Saudi Arabia and the "trillion dollar gambit"

[Martinus]

That is how they treat criminals.
Nothing about how they treat people who've done nothing wrong.

So where do gays fall in your cretinous analogy? Criminals or people who have done nothing wrong?

Your cretinous question assumes that one cannot be a criminal without doing something wrong.  Talk to a lawyer for some amusing stories of people or businesses that have broken laws while doing nothing wrong.

It's a good thing you are in this together with Tyr and Raz. It's like the trifecta of Languish idiots.

[Martinus]

Ah, so "widespread speculation" counts as fact for you (and Hamilcar), eh?  Unfortunately for you conspiracy wackos, I know a bit more about the world oil market, and the economics of it, than you do.  I note and reject your attempt to save your argument and counter mine by trying to shift the goal posts to "North American" rather than "US" oil (despite Hami's clear mention of "the US oil industry" as a target).   

The problem with the conspiracy theory is that Iran's ally, Iraq, is the country that is increasing production, not Saudi Arabia.  Saudi production did return to 2012 and 2013 peak levels of production (north of 10m bbd) for periods in 2015, but isn't at that level now, and 2015 production was much like that of 2012 and 2013.  The Saudi oil output data just doesn't fit your conspiracy. 

Further, while tar sands oil production is certainly vulnerable to the current crude oil price slump, typical American oil fields are not.  The expense in US oil isn't production, but discovery.  The UK, Brazil and Nigeria find oil much more expensive to actually bring to market than does the US.  They are the ones that are being hit by the oil price slump.

Now, this isn't to say that Saudi Arabia isn't being as foolish in their energy production decisions as US and other oil companies are, by responding to a price slump by increasing or maintaining production of an irreplaceable product.  But that's mere greed and stupidity.  Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.

I'll give you and Hami that same consideration.

What is your problem? I haven't even made an argument in this thread. I was only trying to stand up to (rather pathetic) online bullying, from a cranky old troll with apparently nothing better to do than derail promising threads on an internet forum.

He'll be dead soon enough, just ignore him till then, then post something a bit insincere in the Grumbler RIP thread.

I have been waiting for this but the moment is not coming.

[Jaron]

That is how they treat criminals.
Nothing about how they treat people who've done nothing wrong.

So where do gays fall in your cretinous analogy? Criminals or people who have done nothing wrong?

Your cretinous question assumes that one cannot be a criminal without doing something wrong.  Talk to a lawyer for some amusing stories of people or businesses that have broken laws while doing nothing wrong.

Or watch the Netflix documentary "Making a Murderer"

[DGuller]

That is how they treat criminals.
Nothing about how they treat people who've done nothing wrong.

So where do gays fall in your cretinous analogy? Criminals or people who have done nothing wrong?

Your cretinous question assumes that one cannot be a criminal without doing something wrong.  Talk to a lawyer for some amusing stories of people or businesses that have broken laws while doing nothing wrong.

Martinus is making that exact point. 

Now, if you communicated your critique in your post in non-insulting terms, you would find it easy to own up to misunderstanding and move on.  But now that you made a dickish post, the option of walking it back is not open to you, so from here on you have to pretend that you caught Martinus saying something stupid.

[Barrister]

Can we at least agree that when it comes to Western standards of human rights, Iran, warts and all, is still much much better than Saudi Arabia?

I'm not so sure about that.  My view from thousands of kms away is that they are probably comparable.

[grumbler]

That is how they treat criminals.
Nothing about how they treat people who've done nothing wrong.

So where do gays fall in your cretinous analogy? Criminals or people who have done nothing wrong?

Your cretinous question assumes that one cannot be a criminal without doing something wrong.  Talk to a lawyer for some amusing stories of people or businesses that have broken laws while doing nothing wrong.

It's a good thing you are in this together with Tyr and Raz. It's like the trifecta of Languish idiots.

It's a good thing you are in this as much as I am, so the "idiot" labels fits in at least one case.  It is possible to commit an act which is criminal, and yet have done nothing wrong.  As I said, any good lawyer could tell you that.

