" will be defended and the opposition quashed.
On a side note, I've actually been having a little bit of trouble making it believable, so thanks Servius_Fulvius for giving me some more historical examples to work off of : D
If you want another, look into the US removing lead from gasoline. It took a landmark supreme court case (I forget its name) to start regulating the removal of lead in gasoline before there was conclusive proof that it was harming people (one of the first times the precautionary principle won in court). The oil companies basically slammed the opposition.
Right now similar things are happening with hormone disruptors in plastics. Theo Colborn wrote a book about it in the 90s, and she got hit hard with industrial criticism.
Dioxin pollution in Midland Michigan (near the Dow Chemical headquarters). They released a lot of this crap and are paying for studies that are finding present dioxin levels to be low and harmless despite many more studies claiming otherwise.
Hope that helps some 
|
United States22883 Posts
Do you read the newspapers there? What do you think of them?
|
People that are come in here and talk about hydrogen fuel cells don't really know what they're talking about. =/
On July 12 2010 23:55 zatic wrote:
Exact numbers are hard to come by, but the non-oil industry is estimated to make up for just about 10% of GDP. Oil doesn’t just fuel cars here. It fuels everything.
This is the most understated fact of our economy today. Oil isn't just for transportation. So much oil goes into food production, especially meat production, that it's difficult to justify eating meat from an environmental perspective. THEN there's industrial use, manufacturing, modern comforts, etc. It is so embedded into our lifestyle that we are utterly unaware of it.
|
Zurich15306 Posts
Yeah I read the one English paper they had there daily. It was mostly finding amusing headlines on the front page and then skipping right to the opinion page which was the only usable one. The writing was just bad.
Front page was always good for laughs, because every single day the leading story is what the king has done the previous day. He just doesn't manage to do something terribly interesting every day so some headlines were kind of comical.
Opinion was interesting to get a foreign perspective to things going on in the West, and they also publish somewhat critical opinions about domestic matters.
The actual news is pretty terrible, since as I mentioned the writing is bad, and of course it's heavily censored and biased. Half the bigger pieces hail the king or some prince for their latest initiative or deeds for the good of the people, or praise whatever the government has supposedly achieved recently.
News stories that circulated the day before internationally where the most interesting to read, because you could see how they censor and skew things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
