"In the US, the cost of shale oil fell to $ 20"/states gas-stations have any future

It is interesting information. Thanks for it. I am also surprised that Norway is very close to Russia in terms of dependence on oil. Of course, Russian economy should be diversified to have future. But this has nothing to do with the shale oil, but rather with alternative sources of energy.

 

It it not myth, it is reality and results of scientific investigations. Looks like myth is 20dollars/barell of shale oil.
Yes, in Russia overall ecology is better.

 

like a typical juchi mongol you believe in what ulus media tells you . progress moves on you are where you are guys with your primitive natural economy

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ready-a-reality-for-canadian-oil-sands-miners

http://www.gurufocus.com/news/364811/will-shale-20-lower-oil-prices-to-20-per-barrel

 

no its not...your juchi ulus is not even close to Norway ...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway

 

Aha, and where do they put money in not in the budget? Maybe in the pockets of the government officials?
What a crap you are writing, Litwin! Norway depends the same on oil as Russia. This can be seen on the currency exchange rate. Now 1 USD is 8.38 Norwegean krones. In 2014 it was 6 Norwegean krones for 1 dollar. 40% drop. So leave your propaganda for Marsians.

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23693448-ee72-11e4-88e3-00144feab7de.html#axzz43SU0HUwT

i see , you can not understand it:

"The Government Pension Fund (Norwegian: Statens pensjonsfond Utland, SPU) is a fund into which the surplus wealth produced by Norwegian petroleum income is deposited. The fund changed name in January 2006 from its previous name, The Petroleum Fund of Norway. The fund is commonly referred to as The Oil Fund (Norwegian: Oljefondet).

As of the valuation in June 2011, it was the largest pension fund in the world, although it is not a pension fund in the conventional sense as it derives its financial backing from oil profits and not pension contributions. As of 29 January 2016 its total value is NOK 6.974 trillion[1] ($802.6 billion), holding one percent of global equity markets.[2] With 1.78 percent of European stocks,[2] it is said to be the largest stock owner in Europe.[3]

The purpose of the petroleum fund is to invest parts of the large surplus generated by the Norwegian petroleum sector, generated mainly from taxes of companies, but also payment for license to explore as well as the State's Direct Financial Interest and dividends from partly state-owned Statoil. Current revenue from the petroleum sector is estimated to be at its peak period and to decline over the next decades. The Petroleum Fund was established in 1990 after a decision by the country's legislature to counter the effects of the forthcoming decline in income and to smooth out the disruptive effects of highly fluctuating oil prices."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23693448-ee72-11e4-88e3-00144feab7de.html#axzz43SU0HUwT

and sorry but only a mentally challenged kid can compere the poorest , pariah, outsider, downshiftier country in the world with the richest, top- dog one

 

If Norway is so rich, maybe it is time for it to join Russia. Finland also should be in Russia. Since most of the people from Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have escaped to western Europe, these lands have to be included in the Russia as well. Looks like time came that USSR was restored with bigger territories.

 

man , its nothing to do with rich,...its about democratic, and really developed . many losers 2 years ago (not me , or experts) thought that ulus juchi , KSA, gulf states, Valenzuela were rich or even super rich countries in reality they are camel (in your case horse) drivers , nothing has changed , you are today , where you were 100 years ago... meanwhile Noway is a top- dog according all indexes , i was in Norway 2 times , its a future country , but you know the goverment wants to leave behind petroleum business. and they are right ...

 

Litwin, if Norway wanted to leave behind petroleum business, why they are so much depended on oil. Their currency devaluated by 40% for the last 2 years, how can you then comment this?

 

You have never been to KSA, have you, Litwin?

 

you know the answer. whats your point?

 

it the way. its question of the strategic development for Norway´s economy in the next 50 years , the point is that it´ll be the better results is they invest state resources in high technology than in petroleum.
"devaluated by 40% " effects only the foreign trips of Normans , but still NK is the real currency not like your tree ruble . this is the worst chat which we ever have had. compering the best country in the world with " Nigeria with snow" which is even behind of many African countries is pure madness

 

What is good about Norway economy? What kind of high-tech products they produce? For example, I do not know any large high tech products that are done in Norway. Russia, for example exports quite good rocket engines RD-180. Has Norway something like that product? No. They can export only fish and oil

 

Any country that has their economy built almost entirely around the sale of oil could fall into the ocean as far as I'm concerned.

 

you must be joking,

http://realrussiatoday.com/2016/02/...-made-russian-satellites-too-heavy-to-launch/
Norway largest_companies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_companies_of_Norway

 

The largest companies in Norway has nothing to do with high-tech. These are oil companies. The rest of the companies are not known in the world. The fact that the heavy satellites can not be brought by the engines is a bul(*)(*)(*)(*) propaganda. The weigh of satellites is much less than the weigh of the equipment that was normally delivered to ISS (including engines, fuel, the body of the station itself, electronic equipment, food etc). So leave this site realrussiatoday.com for some idiots who has no idea what can be done and what can not in space techniques.

 

you are wrong , economics of the developed countries dont get effected by cost of the fossil fuel

 

It was a reference to countries like those in the middle east and russia who are built around the export of fossil fuels. All are close to being 3rd world despotic nightmares bereft of individual freedoms. The world would be better off without them.

 

Sure they do.. Don't you remember the mid 1980s with oil prices too low, law-offs in the oil business, the Savings and Loans scandals and housing sitting empty or in foreclosure? Texas, Oklahoma and the Gulf Coast took it on the chin.

 

i am sure you know that world, and technologies have changed since 1980? today oil and gas play way less important role in world economy that it was in 1980.. and its just beginning, cos renewable energy is on the way...

 

and
they are all dying today ... http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes...-opec-falling-oil-prices-151128182255541.html

 

Oh come on.. Shale oil and fracking technology isn't new.. The US couldn't compete because our lift costs were too high.. and we had no economies of scale.. Most US wells produce less than 50 barrels a day with old rocker pumps.

 

[video=youtube;49ULxK8EndM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49ULxK8EndM[/video]

 

yeh, but usa became the world leader in oil production , and p. cost in some places is 20 dollars today, and it will defiantly go down. my point is that commercial shale production is 8 years old, and states gas - stations have done nothing in order to adapt own economics to the new reality ....do you agree?