[grumbler]

He'll be dead soon enough, just ignore him till then, then post something a bit insincere in the Grumbler RIP thread.

I have been waiting for this but the moment is not coming.

I am quite confident I will outlive both you and mongers.    I won't celebrate either of your deaths, though.  Celebrating the death or potential death of forum members may be acceptable to DGuller and you two, but it isn't to me.

[Admiral Yi]

Can we at least agree that when it comes to Western standards of human rights, Iran, warts and all, is still much much better than Saudi Arabia?

My read is that Saudi is worse on the vice stuff and Iran is worse on the political repression stuff.

[DGuller]

He'll be dead soon enough, just ignore him till then, then post something a bit insincere in the Grumbler RIP thread.

I have been waiting for this but the moment is not coming.

I am quite confident I will outlive both you and mongers.    I won't celebrate either of your deaths, though.  Celebrating the death or potential death of forum members may be acceptable to DGuller and you two, but it isn't to me.

I don't think I ever said anything about your death, or what I would do in the event of it.  Other than maybe in jest, as part of the age joke. 

No matter how unpleasant the person, it's in bad taste and bad karma to wish someone's death, not to mention it's plain dumb given that I post under my real name.

Now, if you find a post where I do do that, I will apologize.  If you don't, then maybe you ought to do that yourself.

[grumbler]

Martinus is making that exact point. 

Now, if you communicated your critique in your post in non-insulting terms, you would find it easy to own up to misunderstanding and move on.  But now that you made a dickish post, the option of walking it back is not open to you, so from here on you have to pretend that you caught Martinus saying something stupid.

  Actualy, he wasn't.  He was implying that gays in SA are not criminals because they have done nothing wrong, and yet are punished under Saudi law.  Now, it is absolutely true that homosexuality should not be criminalized or even stigmatized, but the larger point that cherry-picked similarities in penalties under criminal law does not make two countries equivalent in barbarity is quite valid.

[DGuller]

Martinus is making that exact point. 

Now, if you communicated your critique in your post in non-insulting terms, you would find it easy to own up to misunderstanding and move on.  But now that you made a dickish post, the option of walking it back is not open to you, so from here on you have to pretend that you caught Martinus saying something stupid.

  Actualy, he wasn't.  He was implying that gays in SA are not criminals because they have done nothing wrong, and yet are punished under Saudi law.  Now, it is absolutely true that homosexuality should not be criminalized or even stigmatized, but the larger point that cherry-picked similarities in penalties under criminal law does not make two countries equivalent in barbarity is quite valid.

He was responding to Tyr, who implicitly divided people into those who are criminals, and those who did nothing wrong.

[Eddie Teach]

Perhaps you should lecture Martinus about gratuitous name-calling like you're doing to grumbler. Tyr's comment may have been misguided, but hardly "cretinous".

[DGuller]

Perhaps you should lecture Martinus about gratuitous name-calling like you're doing to grumbler. Tyr's comment may have been misguided, but hardly "cretinous".

One at a time, one at a time.  Yes, you are right, both were wrong.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Flogging is in practice death penalty in most cases.

That's not actually the case. The Saudis actually work to make it so it isn't so. Yes, being flogged 400 times is a death sentence if it's actually carried out all in one day. To avoid it being a death sentence they stagger the floggings, over months and years, and require a doctor to look at the prisoner to confirm they're ready for the next round. High lash-count sentences are also very regularly commuted after a few rounds of lashes have gone out. It's covered somewhat extensively here.

I don't like Saudi Arabia, but it's a much better place to visit than ISIS controlled territory.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The theory isn't to stop any exploitation of fields already in production--both today and in the indefinite future--but to prevent future development of new fields where that front end investment hasn't been made.

Shale oil projects tend to be low capital investments to start up, and only take a few weeks. Instead of more traditional plays where you have a concentration of capital intensive infrastructure, shale fields are exploited by lots of small wells that can be brought on very quickly and cheaply. As some of the marginal shale players in the United States have gone out of business, it's mostly been oil majors who have bought up their land rights, companies that will easily have the resources to get new wells online when the time comes.